I don't like the new movie better...

[YARN]

Okay, have any other Trekkers here shown up in the I-X only to have to listen to people babble on about the new film?
(Of course, it's not a troll thread that appeared there )

I was at a friend's house last night and we watched ST XI through blu ray, and it was his first time watching it. He said it was a good movie, although he didn't know who Zachary Quinto was! Anyway, he did like it but he said he liked TWoK one more. I think it had something to do with TWoK being a better movie.

(I put this here instead of the XI-X forum because it's a more generalized discussion of Star Trek films rather then just Star Trek I-X.)
__________________

 

[Devon]

Oh.

 

[number6]

Okay, have any other Trekkers here shown up in the I-X only to have to listen to people babble on about the new film?
(Of course, it's not a troll thread that appeared there )

I was at a friend's house last night and we watched ST XI through blu ray, and it was his first time watching it. He said it was a good movie, although he didn't know who Zachary Quinto was! Anyway, he did like it but he said he liked TWoK one more. I think it had something to do with TWoK being a better movie.

(I put this here instead of the XI-X forum because it's a more generalized discussion of Star Trek films rather then just Star Trek I-X.)
__________________

From the creative team that brought you http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=127752

 

[Robert D. Robot]

What is it with all the "Don't Like...." themed threads?

Is it possible to set up a "Don't Like Forum"?

 

[YARN]

What is it with all the "Don't Like...." themed threads?

Is it possible to set up a "Don't Like Forum"?

That I don't like the new movie better isn't to say that I don't like it. I think the last film is better most of the Trek films which preceded it and I like it better than most of those films too.

And yet, it is still off-putting to see a thread like this in this particular forum, isn't it?

 

[Dukhat]

And yet, it is still off-putting to see a thread like this in this particular forum, isn't it?

Not at all. I loved the movie, but I could care less whether anyone else loved it or hated it. I'm just glad it was a success. It's only when the haters have silly reasons for hating it, or tell me that I'm a moron for liking the movie, that I pipe in. Go see RedletterMedia's review of the film. In a nutshell: He likes the movie, but points out the film's rightful flaws while at the same time telling everyone that those flaws are inconsequential to the enjoyment of the movie.

 

[Psion]

As a popcorn action flick, it was a dandy film. Well-made, technically and very exciting. As a Trek film, I was less pleased, but it was still better than most and it did the franchise a couple of favors:

1. It reinvigorated the whole mix. TOS tricorders are on sale at Toys R Us and so are TMP Kirk and Spock dolls!
2. It got fans into thinking about re-imaginings as alternate universes of Trek. Meaning that, even if I'm not fond of the logic behind this particular reboot, another one some years down the line with new SF concepts is now more likely.

I still haven't picked it up on DVD or Blu-Ray yet. I'm a bit embarrassed by the brewery sets for engineering and quibble with enough details from the film for it to be a low priority. Right now, I'm more into watching Doctor Who.

 

[YARN]

Not at all. I loved the movie, but I could care less whether anyone else loved it or hated it.

You might consider saying "I couldn't care less" for maximum effect. Saying, "I could care less," indicates that you actually do care.

It's only when the haters have silly reasons for hating it, or tell me that I'm a moron for liking the movie, that I pipe in.

Fair enough.

But putting that "I liked the new movie better thread..." in the I-X is a troll move. Leave the old times alone and let them love their TOS and TNG.

Go see RedletterMedia's review of the film. In a nutshell: He likes the movie, but points out the film's rightful flaws while at the same time telling everyone that those flaws are inconsequential to the enjoyment of the movie.

As much as enjoy this guy's shtick, you are talking about a comedy vlog on the internet. If a comedy film critic likes the film, then it must be good?

I agree that if you turn your brain off, the film is fun romp. The second you start thinking, however, you realize that the film isn't particularly well written. Kirk happens to get jettisoned onto a planet, right where Spock-Prime is marooned, right where Scotty is to transwarp beam them? The coincidences are so unbelievable that some film critics interpreted all this as the hand of fate (as RLM puts it "The will of the force").

Details like this could have been fixed with a little more script work and the film still would have been fun fantasy adventure flick. That these details were not fixed and the script writers used rather lazy narrative solutions is a detail that deserves criticism.

What troubles me about RLM's review is that he valorizes flaws like this in the form of an either/or fallacy:

1. You can have an intelligent, boring (commercially unsuccessful) Science Fiction film.

OR

2. You can have a big dumb action adventure film (and make gobs of money).

RLM adds a third premise

3. Films only exist to make money.

to justify choosing #2 over #1.

Audiences are big fat stupid people, so you can only feed them garbage from a trough. That is feint praise indeed for the virtues of a film that aims to served to this audience.

Basically, Star Trek has to be dumbed down to succeed with modern audiences. This is almost exactly the same justification he used to excuse the flaws in the film Avatar.

Well, by his reckoning here, any stupid film that manages to make gobs of money by selling out to the lowest common denominator deserves cannot be criticized, because films only exist to make money.

If we replace aesthetic criteria with financial criteria, however, we find that the world is already populated with dubious success stories. "Hey, the Spice Girls sold more records than the Beetles, they made money, so you can't really criticize their music."

Well no, even popular films can have some ambition. And being designed for a popular audience is not a get-out-jail-free card.

Star Trek, if it is to be something that genuinely deserves caring about (rather than serving our passing fetish for nostalgia flicks), has to be something more than just big dumb entertainment. Otherwise, it might as well just be the A-Team in space or Dukes of Hazard with phasers.

In short, you have to aim for that middle ground which RLM chickens out on grounds of alleged impossibility.

 

[Psion]

... or Dukes of Hazard with phasers.

Yeeee-haaaa!

 

[Dukhat]

You might consider saying "I couldn't care less" for maximum effect. Saying, "I could care less," indicates that you actually do care.

There's no need for snarkiness. I wasn't being snarky with you.

But putting that "I liked the new movie better thread..." in the I-X is a troll move. Leave the old times alone and let them love their TOS and TNG.

Uh, no, it's not trolling. Trolling is when someone posts hateful or argumentative posts solely for the purpose of starting fights. That's nowhere near what's being done here. I (and everyone else) respond to other people's responses in any given area on this board. Whatever the original topic was usually is irrelevant by that point. Have you never posted on an internet bulletin board before?

As much as enjoy this guy's shtick, you are talking about a comedy vlog on the internet. If a comedy film critic likes the film, then it must be good?

I don't know who the guy is or what his credentials are, or care. I just said that I liked his review.

I agree that if you turn your brain off, the film is fun romp. The second you start thinking, however, you realize that the film isn't particularly well written. Kirk happens to get jettisoned onto a planet, right where Spock-Prime is marooned, right where Scotty is to transwarp beam them? The coincidences are so unbelievable that some film critics interpreted all this as the hand of fate (as RLM puts it "The will of the force").

No ST movie has ever been well-written. That didn't stop me from enjoying them.

Details like this could have been fixed with a little more script work and the film still would have been fun fantasy adventure flick.

But it was that, despite its flaws.

That these details were not fixed and the script writers used rather lazy narrative solutions is a detail that deserves criticism.

What troubles me about RLM's review is that he valorizes flaws like this in the form of an either/or fallacy:

1. You can have an intelligent, boring (commercially unsuccessful) Science Fiction film.

OR

2. You can have a big dumb action adventure film (and make gobs of money).

RLM adds a third premise

3. Films only exist to make money.

to justify choosing #2 over #1.

Audiences are big fat stupid people, so you can only feed them garbage from a trough. That is feint praise indeed for the virtues of a film that aims to served to this audience.

Basically, Star Trek has to be dumbed down to succeed with modern audiences. This is almost exactly the same justification he used to excuse the flaws in the film Avatar.

Well, by his reckoning here, any stupid film that manages to make gobs of money by selling out to the lowest common denominator deserves cannot be criticized, because films only exist to make money.

If we replace aesthetic criteria with financial criteria, however, we find that the world is already populated with dubious success stories. "Hey, the Spice Girls sold more records than the Beetles, they made money, so you can't really criticize their music."

Well no, even popular films can have some ambition. And being designed for a popular audience is not a get-out-jail-free card.

Star Trek, if it is to be something that genuinely deserves caring about (rather than serving our passing fetish for nostalgia flicks), has to be something more than just big dumb entertainment. Otherwise, it might as well just be the A-Team in space or Dukes of Hazard with phasers.

In short, you have to aim for that middle ground which RLM chickens out on grounds of alleged impossibility.

Sorry pal, but I happen to agree with RLM's review. So sue me.

 

[YARN]

There's no need for snarkiness. I wasn't being snarky with you.

Wasn't trying to give offense there.

You'll catch me slipping too. When an error becomes a habit, it is nice when someone tells you.

For example, I wrote "feint praise" when I meant to write "faint praise" in my last post - if you saw me in the habit of doing that, I would appreciate a friendly correction.

I don't know who the guy is or what his credentials are, or care. I just said that I liked his review.

Yeah, but you told me to see his review as a move in an argument. You cited him as an authority. "See RLM's review," you said, and I did.

You are either citing him as an authority or merely menitioning that you enjoyed his video, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

But it was that, despite its flaws.

I didn't say that it wasn't. As far as Trek films go, I think it came off rather well.

Sorry pal, but I happen to agree with RLM's review. So sue me.

OK, but that is not a reason for anyone else to think differently about the topic.

 

[Pauln6]

As a popcorn action flick, it was a dandy film. Well-made, technically and very exciting. As a Trek film, I was less pleased, but it was still better than most and it did the franchise a couple of favors:

1. It reinvigorated the whole mix. TOS tricorders are on sale at Toys R Us and so are TMP Kirk and Spock dolls!
2. It got fans into thinking about re-imaginings as alternate universes of Trek. Meaning that, even if I'm not fond of the logic behind this particular reboot, another one some years down the line with new SF concepts is now more likely.

I still haven't picked it up on DVD or Blu-Ray yet. I'm a bit embarrassed by the brewery sets for engineering and quibble with enough details from the film for it to be a low priority. Right now, I'm more into watching Doctor Who.

This is how I view the situation. Bring on Sapphire & Steel.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Loved it. Trolling this forum is not going to work.

 

[YARN]

Loved it. Trolling this forum is not going to work.

Just making a point.

If this thread is a troll of this forum, then its sister thread in the I-X is a troll of that forum.

If you see this as a troll thread, then it has worked in so far as I was attempting to make that point.

 

[Gaith]

Thirty years from now... in the next generation... I doubt that any but the hardiest of new fans will care about any of the films I-X apart from II and maybe VI and VIII. The rest will be more or less forgotten.

XI, OTOH, has a very strong chance of enduring, IMHO.

 

[Dukhat]

Wasn't trying to give offense there.

You'll catch me slipping too. When an error becomes a habit, it is nice when someone tells you.

You knew exactly what I meant with the words I used. You were just being a smartass. And pointing out people's grammatical errors is annoying, not nice. But that's all water under the bridge.

Yeah, but you told me to see his review as a move in an argument. You cited him as an authority. "See RLM's review," you said, and I did.

You are either citing him as an authority or merely menitioning that you enjoyed his video, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yes I can, actually. I did like his review, and I'm using him as an authority. The problem with that is, what, exactly?

OK, but that is not a reason for anyone else to think differently about the topic.

That's true, but this entire post is just YOU saying you didn't like the film, and that you didn't like discussion of the new movie in the old movie forum. Well, why didn't you just complain to the person who started that topic? Or a mod? That wasn't our fault. We were just responding to the post.

The TrekBBS is not a hermetically sealed environment. Things get posted where they shouldn't. That's why we have moderators to fix things like that.

 

[sonak]

Just to comment on the use of the expression "I could care less." This is actually an acceptable use of the older "couldn't care less" expression, because it's an example of leaving off something that's IMPLIED rather than literally spelled out.


Basically the expression means "I could care less, but it would be hard."

 

[YARN]

Just to comment on the use of the expression "I could care less." This is actually an acceptable use of the older "couldn't care less" expression, because it's an example of leaving off something that's IMPLIED rather than literally spelled out.


Basically the expression means "I could care less, but it would be hard."

Revisit my original comment.

I said "for maximum effect" in connection with the phrase "consider using."

My comment is not framed so much as an explanation of some grammatical error as it is a suggestion for increased rhetorical impact.

To not be able to care less is a more perfect state of indifference than to be capable of caring less.

Also, note the inclusion of the word "consider" as there is no force of necessity (as is the case with a logical or grammatical error) involved with its use.

Finally, there is nothing in particular which is implied by the use of expression "I could care less" without a context of utterance in which we can tease out implications.

That you assert your preferred inference for the use of that phrase does not mean that anything is necessarily implied by its use.

In context, one might infer conflicting possible disambiguations, filling in the blank in different ways:

1. I could care less, so be careful that you don't damage your case even more.

2. "I could care less" as in I couldn't care less (i.e., an inference of misspeaking).

3. I could care less, but it would be hard.

Simply saying, "I couldn't care less"gives maximum impact without the need to play inferential bingo.

Now it is true that many people are now in the habit of saying "could care less". Then again, many people
are in the habit of saying "mines" instead of "mine", Nuke-You-Lar instead of "nuclear" and "excape" instead
of "escape."

That George Bush and many others say "Nuke-You-Lar" rather than "Nu-Clear" means that you can get away with
it in passing conversation. Our conversation rules (which permute faster than our "official" lexical rules) allow for this
usage and people will still understand what you are saying -- but the phrase is still grating on the ear and lacks maximum
impact, because it generally hurts your ethos to say it the way President Bush says it.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

You might consider saying "I couldn't care less" for maximum effect. Saying, "I could care less," indicates that you actually do care.

Well, technically, you're wrong, because he did indicate that he does care right in the next sentence:

I loved the movie, but I could care less whether anyone else loved it or hated it. I'm just glad it was a success.

Anyway, I don't see why would anyone compare the new one with ten other movies. They might have been all Star Trek, but they were quite different. Except for the bad ones – they were all bad in the same way.

That said, I'd put the new one right after First Contact, which is my favourite Trek movie. This would mean that I like the new one better than the rest! Fans of the old movies, go after me!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Loved it. Trolling this forum is not going to work.

Just making a point.

Failing to, because:

If this thread is a troll of this forum, then its sister thread in the I-X is a troll of that forum.

Not surprisingly, you're wrong - and probably disingenuous.

The thread that you're imitating was started by someone to whom you're ascribing motives because you don't like his POV. He describes an event which may actually have taken place - he says it did, and we have no reason to doubt it - in which a friend said something after watching Abrams's movie.

You're not doing that. You copied the essence of his initial post and changed the POV to be the opposite, and posted it here with the express intent of annoying people - what you call "making a point."

The OP in the other thread was expressing an opinion while relating an experience. You choose to interpret that as provocative.

You made up a story - actually copied it - and started this thread to stir things up.

You probably can see the difference, but may deny that and I'm sure can justify it to yourself as worthwhile. It's not.