Do we even want another Star Trek movie?

[F. King Daniel]

First, I'm sorry that you can't get past the movie's flaws and enjoy it for what it is. Second, you have yet to state what you think those flaws actually are. Third, what I consider to be flaws and what some idiot internet reviewer considers to be flaws are two entirely different things. It's called subjectivity.

The only way to get past the major flaws in this movie is to treat it as a video game and be awed by the special effects and handsome actors.

Second, the flaws are found in the IO9 spoiler FAQ and other sources, as mentioned earlier. I can't give more details because I don't think this thread is meant for spoilers.

Third, what you should do is see the spoiler FAQ and tell us why you think what were not mentioned aren't flaws in the spoiler thread for this movie found in this forum:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=213013

Finally, even subjectivity contains a measure of objectivity.

I stopped reading at:

"...even the ship designed to function in the vacuum of space could handle the pressures underwater — which I’m 99% sure it can’t..."

Which alone displays the writer's sheer lack of Trek knowledge. For starters, you may remember Insurrection hiding a village-sized holoship underwater on the Ba'ku planet.

 

[Belz...]

So anybody who likes this movie doesn't care about plot, right ?

That's right.

That's basically calling everybody who disagrees with you shallow or worse. It's the equivalent of saying "only an idiot can like this movie." and it assumes that your point of view is the only valid one.

There's a difference between flaws that you can ignore and those that are are significant and numerous.

But what you can ignore or not is entirely subjective.

 

[Use of Time]

I'll never turn down any form of televised Star Trek.

 

[mos6507]

First, I'm sorry that you can't get past the movie's flaws and enjoy it for what it is. Second, you have yet to state what you think those flaws actually are. Third, what I consider to be flaws and what some idiot internet reviewer considers to be flaws are two entirely different things. It's called subjectivity.

If you want to elevate the debate, then don't resort to name-calling.

 

[BillJ]

So anybody who likes this movie doesn't care about plot, right ?

That's right.

I wonder how many flaws you picked up on yourself and how many of those flaws the internet told you to be outraged about?

I loved the movie, I love the TV series it is based on. For some reason many think that they have to like one or the other.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Most of the Trek films have plot holes you can fly the U.S.S. Vengeance through.

Ditto the episodes. Why did Edith Keeler have to die? Kirk could have taken her to the future and have lived happily ever after. And that's supposed to be Trek's finest moment.

I'll up the ante even more. Fiction has plot holes. Some stories may have less than others, but they all have them. Plot holes are an unavoidable part of the writing process.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly. Only reality is perfectly consistent.

 

[Dukhat]

Third, what you should do is see the spoiler FAQ and tell us why you think what were not mentioned aren't flaws in the spoiler thread for this movie found in this forum:

No Ralfy, that's not what I asked. I asked you personally what you think the movie's flaws were. Don't tell me to go to some other website because that's evading my question. And don't use the excuse that you don't want to spoil people because there are spoiler tags you can use.

First, I'm sorry that you can't get past the movie's flaws and enjoy it for what it is. Second, you have yet to state what you think those flaws actually are. Third, what I consider to be flaws and what some idiot internet reviewer considers to be flaws are two entirely different things. It's called subjectivity.

If you want to elevate the debate, then don't resort to name-calling.

Maybe if you took the time to actually read what I wrote instead of acting all high-and-mighty, you'd see that I wasn't calling ralfy an "idiot internet reviewer," I was calling the internet reviewer that ralfy was linking to on I09 an idiot.

 

[ralfy]

I stopped reading at:

"...even the ship designed to function in the vacuum of space could handle the pressures underwater — which I’m 99% sure it can’t..."

Which alone displays the writer's sheer lack of Trek knowledge. For starters, you may remember Insurrection hiding a village-sized holoship underwater on the Ba'ku planet.

Why do you stop there and not continue reading? Also, is the holoship the same as the Enterprise? And why go underwater? Why not stay in orbit?

There are more flaws, by the way.

 

[ralfy]

That's basically calling everybody who disagrees with you shallow or worse. It's the equivalent of saying "only an idiot can like this movie." and it assumes that your point of view is the only valid one.

Not shallow, as some will look at plot only but not characterization.

Keep in mind that movies are composed of various elements that are supposed to work together.

Usually, some elements can make up for problems with others, such as a well-written story making up for poor special effects, but it's very hard to do it the other way around as movies are essentially stories, which means the theme, characterization, and plot should be developed properly.

The problem for this movie are the plot holes, which in turn leads to some problems with characterization, and the special effects cannot make up for them.

But what you can ignore or not is entirely subjective.

Keep in mind that that subjectivity is in turn based on experience, e.g., the quantity and quality of movies you've seen previously, common sense, etc.

 

[ralfy]

I wonder how many flaws you picked up on yourself and how many of those flaws the internet told you to be outraged about?

I loved the movie, I love the TV series it is based on. For some reason many think that they have to like one or the other.

I noticed several while watching the movie (e.g., why not use a timer?, "cold" fusion, underwater?, doing all that just to get your crewmates?), noted more right after when I got irritated by some of the scenes, and was pleasantly surprised by more after reading reviews (why didn't I get that?).

So much for .

 

[ralfy]

No Ralfy, that's not what I asked. I asked you personally what you think the movie's flaws were. Don't tell me to go to some other website because that's evading my question. And don't use the excuse that you don't want to spoil people because there are spoiler tags you can use.

I am not going to post spoilers in this thread because there's already a thread dedicated to that.

If you want to elevate the debate, then don't resort to name-calling.

I did not resort to name-calling.

Maybe if you took the time to actually read what I wrote instead of acting all high-and-mighty, you'd see that I wasn't calling ralfy an "idiot internet reviewer," I was calling the internet reviewer that ralfy was linking to on I09 an idiot.

I didn't say anything about you calling me an idiot. What I wrote is that you acknowledged that there are flaws in the movie, and that's what some "Internet" reviewers are saying.

 

[Dukhat]

I am not going to post spoilers in this thread because there's already a thread dedicated to that.

And did you post your own opinions there, or just more links to other people's opinions?

I did not resort to name-calling.

I didn't say anything about you calling me an idiot.

You're confused. I was referring to mos6507's post toward me, not you. His facts were wrong.

 

[newtontomato539]

Just because something is not explained, does not make it a Plothole tm.

 

[Belz...]

Why do you stop there and not continue reading? Also, is the holoship the same as the Enterprise? And why go underwater? Why not stay in orbit?

Why are those flaws ? Because you can't find a reason ?

Not shallow, as some will look at plot only but not characterization.

You have no idea if that's the case here. All you know is that I disagree with you, and enjoyed the movie. For the record I think there's plenty of characterisation for the leads.

Keep in mind that that subjectivity is in turn based on experience

Don't try to play with definitions. "Subjective" means it's personal, individual, unique to each human, distinct. It means no two people will agree.

And don't mention "common sense" to me. Common sense is not all that common, and rarely actually makes sense except to the person using it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I stopped reading at:

"...even the ship designed to function in the vacuum of space could handle the pressures underwater — which I’m 99% sure it can’t..."

Which alone displays the writer's sheer lack of Trek knowledge. For starters, you may remember Insurrection hiding a village-sized holoship underwater on the Ba'ku planet.

Why do you stop there and not continue reading? Also, is the holoship the same as the Enterprise? And why go underwater? Why not stay in orbit?

There are more flaws, by the way.

So you really think your favourite Trek episode or movie would stand up to that kind of OCD scrutiny? Because if you do you're kidding yourself. I imagine you must hate Wrath of Khan for similar reasons you do Into Darkness?

 

[CorporalClegg]

Complaining about the use of cold fusion in fucking science fiction is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read against STiD. And that says a lot.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I think the problem with the Star Wars prequels was that Anakin was such a douche I didn't care about him becoming Vader.

He isn't in the Clone Wars TV show, but becomes distressed and agitated after being denied the rank of Jedi Master, and also because of the regulations against personal entanglements and the death of his mom. That would fuck me up but good-in fact, it would fuck anybody up but good. Being a douche? More like a tragic hero who became a villain when things got out of control.

 

[Belz...]

Complaining about the use of cold fusion in fucking science fiction is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read against STiD. And that says a lot.

Indeed. Though personally I would've used a different term, to avoid confusion.

 

[BillJ]

More like a tragic hero who became a villain when things got out of control.

I quit buying him as a tragic hero when he went and slaughtered a village of Jawas.