Have those who disliked the Abramsprise finally accepted design?

[Amaris]

You took a comment on popularity and stated that the people who didn't like it were more than likely to stay home.

Which is entirely true.

You created a negative, because you stated that the only reason it was popular was because the people who didn't want to see it stayed home,

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.

citing a 100% viewership rate for popular movies.

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.

You seem to be mixing arguments up. At least I hope that's the case and you aren't purposely putting words into my mouth.

I believe we are at a point of impasse. I'm not going to waste more time by restating what I have already said, and you are going to continue finding reasons to dislike the movie. We'll leave it at that between the two of us and move on. At least, I will. It is your choice whether you wish to do so or not, because we are getting nowhere.

J.

 

[Disillusioned]

I believe we are at a point of impasse. I'm not going to waste more time by restating what I have already said, and you are going to continue finding reasons to dislike the movie.

No, actually I don't have to keep finding reasons because I know all the reasons I don't like this movie. Are you some how suggesting I'm making these reasons up? Because I'm not.

We'll leave it at that between the two of us and move on. At least, I will. It is your choice whether you wish to do so or not, because we are getting nowhere.

Whatever...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You can argue against a supposed rehash of something that hasn't actually been seen before yet (as in an actual origin story for the crew), but considering the audience, that wouldn't have been a bad idea. Half of them would love nothing else than to see TOS on the big screen. The other half wouldn't know any better and would just be looking for a good movie. There's no reason keeping this an actual TOS movie couldn't have fit the bill for both halves.

Except it WAS an actual TOS movie. I went to see it the first second and third time with three different groups of people, most of whom weren't even born yet when TOS went off the air and have never seriously watched it. The others--close family members--have always been trekkies, and half of THEM barely even noticed that the Enterprise looked different. Except my mother, with her professorial attention to detail, immediately exclaimed on seeing the ship for the first time, "Aw, that's cool!"

Methinks you're projecting your own attitudes on Trek a little too far. It's obvious right now that the AUDIENCES thought they were watching a Star Trek movie. The producers thought they were making a Star Trek movie. Everyone I know who is right now salivating in anticipation of the DVD release thinks they're going to buy a Star Trek movie.

Maybe they know something you don't?

Financial success does not signify quality.

It sure as hell doesn't signify a lack of it. And more to the point: it definitely signifies that alot more people liked than disliked the movie.

And yet it's still the same mountain. This movie is more analogous to going to a different mountain altogether.

If nobody told you you were on the same mountain, you probably wouldn't realize it if you started climbing it from the opposite side.

Of course, the analogy falls apart where one insists that only that which looks exactly like TOS a la 1960s (but cleaned up somehow, whatever that would look like) is "really" TOS. It's an attitude peculiar to Star Trek that only a handful of trekkies actually share. It has already been made clear, both by the movie's reception and the overall reaction by existing fans, that MOST people have accepted it as a redress of the original. Since there aren't a whole lot of reasons not to do so, it's kind of a silly argument on its face.

All those things are different from the originals in this movie.

Only to the extent that they were different in ALL THE OTHER movies. Otherwise, it still tastes like Star Trek to me and a few million other people.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

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.

So the people who saw it and like it are irrelelvent? So the 95% of reviewers who gave it positive reviews are irrelevent? If 95% of reviewers like a movie, and it does better in the box office than any other film in it's respective franchise, it has no bearing on quality? None at all? My OWN OPINION is that it is a good movie. the MAJORITY OPINION is that it is a good movie. And yet, it is somehow "bad" because YOU say so, but it is not good when MOST OTHERS say so. In other words, your personal opinion is of greater importance than the 95% who disagree with you.

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.

Actually, as a matter of fact, I CAN. Simply because most reviewers generally represent most viewers. So statistically speaking, if we take the reviews as a logical extention of the general viewing public, and we take box office income as an indication of approval, then my point is valid.

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.

If I remember correctly, the first review posted was from someone who's reviews generally did not tally with the majority, and he was known for it from elsewhere. Regardless, the majority of the reviews cannot be dismissed because of some nutballs responding on one negative review. If anything, those responses reflect a passionate love of the movie, and help bolster my point that the majority of people loved it.

Now, if you want to be with the 5% minority of reviewers who don't like the film, feel free. But by the facts provided, this movie is both a critical and financial success.

Ergo, it is logical to state that it is a good movie.

Error: logic does not follow. Popularity does not equate to quality.

Popularity does not EQUAL quality, but combined with the overwhelmingly positive reviews, it does INDICATE quality. Or are 95% of reviewers kissing JJ's rear? Or lying about their opinions? Or, shock-horror, comming to a different concensus opinion than yours, INDICATING THAT THIS IS A QUALITY MOVIE ?!?

EDIT: It should be noted that both Critical AND Box Office success combined IS a vindication.

No it isn't. Your opinion is your opinion and shouldn't need any validation or vindication from an appeal to popularity.

It doesn't. Perhaps my opinion is in line with the majority, indicating that either 95% of reviewers and all those millions who loved the movie are stupid with no taste, or you may actually be making an error in judgement.

In either case, we are both correct in one respect: we are stating our opinions. As such, they are subjective, but the MAJORITY believe this is a good movie.

If that is important for democracy and government, should it be dismissed when judging this movie?

 

[Disillusioned]

Except it WAS an actual TOS movie.

No it wasn't. It was a reboot.

I went to see it the first second and third time with three different groups of people, most of whom weren't even born yet when TOS went off the air and have never seriously watched it.

It was off their air before I was born, but I still managed to watch it. The ironic part is that I don't even particularly like TOS.

The others--close family members--have always been trekkies, and half of THEM barely even noticed that the Enterprise looked different. Except my mother, with her professorial attention to detail, immediately exclaimed on seeing the ship for the first time, "Aw, that's cool!"

Really? Because my parents weren't even serious fans and even they noticed. Mom liked it but Dad hated it. There's no accounting for taste. Mom's an English teacher and Dad's an Ag. Ed. teacher, which really doesn't matter except you made a point of trying to say your mother only noticed because she has a professional level of attention to detail. I hate to say it, but unless you're the kind of person who would mistake a bison for a cow you should notice the differences between the original and the remake.

Methinks you're projecting your own attitudes on Trek a little too far. It's obvious right now that the AUDIENCES thought they were watching a Star Trek movie.

I'm pretty sure they thought they were watching a movie, which had action and explosions. Oh, and some guy named Kirk and another one named Spock, and they were on a ship named Enterprise, so I guess to someone who doesn't know any better they might think that meant they were watching Star Trek. I'm betting they cared more about the action and explosions though.

The producers thought they were making a Star Trek movie.

Actually according to JJ Abrams he was making a movie for people who like movies, not Star Trek fans.

Everyone I know who is right now salivating in anticipation of the DVD release thinks they're going to buy a Star Trek movie.

I think I know one guy personally who's planning on getting this movie. The rest of my friends sort of like it, but are able to make fun of it right along with me. Of course we get together every weekend and watch horrible movies to make fun of, too. Something we started doing as a result of being MST3K fans. Speaking of, whenever we watch "Space Mutiny" again we get an extra laugh from the comment about, "they must have filmed this in a brewery."

Maybe they know something you don't?

Or maybe I know something they don't?

It sure as hell doesn't signify a lack of it. And more to the point: it definitely signifies that alot more people liked than disliked the movie.

No, it doesn't speak to quality at all, it just means people went to go see it. Take for example "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." This movie is immensely popular and technically its run in theaters has never ended. having actually seen the movie, I can see why it's popular, but it really isn't all that good, and it would probably suck to watch that movie by yourself.

If nobody told you you were on the same mountain, you probably wouldn't realize it if you started climbing it from the opposite side.

That makes no sense.

Of course, the analogy falls apart where one insists that only that which looks exactly like TOS a la 1960s (but cleaned up somehow, whatever that would look like) is "really" TOS.

You kind of contradicted yourself there. If everything was updated without being completely redesigned it would still not look exactly as it did in the '60s.

It's an attitude peculiar to Star Trek that only a handful of trekkies actually share.

Not really. Sticking with TV shows the BSG fans tend to be the same way. There are Star Wars fans who hated the prequels for the same kind of things, too. There were also people upset when the movies based on comic books or video games didn't have more than a passing resemblance to what they were based on, too. And then there are people who are fans of books like "Starship Troopers" and "I, Robot" who were upset when those movies didn't have much resemblance to the original stories, too. Nerds come in many different varieties.

It has already been made clear, both by the movie's reception and the overall reaction by existing fans, that MOST people have accepted it as a redress of the original.

And you base this on what, exactly? Oh, and I love how people keep saying "most people" like it actually means anything.

Since there aren't a whole lot of reasons not to do so, it's kind of a silly argument on its face.

No, the really silly argument is that since this movie is popular that makes it good even though it's just an average action sci-fi popcorn flick. I'd even compare it to the second "Aliens vs. Predator" movie simply because of its propensity for setting itself up to parrot iconic quotes from the original series and its movies. If you or anyone else thinks that's good, I'm afraid I have to disagree, and no amount of appealing to populism is going to make me see a bad movie as good.

Only to the extent that they were different in ALL THE OTHER movies. Otherwise, it still tastes like Star Trek to me and a few million other people.

No, it just sounds like it because the names are the same. i wonder how many of those people were wondering where Captain Picard and Darth Vader where.

 

[Tom Servo]

Well the point was if the film was going to bring in the die hards, it would have failed.

The point was that it was SUPPOSED to bring people into the theater who were wondering where Captain Picard and Darth Vader were. That was the point. It needed to appeal to the general public, not just fans.

You are in the minority of those who viewed the film. Most people thought it was good to very good, even great.

 

[Disillusioned]

So the people who saw it and like it are irrelelvent?

They are as relevant as anyone else.

So the 95% of reviewers who gave it positive reviews are irrelevent?

the 95% of reviewers on Rottontomatoes are also only as relevant as anyone else.

If 95% of reviewers like a movie, and it does better in the box office than any other film in it's respective franchise, it has no bearing on quality? None at all?

Nope.

My OWN OPINION is that it is a good movie.

And that opinion is as valid as mine.

the MAJORITY OPINION is that it is a good movie.

There's that word again. Too bad that doesn't mean this is a good movie.

And yet, it is somehow "bad" because YOU say so,

No, it's bad because it's bad.

but it is not good when MOST OTHERS say so. In other words, your personal opinion is of greater importance than the 95% who disagree with you.

You really ought to think about what you said there.

Actually, as a matter of fact, I CAN. Simply because most reviewers generally represent most viewers. So statistically speaking, if we take the reviews as a logical extention of the general viewing public, and we take box office income as an indication of approval, then my point is valid.

Actually, no, it isn't because you can't account for everyone who didn't actually watch this movie. You can take sample data and compare it to sample data from other movies, but you still can't say that the majority of people like this movie. Sorry, but statistics doesn't work that way. Not that any of that actually matters when it comes to this movie being good or not.

If I remember correctly, the first review posted was from someone who's reviews generally did not tally with the majority, and he was known for it from elsewhere. Regardless, the majority of the reviews cannot be dismissed because of some nutballs responding on one negative review. If anything, those responses reflect a passionate love of the movie, and help bolster my point that the majority of people loved it.

No it just means a bunch of people thought this movie was so perfect that it was completely above any criticism, which a completely irrational.

Popularity does not EQUAL quality, but combined with the overwhelmingly positive reviews, it does INDICATE quality.

Not really, no.

Or are 95% of reviewers kissing JJ's rear?

Could be. After all, how many people were going through and trying to find all the little easter eggs from his other work? I honestly don't know or care though because that has nothing to do with this movie being good or not.

Or lying about their opinions?

Why would anyone do that?

Or, shock-horror, comming to a different concensus opinion than yours, INDICATING THAT THIS IS A QUALITY MOVIE ?!?

Their opinion is no more valid than mine, sorry.

It doesn't.

So tell me why you think this was a good movie without yelling or trying to say that just because other people liked this movie it was good.

In either case, we are both correct in one respect: we are stating our opinions.

Exactly.

As such, they are subjective, but the MAJORITY believe this is a good movie.

So?

If that is important for democracy and government, should it be dismissed when judging this movie?

If the majority thought that slavery was an awesome idea, would that mean that it wasn't a horrible idea?

 

[Disillusioned]

Well the point was if the film was going to bring in the die hards, it would have failed.

Maybe, maybe not. We won't know now because that movie wasn't made, this one was.

The point was that it was SUPPOSED to bring people into the theater who were wondering where Captain Picard and Darth Vader were. That was the point. It needed to appeal to the general public, not just fans.

And it could have done that without completely changing everything, too. And just think of how much more money it could have made if it had appealed to fans like me at the same time?

You are in the minority of those who viewed the film.

So?

Most people thought it was good to very good, even great.

Based on what? Even the critics that say it was pretty good aren't saying it was great. And either way, why should I care what they think when what I clearly saw was a horrible movie. I should know, after all I watch plenty of horrible movies.

 

[Tom Servo]

Well the point was if the film was going to bring in the die hards, it would have failed.

Maybe, maybe not. We won't know now because that movie wasn't made, this one was.

The point was that it was SUPPOSED to bring people into the theater who were wondering where Captain Picard and Darth Vader were. That was the point. It needed to appeal to the general public, not just fans.

And it could have done that without completely changing everything, too. And just think of how much more money it could have made if it had appealed to fans like me at the same time?

You are in the minority of those who viewed the film.

So?

Most people thought it was good to very good, even great.

Based on what? Even the critics that say it was pretty good aren't saying it was great. And either way, why should I care what they think when what I clearly saw was a horrible movie. I should know, after all I watch plenty of horrible movies.

I think the movie did just fine without you. Im sure Paramount is quite happy with the returns, even enough to green light a sequel.

In your opinion, it was a horrible movie...in your opinion. The general consensus, the opinion of the public, was that it's a good movie, therefore, in the court of general public opinion, it's a good movie. Thats how movies are judged. There is no other way, except in the court of public opinion, because people are the ones who are viewing this film.

You can say the movie is terrible all you want, thats fine. But to those that matter, the people at Paramount, they are listening to the majority, who say they want more, and they are getting it.

 

[Disillusioned]

I think the movie did just fine without you. Im sure Paramount is quite happy with the returns, even enough to green light a sequel.

So? Even "Blood Rayne" got a sequel.

In your opinion, it was a horrible movie...in your opinion.

Yup.

The general consensus, the opinion of the public, was that it's a good movie, therefore, in the court of general public opinion, it's a good movie.

No, in your opinion and in the opinion of others it was a good movie. These opinions are just as valid as mine since you saw a good movie and I saw a bad one even though we were watching the same movie.

Thats how movies are judged. There is no other way, except in the court of public opinion, because people are the ones who are viewing this film.

Actually there's this thing called critical analysis that can be done on any book, movie, song, or radio show.

You can say the movie is terrible all you want, thats fine. But to those that matter, the people at Paramount, they are listening to the majority, who say they want more, and they are getting it.

They're listening to dollar signs and they are going to make another movie in the hopes of getting even more money. that doesn't make this movie any good. That doesn't mean the next one is going to be any good either, but no one will really be able to say until the movie is out.

 

[ST-One]

Except it WAS an actual TOS movie.

No it wasn't. It was a reboot.

It was set in the period of The Original Series (well, a short time before that actually, but still).
It had James Kirk, Mr. Spock and Dr. McCoy in it... so, yes, this was very much a TOS-movie.

 

[ST-One]

[While an aircraft carrier might still look roughly like they looked in the 60s, our views of how the future may look like have changed dramatically.
What looked new and futuristic 40 years ago just doesn't look so futuristic today anymore.
And that includes Matt Jefferies design for the original Enterprise.

What, so making it look '50s retro-futuristic is somehow an improvement on that then? Come on, that argument about the ship's design has never made sense given what it actually looks like.

If the design actually were '50s retro-futuristic' then you'd have a point.

 

[Disillusioned]

It was set in the period of The Original Series (well, a short time before that actually, but still).
It had James Kirk, Mr. Spock and Dr. McCoy in it... so, yes, this was very much a TOS-movie.

No, it was just a reboot.

If the design actually were '50s retro-futuristic' then you'd have a point.

Cool, because it is. Ever see a '50s vintage car?

 

[ST-One]

It was set in the period of The Original Series (well, a short time before that actually, but still).
It had James Kirk, Mr. Spock and Dr. McCoy in it... so, yes, this was very much a TOS-movie.

No, it was just a reboot.

Set in the time frame of TOS

If the design actually were '50s retro-futuristic' then you'd have a point.

Cool, because it is. Ever see a '50s vintage car?

Yes, there is, at the very best, only a passing resemblance if any at all.

 

[Disillusioned]

Set in the time frame of TOS

But still just a reboot.

Yes, there is, at the very best, only a passing resemblance if any at all.

Right, that's why the front of the nacelles look pretty much like the headlight area on a '55 Ford, not to mention the tail fins baby. The pylons and interconnecting hull both are consistent with what would have been used to hold a mirror or as an emblem, too. I can actually almost see the saucer section as one of the old school round mirrors.

 

[Broccoli]

The new Enterprise was the suck because it didn't have its transmorphic shielding and wasn't armed with multi-phasic torpedoes! Also the phasers didn't fire in a straight line like they SHOULD! Every true star trek fan knows that! The movie owed us to explain, in detail, how everything should WORK!!!!!11!!!one!!

 

[OneBuckFilms]

It is a reboot with a twist: it is designed, story-wise, to be the result of an alternate reality sourced in the greater Star Trek universe previously portrayed.

A reboot? Yes. But within continuity.

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

They're listening to dollar signs and they are going to make another movie in the hopes of getting even more money. that doesn't make this movie any good. That doesn't mean the next one is going to be any good either, but no one will really be able to say until the movie is out.

Of coarse money doesn't always translate into critical success or quality, look at Revenge of the Fallen, but in this case this movie gained exactly that; critical success, and I believe that it was a quality film, the performances were of great quality, well done indeed, the special effects weren't the type to make you say "oh what a nice CG effect", IE they didn't take me out of the film but instead fulfilled their purpose and therefore were of quality, and the story itself had great emotional depth and was a good drama. This film in many peoples opinions was a quality film, although you may not have thought so in this case you are in a minority, which is just fine, there is nothing necessarily wrong with your particular taste, it is what it is, but don't make these grand statements declaring the film to be garbage because that would be the wrong thing to do, you a Trekkie for heavens sake, act like it, you should know better!

 

[Broccoli]

Set in the time frame of TOS

But still just a reboot.

Do you know what "reboot" means? A "reboot" is anytime something gets started up again.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a reboot.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was a reboot.
To an extent, Star Trek: The Next Generation and subsequent spin-offs were reboots.

Every time there is a new James Bond actor, there is a reboot.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Set in the time frame of TOS

But still just a reboot.

Do you know what "reboot" means? A "reboot" is anytime something gets started up again.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a reboot.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was a reboot.
To an extent, Star Trek: The Next Generation and subsequent spin-offs were reboots.

Every time there is a new James Bond actor, there is a reboot.

That's not what "reboot" means in terms of fictional works. You can't draw a 1:1 relationship between computer-ese terminology and this.

A better "computer-ese" term might be "reinstalling Windows from scratch."

It's widely accepted that a "reboot" means dropping off everything but the central ideas (or rather, what the people doing the reboot believe are the central ideas) but tossing out anything which they don't care for, or believe is "non-beneficial."

The problem lies with this - who gets to determine which parts are thrown away? And what parts get thrown away?

Most of the time, the concept is to make it recognizable (sometimes, as with the "Lost in Space" movie, they didn't even bother to do that) while removing bits which the people behind the "reboot" think don't work.

The danger in doing that with a popular fictional universe which has gained a nearly mythic position in the minds of society (I'd say more people know more about Star Trek than, say, know about the Illiad, for example), you're risking alienating audiences by throwing away elements which they LIKE, and which (to them) are central to the experience.

That's what's happened here, IMHO. Elements were thrown away, which shouldn't have been, and NEEDN'T have been. There was no real reason to make many, many of the changes we saw here, except (as has been repeated) an evident lack of respect for the source material.

To me, the "look" of things matter... a lot... but that's all set-dressing, and had the movie been tremendously well-written I could have accepted that as part and parcel of the "alternate reality" bit.

The change in appearance of the Enterprise, in and of itself, can be justified as "alternative reality." Sure. But the NATURE of the changes... using details from the TMP model, which look EXACTLY like those features, but are functionally unrelated to those features (see phasers on the Enterprise, just for example). I'd have liked it better if they'd left off the "TMP-ish details" COMPLETELY, rathar than having them there but ignoring WHY they were there. "Style versus substance" is how I describe that mindset.

And that's how I describe this entire movie. It was style over substance, and the style wasn't a style I liked, so it fails in BOTH categories as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, there were "ticket-punch" moments of recognizable "Trek-geek throwaways" but seriously, guys... imagine if this movie wasn't a Trek movie at all. Imagine that you were watching some this movie but it ENTIRELY lacked the Trekkish elements (which were few). Change the uniforms. Change the names of the characters. Change the exterior of the ship even more, so that it doesn't even MARGINALLY resemble the TOS ship. Would any of that really, truly have changed the movie at all, as far as your ability to enjoy it was concerned?

If the answer is "yes," then what you're saying is that you were pandered to as a fanboy, and only a subset of "fanboys" no less, and the movie really wasn't effectively focused on the non-fans (as the common claim seems to be).

If the answer is "no"... if you'd have enjoyed it just as much without any of the "TOS-ish" elements that were sprinkled in throughout... then, what was the point of using those TOS-ish elements at all? If the creators really wanted to make a new story with new characters in a new setting where you can do whatever you want(which is the whole argument that's being made, over and over, after all)
, why not just be honest about it and actually do so?

Again... this film was a "changeling." It's supposed to initially fool us into thinking that it's "TOS," but it's not.