Of course nobody's saying that. The quality of the movie is not in question, it's already been verified as excellent. Your personal feelings towards the movie, however, may differ. But they have nothing to do with the quality.
A question to those that dislike this new movie
- Thread starter Brent
- Start date
There is nothing to verify the movie as "excellent".
Ratings, Profit, Movie Ticket Sells, if the majority of people who have seen it say so, then that kinda tells you something.
I agree completely here.
I read a long winded rant on another forum where someone went so far to say that if the new film did not copy every physical detail of the 1960's down to ships hanging from wires, grainy film etc.. It would not be Star Trek.
And after Paramount made $47.50 off the opening weekend receipts from that suggested tribute masterpiece, Trek would be gone forever.
It tells me the same thing the great reviews of nuBattlestar:Galactica told me.
And no, I'm not going to get into that.
It's nice that Paramount decided to give Trek another go after Nemesis, but this new film is just another example of everything wrong with Hollywood and maybe the public that perpetuates it. Rather than moving the franchise forward we got yet another remake/prequel of an old TV show. They could have put in some serious effort and come up with a new watershed moment in Trek lore... but fuck that... let's recast Kirk and Spock. I happen to find that kind of recycling in media repulsive. I would have much rather seen Star Trek continue rather than remade in the image of the director of Mission Impossible: III.
As a "naysayer," though, I have to acknowledge that Paramount has succeeded. They are making a boatload of money, appealing to the unwashed masses and a good portion of Trek fandom willing to overlook the plethora of shortcomings.
If I had the power, I'd wipe this movie out of existence and replace it with something better... but why bother. They made two hours of excessively lit garbage, generated hype and the public is eating it up. Why fight the lowest common denominator?
As a "naysayer," though, I have to acknowledge that Paramount has succeeded. They are making a boatload of money, appealing to the unwashed masses and a good portion of Trek fandom willing to overlook the plethora of shortcomings.
If I had the power, I'd wipe this movie out of existence and replace it with something better... but why bother. They made two hours of excessively lit garbage, generated hype and the public is eating it up. Why fight the lowest common denominator?
Those things mean absolutely nothing. Plenty of horrible movies have enjoyed massive popularity.
Not going to get into something you brought up yourself?
Not that we need to, since everyone knows you're wrong about that subject anyway.But if reviews and whatnot don't verify something as excellent, what does? Is it your position that "excellent" has no objective meaning? Frankly, I never thought I'd see a postmodern move like that from you. I'm impressed.
I would rather have it have been made properly. I have no problem with new Trek. I have no problem with recasting or even prequels. However they should be done properly. It is possible to make new trek fit with what has laready been established.
You don't have to make a crazy iNterprise just to make Star Trek cool. You don't have to make ALL of the Star Trek crew appear in the same movie to make Star Trek cool. You don't have to make Kirk some car driving rebel to make Star Trek cool. What Star Trek needs is something epic, not newfangled.
Why not make a pre-The Cage Enterprise that looks like it could actually be refitted into The Cage version? Why not write it so the crew actually fit with what what has been established? Why not cast actors who actually look like the original actors? It wouldn't impact the epicness of a movie.
You don't have to make a crazy iNterprise just to make Star Trek cool. You don't have to make ALL of the Star Trek crew appear in the same movie to make Star Trek cool. You don't have to make Kirk some car driving rebel to make Star Trek cool. What Star Trek needs is something epic, not newfangled.
Why not make a pre-The Cage Enterprise that looks like it could actually be refitted into The Cage version? Why not write it so the crew actually fit with what what has been established? Why not cast actors who actually look like the original actors? It wouldn't impact the epicness of a movie.
I'm picturing a team of scientists examining the movie, and then holding a press conference to announce that it has officially been determined to be "excellent."
You know, that could've been really amazing. Spock could've still been included as the only original main character. Pike (or April if you prefer) could be in command. A different plot that was more developed.
And Nimoy still could have had a cameo. I always thought it would've been cool if something from far in his past affected his future at a precise time, and that would be the tye-in to the movie. A way to avoid time-travel but connect the stories.
Off on a tangent there... but hey, nice idea!
Robert Orci has said (at TrekMovie.com) that the Enterprise was build at Riverside to honor George Kirk -- who was considered a hero after the encounter with the Narada. Orci pointed to the Kevin saltshaker as another indicator of the hero status of George Kirk.
Makes sense to me!
In the original timeline, the Kelvin never encountered the Narada (obviously) so the Enterprise in that timeline was built at the San Francisco shipyard.
Makes sense to me!
In the original timeline, the Kelvin never encountered the Narada (obviously) so the Enterprise in that timeline was built at the San Francisco shipyard.
Why not? Starfleet has to build those facilities somewhere. They could easily get tons of land in Iowa for building ships.
Also according to an interview I've read the ship yard and Starfleet recruiting place was built in memory of George Kirk and built near his hometown.
In their defense, most of the new actors looked about as much like the old actors as Robin Curtis looks like Kirstie Alley. And James Cromwell doesn't look anything like the original Zephram Cochrane, yet hardly anyone complains about that.
I do take issue with those who talk about how good Quinto was as Spock. He was sometimes decent but I think Tim Russ did a far more authentic Spock impression as Tuvok.
I would have rather they didn't blow up Vulcan (for the most part).
Yeah. Truthfully, destroying Vulcan & killing Amanda made a big impact on my opinion of the film. Either way, it's still a hollow, stupid action movie. But I'd cut it more slack if it were a hollow, stupid action movie within a recognizable Star Trek universe rather than one that hijacks the timeline for its own, unclear ends.
Only facts can be verified. The artistic estimation of a movie is an opinion specific to the individual who holds that opinion. Even if a large number of people share the same opinion, that does not, in any way, make it a fact. Thus, the quality of the movie is certainly up for discussion. That's the purpose of having open review threads. Otherwise, the mods could just put in a blanket post, "It's excellent," and shut the thread down.
I would concur that the special effects & production design are indeed excellent. But I would argue that the rest of the movie doesn't hold together. It has some significant issues regarding plot, logic, characterization, acting, & music.
This is one of the major cultural differences in the 23rd century. You see, in the future, Iowa is kinda like the new Cabo San Lucas. Uhura & those other cadets were getting their cow-tip on!
*sigh*
1)http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=91960
2)This is not the same Star Trek reality as seen in the other series. Its not going to look like the others. Understand yet??
RAMA
No, not at all. I'm glad for a new movie, but I think they maybe stayed a little close to the original series for the 21st Century. There are female Trekkies out there and I'd rather not have the next couple movies infer that in the 23rd century a woman's only assets are her body. Ok, so Uhura heard and translated the distress call that let Kirk put it all together, but that was very minor. Maybe in the next movie she or another female character (M'ress?) can wield a phaser to show that woman are more than set decoration?
JoAryn
JoAryn
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
