This is an article I so agree with

[Gojira]

Even if STXI erased everything but Enterprise from the Trek timeline, so what? Would it really ruin the rest of Star Trek for anyone?

It wouldn't for me. I can still enjoy my TOS, TNG and VOY DVDs even if it has been erased.

But as you know there are some members/fans that are not that easy going.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't confuse Trek with either history or reality, so revisions and inconsistencies don't trouble me.

 

[sonak]

after "parallels," changes in continuity just don't seem like a big deal. Just imagine it's a slightly altered reality.

 

[Set Harth]

If only because its the only one that make sense, especially since they chose to shoehorn Leonard Nimoy into the film.

That makes no sense.

No, your desired outcome is not "the only one that makes sense", and no, a ST film is not necessarily a reboot if it has Nimoy in it.

Plus it lines up with the claim of the writers regarding multiverse theory.

Uh, no, it doesn't.

How exactly do you intend to argue that going against the explicit intent of the writers lines up with the claim of the writers?

I'm being truthful and logical, am I not?

No and no.

In many instances, the people who feel this way are the people who didn't like the film in general and are just making excuses to themselves as to why it doesn't work for them (although I don't think that's the case with you). And that's fine, if they want to think that. Just don't try to delve too deeply into the logic of that belief or try to pass it off as some kind of fact.

"STXI is a reboot" = "Show us the birth certificate".

 

[Cyke101]

So I ask, What did I do wrong this time?

Since I don't know you or your posting history, I can't answer that question. But if I had to guess...do you tend to go overboard and blow things out of proportion much? It's just a movie, dude. We get that you didn't like it.

Here's another thing to add: it's okay if you don't like it. Seriously, if there are people who dislike the movie, and that's fine, but I don't understand why they have to feel so defensive about disliking a movie, and then reassert their opinion in a new thread every two weeks to bash a two year old film.

I have much more of a problem with people who try to find new or overly complicated ways of disliking the movie, than I do with people who simply don't find like it, period.

 

[tighr]

In my initial post in this thread, I made it clear that I like the film. I enjoyed it. I watch it every now and then.

But because I like the film, does that mean that I am not allowed to criticize it as well? Because that's what it seems like I'm being told in this thread. Either that, or I'm being accused of not liking the film, despite my earlier claim.

 

[Gojira]

Plus it lines up with the claim of the writers regarding multiverse theory.

Uh, no, it doesn't.

How exactly do you intend to argue that going against the explicit intent of the writers lines up with the claim of the writers?

Well, the writers claim that the branching off of a new universe is consistent with multivese theory...and it is....and multiverse theory also states there are already pre-existing universes independent of our own.

Therefore the line alternate reality from the movie can be interpreted 3 ways,

1. The time line of the prime universe has been altered.
2. Nero's actions have created an alternate universe.
3. The time line of an independent universe has been altered.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

How many loves did Kirk Prime have in his youth? That little blond lab technician whom he almost married? Ruth? Carol Marcus? Areel Shaw? Janet Wallace? Janice Lester?

Doesn't anyone else get the feeling that there's an inconsistent vibe to Kirk Prime's past, if we have pile up everything that was supposed to have happened to him, in the sense of http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShroudedInMyth or in the larger-than-life sense of Odysseus?

 

[Cyke101]

In my initial post in this thread, I made it clear that I like the film. I enjoyed it. I watch it every now and then.

But because I like the film, does that mean that I am not allowed to criticize it as well? Because that's what it seems like I'm being told in this thread. Either that, or I'm being accused of not liking the film, despite my earlier claim.

Criticizing is fine. I'll be the first to tell you what faults I find with the film, and we have different tastes, that's why I think it's okay to dislike the film. I'm not asking for people to step into line, but why is there the need to criticize the film with such personal hate so as to try to convince fans that their opinion is wrong, as if liking the film is purposely done to take down people who don't like it? The defensiveness and the need to outdo or outargue someone in one giant TrekBBS pissing contest is really annoying, much more so than simple criticism itself. "You like the film? Then you offend me and you offend my family! Prepare to do battle!"

By the by, my post wasn't directed at you or anyone in general, but there's that repeating pattern that people who dislike the film have this compulsory need to just keep shoving in people's faces how much they dislike this film, that their opinion is superior and whoever likes this movie isn't a true fan. And it's two years later. They need to get over it and go back to something they like. True fans spend time pursuing what they like, they don't watch something with the intent of actively going out of their way in order to tear something down.

 

[tighr]

Well if that's the case, then in the other forum there is a thread going on right now criticizing The Undiscovered Country, which was released TWENTY years ago. People are nitpicking things like digital clocks above the viewscreen (really??), whether or not Kirk's hatred of Klingon's even makes sense, and the unlikeliness of the Klingon's to know so much Shakespeare. Shoot, I'm frankly surprised no one has brought up the Viridium patch Kirk wears on his shoulder for half the movie.

And TUC is generally thought to be one of the better Trek films!

 

[Shatnertage]

Still with this plot hole stuff? It was tiresome two years ago.

tl;dr on the article the OP linked to--skipped here after the first page. Did I miss anything of substance?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Not a thing, I'm sure. A guy who over two years after a movie came out feels the need to acquaint the world once more with his reasons for disliking it.

The only way anyone ought to care what this guy thinks of a two year-old movie is if it literally sexually assaulted him. Then we should care, deeply.

 

[number6]

Did I miss anything of substance?

Only my brilliant posts.

 

[tighr]

Well, to change things up a bit, in defense of Trek '09 and the constant criticism of too much lens flare:

I'm watching The Motion Picture on HBO right now. Haven't seen this movie in a while, probably a year or so. Twenty minutes in, and I've already been blinded several times by lens flare. Now that I think about it, the end of the movie (when V'Ger disappears and all that's left is the Enterprise) that's one giant lens flare.

I've never really hated lens flare. I understand that people think its a lazy special effect, and it reeks of just using default Photoshop filters, but I don't find it all that bad.

So. comments?

 

[NuFan]

That wasn't a real article. That was some guy's blog. I've never seen a real article that said the movie was bad.

 

[Gojira]

Well, to change things up a bit, in defense of Trek '09 and the constant criticism of too much lens flare:

I'm watching The Motion Picture on HBO right now. Haven't seen this movie in a while, probably a year or so. Twenty minutes in, and I've already been blinded several times by lens flare. Now that I think about it, the end of the movie (when V'Ger disappears and all that's left is the Enterprise) that's one giant lens flare.

I've never really hated lens flare. I understand that people think its a lazy special effect, and it reeks of just using default Photoshop filters, but I don't find it all that bad.

So. comments?

I actually like Lens flares and do feel they give a sense of realism to a movie. Now JJ can over do it a bit but all in all I am fine with it.

Just watched Super 8 and that seemed to have less lens flares than Trek 09.

 

[UFO]

... in defense of Trek '09 and the constant criticism of too much lens flare:

I'm watching The Motion Picture on HBO right now. ... Twenty minutes in, and I've already been blinded several times by lens flare. ...

I've never really hated lens flare. I understand that people think its a lazy special effect, and it reeks of just using default Photoshop filters, but I don't find it all that bad.

Apart from being "blinded" you mean? To be honest, I wouldn't have noticed in either movie unless someone pointed it out (which they have now and then). All those lights on starship bridges in STXI looked like they would cause problems for the crew though.

 

[Hythlodeus]

*sigh*
why do I have to wait 2 more years until those complainers finally have something NEW to complain?

 

[tighr]

Apart from being "blinded" you mean?

I said all that, and you have to rib me on the verb I chose?

For what it's worth, I chose to say "blinded" because that word emphasizes that there were multiple instances of egregious lens flare. I still went on to say that it doesn't bother me.

 

[UFO]

*sigh*
why do I have to wait 2 more years until those complainers finally have something NEW to complain?