It has been pointed out. It's also been pointed out that not everyone was real keen on the refit the way they sold it on screen.
It's a nice design, and I like it better than the original, but it was still inappropriate for them to say that was the original 1701 in any sense. Even if they managed to use some of the basic structural members, since they basically would have still been building an entirely new ship around them, could you really say it was the same ship? I guess to me that would just be using salvaged materials in a new ship, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.
Nothing from this movie fits with TOS even though it was initially sold as a TOS movie. What made this even worse is JJ Abrams's assertion that the ship was so iconic that it couldn't be changed, and yet he changed it.
No they didn't. They could have updated her without redesigning her, both in the case of TMP and this movie.
I could actually say the same thing in regard to the insistence that the ship "needed" to be redesigned.
Again, she could have had they added the level of detail that they ended up doing with the Probert design.
Which is probably why the good updates I've seen don't do that. There's a difference between adding detail to make the ship look like it's real and made out of metal plates and just adding random bits to everything to make it look busy the way they did with the Imperial Star Destroyer in Star Wars. Or making everything look beat up and unmaintained for that matter.
The one thing that will always make this movie different from TMP or all the others is that for any and all of their flaws, the other movies didn't keep trying to go back and "re-invent" everything from the start, they simply added to the larger story. TMP didn't go back and start everything over. It didn't even try to pretend that everything was always supposed to have been the way it was in the movie. They went completely out of their way to sell the idea that the ship had been laid up in dry dock getting refit, even if the refit itself doesn't make any engineering sense.
Either way that blows the whole "modern look for a modern audience" argument right out of the water.
It's more like they took a fun house mirror version of the TMP saucer and stuck it on a fun house mirror version of the engineering hull. And while JJ Abrams might think what they came up with looks in any way convincing, it didn't look all that convincing to me. It looked like a toy, which the moving parts when it went to warp only added to. Other than that I'd actually say that the Kelvin looked more convincing than the new Enterprise did.
Which doesn't mean a whole lot, other than that there's so much different about everything that I'd argue none of it takes place in the same universe as the main Star Trek storyline.
I could probably write a pretty lengthy essay about that. A lot of things go into it even judging the storyline, let alone any of the visual elements. As far as this movie goes, I'd actually rate the visuals down because of the light flares, shaky-cam, and poor framing that made it difficult to even see anything in the movie before I even got to the design of everything that was in the movie.
That or that it was ahead of its time, or was underrated, or any number of things. Popularity is hardly an indication of quality.
Or that it was lucky, or that it was a bit of fluff that found the right audience to make it money.
Exactly.
My experience and education when it comes to being critical of a movie or book, my knowledge of Star Trek and its lore, and my own personal taste. Why, what are you basing your argument on?
Most of the people saw it liked it? Really?
I'm sure that doesn't mean that most of the people who didn't think they were going to like it just stayed home or anything.Most of the people saw it liked it? Really?
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2618&p=s.htm
No, I pointed out that saying "most of the people who went to go see it liked it" isn't saying all that much because the people who were convinced they wouldn't like it didn't go to see it. You try to use popularity as an indication of quality and as validation for your opinion that this movie is good. The other difference between us is that I actually say exactly why I don't like the movie based on the actual movie itself and both you and others seem to be hung up entirely on how popular the movie was.
Just one minor quibble with that... "dollars" aren't constant. So comparing 1982 dollars to 2009 dollars isn't a valid comparison unless you adjust for inflation.Most of the people saw it liked it? Really?
Since you're invoking popularity by presence, you might have a point here if the Box Office take was negligible, but as we've seen from the posted numbers, a lot of people saw this movie. Using inflation adjusted numbers, Star Trek XI has surpassed every other Trek movie, as stated here:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2618&p=s.htm
Further of note, it is considered a box office and theatrical success by the majority of moviegoers and critics alike.
Again, it all comes down to personal taste, because the numbers show this movie as a success on all fronts.
J.
)
Just one minor quibble with that... "dollars" aren't constant. So comparing 1982 dollars to 2009 dollars isn't a valid comparison unless you adjust for inflation.Most of the people saw it liked it? Really?
Since you're invoking popularity by presence, you might have a point here if the Box Office take was negligible, but as we've seen from the posted numbers, a lot of people saw this movie. Using inflation adjusted numbers, Star Trek XI has surpassed every other Trek movie, as stated here:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2618&p=s.htm
Further of note, it is considered a box office and theatrical success by the majority of moviegoers and critics alike.
Again, it all comes down to personal taste, because the numbers show this movie as a success on all fronts.
J.
DVD sales, for that matter, are also a dubious comparison, especially if those sales are immediately prior to Christmas (I'm sure that at least two people I know will probably buy me a copy, even though I might prefer something else... after all, I'm a "Star Track fan."
That said, there's no question but that this movie was a reasonably successful one, and that plenty of people saw it. Whether or not the film has "legs" is an entirely different story. Some movies still remain in the public eye, and continue to have followers and sell materials years, even decades, after their release. "Star Trek" (the original TV show) falls into that category. Later-era Trek, less so. This one, we can't say for certain, though I strongly doubt that there will ever be many "hardcore Abrams-Trek" fans in the world.
I've said this before... I enjoyed watching the "Transformers" movies on a certain level. They were certainly financial successes. Do I give a flying @#$* if they ever make another one? Nope. Do I care, one whit, about any of the characters in those films? Nope. They are simply "popcorn movies."
Nothing wrong with "popcorn movies." And that's what Abrams gave us in this film. A silly, pointless, "rollercoaster ride" movie with no characters that the average moviegoer really cares much about, but which has enough "ticket-punch" moments to play to a certain sense of nostalgia for those who've seen a few episodes of the TV show that it is LOOSELY based upon.
I dislike the new ship... but that's not why I dislike the new movie. I dislike it mainly because it could have been so much more, so much better, had they not made certain choices which I consider to be major mistakes.
You may disagree. Fine. Remember the subject of this thread... "Have those who disliked the Abramsprise finally accepted it?" The answer is "no," for the most part, from what we can see in this thread. I'm certainly a "no" vote.
What's fascinating to me is watching people who loved it all along taking issue with those who are the ones being asked, as though having that different perspective on the movie is somehow "personal" to them. (sigh)
You aren't even making any sense now. You were the one (or one of the ones) who started bringing up the whole popularity thing. You made the statement that the majority of the people who went to go see the movie liked it. I pointed out that people who decided they weren't going to like it probably just stayed at home. The people who are going to go in to a movie are going to be the ones who like what they see in trailers and other information that's available from reviews and interviews. So the people who went to go see this movie were going to be the ones who saw all that and liked it.
It's only pointless if you're actually going to try to "win" an argument based entirely on opinion. Other than that it can lead to interesting discussion. Or a stimulating argument. Either way I get my nerd on.
Of course when the topic is condescendingly asking it people have "accepted" something they hate it probably tends to be the latter because of the emotion it stirs up.It actually couldn't have been considering how many negative reviews there are of it, too. Or do they not count somehow?
Again with the "it's popular" argument. That doesn't mean it was a good movie.
Means nothing.
Says you. And really there's no way to make that assertion; you can only give a number, not assert that this number represents "most" people. And this is once again an attempt to validate your opinion using popularity of a movie instead of any critical aspect of the actual movie.
RottenTomoatoes is every bit as valid as any person's opinion because they are just any people. I could rate movies and post there, too, if I actually wanted to. They have all the same issues that anyplace online has. Just as an example, I can remember the shit storm it started when the first negative review was posted. People there acted like this movie was above any criticism and how dare someone criticize it.
Error: logic does not follow. Popularity does not equate to quality.
No it isn't. Your opinion is your opinion and shouldn't need any validation or vindication from an appeal to popularity.
I have never cited popularity as a negative, I've said that popularity is no indication of quality. I've said this over and over again, sometimes within the same post. That is neither a positive or a negative, it simply points out that popularity is not an indication of the actual quality of a movie.
It's not irrelevant because that's the point I'm making. You can never claim that most people like it because no movie has 100% viewership. The closest you can come is saying most people who went to it liked it, but that isn't exactly shocking news because you have to have an interest in a movie to go see it to begin with.
Disillusioned said:"Really?
Then no movie has ever been good, by your definition, because and this is how you say it:
Disillusioned said:
Which is entirely true.
No, I pointed out that saying that the majority of the people who went to go see the movie liked it isn't really saying much at all. If you want to take that as a negative, then frankly that's an issue with you and your perception of the point I made.
That was a different argument someone else tried to make by stating "most people liked this movie." There was no qualifier there about the people who went to go see it vs. those who weren't interested to begin with and never went to go see it. They simply stated "most people liked this movie." I pointed out that no one can really say that.
