Cary,
First, I find that the writing was very well done, especially in the context of what they were trying to do.
Second, the Enterprise, while sleeker, actually still has the same FUNCTIONAL design as other incarnations.
Phasers LOOK different, but they do what they have always done: project beams of Nadion particles to slice and burn opposing vessels or ordinance.
Obviously, you didn't read what I said. You just skimmed it and took a few key words and filled the rest in, in your imagination.
Look at the TMP Enterprise, specifically the top and bottom of the primary hull. There are three pairs of little silver spherical elements, at 90, 0, and 270 degrees, top and bottom. They are surrounded with a little mustard-yellow patch with a thin red outline.
In the TMP ship, those are the phasers.
In the ST'09 ship, those same details are present. But the phasers fire from a series of little pop-up turrets, not from these features.
THAT IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. I never said one word about the appearance of the special visual effect intended to represent the beam, did I? You "filled in the blank" without reading what was actually said.
It's generally a good idea to pay attention to what's being said, and if you don't fully understand, either ask or study before you try to counter the point.
The "features" were kept, but purely for visual appearance, not for functionality. That is what I said. That is what I meant.
Oh, and by the way... "nadion particles?" Are you sure? Or are you applying your TNG-era preconceptions to this film? I don't seem to recall the term "nadion" being used at any point in this film. And if they can change other things, don't you think that it's a little... presumptuous... to assume that other things which YOU carry around as part of your own personal "Trek canon" have been retained?
As far as we know, in this movie, the "phasers" have nothing at all in common with the TOS, or TNG, era phasers we know except for the names. They certainly don't behave especially similarly to what we've seen before, do they?
Engineering is still in the secondary hull, the Bridge is still on top of the Primary hull. Functionally, nothing has changed. It is simply a different stylistic take on the SAME functionality. So I'd say that the FUNCTIONAL changes you quote are plain incorrect.
Really? Having the same broad general shape, with two elements in the same general vincinity as another ship had them, qualifies as "no functional changes?"
Again, you failed to properly comprehend the point I'd made (about features in the ship model LOOKING LIKE elements from the TMP model but without regard for what the function of those elements was intended to be, and in a fair number of cases which were established on-screen).
What I said was that I'd rather that they had omitted those TMP-copied feature entirely, rather than including them purely for appearance while ignoring the reason that they were there in the first place on the TMP ship. Andrew Probert and a few others actually thought the 1710(r) out, in pretty significant detail. While much was there for visual appearance, granted, it all at least made some semblence of logical sense.
With this ship, it was all done for appearance... but not even particularly creatively (since "make the saucer look like the TMP saucer" was one of Abrams' requirements for the design team).
When "graphic arts" trumps "practical design" the production suffers, IMHO.
The simple fact is, in a nutshell, is that you don't like the Enterprise because you don't like the movie. You said so yourself:
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.
Why is is that everyone who takes the "you're not allowed to fail to orgasm from this film" folks seem to want to tell people what they REALLY MEAN?
Do you have any idea how OBNOXIOUS it is for you to tell me what I "really mean?" Even if you weren't totally full of shit on the subject, I mean, it would still be unacceptable.
Funny, you quote something that clearly says "A" and you somehow manage to "interpret" it to mean the exact opposite of what is said. Because you're so smart, right?
Let me be blunt, in case you're really just having major reading-comprehension issues, though. I didn't care for the "set dressing" design of the movie, but could have accepted the movie anyway if the movie had been outstandingly well written and produced.
Why is it that the converse... that they could have given me a movie with "perfect" set dressing, but with a horrible script and production, I might not have liked that either... is so hard for you to grasp?
There are two issues here... "set dressing" and "storytelling." They interrelate, but they are not the same thing.
In the case of this movie, I didn't care for either aspect. For me to have LOVED the movie, I'd have had to have loved both sides of the production.
And going back to this:
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.
There was a LOT of respect for the source material, ESPECIALLY by the writers, who are themselves die-hard fans. One can argue flaws, but not disrespect.
And you can say that, with absolute certainty, this was the case, because you were there... AND because you have psychic powers (which you previously used to read MY "real intentions" obviously!).
You may think that there was "a lot of respect for the source material" but I disagree. I think that what we saw was a series of "toss-off" surface-type things to pander to the fans, who were being underestimated at every turn.
My favorite example of this was the portrayal of McCoy. Now, I think the casting of Carl Urban was inspired, and I think he did an outstanding job. However, the character was used, in the film, mainly to toss out a few "for a laugh" lines. McCoy should have been a MAJOR PLAYER in the storyline, not someone used to get a nostalgic laugh by calling Spock a "hobgoblin."
(Oh, and "Bones" was a nickname given to McCoy by Kirk because McCoy liked to call himself an "old country doctor," and Kirk carried it a step further by calling him "sawbones" and, shortened, Bones. Yes, that's not something the average viewer would have known... but not knowing that does tend to put to the lie the claim that the writers were "major fans with massive amounts of knowledge.")
The entire reason behind the Alternate Reality, and the reason this movie was even CONSIDERED by the writers, was out of a love for the source material. There is a REASON they were terrified at first when they were asked.
Again, I'm glad you have that amazing psychic ability which somehow trumps everything else.
Bob Orci read a couple of Trek novels... the other guys hadn't even watched the original series. Just because someone says "I'm the fan of the group" in repeated magazine-article interviews doesn't mean anything, except that he knows a little bit more than the rest of the team (who were quite vocal about having never even watched the original show in some cases... and that includes Abrams who BRAGGED about that.)
As to your question:
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?
You stated this:
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?
This is putting words and thoughts into our heads, and a Yes or No simply do not mean what you assume.
No, it's logic. Either the setting, characterizations, and details really matter, or they don't really matter.
If they DO matter... major deviations are problems.
If they don't matter... why use them, except to draw in audiences who are familiar with these things and expect to see things as they already know them?
That's not "putting thoughts into your head." It's simple logic. If you have other thoughts in your head, well, then those thoughts may be there, but I'd argue that they're not logical. Which, really, was the point of my making this statement in the first place. To demonstrate the illogic of claiming that
"It matters, but it also doesn't matter... depending on my feelings at any given instant."
If No, then it could ALSO be construed that it was a uniquely Star Trek centered idea, and possibly acknowledges a dependence on Star Trek canon to work as a movie.
Which isn't the case here. This movie isn't dependent on "Star Trek canon" and even referring to "canon" is in direct contradiction to the argument most commonly used to abuse folks who didn't care for the film... that "canon" needs to be thrown out because it restrains storytelling creativity.
Again... you either need "canon" or you don't need it.
If Yes, it would indicate that the movie WAS well written enough to stand alone, and that a good story, well told, was being done within the Star Trek framework.
And you, personally, think that this was a good story, well-told.
That's fine. You, and everyone else, is permitted to feel however they wish.
And that includes me. That you seem to be offended that I don't like the movie that you've made some sort of emotional commitment to is... odd. I'm not insulting your girlfriend, I'm not sexually abusing your mom, I'm not kicking your dog. I'm talking about my feelings about a movie, and explaining why I didn't like this movie. Sorry if you find dislike for a movie to be personally offensive.
I think it was a story with minimal, shallow characterization, hackneyed, cliche-ridden, storytelling, an excessive emphasis on "action sequences" which make very little logical sense, storytelling events which reflect little grasp on reality
I'm sorry, "Cadet (O-0) to Captain (O-6) in three days" is simply STUPID. No matter how much raw talent a junior officer may have, there is a reason that promotions take time... but then again, Abrams is a "hollywood connected wunderkind" who's been given legs-up at every opportunity and never had to pay "dues" and thus has no conception of some of the concepts that you can only learn with time and experience. Kirk, in TOS, got the Enterprise at approximately 34 years of age, and would have been a cadet at the age of 18 or so. It's entirely conceivable that you could go from cadet at 18 to academy graduate at 22 (as an ensign, O-1) and in twelve years of exemplary service end up promoted to Captain, having gone through every rank in-between in the process (Lieutenant JG, O-2, Lieutenant, O-3, Lieutenant Commander, O-4, Commander, O-5, then Captain, O-6), having served UNDER OTHER COMMANDERS (something nuKirk has never done, has he?), and had lower-level command positions (department head, and then First Officer, typically). Most likely, he would have had a command of a smaller vessel before being given command of the most powerful ship in the fleet. SEASONING takes time, regardless of "raw ability."
For me, it is a bit of both. It would have worked as a story and as a movie without the Star Trek setting, but the Star Trek portion of the story adds greater meaning to proceedings.
As an origin story, it concerns characters that are known and cared about outside of the movie itself.
But that's part of why I feel this movie was poorly written. These were NOT the characters I've known for 44 years. Spock would never have engaged in an illicit affair with a subordinate. Nor would he have given in to "affair blackmail" to give this subordinate a better assignment than she'd been given originally. THAT Spock would have made the logical choice, for the logical reason, without regard to emotion. Nor would he have been a "smart ass" with the Vulcan Science Counsel. Nor would he have tossed ANY crewmember out of the airlock into a potentially deadly situation (aren't there BRIGS on this ship???) No, this wasn't the Spock I first "met" 44 years ago.
This Kirk wasn't the same Kirk, either. That Kirk was serious, driven, charismatic, and able to charm anyone, and absolutely self-reliant. On the other hand, THIS Kirk was someone who got lucky and got "special privileges" handed to him left and right because of nepotism, and when he DID "cheat" on an exam, wasn't an officer making a point, he was a cocky frat-boy smugly lording his "smartiness" over everyone. He should have been cashiered, and in anything remotely "real" would have been.
Vulcan being destroyed has greater impact BECAUSE we as Trek fans care, though we still feel for Spock without knowing that.
It has no impact, because it was a "stunt." That's how I see it. In this movie, blowing up Vulcan was a pandering attempt to get cheap emotional reactions from the audience without having to EARN those emotion reactions through actual storytelling.
For me... seeing this simply reminded me that this isn't Star Trek, it's Abrams' egotism and (as far as I'm concerned) "cheating" and riding on the back of other, more talented artists.
We care whan happens to the crew of the enterprise EVEN MORE because it is a Star Trek movie, though it works WITHOUT it being a Star Trek movie.
"We" do?
YOU may. "We" don't.
These aren't the same characters. They may look similar, but there is no depth to them, and they are fundamentally different on virtually every MEANINGFUL level.
This has nothing to do with the actors playing the roles. It has everything to do with the writing, and the directing. These aren't the same characters. They're entirely new characters who share only a few surface traits with the TOS characters. And I don't care... at all... about what happens to these new characters. So if Abrams decides to kill a major character in the next film (and I strongly expect that to happen), I will care about that no more than I cared about seeing "Vulcan" destroyed in this film. It may be a cool special effect, but it has no impact except to show that Abrams is saying "Screw you, I'm in charge now, so suck it up."
Whether you like the movie or not, it was a critical and financial success, was loved by Star Trek fans and non-fans alike, and has generally been accepted as being a good movie.
I'm curious if you think you can point out anyplace where I disputed... even one time... that this movie would be (as I've always said) a "moderate success." It's not a blockbuster on the same level of some other movies we've seen in recent years, but it was a box-office success... it made money and got passable reviews.
But "was loved by Star Trek fans and non-fans alike?" I'm sure that you can say the same about brussell sprouts. Unless you think you're making a BLANKET statement about "all fans" or "most fans" or similarly, most or all non-fans, in which case you'd be totally full of shit.
Some people liked it. Some didn't. I don't know anyone who "loved" this movie. "The Hangover" got better word-of-mouth reviews than this movie did in my experience, meaning "The Hangover" was a better movie as far as I'm concerned.
This movie was touted as a "blockbuster" and it got enough attention as such that people went to see it, and for the most part enjoyed it as a "popcorn movie." Which is fine.
But it's not great enough to justify attacking people who think that the Emperor's new suit is a bit sparse on the fabric...
This is the truth. Plain. Simple. Indisputable. Unchangeable.
Thank you, Moses. Get that from the burning bush, didya?
Gotta love it when people insist that you have to accept their position on an entirely opinion-related topic because it's "indisputable."
So go ahead and dislike the movie, it is your right, but be aware that you have a minority opinion of the movie.
In this forum, I'm well aware of that.
I'm more curious, now, why you feel so passionate about attacking those in this supposed "minority" and telling us that we shouldn't feel about this movie as we do.
I'm curious... do you apply the same "agree with everything I've ever thought!" perspective to other aspects of your life?
I've stated why I didn't care for the movie. Do you actually think that your "argument" as convinced me that I'm wrong about how I see it?
Oh, and by the way, I type fast... and I'm treating this exchange as an amusement. I'm by no means "emotionally involved" in this. I simply find it amusing that some folks, in this thread, feel it's either (a) necessary, or (b) really, really fun, to attack those who don't have sticky pants-legs from this movie.
