I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

[Jeyl]

I second ST-One's opinion here. The Narada wasn't doomed, it had already survived travelling through a black hole before. Would it have been a responsible command decision to let a hostile vessel with bad intentions potentially escape further into the past where it could not be stopped?

If that was the case, why even bother offering assistance if Kirk knew the Narada would survive the trip? Did Kirk not say, and I quote:

"Your ship is compromised. Too close to the singularity to survive without assistance which we are willing to provide."

If Nero knows his ship can survive the black hole, why were all the Romulan crew members scrambling around the ship like it was doomed? And if the Narada can survive the Black Hole, why does Nero tell Kirk that he would rather face agonizing death than assistance from him? Wouldn't Nero just say nothing at all if he knew he was going to survive?

 

[Jeyl]

I second ST-One's opinion here. The Narada wasn't doomed, it had already survived travelling through a black hole before. Would it have been a responsible command decision to let a hostile vessel with bad intentions potentially escape further into the past where it could not be stopped?

If that was the case, why even bother offering assistance if Kirk knew the Narada would survive the trip? Did Kirk not say, and I quote:

"Your ship is compromised. Too close to the singularity to survive without assistance which we are willing to provide."

If Nero knows his ship can survive the black hole, why were all the Romulan crew members scrambling around the ship like it was doomed? And if the Narada can survive the Black Hole, why does Nero tell Kirk that he would rather face agonizing death than assistance from him? Wouldn't Nero just say nothing at all if he knew he was going to survive?

 

[stonester1]

But if the Enterprise had caught the Gorn ship, Kirk WOULD have engaged it, and would have destroyed it if they refused the opportunity to surrender.

Oh, and Nero may not have known he was doing to survive. But Kirk wanted to be sure.

 

[wojski]

Tell me one thing. Who is "we"?

All who awaits for Star Trek film that won't be worse then tv series. Maybe you forgot that some Star Trek fans enjoy sf, philosophy, how characters evolve, not filmmaker's experise in cg or solving moral and philosophy problems with technobabble. This film reminds me The Phantom Menace - big anticipation, awaiting and than..... small fart.

Best measurment for the film is how often you will pick it from your collection and watch it. More time will pass more plot holes will start to annoy you.

 

[Butters]

Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

This film reminds me The Phantom Menace - big anticipation, awaiting and then..... small fart.

I absolutely cannot resist toilet humour, and fart analogies are a guarenteed killer.

Thank you

 

[stonester1]

Tell me one thing. Who is "we"?

All who awaits for Star Trek film that won't be worse then tv series. Maybe you forgot that some Star Trek fans enjoy sf, philosophy, how characters evolve, not filmmaker's experise in cg or solving moral and philosophy problems with technobabble.

Yes, but as long time followers of the franchise, WE realize we don't get all that in every episode.

Nor do WE need to.

Further, your Phantom Menace analogy is flawed. The imbruligio over TPM began almost immediately, and the outrage was much more than a tiny percentage. Not to mention the reviews...

However, I was originally one of the TPM haters, and slowly turned around over time. It's a very flawed film, but not a bad one. On the contrary, it's pretty good, sometimes great, despite it's flaws. I think that it got the hate and heat not because it was a bad film, but it was not the film that some of the fans were hoping for.

And that's also the case with this Trek film.

Just a much smaller percentage of you this go around.

Best measurment for the film is how often you will pick it from your collection and watch it. More time will pass more plot holes will start to annoy you.

And that's what the minority dissenters desperately, DESPERATELY hope for.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[Ovation]

Tell me one thing. Who is "we"?

All who awaits for Star Trek film that won't be worse then tv series. Maybe you forgot that some Star Trek fans enjoy sf, philosophy, how characters evolve, not filmmaker's experise in cg or solving moral and philosophy problems with technobabble. This film reminds me The Phantom Menace - big anticipation, awaiting and than..... small fart.

Best measurment for the film is how often you will pick it from your collection and watch it. More time will pass more plot holes will start to annoy you.

It's not on my shelf yet but I can already tell you it will be in heavier rotation in my home cinema that about 90% of the more than 700 titles on my shelf (and that includes all the previous Trek movies, along with major cinematic classics of many genres). Why? Because this movie is fun--and fun movies get watched more often because, at the end of most days, I like to have a little diversion.

Other, "heavier, serious" films are also things I enjoy. However, I, like most people, don't ALWAYS want to do "heavy lifting" as entertainment. If I want philosophy--I usually reach for one of the many volumes on my bookshelf in my office. Occasionally I'll reach for a film. If I want a couple hours of fun, I usually reach for a film on my shelf in the home cinema room. Occasionally I'll reach for a weighty tome on my bookshelf.

The implicit argument that enjoying this new movie is some sort of "proof" that one is just "not bright enough" to enjoy weightier fare is getting rather annoying and asinine.

And stonester1 is quite correct. Longtime fans (since 1973 in my case) KNOW that "philosophy" and "moral lessons" are found in SOME Trek, but not all of it. This movie wasn't focused as much on "the lessons" as other bits of Trek, but it's ONE movie. I never expect any ONE single episode or movie of Trek to encompass all of its traditional characteristics. Why should anyone?

 

[Doghead]

...yes it is, if you will VERY compressed, but that is what the mainstream movie goers are used to..the sedate shots of the Big E floating in Spacedock during TMP would cause people of Generation Y (or is it Z?) to walk out of the theater.. and that is where the fans of the future will come from..

I really like the new film so that's that for me.

What I am struck by reading your post has to do with a project I am currently doing, an animated Flash Gordon feature film. In reviewing the original public domain work, it is EXTREMELY compressed, to the point that major plot elements are rushed through in the scrolling text and narration, not even seen! Big stuff too! So compression was a 1930s thing too, not just recently.

Perhaps because of the context of what I am working on I had no problem at all with the compression in the new film. In fact I loved it because we got straight to the high points the makers wanted to hit without ANOTHER endless origin story. It's the rehashing of familiar origins which kills 99% of superhero films, particularly since again, 99% of the time, the person redoing the origin is no Stan Lee. Hard to improve on a gold standard.

Star Trek has neatly opened out a whole new and yet still basically familiar universe, literally.

 

[3D Master]

And now comes a movie. A MOVIE! A movie with a brand new production crew. With a studio that finally let the dogs loose because they got desperate. Have you seen the Dark Knight!?

We could have had The Dark Knight. We FINALLY could have seen Star Trek grow up, we could have seen a Star Trek that could have been deep, that could shown of what Star Trek originally was all about - but to our level of movie story telling.

And instead, we got LESS. It was even MORE flimsy that the original Star Trek 60s TV SHOW - and not relatively speaking, but absolutely speaking. Let's face it; there was nothing there.

Who says we still won't get a movie comparable to the Dark Knight? It was necessary for Batman Begins to introduce the universe and characters so that the next movie could take the ball and run with it.

We didn't get a Batman Begins either. If only.

Besides; there was no reason for an introduction movie that removed the old continuity. An introduction movie could have been made inside it.

Case in point, on opening night I went to see the movie with 14 of my friends, all non-fans. They loved it, now they are emotionally invested in the characters, now they will come back for another one and now if there is a moral lesson involved they will listen.

Good for them. However, I have known these characters for decades, I did not need an introductory exercise. If this movie worked in bringing in non fans then that is none of my concern, it makes me neither happy nor sad, all I care about is whether I felt this was a good movie and unfortunately that is not the case.

The movie wasn't made with those who "have known these characters for decades" in mind. I hope you are not begrudging them for wanting to make introductions (even if you do not care for how those introductions were made--a separate issue).

Of course! Because an introductory movie must be an empty pile of special effects shots strung together by juvenile jokes!

That's why nowhere in Spider-man was there any mention or hint at Spider-man's theme: "With great power must come great responsibility."

Uh, hold on a moment, let's remember that better.

Mmhmm ehmm.

Oh, yes! They actually DID use the theme, in fact it was woven in throughout the entire movie!

It's not on my shelf yet but I can already tell you it will be in heavier rotation in my home cinema that about 90% of the more than 700 titles on my shelf (and that includes all the previous Trek movies, along with major cinematic classics of many genres). Why? Because this movie is fun--and fun movies get watched more often because, at the end of most days, I like to have a little diversion.

Other, "heavier, serious" films are also things I enjoy. However, I, like most people, don't ALWAYS want to do "heavy lifting" as entertainment. If I want philosophy--I usually reach for one of the many volumes on my bookshelf in my office. Occasionally I'll reach for a film. If I want a couple hours of fun, I usually reach for a film on my shelf in the home cinema room. Occasionally I'll reach for a weighty tome on my bookshelf.

The implicit argument that enjoying this new movie is some sort of "proof" that one is just "not bright enough" to enjoy weightier fare is getting rather annoying and asinine.

This makes the erroneous assumption that something that has some weight to it can't be fun, and something that is fun can't have any weight to it.

Which is just bull.

Plenty of movies who pull of both. JJ and O&K simply aren't good enough to do so.

And stonester1 is quite correct. Longtime fans (since 1973 in my case) KNOW that "philosophy" and "moral lessons" are found in SOME Trek, but not all of it. This movie wasn't focused as much on "the lessons" as other bits of Trek, but it's ONE movie. I never expect any ONE single episode or movie of Trek to encompass all of its traditional characteristics. Why should anyone?

This is the introduction movie! It should present Star Trek to a new fanbase! And that means STAR TREK! Not an empty pile pretending to be.

 

[stonester1]

Ah, 3D and his one man band.

 

[Silanda]

If that was the case, why even bother offering assistance if Kirk knew the Narada would survive the trip? Did Kirk not say, and I quote:

"Your ship is compromised. Too close to the singularity to survive without assistance which we are willing to provide."

If Nero knows his ship can survive the black hole, why were all the Romulan crew members scrambling around the ship like it was doomed? And if the Narada can survive the Black Hole, why does Nero tell Kirk that he would rather face agonizing death than assistance from him? Wouldn't Nero just say nothing at all if he knew he was going to survive?

Nero justs loves the sound of his own voice? Maybe the Narada wouldn't have survived, but if there was even a 1000 to one shot of it doing so, would doing nothing have been worth the risk?

 

[M'Sharak]

It's not on my shelf yet but I can already tell you it will be in heavier rotation in my home cinema that about 90% of the more than 700 titles on my shelf (and that includes all the previous Trek movies, along with major cinematic classics of many genres). Why? Because this movie is fun--and fun movies get watched more often because, at the end of most days, I like to have a little diversion.

Other, "heavier, serious" films are also things I enjoy. However, I, like most people, don't ALWAYS want to do "heavy lifting" as entertainment. If I want philosophy--I usually reach for one of the many volumes on my bookshelf in my office. Occasionally I'll reach for a film. If I want a couple hours of fun, I usually reach for a film on my shelf in the home cinema room. Occasionally I'll reach for a weighty tome on my bookshelf.

The implicit argument that enjoying this new movie is some sort of "proof" that one is just "not bright enough" to enjoy weightier fare is getting rather annoying and asinine.

This makes the erroneous assumption that something that has some weight to it can't be fun, and something that is fun can't have any weight to it.

Which is just bull.

For someone who so often employs a tactic of implying a deficiency in the reading comprehension of others, you've missed badly what Ovation actually said here, in your rush to call him wrong. I'd suggest you slow down a bit and try reading it again.

You wouldn't want to make any erroneous assumptions of your own, now, would you?

 

[Ovation]

It's not on my shelf yet but I can already tell you it will be in heavier rotation in my home cinema that about 90% of the more than 700 titles on my shelf (and that includes all the previous Trek movies, along with major cinematic classics of many genres). Why? Because this movie is fun--and fun movies get watched more often because, at the end of most days, I like to have a little diversion.

Other, "heavier, serious" films are also things I enjoy. However, I, like most people, don't ALWAYS want to do "heavy lifting" as entertainment. If I want philosophy--I usually reach for one of the many volumes on my bookshelf in my office. Occasionally I'll reach for a film. If I want a couple hours of fun, I usually reach for a film on my shelf in the home cinema room. Occasionally I'll reach for a weighty tome on my bookshelf.

The implicit argument that enjoying this new movie is some sort of "proof" that one is just "not bright enough" to enjoy weightier fare is getting rather annoying and asinine.

This makes the erroneous assumption that something that has some weight to it can't be fun, and something that is fun can't have any weight to it.

Which is just bull.

Read what I wrote again--only more slowly and thoroughly. Then try again.

Plenty of movies who pull of both.

Not all movies need to do both to be enjoyable.

JJ and O&K simply aren't good enough to do so.

In your opinion. By the way, "your opinion" does NOT equal "absolute truth". Sorry to burst your bubble.

And stonester1 is quite correct. Longtime fans (since 1973 in my case) KNOW that "philosophy" and "moral lessons" are found in SOME Trek, but not all of it. This movie wasn't focused as much on "the lessons" as other bits of Trek, but it's ONE movie. I never expect any ONE single episode or movie of Trek to encompass all of its traditional characteristics. Why should anyone?

This is the introduction movie! It should present Star Trek to a new fanbase! And that means STAR TREK! Not an empty pile pretending to be.

It is neither an empty pile nor is it pretending. It simply isn't what you wanted. And an overwhelming majority of people appear to be fine with that.