Both Sides Give Me a Headache

[Kirk1980]

Those for and against have largely fallen into two archetypes, both of which are seriously starting to get on my nerves.

For: OMG, THIS IS THE BEST EVER, ANYONE WHO THINKS OTHERWISE IS A TOTAL LOSER!

Against: THIS VIOLATES CANON, IT IS CRAP!

Rational discourse falls by the wayside and it's hard to get a thought in edgewise.

It's rare to find anyone here that is able to say the movie was fun but it was still badly done (Brutal Strudel does a great job of doing this balancing act).

Anyone else getting a little tired of it all?

 

[Borgminister]

I think the movie was fun and well done.

Is that irrational?

 

[Cakes488]

Well I'm in the middle...there was a lot I liked with the movie and a few things that I didn't. I know it could of been a lot lot better, just by hearing about what was left on the cutting room floor... I also feel that if you speak up and say what you didn't like about the movie...then quite a few OMG-ers come out of the woodwork to attack.

 

[indranee]

I don't think this is the best ever trek movie.

I do think you're taking it waaaaaaaaaaaaay too personally.

uhh.. that was for Kirk1980.

 

[Kirk1980]

It makes me wonder what they liked about the 1966 show to begin with, or indeed even if they did at all. What the elder show cultivated in me was the desire to look at things from both sides and to try to respect those other opinions without resorting to insults or violence.

 

[Borgminister]

Well I'm in the middle...there was a lot I liked with the movie and a few things that I didn't. I know it could of been a lot lot better, just by hearing about what was left on the cutting room floor... I also feel that if you speak up and say what you didn't like about the movie...then quite a few OMG-ers come out of the woodwork to attack.

I would disagree with that statement. I think plenty of people who loved the movie acknowledge that it had its faults, and have stated as much in this forum.

There are others who call it pure shit with no redeeming value, and when that happens, of course you get a commensurate response by those who enjoyed the film.

 

[Kirk1980]

Indranee, this hardly has anything to do with just you. This has been something on my mind for quite some time.

 

[Borgminister]

It makes me wonder what they liked about the 1966 show to begin with, or indeed even if they did at all. What the elder show cultivated in me was the desire to look at things from both sides and to try to respect those other opinions without resorting to insults or violence.

Violence?!?

 

[Kirk1980]

And Borg, I have no problem with the OMG Brigade jumping on the OMG SHIT Brigade.

It's when people try to rationally analyze what they've seen and only parts of what they've said get jumped on and hyperbolized by either side that is driving me a little crazy.

Borg...as part of the original Trek message, not to do with Trek 09.

 

[indranee]

Indranee, this hardly has anything to do with just you. This has been something on my mind for quite some time.

okay, and that means that I am barred from posting in this thread?

 

[Kirk1980]

I hardly said that, did I?

I said it doesn't have that much to do with you. As in, don't take it personally.

 

[indranee]

I never said I took it that way. I said YOU are.

 

[Borgminister]

It's when people try to rationally analyze what they've seen and only parts of what they've said get jumped on and hyperbolized by either side that is driving me a little crazy.

There is no such thing as true objectivity; you either like the film or you don't. How you phrase your praise or damnation is important, but hardly means that you're being rational.

Maybe polite and respectful is what you're looking for...

Borg...as part of the original Trek message, not to do with Trek 09.

Okay... **puts bat'leth away**

 

[Kirk1980]

Not at all.

Cakes, I'm glad to hear someone else able to relax and discuss things without resorting to namecalling or insulting language.

Borg: More than likely. I'd take polite!

 

[CaptainDonovin]

I do agree with the title of this thread, reading some of the back & forth here makes me want to reach for the Advil bottle. I've seen the movie several times now. It wasn't perfection but I can't seem the thing of a Trek movie that was. I do think it accomplished what TBTB wanted, to inject life into the franchise we love & make them more money.

 

[Borgminister]

I do agree with the title of this thread, reading some of the back & forth here makes me want to reach for the Advil bottle. I've seen the movie several times now. It wasn't perfection but I can't seem the thing of a Trek movie that was. I do think it accomplished what TBTB wanted, to inject life into the franchise we love & make them more money.

QFT.

And I agree with the premise that there should be far more politeness and civility in discussing the movie; it sometimes devolves into a cult of personality thing...

 

[Kirk1980]

Donovin...no doubt. I just hope the next go-round is a little more finely crafted, that's all. Less plot contrivances.

And yeah, I know previous films have been like that and trust me, I'm more than willing to acknowledge flaws in previous incarnations.

Doesn't mean it has to be a pattern

 

[indranee]

the main problem is that none of us (okay some of us) can't stay away from this forum. I freely admit to that.

as for personal insults. there's ways and there's... ways. when you call me a n00b and dub me a bit "dumb" for loving this movie (the "you" is in general), IMO, that's as much "namecalling" as when I call you a "bullshitter".

it goes both ways.

 

[Trent Roman]

Against: THIS VIOLATES CANON, IT IS CRAP!

In fairness, some of us who disliked the film did so for reasons entirely unrelated to 'canon' (indeed, I wish they had changed more from the original setup).

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Kirk1980]

Of course it does, Indranee and I wouldn't call you dumb, just a bit zealous

Trent: oh, but that doesn't give me a headache. The vast majority against it that I've noticed have been of the canon violation reactionary type.