doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0[/yt]
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0[/yt]
Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Capt"
- Thread starter Shilliam Watner
- Start date
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
I think he's just talking about Major Houldemeje. That's less gibberish than you'd expect from your average Cylon Hybrid.
I think he's just talking about Major Houldemeje. That's less gibberish than you'd expect from your average Cylon Hybrid.
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
In no way am I saying that STID is one of the finest movies of all time, but even the most tightly directed films in the history of mankind will have the occasional dialogue mishap. Movies are a large endeavor, no matter how you slice it, and are primarily judged by the entire product, not a half-second line. There are larger things in a movie to be concerned about rather than a misspoken or miswritten line. If one thinks STID sucks, it's not going to be from a death by a thousand paper cuts. As it is, that line is pretty inconsequential. And what if they said the right thing anyway? Would that have changed one's mind on the movie? No. No one's experience was ruined or brought to new heights because of a single descriptive line by a minor character which had no bearing on the outcome of the plot.
Now that you mention it, I think Major Houldemeje is one of the great, unspoken recurring characters in all of Trek. I'm glad the Major made it to the JJverse
In no way am I saying that STID is one of the finest movies of all time, but even the most tightly directed films in the history of mankind will have the occasional dialogue mishap. Movies are a large endeavor, no matter how you slice it, and are primarily judged by the entire product, not a half-second line. There are larger things in a movie to be concerned about rather than a misspoken or miswritten line. If one thinks STID sucks, it's not going to be from a death by a thousand paper cuts. As it is, that line is pretty inconsequential. And what if they said the right thing anyway? Would that have changed one's mind on the movie? No. No one's experience was ruined or brought to new heights because of a single descriptive line by a minor character which had no bearing on the outcome of the plot.
Now that you mention it, I think Major Houldemeje is one of the great, unspoken recurring characters in all of Trek. I'm glad the Major made it to the JJverse
Last edited:
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
The first post is wrong. Kirk asks "where's the damage?" to which that guy says "Major hull damage captain."
The first post is wrong. Kirk asks "where's the damage?" to which that guy says "Major hull damage captain."
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
Still it's not an answer to his question.
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
Lol I know, but it still irks me I just can't believe that a professional would say that, even if provoked. 'They' get to write movies because of a lot of factors, luck being a big one. And while their films have grossed a ton of money, I see the same maturity in their dialog that I do in the sentiment expressed in his comments.
Don't question the fallibility of the writers or they might just curse you out on the internet
I like you man, but that's not a fair assessment of what happened at all.
Lol I know, but it still irks me
I just can't believe that a professional would say that, even if provoked. 'They' get to write movies because of a lot of factors, luck being a big one. And while their films have grossed a ton of money, I see the same maturity in their dialog that I do in the sentiment expressed in his comments.
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
This is all really a "nothing to see here," thread.
But that was an answer. It means not the engines, not the dish, not the saucer, not the shuttle bay. It may not be specific, but in the heat of battle, it's enough information for Kirk to know the ship's in trouble. The words "major" and "hull damage" being the keys.
This is all really a "nothing to see here," thread.
But that was an answer. It means not the engines, not the dish, not the saucer, not the shuttle bay. It may not be specific, but in the heat of battle, it's enough information for Kirk to know the ship's in trouble. The words "major" and "hull damage" being the keys.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
Respectfully, what about the maturity expressed by fans?
Better question: What about the insane and egregious amount of hate the movie has gotten from these so-called "mature" fans?
I'm going to go ahead and respectfully disagree with you. Orci had every right to react the way he did given how those idiots on Twitter were treating him, and he even had the balls to apologize almost immediately afterward.
Conflating the scenario as "He gets to make movies because of a lot of factors including luck" is the easy way out. The fact is, he's a Hollywood screenwriter and we're not. We don't know what that job entails or what pressures and requirements he had to deal with to write the thing. To me, it's as easy as that.
I guess what I'm saying is there's constructive criticism like we all learned about in college and then there's internet vitriol. Had the criticisms against Orci been the former and he still reacted the way he did, I'd agree with you. But let's be honest here. What he was replying to was anything but constructing and entirely vitriolic by those "fans."
Better stated: If they can dish it out, they better be ready to take it. Being a Hollywood professional doesn't mean Orci's also a saint. Nor does being a fan necessarily equate to being suddenly impervious to being called out for their bad behavior.
Don't question the fallibility of the writers or they might just curse you out on the internet
I like you man, but that's not a fair assessment of what happened at all.
Lol I know, but it still irks me
Respectfully, what about the maturity expressed by fans?
Better question: What about the insane and egregious amount of hate the movie has gotten from these so-called "mature" fans?
I'm going to go ahead and respectfully disagree with you. Orci had every right to react the way he did given how those idiots on Twitter were treating him, and he even had the balls to apologize almost immediately afterward.
Conflating the scenario as "He gets to make movies because of a lot of factors including luck" is the easy way out. The fact is, he's a Hollywood screenwriter and we're not. We don't know what that job entails or what pressures and requirements he had to deal with to write the thing. To me, it's as easy as that.
I guess what I'm saying is there's constructive criticism like we all learned about in college and then there's internet vitriol. Had the criticisms against Orci been the former and he still reacted the way he did, I'd agree with you. But let's be honest here. What he was replying to was anything but constructing and entirely vitriolic by those "fans."
Better stated: If they can dish it out, they better be ready to take it. Being a Hollywood professional doesn't mean Orci's also a saint. Nor does being a fan necessarily equate to being suddenly impervious to being called out for their bad behavior.
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
Gatt is a computer who is interfaced with the ship's computer. He shouldn't be giving cryptic clues about where the damage is or isn't. I'd have serious problems with the software company if they gave me a program that can't answer a question directly!
He should have been able to say exactly where the hull damage was: decks 12-15, port engineering, aft nacelle, etc...
Of course, maybe the Enterprise took such a hit the computer was damaged, and his response was a 23rd century version of:
"Where's the damage?"
Command not found.
Syntax error.
In that case, it would have been a nice nod to TOS to have smoke come out of his ears.
Gatt is a computer who is interfaced with the ship's computer. He shouldn't be giving cryptic clues about where the damage is or isn't. I'd have serious problems with the software company if they gave me a program that can't answer a question directly!
He should have been able to say exactly where the hull damage was: decks 12-15, port engineering, aft nacelle, etc...
Of course, maybe the Enterprise took such a hit the computer was damaged, and his response was a 23rd century version of:
"Where's the damage?"
Command not found.
Syntax error.
In that case, it would have been a nice nod to TOS to have smoke come out of his ears.
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
Or send Gary Mitchell floating into the white room, pushing the black rectangles into the floor and ceiling until Gatt talks like a normal human being, or at least a creepy, soft-spoken human being.
Or send Gary Mitchell floating into the white room, pushing the black rectangles into the floor and ceiling until Gatt talks like a normal human being, or at least a creepy, soft-spoken human being.
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
I took the line to be an answer to the question, "Where is the damage?" with the answer being "Everywhere" as in there was really no part of the ship that didn't have damage, thus "major hull damage." I do agree though that they could have had him say something more specific like, "Engineering section sir, multiple casualties." or something like that.
I took the line to be an answer to the question, "Where is the damage?" with the answer being "Everywhere" as in there was really no part of the ship that didn't have damage, thus "major hull damage." I do agree though that they could have had him say something more specific like, "Engineering section sir, multiple casualties." or something like that.
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
Again though, why are we assuming that was his entire report? We immediately cut away to shots of the Enterprise being pounded. It's like assuming George Kirk cutoff mid-word during his "Bravo six fire full pha--!" in the '09 movie.
Again though, why are we assuming that was his entire report? We immediately cut away to shots of the Enterprise being pounded. It's like assuming George Kirk cutoff mid-word during his "Bravo six fire full pha--!" in the '09 movie.
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
I think we agree more than disagree on this. For me, the internet is full of nameless people, some 10 some 110 saying all kinds of nonsense. I know nothing about the people slamming him or the movie. We do know who he is, as much as we can. I like that he is a fan, and I'm sure he wants to make a crowd-pleasing entry into the Trek canon, but after 09 (which i really liked) I was hoping for a better film and certainly did not expect him to take criticism (even crazy unfair criticism) like a bratty 10 year old.
It just baffles me that he is surprised that ANYONE doesn't love love love this movie. I see this a lot with the JJ apologists. A disbelief that since the 'rotten tomatoes' poll shows the majority likes it, that there could be legitimate cinematic weakness inherent in it.
I saw the movie before it came out at the NY Press screening, and had to make up my mind with little outside influence, and I was torn. But ultimately, as much fun as it was, I found it structurally flawed, and the second half to be bordering on parody or theft. I was disappointed and even more-so after the writer says nah nah i get to write movies and you don't, lol.
Lol I know, but it still irks me
Respectfully, what about the maturity expressed by fans?
Better question: What about the insane and egregious amount of hate the movie has gotten from these so-called "mature" fans?
I'm going to go ahead and respectfully disagree with you. Orci had every right to react the way he did given how those idiots on Twitter were treating him, and he even had the balls to apologize almost immediately afterward.
Conflating the scenario as "He gets to make movies because of a lot of factors including luck" is the easy way out. The fact is, he's a Hollywood screenwriter and we're not. We don't know what that job entails or what pressures and requirements he had to deal with to write the thing. To me, it's as easy as that.
I guess what I'm saying is there's constructive criticism like we all learned about in college and then there's internet vitriol. Had the criticisms against Orci been the former and he still reacted the way he did, I'd agree with you. But let's be honest here. What he was replying to was anything but constructing and entirely vitriolic by those "fans."
Better stated: If they can dish it out, they better be ready to take it. Being a Hollywood professional doesn't mean Orci's also a saint. Nor does being a fan necessarily equate to being suddenly impervious to being called out for their bad behavior.
I think we agree more than disagree on this. For me, the internet is full of nameless people, some 10 some 110 saying all kinds of nonsense. I know nothing about the people slamming him or the movie. We do know who he is, as much as we can. I like that he is a fan, and I'm sure he wants to make a crowd-pleasing entry into the Trek canon, but after 09 (which i really liked) I was hoping for a better film and certainly did not expect him to take criticism (even crazy unfair criticism) like a bratty 10 year old.
It just baffles me that he is surprised that ANYONE doesn't love love love this movie. I see this a lot with the JJ apologists. A disbelief that since the 'rotten tomatoes' poll shows the majority likes it, that there could be legitimate cinematic weakness inherent in it.
I saw the movie before it came out at the NY Press screening, and had to make up my mind with little outside influence, and I was torn. But ultimately, as much fun as it was, I found it structurally flawed, and the second half to be bordering on parody or theft. I was disappointed and even more-so after the writer says nah nah i get to write movies and you don't, lol.
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
I find use of the term "JJ apologists" to be bordering on parody. Do you actually think anyone here is apologizing on behalf of Abrams over anything? At the very most, we're sorry you didn't enjoy the movie as much as we did.
I find use of the term "JJ apologists" to be bordering on parody. Do you actually think anyone here is apologizing on behalf of Abrams over anything? At the very most, we're sorry you didn't enjoy the movie as much as we did.
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but, I don't remember seeing anyone actually pointing at Rotten Tomatoes numbers or the Box Office receipts to prove the movie has no flaws or to prove the movie was perfect. What I recall (And have done myself) is point at those numbers to prove that it is indeed only a tiny minority who hate the movie, especially when someone is so arrogant as to claim it's a blatant lie that it's only a small percentage who hate it, and they try to claim it's obviously near or over 50% of the Trek Fans who hate it. That's not being a "JJ Apologist", that's bringing up real facts that show the movie is well liked, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Cinematic Artistic Integrity" (or however else you want to phrase the artistic quality) of the movie, it only proves it's well liked (And that's all anyone has tried to prove with it, as far as I can remember), and not universally hated as some would like you to believe.
Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but, I don't remember seeing anyone actually pointing at Rotten Tomatoes numbers or the Box Office receipts to prove the movie has no flaws or to prove the movie was perfect. What I recall (And have done myself) is point at those numbers to prove that it is indeed only a tiny minority who hate the movie, especially when someone is so arrogant as to claim it's a blatant lie that it's only a small percentage who hate it, and they try to claim it's obviously near or over 50% of the Trek Fans who hate it. That's not being a "JJ Apologist", that's bringing up real facts that show the movie is well liked, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Cinematic Artistic Integrity" (or however else you want to phrase the artistic quality) of the movie, it only proves it's well liked (And that's all anyone has tried to prove with it, as far as I can remember), and not universally hated as some would like you to believe.
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it more than I did. Believe me I wanted to like it more, I have spent a good portion of my life memorizing, collecting and loving Star Trek.
We all have different tastes and 'wants' from what we want to experience in a Trek film. Maybe the next one will, or the next series.
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it more than I did. Believe me I wanted to like it more, I have spent a good portion of my life memorizing, collecting and loving Star Trek.
We all have different tastes and 'wants' from what we want to experience in a Trek film. Maybe the next one will, or the next series.
Re: Kirk To Gatt-"Where's The Hull Damage?" Gatt-"Major Hull Damage Ca
I could do without seeing terms like "JJ apologists" and "Abrams defenders" used at all, to be honest. While they may not automatically carry negative freight (and I don't believe that 22 Stars intended anything of the sort here,) I've too often seen such terms used as a swipe in the same sense that "TOS Nazis" might be. Better just to dispense with that kind of label altogether, imo; they're just not necessary.
