2160s or 2390s or?

[Trekkin]

We know he'd taken the Kobiyashi Maru 3 times. He probably passed the first time and just kept insisting on a redo. Other than that, we never see him doing tests.

I also think you're mixing up rank and position. As multiple people have pointed out in various ways, you can be higher than a cadet and still be in school.

In reality, most naval officers where the same uniform regardless of position. My sisters camo's are the same as her instructors. When they're actually serving on a ship it changes a little, but on the ground it's what's on the camos that signify any difference. Star Trek actually made it easier to differentiate the staff, by giving them their own uniform.

As for an acadamic review in the navy, I'd say that in reality they'd usually show up in formal uniform (their whites) regardless of whether they'd graduated or not (I might be wrong there though). Considering we see the formal uniforms equivilant in STID, obviously it doesn't work that way in the Trek verse.

 

[BillJ]

Again, it's not about being wrong for enjoying something. Just acknowledging the thing's not perfect.

Which shows just how little you've paid attention to the people in this thread and the fact that you haven't visited the review grades and other threads in the Trek XI+ forum.

There isn't some formula to good storytelling, if there was everyone would be doing it and there would never, ever be a bad story and every Hollywood movie would be loved by all. There is an emotional component to every story and that also dictates how one connects with it.

I'm watching the revamped Space Battleship Yamato 2199 (I watched the original as a kid) and, damn, it is silly as fuck in some places. But it is also something that is incredibly fun to watch and lose yourself in.

 

[Trekkin]

Every movie has flaws, and Star Trek has always been full of them. What is being seen as as 'denial' is just me not finding certain reasoning convincing, and showing why I don't agree. My nitpicks do exist, are different, and don't detract from what I see as the positives in the movie - hence why I enjoyed it.

I mean, these are discussion boards. If I went onto the other movie board and started airing all my grievances about TMP, I wouldn't consider other people stupid, aggressive or in denial for trying to rebut my points. That's what we're here to do.

 

[Dukhat]

There it is. The argument from ticket sales. Who was it that said somewhere around here that "no one's made that argument". Whelp, yeah they have, coz there it is.

Ticket sales are my "evidence." It's a tangible thing that can be used to determine how successful something is whether one personally likes it or not. I hated Avatar. I thought it was an incredibly stupid movie that relied almost 100% on special effects. And yet even I can't argue that it was a huge financial success and that despite my personal opinions, there were a ton of people who thought the movie was awesome. And yet I don't feel the need to find some Avatar message board and let all its fans know that I think their movie was crap, and here's why you're all a bunch of dumbasses for liking it.

Your "evidence," despite what you keep saying, is just your own opinions. And while it's perfectly fine to have opinions, yours seems to cross the line into berating others who like the movie because you think the movie sucks, while at the same time acting like you're the victim here. But hey, that's just my opinion.

 

[T'Girl]

Ticket sales are my "evidence." It's a tangible thing that can be used to determine how successful something is whether one personally likes it or not.

And by that, you mean financially successful?

As opposed to being artistically successful, which in some evaluations the movies fell well short.

 

[martok2112]

Ticket sales are my "evidence." It's a tangible thing that can be used to determine how successful something is whether one personally likes it or not.

And by that, you mean financially successful?

As opposed to being artistically successful, which in some evaluations the movies fell well short.

I'd say that a lot of that "financial success" was the result of quite a bit of folk going back for multiple screenings. Most folk wouldn't do that just to burn money. It would have to mean that such folk actually found the movie good, visually, story-wise, emotionally, etc. So yes, financial success can often translate into "yep, it was indeed a good movie, or at the very least, an enjoyable one."

Therein layeth the test of it. A movie can still be "enjoyable" and still not be "a good movie". Usually, the two are not so exclusive...but different strokes for different folks.

Overall though, I'll bet you ask a lot of folk who went back for multiple screenings, and they'll tell you without hesitation that the JJ movies were indeed good movies.

 

[BillJ]

Overall though, I'll bet you ask a lot of folk who went back for multiple screenings, and they'll tell you without hesitation that the JJ movies were indeed good movies.

Looking at various review sites, Rotten Tomatoes and Netflix to name a couple, the Abrams movies both rate solidly in the 4 star area. But, of course, everyone is wrong and a few disenfranchised Trekkies are right about the artistic/entertainment merits of the Abrams films.

They need to get over themselves. The Abrams movies make money and are generally well liked.

308,000 people rated Star Trek Into Darkness on Rotten Tomatoes and the average score is 4.2/5.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/?search=star trek into

3.03 million people have rated the film on Netflix and it averages 4.3/5.



EDIT: The above is an old screen grab. The current rating is 4.3/5 stars based on 3.5 million ratings.

 

[martok2112]

Overall though, I'll bet you ask a lot of folk who went back for multiple screenings, and they'll tell you without hesitation that the JJ movies were indeed good movies.

Looking at various review sites, Rotten Tomatoes and Netflix to name a couple, the Abrams movies both rate solidly in the 4 star area. But, of course, everyone is wrong and a few disenfranchised Trekkies are right about the artistic/entertainment merits of the Abrams films.

They need to get over themselves. The Abrams movies make money and are generally well liked.

308,000 people rated Star Trek Into Darkness on Rotten Tomatoes and the average score is 4.2/5.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/?search=star%20trek%20into

3.03 million people have rated the film on Netflix and it averages 4.3/5.



EDIT: The above is an old screen grab. The current rating is 4.3/5 stars based on 3.5 million ratings.

Completely agreed, Bill.

 

[Dukhat]

As opposed to being artistically successful, which in some evaluations the movies fell well short.

"Artistically successful" is not in any way a quantifiable measure of success, because art is in the eye of the beholder. Vincent Van Gogh's paintings were not financially or artistically successful during his lifetime. A century later, they are worth millions and people from all over the world adore them. But I'll never own one, not because I can't afford one (I can't), but because I simply don't care for Van Gogh's work, no matter how much other people like them or how many dollar signs are now attached to them.

 

[Overgeeked]

Just remember that 50 Shades of Grey is also quite successful and generally well-liked by the public, but everyone who's even marginally connected with writing and literature endlessly pans it. And no, not because they're snobs, rather they're the ones who actually know quality writing. Popularity and ticket sales are not a measure of quality, they generally measure the product's appeal to the lowest common denominator, and the film' slack of complex story so as to be more easily dubbed into foreign languages for over-seas sales. Note how much of your vaunted sales come from foreign markets. Strength there is not a sign of complex and involved plotting or stellar writing, rather mindless action and thrills.

 

[Overgeeked]

As opposed to being artistically successful, which in some evaluations the movies fell well short.

"Artistically successful" is not in any way a quantifiable measure of success, because art is in the eye of the beholder. Vincent Van Gogh's paintings were not financially or artistically successful during his lifetime. A century later, they are worth millions and people from all over the world adore them. But I'll never own one, not because I can't afford one (I can't), but because I simply don't care for Van Gogh's work, no matter how much other people like them or how many dollar signs are now attached to them.

Well, that explains a lot. You have no eye for art and apparently little taste. No wonder you'd rather talk about the all-mighty dollar than the quality of writing.

 

[Dukhat]

As opposed to being artistically successful, which in some evaluations the movies fell well short.

"Artistically successful" is not in any way a quantifiable measure of success, because art is in the eye of the beholder. Vincent Van Gogh's paintings were not financially or artistically successful during his lifetime. A century later, they are worth millions and people from all over the world adore them. But I'll never own one, not because I can't afford one (I can't), but because I simply don't care for Van Gogh's work, no matter how much other people like them or how many dollar signs are now attached to them.

Well, that explains a lot. You have no eye for art and apparently little taste. No wonder you'd rather talk about the all-mighty dollar than the quality of writing.

First of all, knock it off with the personal insults, especially since you know damn well that's against the rules here. And second, you don't know a fucking thing about what I consider to be good or bad "art," so cut it out with the over-the-top generalizations based solely on some dumb argument that you're desperately trying to win here.

 

[BillJ]

Just remember that 50 Shades of Grey is also quite successful and generally well-liked by the public, but everyone who's even marginally connected with writing and literature endlessly pans it. And no, not because they're snobs, rather they're the ones who actually know quality writing. Popularity and ticket sales are not a measure of quality, they generally measure the product's appeal to the lowest common denominator, and the film' slack of complex story so as to be more easily dubbed into foreign languages for over-seas sales. Note how much of your vaunted sales come from foreign markets. Strength there is not a sign of complex and involved plotting or stellar writing, rather mindless action and thrills.

Wanna try again? Fifty Shades of Grey averages a 2.9/5 star rating on Rotten Tomatoes. So it seems that people can be entertained and still understand that something is flawed. Or they can get caught up in the early marketing and want to see something based on it and then realize the product isn't very good.

The rest of your non-sense comes off as elitist. "Only a true few understand what good writing is." It is a nebulous statement that is designed to try and make you sound smart for not liking something and to try and give your own opinion validity.

I went and seen Jurassic World last night with the wife. Yeah, it had some flaws, but it was a fun time. Might wanna try to just have fun sometime.

 

[Overgeeked]

Just remember that 50 Shades of Grey is also quite successful and generally well-liked by the public, but everyone who's even marginally connected with writing and literature endlessly pans it. And no, not because they're snobs, rather they're the ones who actually know quality writing. Popularity and ticket sales are not a measure of quality, they generally measure the product's appeal to the lowest common denominator, and the film' slack of complex story so as to be more easily dubbed into foreign languages for over-seas sales. Note how much of your vaunted sales come from foreign markets. Strength there is not a sign of complex and involved plotting or stellar writing, rather mindless action and thrills.

Wanna try again? Fifty Shades of Grey averages a 2.9/5 star rating on Rotten Tomatoes. So it seems that people can be entertained and still understand that something is flawed. Or they can get caught up in the early marketing and want to see something based on it and then realize the product isn't very good.

The rest of your non-sense comes off as elitist. "Only a true few understand what good writing is." It is a nebulous statement that is designed to try and make you sound smart for not liking something and to try and give your own opinion validity.

I went and seen Jurassic World last night with the wife. Yeah, it had some flaws, but it was a fun time. Might wanna try to just have fun sometime.

Clearly only some really understand writing. It's hard. I'm glad you saw the film. Just understand that your liking it doesn't make the thing good. That's the whole point. Sales and popularity don't measure quality.

 

[martok2112]

Yeah, really getting sick of the ill-fitting elitist bullshit.

 

[BillJ]

Clearly only some really understand writing. It's hard. I'm glad you saw the film. Just understand that your liking it doesn't make the thing good. That's the whole point. Sales and popularity don't measure quality.

I'm simply not looking for someone to tell me how smart I am for the entertainment choices I make. I guess I'm selfish, but I make my choices based on what appeals to me. Whether it be 2001 or Full Metal Jacket or Space Battleship Yamato or Apocalypse Now or Star Trek: The Motion Picture or Star Trek Into Darkness or Married... with Children or American Dad.

I enjoy entertainment about life, the universe and everything, and I also enjoy watching dinosaurs eat people. I'm a complex kind of guy.

 

[Overgeeked]

Yeah, really getting sick of the ill-fitting elitist bullshit.

Experts do exist. They do know more about their topics of choice than most people do. The franchise this forum is dedicated to is all about various groups of those experts. Sorry that the idea of someone knowing more about something than you is upsetting. Simple fact is just about every other person on the planet knows more about something than everyone else. Even if it's only their own life. Particle physicists know more about particle physics than either of us. Is it somehow elitism to acknowledge that fact? Is it elitism to accept that some expert in a given field will know more about that field than a layperson? I don't think so, apparently you do however.

Do you take your car to be serviced by your neighbor the NASCAR fan or do you run it down the shop where the certified auto mechanics are? Do you ask your cousin who barely finished high school to conduct your annual check up or the nice people who went to school for years to be various types of medical professionals? My money's on the auto mechanic and medical professionals. Because they're the experts.

If trusting experts smacks of elitism to you, sorry. But hey, since you're so anti-elitism, how about giving the kids in the neighborhood a shot at fixing your car or performing surgery on you or delivering your next child? No? That's very elitist of you.

I'm simply not looking for someone to tell me how smart I am for the entertainment choices I make. I guess I'm selfish, but I make my choices based on what appeals to me. I enjoy entertainment about life, the universe and everything, and I also enjoy watching dinosaurs eat people. I'm a complex kind of guy.

It's so funny you guys are hung up on this. One of my posts on these three reoccurring threads was a comment about how people take it personally when something they enjoy is 'attacked' by someone else. The pattern is some version of the fan thinking: 'I'm smart. I like this movie, therefore it's good. That person thinks this movie is dumb, and since I like it, therefore that person is calling me dumb." It's great to see you proving my point for me. Cheers.

 

[martok2112]

Yeah, really getting sick of the ill-fitting elitist bullshit.

Experts do exist. They do know more about their topics of choice than most people do. The franchise this forum is dedicated to is all about various groups of those experts. Sorry that the idea of someone knowing more about something than you is upsetting. Simple fact is just about every other person on the planet knows more about something than everyone else. Even if it's only their own life. Particle physicists know more about particle physics than either of us. Is it somehow elitism to acknowledge that fact? Is it elitism to accept that some expert in a given field will know more about that field than a layperson? I don't think so, apparently you do however.

Do you take your car to be serviced by your neighbor the NASCAR fan or do you run it down the shop where the certified auto mechanics are? Do you ask your cousin who barely finished high school to conduct your annual check up or the nice people who went to school for years to be various types of medical professionals? My money's on the auto mechanic and medical professionals. Because they're the experts.

If trusting experts smacks of elitism to you, sorry. But hey, since you're so anti-elitism, how about giving the kids in the neighborhood a shot at fixing your car or performing surgery on you or delivering your next child? No? That's very elitist of you.

I'm simply not looking for someone to tell me how smart I am for the entertainment choices I make. I guess I'm selfish, but I make my choices based on what appeals to me. I enjoy entertainment about life, the universe and everything, and I also enjoy watching dinosaurs eat people. I'm a complex kind of guy.

It's so funny you guys are hung up on this. One of my posts on these three reoccurring threads was a comment about how people take it personally when something they enjoy is 'attacked' by someone else. The pattern is some version of the fan thinking: 'I'm smart. I like this movie, therefore it's good. That person thinks this movie is dumb, and since I like it, therefore that person is calling me dumb." It's great to see you proving my point for me. Cheers.

So you're a self-proclaimed expert of all things Star Trek, are you?

You see. It's people like you that give fandom a bad name. It's people like you that make me turn my back on fandom.


I'll go down the list as to why people like you give fans and fandom a bad name:

1. Overvaluing your own opinions for facts.
2. Berating anyone who doesn't share your view of Star Trek (sci-fi/fantasy property of choice).
3. Self-proclaimed expert (on Star Trek or sci-fi/fantasy property of choice).
4. Self-entitlement to a property you don't even own. Things absolutely must go your way with Star Trek or sci-fi/fantasy property, or you write it off.
5. The "more fan than thou"/"true fan" syndrome.
6. Ill-fit elitism.

Those are just the chief points. Thank you for proving each and every one of them in such exacting form.

 

[Tarek71]

The main problem seemed to stem from not including one additional time jump in the Kirk life story portrayed in ST09. Add in young commander Kirk, after baby-troublemaking kid-bar fly-Cadet Kirk. Maybe right after the KM incident.

Not doing that did seem to create the problems being discussed. Was it bad, lazy and implausible to have Cadet Captain Kirk? Yes. What they portrayed was implausible, and unnecessarily so. And not necessary for commercial success either. Not sure why they did it.

The other Captains and Admirals we have seen, all seem age appropriate. So, JJ & Co do not seem unaware of the fact that Captains and above are normally 40 and over, not 25.

The body of work of JJ, Orci and Kurtzman indicates that while they have made some commerically sucessful movies that were not the best scripts, they have also turned in some very good work as well. There is no necessary contradiction between a very popular story and a very well written story.

So lets say, they were hired for their commercial success, and they once again suceeded. And lets also say, that ST09 was another of their scripts that was not as smart as it was profitable. Maybe the supernova that travels at warp speed and shatters planets being sucked back by a jar of red goop was not a shining example of good, smart sci fi. And these are not the only problems.

But in spite of ONE 25 yo Captain, and ONE warp speed supernova, I think the JJverse is salvageable. They made mistakes. Big ones, that could have been seen at the time by anyone. Even the writers strike preventing late changes doesnt forgive writing nonsense in the first place. But I think we can pick up the pieces and build on it.

Hence, stories set in it, and/or working off of it.

 

[Overgeeked]

So you're a self-proclaimed expert of all things Star Trek, are you?

Never said I was. That's a cute strawman you've built up. But that's not the conversation that's happening. You're tilting at windmills here.