‘Star Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

[urbandefault]

I have to agree with Dennis and BillJ, among others.

The plot wasn't hard to understand. It wasn't unnecessarily convoluted. It was, in my pedestrian opinion, a decent Star Trek movie. That's why I watched it, why I own it, and why I will continue to have in rotation on my personal video playing machine thingy.

The only part I really don't care for is Spock's scream, and I can get around that. Not a dealbreaker for me.

I tend to take these movies for what they are: entertainment. I read the threads here hoping to find little pieces of things I might have missed. Things that will make the next viewing more enjoyable.

What really bothers me is the attitude of some that these discussions must be conducted with someone's idea of structured rules. Strawman? Please. Take it back to Debate Club.

We're real people with real opinions, likes and dislikes. I don't think we should have to back up every opinion or random memory or offhand comment with 27 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.

Every thread seems to deteriorate to the same complaints over and over and over. Ok, I get it. These movies are not perfect. They never have been and they never will be. Roddenberry's "vision" was not perfect. Berman and company were not perfect. None of the productions from TOS through STID are perfect. But they are Star Trek, and that's what I want to see.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[BillJ]

The plot wasn't hard to understand. It wasn't unnecessarily convoluted. It was, in my pedestrian opinion, a decent Star Trek movie. That's why I watched it, why I own it, and why I will continue to have in rotation on my personal video playing machine thingy.

The only part I really don't care for is Spock's scream, and I can get around that. Not a dealbreaker for me.

I tend to take these movies for what they are: entertainment. I read the threads here hoping to find little pieces of things I might have missed. Things that will make the next viewing more enjoyable.

What really bothers me is the attitude of some that these discussions must be conducted with someone's idea of structured rules. Strawman? Please. Take it back to Debate Club.

We're real people with real opinions, likes and dislikes. I don't think we should have to back up every opinion or random memory or offhand comment with 27 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.

Every thread seems to deteriorate to the same complaints over and over and over. Ok, I get it. These movies are not perfect. They never have been and they never will be. Roddenberry's "vision" was not perfect. Berman and company were not perfect. None of the productions from TOS through STID are perfect. But they are Star Trek, and that's what I want to see.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

+1

 

[BigJake]

If you filled it with exposition, rather than leaving something to the imagination of the audience, yes, you would have a damn long movie.

And you know perfectly well that is not what I'm talking about. You don't need to "fill a movie with exposition" to have a plot that makes sense and fits together without your audience needing to rewrite its basics for you.

Again, come on. You're pretty clearly smart enough for me to know that you know that. If you want to agree to disagree I'm fine with that, but don't resort to playing dumb like that.

 

[bbailey861]

...

As many times as you try to paint Star Trek Into Darkness as "broken", it simply isn't. Marcus is trying to start a war with the Klingons, everything feeds into that theme. For all the issues you claim to have following the plot, me and many others simply don't have them.

Are there nits I could pick with this particular version of Star Trek? Sure. Absolutely. Just like I can pick nits at the other seven-hundred plus hours that preceded it.

I know you have a tough time with folks finding the film fun to watch. I know that you have a tough time when folks take your points and show you the dozens of other times where Trek acted in a very similar manner. But, in the end, those are your problems. For me, the Abrams films are the closest the franchise has gotten to "feeling" like TOS in a very, very long time. I am tickled by that. When I walk into the Abrams films, I feel like a kid again taking in the wonder and excitement of the universe through characters I love.

McCOY: You okay, Jim? How do you feel?
KIRK: Young. I feel young.

What he said.

 

[Franklin]

To me, coherency is lost in a story when certain information is absent and the effect of its absence on the plot can't be well-explained. I thought most of it in STID could be explained quite satisfactorily. You don't. We conflict. I'm right. You're right. That's part of the joy of living in a pluralistic society.

To this day, I can't figure out why the Borg went all the way to Earth and battled Starfleet in Star Trek: First Contact instead of going back in time in the Delta Quadrant and cake-walking all the way to Earth. But, damn, there are a Hell of a lot of people who enjoy that movie immensely.

Who am I to tell them that they're wrong?

Exactly. As I've said, Khan not beaming up Kirk bothers me a lot, but my guess is the writers wrote themselves into a corner. If they have Khan beam Kirk up, too, it's end of story. So, they change his motivation. Some bought it, some didn't. And, it's not like it's kept me from watching TWOK a few times a year for the last thirty years, either. (Damn! The movie is over thirty years old?!)

When someone comes across the perfect movie, please post it here.

 

[BigJake]

Who am I to tell them that they're wrong?

Someone telling you why they don't like something is not them telling you you're wrong to like something. How can it be you don't grasp that? It isn't complicated, honestly.

When someone comes across the perfect movie, please post it here.

... aaand now expecting a plot to make sense is demanding "the perfect movie." Yep. That'll do.

 

[BillJ]

Who am I to tell them that they're wrong?

Someone telling you why they don't like something is not them telling you you're wrong to like something. How can it be you don't grasp that?

If it was you simply explaining and debating what didn't work for you that would be one thing. But like I said in a prior post, you have went from claiming the Abrams films aren't aging well to Abrams making campy Trek films to how the plot "objectively" doesn't work.

You've been on a campaign for quite a while to tear down Into Darkness. The thing is I can't tell if you're being serious or if you're simply doing it for shits and giggles.

When someone comes across the perfect movie, please post it here.

This is the thing that bothers me the most. People comparing Star Trek Into Darkness with a "Star Trek" that never existed to begin with.

 

[BigJake]

But like I said in a prior post, you have went from claiming the Abrams films aren't aging well to Abrams making campy Trek films to how the plot "objectively" doesn't work.

Welcome to life. Sometimes things you like will have actual flaws.

 

[BillJ]

But like I said in a prior post, you have went from claiming the Abrams films aren't aging well to Abrams making campy Trek films to how the plot "objectively" doesn't work.

Welcome to life. Sometimes things you like will have actual flaws.

Like most of the seven-hundred hours of Star Trek?

I'm watching "The Trouble with Tribbles" right now. No way Cyrano Jones gets aboard a Federation facility with a Tribble. No way Kirk would be as flippant about the grain and Baris authority.

Still one of the top episodes of Trek.

 

[BigJake]

What really bothers me is the attitude of some that these discussions must be conducted with someone's idea of structured rules.

I honestly don't care whether it "bothers" you that I expect someone's responses to me to be relevant to something I actually said, sorry.

Every thread seems to deteriorate to the same complaints over and over and over

"Why Do You Keep On Having Opinions" is also pretty weak sauce. A conversation happened in which questions were asked and answered. You can choose to be part of that or not, not everyone is an Arguer and that's cool, but it's really not up to you to lecture other people about whether they should be having arguments.

I mean, you can try as you please, just don't expect it to be convincing. You're on a public forum, for God's sake.

 

[BillJ]

"Why Do You Keep On Having Opinions" is also pretty weak sauce.

No one minds you having opinions (we all do). Where it has begun to rub me wrong way is when you present them as some immutable fact.

 

[urbandefault]

What really bothers me is the attitude of some that these discussions must be conducted with someone's idea of structured rules.

I honestly don't care whether it "bothers" you that I expect someone's responses to me to be relevant to something I actually said, sorry.

And that's ... ok. Because you're good enough, and smart enough, and doggone it, people like you.

Every thread seems to deteriorate to the same complaints over and over and over

"Why Do You Keep On Having Opinions" is also pretty weak sauce. A conversation happened in which questions were asked and answered. You can choose to be part of that or not, not everyone is an Arguer and that's cool, but it's really not up to you to lecture other people about whether they should be having arguments.

I mean, you can try as you please, just don't expect it to be convincing. You're on a public forum, for God's sake.

So it's ok for people to have opinions, but not ok to have opinions about people having opinions, even when they're the same opinions over and over and over? Ok, fine. that's your opinion.

 

[BigJake]

Where it has begun to rub me wrong way is when you present them as some immutable fact.

Far as I can tell my opinions "begun to rub you the wrong way" from like my second post here in the fall. Which is cool, after all there's only so much I can (or will) do about that.

 

[BillJ]

...

Sometimes I find you a fairly intelligent poster. But other times you simply try too hard and it shows.

 

[doubleohfive]

Star Trek Into Darkness was a superb film.

I had a lot of issues going into it because people had basically spoiled half the damn thing for me in the weeks leading up to the film, but once I got past that I found the story, the characterization and the film itself as a whole to be quite satisfying, relevant to what's going on in the world today and more importantly entertaining.

Now, you guys can debate this till you're blue (or green) in the face, but that's my take on it. Critically and financially, it seems to be the case as well.

Based on that alone, I have complete faith that Bob Orci, a fan, will do a fine job with the third installment. Any other fretting, concern, ballyhooing, or crying about it is entirely premature and unnecessary.

 

[BillJ]

Based on that alone, I have complete faith that Bob Orci, a fan, will do a fine job with the third installment. Any other fretting, concern, ballyhooing, or crying about it is entirely premature and unnecessary.

This.

 

[BigJake]

fretting, concern, ballyhooing, or crying about it is entirely premature and unnecessary.

Oh, we're all quite agreed on that. Why do you think we're occupying ourselves with our eleven-gajillionth go-round about plot holes in STID?

 

[BillJ]

I just watched Kirk and Spock make a laser out of a piece of bed frame, a couple of transponders and a 40-watt light bulb. MacGyver has got nothing on these guys!

Watching "Patterns of Force" which, honestly, is just a plain bad episode. But the chemistry between Shatner and Nimoy make it worthwhile. I see that same budding chemistry between Pine and Quinto and I think it's great.

 

[Ovation]

Seems coherent enough to me.

Yours is a fine attempt at an explanation, really it is, but I'm afraid it misses the point.

The point isn't that you or anyone else couldn't come up with a perfectly serviceable fanwank to close the apparent gaps in the plot. The point is that all of us could, and they will all be different, because there is not enough information on the screen for anything else to happen. That's what "coherence" means; it means there's critical information missing from what's on the screen that's necessary to make very basic plot points make sense, which makes various fan theories about those basic things necessary.

No. The film's plot makes more than enough sense for the majority of viewers to understand what's going on. Really. It does. You want incoherent? Watch the theatrical release of Highlander 2. And calling me a liar upthread? Fuck off. Just because you appear to have difficulty making sense of the story doesn't mean everyone else who watched it suffered from your particular shortcoming.

 

[BigJake]

No.

Yes.

I mean, Franklin and I went on to have a convo in detail about it, which involved some clarification that you might find helpful. You're welcome to engage with some of that, but don't go repeating the same stuff at me as if repetition alone is going to convince me. That's silly.

And calling me a liar upthread?

Not what I was going for at all. When I said:

I've had many conversations with people who don't care about the plot as presented on screen (either because they can build a personally satisfying fan theory, or because plot and story just isn't that important to them), which is perfectly fair but not the same thing.

I hoped that would make it clear that I thought you were wrong, not lying, or more precisely that I disbelieved what you said not because it was a deliberate falsehood but because you were mistaking (or missing) the point.

However, I put it damned tactlessly and so any misunderstanding is on me. I apologize. Consider your name cleared. You are not a liar. You're just wrong.