you know what maybe the lens flare did help the film.
It served as a distraction that covered up alot of the flaws.
It might also induce an epileptic seizure.
In that regards the use of lens flare is ingenious.
How would we be reacting if this movie flopped?
- Thread starter sovereign
- Start date
you know what maybe the lens flare did help the film.
It served as a distraction that covered up alot of the flaws.
It might also induce an epileptic seizure.
In that regards the use of lens flare is ingenious.
If it had failed I would have said to myself, "Yeah that figures." but I would have been sad because it most likely would have been the end of Star Trek. Having succeeded, I just accept that I have been outvoted. 
The only reason I didn't like it is that I didn't think the writers stayed true to certain characters. As an action movie, it was pretty decent, if not terribly well written, IMO. But I can certainly see why most enjoyed it.
The only reason I didn't like it is that I didn't think the writers stayed true to certain characters. As an action movie, it was pretty decent, if not terribly well written, IMO. But I can certainly see why most enjoyed it.
Rii
Rear Admiral
Yet it remains more entertaining than at least half of those films combined.
I would've liked it just the same, but I would've been rather less hopeful of a continuation of the franchise in a form that's of any interest to me than I am today.
You would be wrong.
But Starship Troopers, IS a timeless CLASSIC!
I don't know about it being a timeless classic, but it was pretty awesome. "Forget everything you know" would've been a good tagline for that film too.
English, please?
Yeah, this is either the best or the second-best Trek movie up to this point. It'll be a while before I settle one way or another.
All any of us are doing is expressing our opinions. My position that the film rocked the freakin' universe is just as valid as your opinion that it was unworthy of the name Star Trek... and the vast majority seems to agree with me (which still doesn't make our opinion any more valid, but does place you in a minority of naysayers).
You can keep saying, in effect, "I don't see why the rest of you can't recognize the suckosity of this movie" 'til you're blue in the face and it won't change the fact that the vast majority of people who've seen the movie have had a great time doing so.
And if B&B had made this film, it'd've been their crowning achievement, IMHO.
You can add me to the "first or second best Trek movie ever" crowd.
there corrected, happy now grammar nazi?
By that theory, "Nemesis" should have been a constant, two-hour lens flare.
As stated, majority or minority opinion doesn't make it so.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm wondering if the people out there who really liked the film honestly can't tell that there're plot hole, or if they're willingly ignoring them.
This movie didn't suck. I said as much. Your argument here is a straw man.
And, by the way, you still haven't stated why you liked the film.
Don't worry. It's only the English language, it's not like it's important or useful to use it well.
In JJ's world it would be.
May be its possible to get to point in your life where the pleasure of an evening watching a fun entertaining film with your spouse and adult & teen offspring (and everybody enjoyed) more than makes up for any plot holes.
Could I see the plot holes - of course - I'm not an idiot. Did it affect my enjoyment? No. Was it a ripping yarn? Yes.
Alas its one of my failings, but in my defence english isnt my first langunage.
But your point is well taken.
I've been watching Star Trek for more than 40 years, since I was a toddler, and I have never had so much fun doing so. I may not know art, but I know what I like.
Was the film perfect? No. The villian was poorly motivated and almost as one-dimensional as Shinzon. The number of wild coincidences that led to the gathering and positioning of the crew was staggering. The shooting style was pretentious, the lens flares were distracting. But for all of that it was the most fun I've ever had in the Star Trek universe... and don't dare think it was all about "the 'sploshins!!1!" because I was an avid fan back when the effects were rudimentary.
There's a skill that modern viewers seem to lack that I have honed throughout my life... it's called "suspension of disbelief." It's the ability to give yourself to a story and let it happen, to absorb without judging, to go along for the ride. The film didn't need to be perfect, it needed to entertain, excite and enthrall me... and it did so in spades.
It was... fun.
Fun is not permitted in relation to Star Trek. See the operating manual, volume 2.
See you have just spelled out all the negative points of the movie in a concrete way.
But when it comes to why you like this movie, your argument boils down to
is it that hard to articulate why you like this movie?
Maybe I'm too logical, and too overly analytical,
I dare think not.But when I like something I can actually list in bullet points of all the qualities that makes me liking said thing.
Like in my previous post if you cant express why you like something, then your like for that said thing is shallow, and would not stand up to reasoning.
I've only read the first page of the thread, but can in some ways agree with what seem to be the OP's concerns.
Do we want STAR TREK to become cheap, a prostitute doing whatever people want just to get money?
I'd rather have NO Star Trek than that.
Did this film cheapen itself?
in some ways, yes.
It did go for the big explosions, the fast-moving spirit, the "Bang! Zow!"
Yeah, it did sort of cheapen itself to be a hit.
You know what, tho'? That's not the first time Trek's done SOMETHING along those lines, and not the first time it's been in some respects "lacking".
My "forever flawed favorites" include two TOS episodes, "The Alternative Factor" and the one I like to call "Let That Be Your Worst Episode".
Guys, both of these were STAR TREK being VERY bad WHEN IT WASN'T TRYING TO BE...
And yet we accept them as part of the whole.
Was this movie really being so sleezy to have the nature it did? Could it be in some ways similar to "Shore Leave"?
I mean, what in the world was the point of that episode? It was silly, crazy, and fun. (From what I've read, that was even the feel when they were FILMING it. Half the crazy stuff they wanted to include ended up left out because of time.)
The new movie may have lowered its standards a little to try and make sure it had an audience, but that may not be a bad thing. It tried something different, and it worked. Star Trek lives.
You know, the next movie may have a very different feel to it. Especially if it involves Khan as rumored, it could be very dark and serious.
Let's see what else these guys come up with as a contribution to TREK before we decide "This was a mistake and a shame".
I don't think that's asking too much. (And remember...this is from the guy who wanted them to change nothing about the ship, the tech, etc., and just tell a story in the original universe, with everything looking the way we know it did.)
The movie's been made, it's been released, it's a huge success, and it may give us more stories of Kirk and Spock for years to come. (And I'm still hoping a new Kirk/Spock TV series.)
Let's not get too worried about the spirit of one movie. Let's see what the next one is like from these same guys, and talk some more about it then.
Do we want STAR TREK to become cheap, a prostitute doing whatever people want just to get money?
I'd rather have NO Star Trek than that.
Did this film cheapen itself?
in some ways, yes.
It did go for the big explosions, the fast-moving spirit, the "Bang! Zow!"
Yeah, it did sort of cheapen itself to be a hit.
You know what, tho'? That's not the first time Trek's done SOMETHING along those lines, and not the first time it's been in some respects "lacking".
My "forever flawed favorites" include two TOS episodes, "The Alternative Factor" and the one I like to call "Let That Be Your Worst Episode".
Guys, both of these were STAR TREK being VERY bad WHEN IT WASN'T TRYING TO BE...
And yet we accept them as part of the whole.
Was this movie really being so sleezy to have the nature it did? Could it be in some ways similar to "Shore Leave"?
I mean, what in the world was the point of that episode? It was silly, crazy, and fun. (From what I've read, that was even the feel when they were FILMING it. Half the crazy stuff they wanted to include ended up left out because of time.)
The new movie may have lowered its standards a little to try and make sure it had an audience, but that may not be a bad thing. It tried something different, and it worked. Star Trek lives.
You know, the next movie may have a very different feel to it. Especially if it involves Khan as rumored, it could be very dark and serious.
Let's see what else these guys come up with as a contribution to TREK before we decide "This was a mistake and a shame".
I don't think that's asking too much. (And remember...this is from the guy who wanted them to change nothing about the ship, the tech, etc., and just tell a story in the original universe, with everything looking the way we know it did.)
The movie's been made, it's been released, it's a huge success, and it may give us more stories of Kirk and Spock for years to come. (And I'm still hoping a new Kirk/Spock TV series.)
Let's not get too worried about the spirit of one movie. Let's see what the next one is like from these same guys, and talk some more about it then.
