"I like the new movie better..."

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No, I'm sorry - you're wrong. Shared opinions or standards are not objective phenomena. And you're not succeeding in justifying it by offering a definition of "subjective" instead and then insisting that it must also define "objective" somehow by inference.

In fact, your own cited source actually has a definition for objective and I'm surprised (well, not really) that you didn't link to it:

of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind...

Nothing we're discussing here is "independent of individual thought" - and don't misread that as meaning "what a single person thinks" because that's not what it says - nor is it "perceptible by all observers." We're talking about values that are derived by abstract thought.

And that settles that.

 

[Gepard]

I think I'm just going to wander through here and say that -- in my opinion -- the new movies sucks, and this lack of objective standards means none of you can tell me I'm wrong! It's total freedom! Whee!

 

[Gojira]

I think I'm just going to wander through here and say that -- in my opinion -- the new movies sucks, and this lack of objective standards means none of you can tell me I'm wrong! It's total freedom! Whee!

I think it comes down to how we communicate our opinions. Communication is a skill and there are ways to communicate that can either trigger further debate or we can state our opinions in ways that ends any debate.

For example, I can say "the movie sucks" and although it is my opinion I am stating my opinion as if I am making a universal statement that is factual for everyone and that is what can be debated.

However, if I say "I hated the movie" and "I couldn't stand it" then I am just saying how I felt and you cannot say I don't feel that way because what I am saying is the truth about my experience with the movie. By taking responsibility for my beliefs and not universalizing them it ends the debate.

 

[Warped9]

However, if I say "I hated the movie" and "I couldn't stand it" then I am just saying how I felt and you cannot say I don't feel that way because what I am saying is the truth about my experience with the movie. By taking responsibility for my beliefs and not universalizing them it ends the debate.

Really? Just try elaborating on why this movie doesn't work for you and watch the fur fly.

When you criticize something others like they often get defensive because they interpret your criticism as a personal criticism directed at them. Someone can be dispassionate about knowing someone else doesn't like what they like in a general way. But if faced directly with that criticism they can often cease being dispassionate about it.

 

[Gojira]

However, if I say "I hated the movie" and "I couldn't stand it" then I am just saying how I felt and you cannot say I don't feel that way because what I am saying is the truth about my experience with the movie. By taking responsibility for my beliefs and not universalizing them it ends the debate.

Really? Just try elaborating on why this movie doesn't work for you and watch the fur fly.

When you criticize something others like they often get defensive because they interpret your criticism as a personal criticism directed at them. Someone can be dispassionate about knowing someone else doesn't like what they like in a general way. But if faced directly with that criticism they can often cease being dispassionate about it.

Well, I said I "hated the movie" as a way to prove a point. In all honesty I love the movie and enjoyed it a great deal and I still do.

But the point is that the fact a person either likes or dislikes a movie is an objective fact, the reasons why a person either likes or dislikes a movie gets into the realm of subjective opinion and that is where the debates begin.

 

[CaptainStoner]

There was a new Star Trek movie?

 

[Warped9]

However, if I say "I hated the movie" and "I couldn't stand it" then I am just saying how I felt and you cannot say I don't feel that way because what I am saying is the truth about my experience with the movie. By taking responsibility for my beliefs and not universalizing them it ends the debate.

Really? Just try elaborating on why this movie doesn't work for you and watch the fur fly.

When you criticize something others like they often get defensive because they interpret your criticism as a personal criticism directed at them. Someone can be dispassionate about knowing someone else doesn't like what they like in a general way. But if faced directly with that criticism they can often cease being dispassionate about it.

Well, I said I "hated the movie" as a way to prove a point. In all honesty I love the movie and enjoyed it a great deal and I still do.

But the point is that the fact a person either likes or dislikes a movie is an objective fact, the reasons why a person either likes or dislikes a movie gets into the realm of subjective opinion and that is where the debates begin.

I understood your point.

I can understand why someone can like something in an empirical way and still not get it personally because we respond to different things and have different expectations.

Music, like film, is another good example. I cannot stand certain types of music while others are thrilled by it. I understand the pleasure they experience, but I can't personally understand why because it doesn't work for me. What appeals to them I find repulsive. The same can be said for food. For example I love caramel while others apparently can't stand it. Now the positions are reversed because I can't personally understand how they cannot like caramel even if I know it simply isn't to their taste.

 

[sonak]

OK, to those who think that there are no standards to judge movies by, are you saying that quality of dialogue, strength of plot/script, etc. are all just so much irrelevant window dressing? This just floors me. How would you say that the Star Wars prequels are worse than the OT then, if not in areas like better dialogue, better characterization, not as convoluted story, etc.? Even forgetting the objectivity/subjectivity argument, surely you think there are ways of judging films of similar genre against each other or something, right?

 

[number6]

Its one thing to not like something, but to imply that other people who like that very thing only like it because they have ADD and are easily impressed by explosions and bright shiny lights is an entirely different thing.

That's as personal as it gets and the people who do that frequently go crying and whining about how they're misunderstood and such when they know exactly what they're doing. Some people only visit certain forums to annoy and insult people who disagree and then have the nerve to get their knickers in a bunch when someone calls it for what it is. That's the biggest difference between being critical and just being a douchebag on the intrawebs. And Lord knows we have plenty of those on discussion boards.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yep, and they declare themselves "slumming" when they pay their little trolling visits.

 

[Gojira]

OK, to those who think that there are no standards to judge movies by, are you saying that quality of dialogue, strength of plot/script, etc. are all just so much irrelevant window dressing?

There are standards but those standards are personal and subjective. I think each and every person involved with a film are trying to reach the height of their standards but whether or not they were successful in reaching their highest standard is purely subjective.

Just because the measurement of quality is subjective it doesn't mean that people do not have standards of quality.

This just floors me. How would you say that the Star Wars prequels are worse than the OT then, if not in areas like better dialogue, better characterization, not as convoluted story, etc.? Even forgetting the objectivity/subjectivity argument, surely you think there are ways of judging films of similar genre against each other or something, right?

Yes, you can judge films of the same genre against each other but your answer will be subjective.

I know people who like the new Star Wars trilogy because those were the ones they first saw in the theater and grew up on. See how subjective it can be?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

OK, to those who think that there are no standards to judge movies by, are you saying that quality of dialogue, strength of plot/script, etc. are all just so much irrelevant window dressing?

I'm not saying that, of course - you probably even realize that - but the straightforward answer is that applying such criteria to films is a subjective judgment . Defining the criteria themselves is a subjective process.

You may have noticed that different individuals who build long careers evaluating movies come to very different conclusions about films. There tends to be a preponderance of opinion about most films - a consensus, if you like - but there is almost always disagreement among professionals about the value of a given film.

You know why that is?

It's because there is no such thing as objective evaluation of art.

Oh, BTW - the vast majority of those who actually make a living watching and evaluating movies rated Abrams's Star Trek pretty highly. That sure doesn't bode well for the suggestion that there are reasonable consensus standards for film by which it's not very good.

 

[Devon]

Trashing ST just to make the new movie look better is certainly nothing new...

Praising old Trek for qualities it didn't have to trash the new Trek is certainly nothing new either.

You were saying?

 

[kkozoriz1]

Its one thing to not like something, but to imply that other people who like that very thing only like it because they have ADD and are easily impressed by explosions and bright shiny lights is an entirely different thing.

That's as personal as it gets and the people who do that frequently go crying and whining about how they're misunderstood and such when they know exactly what they're doing. Some people only visit certain forums to annoy and insult people who disagree and then have the nerve to get their knickers in a bunch when someone calls it for what it is. That's the biggest difference between being critical and just eing a douchebag on the intrawebs. And Lord knows we have plen ty of those on discussio n boards.

It's a breath of fresh air to see someone take the high road and just call people douchbags and not resort to name calling. Restores my faith in humanity it does.

 

[Devon]

Roll your eyes all you want. We'll see. I wouldn't be a bit surprised this one ends up in the dustbin file barely remembered.

Roll your eyes all you want. We'll see. I wouldn't be a bit surprised this one ends up in the dustbin file barely remembered.

That's happening already...

^^ Here likely are the same people who had the mindset that the recent film was going to bomb. Oopsies! What these two fail to realize is that both are posts are actually wishful thinking, and nothing of the truth. They have fantasy... the rest of us have reality.

I don't expect you to agree with me but it does put a dent in your theory that the film was aimed at, or only popular with, an uncritical youth.

Warped9 never said that.

I guarantee you XI will hold up better than any of the other Trek, "movies," from the last decade or so. Then again, I'm not psychic as you apparently are.

So you can't guarantee that Trek XI will hold up.

Roll your eyes all you want. We'll see. I wouldn't be a bit surprised this one ends up in the dustbin file barely remembered.

That's happening already...

The merchandise certainly is.

And likely any merchandise failure the new film has is still more successful than merchandise successes of past Trek of the past 10 years. So now what?

Well, I don't know, I was born in 1980 and I just don't care about effects, I don't care about costuming so much. I pay attention to what the characters SAY in my sci-fi movies. Sci-fi used to be considered THE genre for nerds b/c it made some attempt at an exploration of science and it also had some of the most philosophical writings since the genre came to be.

It was only with the advent of Star Warsian SFX where the best sci-fi started to become about who had the best SFX. Writing legends wrote for classic Trek and that helped carry over into the themes which were presented in their movies. Growing old, how to end hostilities with an ancient enemy, prejudice, etc. These all USED to be the province of sci-fi.

Give me a theme in ST09 which was touched upon in anything more than a glancing superficial way you didn't see coming a mile away.

It's funny that supposedly these were seen coming a "mile away" yet had to be s-p-e-l-l-e-d out to several who didn't like the film.

In the long run TWOK will be better remembered than ST09 because (even though I have issues with it) it has more substance than ST09.

You may remember it more, but don't presume to speak for the rest of us.

XI works better if you think of it as an episode to Galaxy Quest.

Swings & misses.

I always see that as a problem with shows like Star Trek. Most of the episodes dealt with big themes and big issues. How much bigger can you get than fears of aging, racism, sexism, etc?

These were also issues dealt with in episodes of "The Golden Girls," thus, they aren't very big.

Yes, happily ignore the dumbing down of Trek.

Not at all.

Both Transformers movies made much more that XI did so they must be even better films! Even Revenge of the Sith made way more than Trek did and it is widely regarded as the worst of the Star Wars movies. I guess even good Trek is worse than bad Star Wars.

Very very tired and ignorant argument. Film was ranked very highly by your fellow Trek fans as evidenced by polls & the general movie public. Ignore the money, what you have is a very highly regarded film. No, that isn't an opinion of mine, that is a supported fact.

Also, any attempt to say that "The general movie going public has a short attention span and have no taste" is no more of a mature statement than an elementary school mentality saying "You have a different opinion than me so you must be stupid."

Trek is dying a slow death and this is the wrong way to save it.

Wrong. Was.

Book sales are down.

2009 Novel was on the NY Times Bestsellers list. The other Trek books "failures," if there are any, are of no fault of the new film.

The toy tie-in to XI were a major flop. There's no halo effect. No uptick in interest in Trek overall. So, let's dumb it down some more. Maybe a few more explosions will save it.

So you think that a film that you personally would like would save those other aspects? No.

^^ I've seen plenty of crap over the years that critics went gaga over. It ain't a convincing argument.

Abrams wasn't interested in making Star Trek. He wanted something more like Star Wars but dressed passingly as Trek---he essentially says that flat out on the dvd.

Not interested in what he "essentially said," what did he really say before you interpreted it the way you did?

And so a lot of other folks seem to like the SW treatment. A lot of those that made the film popular couldn't tell you what Star Trek was if their life depended on it. They thought it looked familiar enough and that was good enough for them. It means squat.

A lot of the people who made Trek 09 popular were your peers in Trek fandom, so remember that.

But if you put ST09 side-by-side with TWOK or the bulk of TOS then it's as plain as day how shallow and outright bad it is.

Nope. I can watch both and be satisfied with them. But then I'm not on a desperate quest to bash or compare the films.

Time will do what dissenters aren't presently able to: bury this thing in the dustbin of movie history.

More wishful thinking. This sounds like you are really upset that others have different opinions of you, and you are really hoping that more people share your opinion in due time. Otherwise, why should you care about a film franchise that you don't seem to have any intention of supporting?

Actually, yeah it was the film critics' fawning over it even more than Trek fans' reactions to Trek09 that really baffled me. I remember thinking after seeing the film opening day and being underwhelmed, that the movie was going to get some mixed reviews, with an overall consensus of it being mediocre.

Instead, critics went NUTS over it! It seemed like almost every major reviewer gave it three and a half or four stars! Even if you could appreciate it as an empty but entertaining summer blockbuster, it wasn't deserving of the massive praise heaped upon it.

Have standards sunk that low?

This is the "You don't agree with my opinion so therefore you're not as smart" type of comment I reference earlier. You just admitted in your statement that you couldn't understand why people had a different opinion from you.

The TOS Enterprise is reputed (on-screen) to have the ability to destroy a planet. This probably just means scorching the surface, but the practical effect (genocide) would be the same.

Since the Narada is from hundreds of years into the future, it is not hard to see why defenses crumbled. Just imagine the HMS Victory leading a fleet of English ships against a modern aircraft carrier, or an attack sub, or a cruiser. Land defenses would fare about the same.

That stated TWoK is STILL better than Nu-Trek...

Speak for yourself.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...any attempt to say that "The general movie going public has a short attention span and have no taste" is no more of a mature statement than an elementary school mentality saying "You have a different opinion than me so you must be stupid."

Exactly so.

Basically...the complainers got nuthin', and consequently expend a great deal of energy making things up and pouting that others won't take their angry fantasies for truth.

 

[Jeyl]

Well, the movie still sucks and I've seen way better Star Trek material out there. If anyone thinks this new movie reflects what Star Trek is all about, well, you can keep it. If I want the original crew, I'll watch the original crew.

 

[Dukhat]

Well, the movie still sucks and I've seen way better Star Trek material out there. If anyone thinks this new movie reflects what Star Trek is all about, well, you can keep it. If I want the original crew, I'll watch the original crew.

And I feel the complete opposite of how you feel, in everything you said. So there you go.

 

[Deckerd]

I prefer the 09 movie to any and all of the other movies. Star Trek is a television show and never translated well to the big screen, until last year.

Also there is something to be said for there not being a current TV show for years and the last one to be made being from a completely different time. It means even the skeptical fans were stoked for anything to do with the franchise.

 

[Jeyl]

Why is this thread in the "Star Trek Movies I-X" when all we're talking about is the new movie?