"I like the new movie better..."

[number6]

...I would have preferred the MOVIE to have followed what I grew up with since I grew up with.

We had movies like that. We had TV series like that. All together, we've had about 750 hours of Star Trek like that. It wasn't working anymore.

This.

Also every incarnation did something to "reinvent" the franchise. The only differences with this one is that they recast the original crew and the creative team was completely fresh to the material, something the dissenting fans had been calling for during the run of VOY and ENT.

 

[F. King Daniel]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM[/yt]

 

[Pauln6]

Lol - that pretty much sums it up. Who says Americans don't get sarcasm? It would have been cool if they'd produced a Director's Cut, like Lord of the Rings, filling in some of the plot holes on a two DVD set. I'll admit though, I'm a bit worried about the Andorian ambassador...

 

[YARN]

"We stand behind this film... ...in a few years, it will seem as cornball and dated as previous Star Trek films."

 

[sonak]

I think some folks on this thread are confusing issues of taste with issues of quality regarding subjective preference for films or art in general.

It may be the case that someone could still enjoy a movie or book they know to be a poor piece of work. However, there are criteria for judging artistic merits of a work. Otherwise, there would be no way to establish a curriculum for a literature class, for example. Why read Dickens or Melville versus reading Sue Grafton or Stephen King?

If you thought Star Trek XI was a good, bad, or mediocre film, you should be able to explain WHY. (For example, "I thought the plot relied too much on absurd coincidences" is a concrete criticism)

Saying "Well, I thought Star Trek XI was bad, but liking a movie is subjective, so why bother coming up with reasons" is a poor response.

 

[number6]

I think some folks on this thread are confusing issues of taste with issues of quality regarding subjective preference for films or art in general.

Not only that they are presenting their opinions as hard fact and presume to speak for all "true" fans of Star Trek.

 

[Dukhat]

I guess some people just have no sense of humor when it comes to dissing TOS.

I get the attempt at humour...only it doesn't work.

Of course it doesn't. Now that he's played by Pegg he'd need to be drunk on cider.

See....that's funny!

Warped9, don't get so bent out of shape about silly shit that doesn't really matter anyway. Like the movie or hate the movie. Either one works. But definitely like the people at TrekBBS. Especially the moderators.

 

[number6]

We loves them mods!

 

[Warped9]

I get the attempt at humour...only it doesn't work.

Of course it doesn't. Now that he's played by Pegg he'd need to be drunk on cider.

See....that's funny!

Warped9, don't get so bent out of shape about silly shit that doesn't really matter anyway. Like the movie or hate the movie. Either one works. But definitely like the people at TrekBBS. Especially the moderators.

Actually that one is funny.

 

[Ghrakh]

The 2009 film isn't the only one with "issues" when you look too closely.

And people have pointing them out since then. Suddenly, that's become sacrilegious.

 

[Ghrakh]

I think some folks on this thread are confusing issues of taste with issues of quality regarding subjective preference for films or art in general.

Not only that they are presenting their opinions as hard fact and presume to speak for all "true" fans of Star Trek.

the gushers certainly are...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I get the attempt at humour...only it doesn't work.

Works fine for me. Of course, I'm generally willing to be amused.

 

[number6]

I think some folks on this thread are confusing issues of taste with issues of quality regarding subjective preference for films or art in general.

Not only that they are presenting their opinions as hard fact and presume to speak for all "true" fans of Star Trek.

the gushers certainly are...

Your point??

The people to which I refer, not only hate the movie but have declared it a failure based on facts not in evidence.

I don't consider myself a gusher, just because I enjoyed the film and others do not. I do take exception to the same people barging into every discussion to troll people that like the film and making every single thread about how much they hate it.

I hate plenty of things. I just don't join discussion groups to annoy fans of those things I hate. The same couldn't be said for some people here. That is just a plain fact.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

However, there are criteria for judging artistic merits of a work. Otherwise, there would be no way to establish a curriculum for a literature class, for example.

There are not the eternal, consensus "standards" that critics of popular art like to imagine - that's simply a failing attempt to establish authority in disagreements about taste.

Curricula for literature classes? Check out the course offerings and syllabi for more than a couple of university English departments before you assert that there's agreement. And film study is another animal altogether.

I see the hoary old term "gusher" has been resurrected. Just another outdated, innish aspect of trekkie-dom that deserves to be on the ash heap.

 

[sonak]

This is a common fallacy.

Just because two people or groups disagree does NOT necessarily mean that there's no right answer.

Certain English Departments may have different books they choose, but to THEM they should have good reasons for choosing said books on merits.

Having objective standards of artistic merit isn't an appeal to authority however much you may want to throw your hands up anytime there's a disagreement on an issue and say "oh well, there's no right answer."


Although I agree with you on the term "gusher."

 

[Gojira]

This is a common fallacy.

Just because two people or groups disagree does NOT necessarily mean that there's no right answer.

Certain English Departments may have different books they choose, but to THEM they should have good reasons for choosing said books on merits.

Having objective standards of artistic merit isn't an appeal to authority however much you may want to throw your hands up anytime there's a disagreement on an issue and say "oh well, there's no right answer."


Although I agree with you on the term "gusher."

But taste in art is subjective. There is no objective standard to begin with. Since we're all opinionated fallible human beings who gets to determine these standards? Who do we give the authority to determine what art has merit and what type of art does not have merit?

The point is we don't give that authority away to anyone. Each and everyone of us has the authority to state what art appeals to us and what has merit for ourselves. Nobody has the authority or the right to dictate to me or others what art has merit.

I don't have the right to determine for you what standards you should measure artistic merit by, and you don't have the right to determine what standards I measure artistic merit by.

When you can tell me to whom I am supposed to give up my authority to come to my own conclusions about the merits of art, then that person will have the "right answer."

Who has authority over you that tells you what art has merit and what is good art and what is bad art?

Who did you give your authority away to?

 

[sonak]

I think you misunderstood me, or I was unclear. I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't form your own opinions on an art work. Of course you should, just as you should like what you like, even if it's cheesy or a crappy film. I like my share of bad films because some parts of those films appealed to me even if the overall work was poor. BUT, that's very different from saying "all art is personal taste, so why come up with reasons why one film is better than another."

 

[Gojira]

I think you misunderstood me, or I was unclear. I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't form your own opinions on an art work. Of course you should, just as you should like what you like, even if it's cheesy or a crappy film. I like my share of bad films because some parts of those films appealed to me even if the overall work was poor. BUT, that's very different from saying "all art is personal taste, so why come up with reasons why one film is better than another."

I think we can universally recognize the tone of a film, it can be done with seriousness or lightheartedness, with pathos or with a heavy dose of Velveeta cheese, but those are judgments of style and the execution of a film instead of judgments of quality.

But liking a movie with a cheesy style or a serious style is subjective as you yourself pointed out. But liking any film is subjective because by whose yardstick or criteria are you using when you make that determination?

The reason people come up with reasons for why one film is better than another comes more out of our need to socially connect with others through the sharing of our subjective opinions. We are social creatures.

If there is a gold standard of quality by which all films are measured then who determined that?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This is a common fallacy.

Just because two people or groups disagree does NOT necessarily mean that there's no right answer...

Having objective standards of artistic merit...

There is no such thing.

Evaluation of art is an exercise in the definition and elaboration of values. It can not be anything other than subjective.

You're talking about agreed-upon or consensus standards, not objective standards - otherwise you're misusing or misunderstanding the word.

 

[YARN]

You're talking about agreed-upon or consensus standards, not objective standards - otherwise you're misusing or misunderstanding the word.

Words most often have more than one sense/meaning.

There is a sense of "subjective" which involves that which is peculiar to a particular individual. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

What is objective, along these lines, is that which is not peculiar or particular to an individual. Community standards are objective in precisely this sense. It is in these cases that we have a criterion of correctness that exists outside the individual's judgment and thus offers us objectivity.