Have those who disliked the Abramsprise finally accepted design?

[OneBuckFilms]

Cary,

Here are my basic points:

- The majority do noy believe this movie is a bad movie, and the blanket statement that it is flies in the fact of majority opinion.
- The assertion that it is IN FACT a bad movie is arrogant and prevalent among the film's detractors.
- The implication among some that the movie is bad somehow implies superiority is also arrogant.

It should be noted that typing fast does not mean you are emotionally detached, especially since you keep repeating, in way too many words, that 95% of reviewers do not statistically matter when judging the movie.

Basic facts:

- I loved the movie.
- You didn't.
- Both of our viewpoints are equally valid, leading to an impasse when deciding whether the movie is good.
- To resolve the impasse between both sides, democracy can make a determination based on majority opinion.
- Majority opinion can only be established by looking at relative box office receipts and the majority of critical and anecdotal opinion.
- On that basis, I assert that this is a good movie.
- You have yet to provide evidence that my assessment of majority opinion is false or grossly misleading.

Personally, I enjoy a good debate

 

[Devon]

Delete please.

 

[Kirk1980]

One Buck....

"Basic facts:

- I loved the movie.
- You didn't.
- Both of our viewpoints are equally valid, leading to an impasse when deciding whether the movie is good.
- To resolve the impasse between both sides, democracy can make a determination based on majority opinion.
- Majority opinion can only be established by looking at relative box office receipts and the majority of critical and anecdotal opinion.
- On that basis, I assert that this is a good movie.
- You have yet to provide evidence that my assessment of majority opinion is false or grossly misleading."

You were going strong until you started talking majority.

Nothing a majority says invalidates the minority's personal opinion, ESPECIALLY in regards to artistic merit. Art is ENTIRELY in the eye of the beholder.

Lots of people think Jane Austen's brilliant but I think she's boring as all get out. It doesn't make the MAJORITY who think she's brilliant wrong because I don't enjoy her writing...but NEITHER does it make ME wrong because I don't enjoy her writing.

That's ART. Film is ART.

You want me, as someone who did not enjoy this movie to admit it was a commercial and critical success? Not a problem.

But my opinion, my feelings are such that I feel it failed me as a film. THAT should be just as valid an opinion.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

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.

I only saw turrets on the Kelvin.

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.

Granted. But the phasers were not FUNCTIONALLY changed. In fact, those balls were Turrets in an enclosed style, and the phasers actually came from those points, if one looks carefully.

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.

Granted.

The "features" were kept, but purely for visual appearance, not for functionality. That is what I said. That is what I meant.

Incorrect. See above.

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?

Not in the movie itself, but the unofficial Intel site pointed to the Kelvin's turrets, explaining the principal, and nothing in the movie contradicted this.

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?

Launched as beams from set points towards targets. Look like phasers to me. Did the same things.

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?"

Actually, it says nothing either way.

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).

Incorrect. Look closely during the scenes where the Enterprise fired her phasers.

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.

They were there in TMP because they looked functional, and defined a source for the phaser beams.

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).

Actually, those details were to make things visually recognizable, and I see no evidence that any of them performed different functions.

When "graphic arts" trumps "practical design" the production suffers, IMHO.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?

I can only speak for myself. I enjoyed the film, and saw nothing function contrary to the other movies or TOS.

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.

So prove to me that the phasers are coming from another location.

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?

Still waiting.

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.

Which I believe it was. We disagree.

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?

Actually, under those circumstances, the film would have bombed both critically and financially. Hence the changes. We agree on the obvious here.

There are two issues here... "set dressing" and "storytelling." They interrelate, but they are not the same thing.

We agree here too.

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 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!).

I never claimed to be telepathic.

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.

I have seen a mountain of interviews and anecdodal evidence to the contrary.

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."

He aslo was portrayed as a friend to Jim Kirk, and his arguments with Spock were also relevent commentary on the situation. Kirk and Spock were, by necessity, the focus of the movie.

(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.")Again, I'm glad you have that amazing psychic ability which somehow trumps everything else.

Tell me exactly which episode of TOS this was established. Who said that on screen?

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.)No, it's logic. Either the setting, characterizations, and details really matter, or they don't really matter.

Actually, that is incorrect. Orci and Kurtzman were hardcore TNG fans, though they also loved TOS. They were also AVID readers of written Trek fiction. JJ Abrams was aware, and got up to speed, but he didn't write the movie. Orci and Kurtzman did.

If they DO matter... major deviations are problems.

Alternate Reality allowed for the changes in the same manner as the TMP Refit allowed the Enterprise to completely change.

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?

The writers had to balance Star Trek continuity with introducing Star Trek to an uneducated audience. To make a movie that worked as a movie, they made the changes they made. They often contacted fans for their opinions on things, so they didn't work in a vacuum.

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."
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.

Lets see: Old Spock remembering Kirk's other reality, The origins of both Old Spock and the Narada. Critical to the story on an emotional and plot level, and obviously the deliberate intent of the writers. Google/Bing for interviews. TrekMovie.com has some good ones.

Again... you either need "canon" or you don't need it.And you, personally, think that this was a good story, well-told.

Yes. Canon is not needed to enjoy the story, but it is an essential part of the plot.

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 feel no offence.

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

It is not a reality-based picture, the characterizations were as deep as an action/adventure origin story should be, the action sequences were well executed and fun, and the drama was far more emotional than Star Trek has been before. The reality you wish for it to reflect is a little vague here.

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."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.

The Spock you met was from 2266, not 2258, and had already found his balance. The Uhura romance was hinted at as a potential early in the series, but was not followed up on, and after the destruction of Vulcan and the death of his mother and most of his people, he was "emotionally compromized." Even Vulcans flip out.

Kirk's rise was a necessary conceit in order to create a 2 hour movie that did not have 2 year breaks between each of 5 or 6 scenes. It's an adventure franchise, not a biopic, and a movie done in a more pedestrian style would have bombed.

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.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.

Kirk was also older, and had a different past. This kirk was deliberately incomplete, and had to earn his position in the course of the movie.

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" do?

It is Star Trek. Just not to your personal taste.

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." 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.

I know the difference between a debate and an attack.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

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."

Just because something is "widely accepted" does not mean that it is correct.

Anytime a fictional work is trying to start over by whatever means (from a new direction to a complete restart) is considered a reboot. Reboot is a very big blanket term which can be applied to many different things.

But words have to have meaning if they're going to convey meaning.

ST-TMP was not a "reboot." It did not require the viewer to "forget" anything that came before. It was a movie set in the exact same universe with the exact same characters. It was just a few years later, on a different ship (which happened to have the same registry and name but was "an almost totally new Enterprise").

ST-TWOK was not a "reboot." It was in the exact same universe with the exact same characters. Nothing was contradicted.

"Reboot" doesn't mean "another artistic team plays with the existing universe. It means pretty much what I was saying when I said that the closest parallel to what we mean when we use that term is "formatting your hard drive and reinstalling Windows from scratch."

That's not necessarily always a bad thing... if you have a concept which had merit but which ended up being horribly hampered by poor execution, typically. One area which would be ripe for a "reboot" would be Battlestar Galactica (no, not Moore's recent series, I'm talking about the almost entirely unrelated original series). It had a lot of very strong concepts behind it, but there are bits and pieces of it which every last one of us cringes when we see.

The "reimagined" version isn't a "reboot" in that sense, because it's more like reformatting your hard drive and installing Linux instead of Windows. It doesn't really resemble the original at all.

A "reboot" goes back to the initial concepts of the original, but strips away stuff that built up (theoretically "bad stuff") over the years.

This movie was definitely a "reboot" in those terms (though I'd argue that what was stripped away wasn't "bad" in any way whatsoever). It, in theory, strips 44 years or "history" away and lets them start over fresh.

The problem, from my standpoint, is that I LIKE that 44 years of history... hell, even Voyager, which I don't care for, I "like" as part of that whole body of work. I don't want to see it "stripped away." I'd have much rather have seen the origin of the characters we know, rather than "alternate universe" new characters who happen to share a few characteristics with those characters, in a universe which just happens to share a few characteristics with the universe I've been watching for 44 years.

That is a ridiculous argument. You can apply it to any of the previous Star Trek movies.

Not so much. The previous Trek movies were intended to be "of a piece" with all prior Star Trek. Just because they had different writers and directors doesn't change that. If they didn't always succeed in making their work "of a piece" with all the other Trek out there, that's not the same as deciding, intentionally, to make it NOT "of a piece" with the rest. It's a totally different concept.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Cary,

Here are my basic points:

- The majority do noy believe this movie is a bad movie, and the blanket statement that it is flies in the fact of majority opinion.

But, you cannot speak for "the majority." You can only speak for yourself. You can say that you know that "a lot" of people agree with you, and that's reasonable. But unless you have hard statistical data that proves your point, it's unwise to claim that your personal opinion is the same as "absolute fact." ALWAYS.

Besides... what I've stated has been clearly identified as being MY PERSONAL OPINION. You keep positing that somehow the "fact" that your "hypothetical majority" disagrees means that my opinion is "wrong."

Do you not see a problem with that attitude?

- The assertion that it is IN FACT a bad movie is arrogant and prevalent among the film's detractors.

And there you go again... confusing personal opinion with "facts." The only FACTS we're discussing are "what are our opinions." It is a FACT that my opinion on this movie isn't the same as yours.

What is arrogant is presuming that somehow your personal opinion IS "fact" which should be accepted, unquestioningly, by everyone else. That's never good... and when people who hold that sort of attitude find themselves with any amount of power... well... that way lies fascism, doesn't it?

I certainly hope that you either learn this lesson, or that you never find yourself in a situation where you have any power over anyone else.

- The implication among some that the movie is bad somehow implies superiority is also arrogant.

Huh? Would you mind diagramming that sentence? I'm having a hard time figuring out what the heck you're saying, since you have one subject and no less than three verbs, and no objects. SOMETHING is arrogant... but what that is, is impossible to tell from that sentence.

My best guess at what you're saying... and this IS only a guess, since the English is so ... "odd"... is that you think that anyone who claims that the movie isn't as good as you want them to say that it is is inherently arrogant? If so... all I can say is "wow."

Disagreement with you = arrogance. I sure hope that's not what you're saying.

It should be noted that typing fast does not mean you are emotionally detached, especially since you keep repeating, in way too many words, that 95% of reviewers do not statistically matter when judging the movie.

Again, you entirely fail to grasp the meaning of what is written.

I stated that I write fast to point out that I didn't spend hours feverishly slaving over a response to your note. I typed it off in a few minutes, as an amusement. Just as I am with this note.

And again, you attempt to say what I "really mean" (which is something I've never so much as hinted at in any posting, ever). Would you please show me where I said that "reviews do not matter?"

Mind you, in terms of what I like and what I don't like... this is a true statement, and I'll say it for the first time now: Reviews do NOT matter.

I am entirely capable of making up my own mind on what I like and what I don't, regardless of what some "expert" tells me I'm supposed to think or like. "95%" of reviewers liked the movie "Crash" and I, personally, hated it, for example. Meanwhile, most reviewers hated the "Resident Evil" movies and I absolutely love them.

You seem to be very much dedicated to "herd mentality" and "group think." You keep pulling the "everybody else thinks this" tactic in this conversation... which means absolutely SQUAT to me, as anyone who knows me at all would already know. I have no respect for anyone who decides that they like, or dislike, anything based upon what "the rest of the crowd tells them." Meanwhile, you keep trying to create an "us versus them" conflict. Please, stop it. The fact that I DISAGREE WITH YOU does not mean that you have an obligation to try to "defeat" me. It is not "my team versus your team."

Basic facts:

- I loved the movie.
- You didn't.

Both true statements. I think it was an enjoyable "popcorn movie" but was deeply disappointing considering what COULD have been done, and I see the problems as being ones which were made not by mistake but as conscious choices.

- Both of our viewpoints are equally valid, leading to an impasse when deciding whether the movie is good.

The first part of that is correct... but the second is not. "An impasse in deciding whether the movie is good?" No, there's no impasse. You get to make your own decision. I get to make mine. That's called FREEDOM.

- To resolve the impasse between both sides, democracy can make a determination based on majority opinion.

No, it can't. That's a false impression at best, a lie at worst. I suspect that, in your case, it's the first.

If you don't like Chinese food, do you seriously think that the rest of society gets to "vote" on whether or not you should be forced to swear, publically, that you love it?

If you think I'm being funny, I'm not. You're stating a frightening concept... that you believe that individual opinions can and should be considered "unacceptable" if they're not the majority opinions. You're, once again, showing a predisposition towards the sort of "group identity" thing that has, historically, led to the worst and bloodiest times in memory.

Personally, I'm all about everyone getting to make their own decisions about what they like and what they don't like... or how they live their lives, for that matter... with minimal (if ANY) interference from "the majority" telling them that they're not allowed to do that. Especially since that "the majority" usually ends up being a small elite pretending to speak for that "majority," usually while sitting in the halls of government.

- Majority opinion can only be established by looking at relative box office receipts and the majority of critical and anecdotal opinion.

Nonsense. "Majority opinion" can only be determined through legitimate, sound statistical methodologies. Lots of people saw the movie... but you have no way of knowing how many really loved it, how many forgot it immediately after leaving the theater, and how many hated it. The attendance numbers were good, but it was definitely a well-hyped movie during a period when there weren't too many other options. There's a difference between "Let's go to the movies... what's playing this weekend?" and "I've GOT to go see this specific movie."

Further, your comment on critics are irrelevant. I can think of waay too many "critics loved it" flicks that I absolutely hate and too many "critics hated it" flicks that I absolutely love. I don't need an "expert" to tell me what I should or shouldn't like in any case.

And, of course, the anecdotal evidence I've got (which I've commented on before) is that nobody really LOVED the movie. It was seen by almost everyone as pretty much what I've called it all along... a "popcorn movie." Light, fluffy, enjoyable but with very little substance. (And with some strange oily substance all over it which is probably not really a food item at all!)

- On that basis, I assert that this is a good movie.

You don't need any basis for asserting that YOU BELIEVE that this is a good movie. And that's the only assertion you can or should ever be making. The only reason to assert that it "IS" (being an absolute, not a subjective, statement) is if you object to the idea that people disagree with you. Which, as I've hopefully illustrated, is a very negative attitude to hold and one which you'd do well to try to put aside.

- You have yet to provide evidence that my assessment of majority opinion is false or grossly misleading.

That's because I haven't tried. I've merely pointed out that you continuously try to "boost" the impact of y our own personal position by pretending that it is really "the majority position." You seem to think that... "peer pressure" so to speak... rather than LOGIC and REASON, is what strengthens an argument.

Well, for some folks it might. Not for me.

I don't care if 99.99999% of all of humanity thinks that this movie is a divinely inspired creation, and must be worshiped as part of a new religion. My opinion isn't based upon "what everyone else tells me I should think. It's based upon what I DO think. Which is based upon personal knowledge, logic and reason... and yes, personal taste.

 

[ST-One]

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.

You got that right.

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.

Wrong.
Those are the phasers.
There are no other turrets popping up anywhere on the Enterprise. That only happens on the Kelvin.


But please, do point them out to us:

 

[ST-One]

ST-TMP was not a "reboot." It did not require the viewer to "forget" anything that came before. It was a movie set in the exact same universe with the exact same characters. It was just a few years later, on a different ship (which happened to have the same registry and name but was "an almost totally new Enterprise").

ST-TWOK was not a "reboot." It was in the exact same universe with the exact same characters. Nothing was contradicted.

Both these movies were reboots.
TMP was meant to give Star Trek a more serious, sophisticated tone. (And aesthetically it doesn't reflect TOS even in the slightest.)
TWOK is also a reboot; very different from TMP, much closer to TOS.

 

[Devon]

One Buck....

"Basic facts:

- I loved the movie.
- You didn't.
- Both of our viewpoints are equally valid, leading to an impasse when deciding whether the movie is good.
- To resolve the impasse between both sides, democracy can make a determination based on majority opinion.
- Majority opinion can only be established by looking at relative box office receipts and the majority of critical and anecdotal opinion.
- On that basis, I assert that this is a good movie.
- You have yet to provide evidence that my assessment of majority opinion is false or grossly misleading."

You were going strong until you started talking majority.

Nothing a majority says invalidates the minority's personal opinion, ESPECIALLY in regards to artistic merit. Art is ENTIRELY in the eye of the beholder.

Lots of people think Jane Austen's brilliant but I think she's boring as all get out. It doesn't make the MAJORITY who think she's brilliant wrong because I don't enjoy her writing...but NEITHER does it make ME wrong because I don't enjoy her writing.

That's ART. Film is ART.

You want me, as someone who did not enjoy this movie to admit it was a commercial and critical success? Not a problem.

But my opinion, my feelings are such that I feel it failed me as a film. THAT should be just as valid an opinion.

The problem is that many of the detractors, especially abroad on the interwebs, have cemented a reputation for anyone with a negative review. I say this against no one personally, that's just how it is. It started with a small group (which still remains a small group) of people started lashing out against J.J. when it was revealed a TNG film wasn't going to be in the works. They started off with the unreasonable name calling and implying that J.J. was "raping" this and that, and thinking that was funny to say. As the film got nearer, it got worse and worse and they ultimately got more desperate and desperate for it to fail. It ended up being the most critically acclaimed and among the most successful Star Trek films. They hated this, so they tried to step it up and nearly ended up out of control.

Recently the detractors (and probably many of the screen names across the other forums are actually the same person if you go by the same redundant pattern of terrible spelling and grammar errors) have got it in their heads that "no true Trek fans" like this film, that only "brainless MTV generation ADD riddled" people like this film, etc. They are also going toward the comical approach that they are in the majority that "all Trek fans hate this and that this is a slap in the face to Gene almighty's vision," etc. So perhaps you can see now why detractors get a bad wrap instantly. Not because they have a different opinion so much, but because generally most of them do not present themselves maturely (I'm not saying anyone on here personally, however.) Right now, many are in desperation mode and troll the various forums, YouTube videos, etc. Several months later and they still can't get over that the film was a hit and that people liked it.

So perhaps, if you want to preach about being fair and reasonable, you should also look at your fellow critics and evaluate how they act. Then perhaps have a word with them as well.

 

[Amaris]

One Buck....

"Basic facts:

- I loved the movie.
- You didn't.
- Both of our viewpoints are equally valid, leading to an impasse when deciding whether the movie is good.
- To resolve the impasse between both sides, democracy can make a determination based on majority opinion.
- Majority opinion can only be established by looking at relative box office receipts and the majority of critical and anecdotal opinion.
- On that basis, I assert that this is a good movie.
- You have yet to provide evidence that my assessment of majority opinion is false or grossly misleading."

You were going strong until you started talking majority.

Nothing a majority says invalidates the minority's personal opinion, ESPECIALLY in regards to artistic merit. Art is ENTIRELY in the eye of the beholder.

Lots of people think Jane Austen's brilliant but I think she's boring as all get out. It doesn't make the MAJORITY who think she's brilliant wrong because I don't enjoy her writing...but NEITHER does it make ME wrong because I don't enjoy her writing.

That's ART. Film is ART.

You want me, as someone who did not enjoy this movie to admit it was a commercial and critical success? Not a problem.

But my opinion, my feelings are such that I feel it failed me as a film. THAT should be just as valid an opinion.

The problem is that many of the detractors, especially abroad on the interwebs, have cemented a reputation for anyone with a negative review. I say this against no one personally, that's just how it is. It started with a small group (which still remains a small group) of people started lashing out against J.J. when it was revealed a TNG film wasn't going to be in the works. They started off with the unreasonable name calling and implying that J.J. was "raping" this and that, and thinking that was funny to say. As the film got nearer, it got worse and worse and they ultimately got more desperate and desperate for it to fail. It ended up being the most critically acclaimed and among the most successful Star Trek films. They hated this, so they tried to step it up and nearly ended up out of control.

Recently the detractors (and probably many of the screen names across the other forums are actually the same person if you go by the same redundant pattern of terrible spelling and grammar errors) have got it in their heads that "no true Trek fans" like this film, that only "brainless MTV generation ADD riddled" people like this film, etc. They are also going toward the comical approach that they are in the majority that "all Trek fans hate this and that this is a slap in the face to Gene almighty's vision," etc. So perhaps you can see now why detractors get a bad wrap instantly. Not because they have a different opinion so much, but because generally most of them do not present themselves maturely (I'm not saying anyone on here personally, however.) Right now, many are in desperation mode and troll the various forums, YouTube videos, etc. Several months later and they still can't get over that the film was a hit and that people liked it.

So perhaps, if you want to preach about being fair and reasonable, you should also look at your fellow critics and evaluate how they act. Then perhaps have a word with them as well.

That, and the movie is going to sell like crazy on Blu-Ray and DVD.

J.

 

[JuanBolio]

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.

Umm... no, Cary. I'm pretty sure the ST09 ship still has its phaser ball turrets in the same place and no other. The USS Kelvin had pop-up turrets for its point-defense pulse phasers, but also had TMP-style ball turrets that fired the beams.

Edit - as ST-One has already pointed out.

 

[Kirk1980]

Well, how about the same to be said about those who voice their unconditional love and support? It does get a little annoying to present something mildly and clearly just a personal opinion and have the strident supporters attack it through many very tired responses.

Related, maybe unrelated: I really wish supporters would stop using the 'well, they made that same (mistake/problem/error/joke) in the older series, too!" excuse. I mean, honestly, have we not learned that those who fail to learn from history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them? So why repeat them?

At the same time, I also wish this movie could somehow be evaluated as a film and not a Trek film. It's a hard distinction to make. I tried asking rational questions of a friend who enjoyed it. I asked her what she enjoys in a film and then tried presenting the scenarios in the new film with as little Trek references as I could (bear in mind these were all scenes she said she loved) and asked if she thought that would make good cinema. Upon answering no to most of them, she was a little shaken when I told her those were all scenarios which happened in Trek XI. I wasn't trying to be malicious or to dilute her enjoyment of the film...I just got tired of her mocking the fact I didn't enjoy it as much as she did.

But hey, fair play to anyone who did enjoy the film. Hopefully your support leads to a sequel I enjoy more than I did this first entry in the new/old universe.

 

[Devon]

It does get a little annoying to present something mildly and clearly just a personal opinion and have the strident supporters attack it through many very tired responses.

By the same token, it may be tired criticisms or attempts at bashing it. It's just become habit, and again, you can partially thank those who have trolled forums for the sole purpose of bashing the film and those who like it.

Related, maybe unrelated: I really wish supporters would stop using the 'well, they made that same (mistake/problem/error/joke) in the older series, too!" excuse.

Right. Though many times they aren't even mistakes/problems/errors/jokes. Just that the detractors have seemingly forgotten their own Trek history.

I mean, honestly, have we not learned that those who fail to learn from history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them? So why repeat them?

At the same time, why complain about those suddenly now? If these same present themselves as the supposed authority figures on Star Trek then perhaps they wouldn't need to have these things pointed out to them. Many a criticism has come to a screeching halt because it means that they have to admit that they let a piece of Trek history slip by or they would have to argue against old Trek too in that case.

 

[Shazam!]

let me clarify a little, as an action film: i'ts a decent movie, but as a Trek film, i absolutely hate it

YES

 

[Shazam!]

Orci has repeatedly shown a lot more familiarity with, and thoughtfulness in regard to, TOS..

When?

 

[ST-One]

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.

Yeah, just as it was just a stunt when Mr. O'Hara died from that fall off his horse in Gone with the Wind, or when the terrorist leader in Air Force One shot Melanie Mitchell, or when Kruge ordered the death of one of the hostages in TSFS and David gets killed, or ...
Yeah, just stunts. Not storytelling. Not part of the characters' motivations.
No, just 'pandering' for 'cheap emotional reactions from the audience'.

 

[Shazam!]

No, just 'pandering' for 'cheap emotional reactions from the audience'.

I don't think it was pandering for cheap emotional reactions from the audience; I think it was pandering for a cheap emotional reaction from Spock. The audience - at least the audience that I saw it with - couldn't have cared less beyond the cool special effect aspect.

I think it would've been much more powerful had Nero murdered Spock's parents, and then have Vulcan be the main target for the finale in place of Earth.

 

[ST-One]

No, just 'pandering' for 'cheap emotional reactions from the audience'.

I don't think it was pandering for cheap emotional reactions from the audience; I think it was pandering for a cheap emotional reaction from Spock. The audience - at least the audience that I saw it with - couldn't have cared less beyond the cool special effect aspect.

I think it would've been much more powerful had Nero murdered Spock's parents, and then have Vulcan be the main target for the finale in place of Earth.

Well, Nero just did it all in one move - killed Spock's parents (his mother at least) and destroyed Vulcan (which was his actual target and not Sarek and Amanda)

 

[Cary L. Brown]

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.

Yeah, just as it was just a stunt when Mr. O'Hara died from that fall off his horse in Gone with the Wind, or when the terrorist leader in Air Force One shot Melanie Mitchell, or when Kruge ordered the death of one of the hostages in TSFS and David gets killed, or ...
Yeah, just stunts. Not storytelling. Not part of the characters' motivations.
No, just 'pandering' for 'cheap emotional reactions from the audience'.

You entirely miss the point that I so clearly stated.

In ST-09, the emotional reaction of the audience is based upon familiarity with Vulcan which was not created during this movie.

In "Gone with the Wind," the audience's entire emotional connection to Mr. Ohara came out of that specific movie.

In Air Force One, the audience's emotional reaction to the death of the Melanie Mitchell character was more based upon a pretty good acting and directing job (a CGI planet can't "act" of course).

I DO tend to think that death of David was a bit of a "stunt" in ST-III, however. The emotional impact of that was unrelated to the death of the character played by Merritt Buttrick. It was, instead, driven home by Shatner's reaction scene... the death of the character himself was largely pointless and had very little the response of the audience, I think. The only reason we cared was because Shatner proved his detractors wrong... portraying, in a rather amazing way, HIS reaction. If Shatner was a total "hack" as he's often described as, the entire scene would have been pointless. (And to be honest, I really wish that they HADN'T killed off David. I mean, Spock, then David, then the Enterprise.... it's almost as if they did some "box office math" and determined that One Spock will cost One Enterprise plus change in the form of One David.)

In this movie, ST'09, on the other hand, the audience isn't given any reason to feel any connection whatsoever to this planet. In fact, a new viewer would be given reason to DISLIKE this planet, I think. I mean... a bunch of nasty kids bully one of the lead characters... and another bunch of nasty adults bully the same lead character... and then the leaders of the planet, when their planet is at risk of total destruction, go hide in a cave. Hell, most people probably thought that they deserved to die!

The only "emotional reaction" to the death of Vulcan is because many of us already knew what Vulcan was, and had some sense of connection to it from 40+ years of Star Trek.

The only "emotional reaction" to the death of Amanda was due to the fact that we, as "hardcore Star Trek fans" knew who she was. In the context of this movie, she was a virtual cypher. (The deleted scenes, by the way, don't count as being "part of the movie," though having seen them, I think it was a HUGE mistake to remove them... they would have let the audience at least recognize her as an actual person rather than a "walking prop.")

So, we're left with the same element as in ST-III... the reaction of the lead character... to bring about ANY audience emotional reaction. Unlike the stunned, dizzied, response of Shatner (leading into absolute cold, calculating, grim determination) in ST-III - which, after all, is very much like real people react when given that sort of news, isn't it? - we get a reaction that very few of us could possibly relate to, and thus few really emotionally "connect" to.

Maybe it deeply affected everyone in the theater where you saw it... including those who'd never seen a single Star Trek episode and had no idea who or what "Vulcan" was (maybe they thought Vulcan was a guy who makes rubber for tires!). I've seen no indication from anyone to that end. Yeah, there were lots of "wow, it was cool watching the planet eat itself"... but very few actual EMOTIONAL responses, among anyone in the theater where I saw it. In fact, people CLAPPED, because it was "cool."

Destroying Vulcan was a stunt, yeah. It was there for shock value, and the shock value only applies to those who already were intimately familiar with Vulcan long before this movie was ever born.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Orci has repeatedly shown a lot more familiarity with, and thoughtfulness in regard to, TOS..

When?

Obviously, you have yet to read any of the interviews, or have blotted them out.

Google is you friend