It's ''fans'' like this, that make trekkie's LOOK bad!

[Mysterion]

I guess I missed the memo that the rest of you folks seem to have gotten telling everyone what opinion to have of the new Star Trek movie.

Why can't this guy have his opinion withour other folks accussing him of destroying Trek fandom? I don't know where the rest of you have been the last forty years, but there has always been dissent in Trek fandom. If you disagree with him, that's fine nothing wrong with that. But how about having some fucking grace and civillity while you do it?

Good to know that whole IDIC thing from TOS took hold so well.

 

[Warped9]

I guess I missed the memo that the rest of you folks seem to have gotten telling everyone what opinion to have of the new Star Trek movie.

Why can't this guy have his opinion withour other folks accussing him of destroying Trek fandom? I don't know where the rest of you have been the last forty years, but there has always been dissent in Trek fandom. If you disagree with him, that's fine nothing wrong with that. But how about having some fucking grace and civillity while you do it?

Good to know that whole IDIC thing from TOS took hold so well.

Well said.

 

[adamisme]

i think i've gone slightly blind from trying to read that.

 

[M'Sharak]

I could really do without ever seeing another James Dixon meltdown, to be honest. Those just aren't very pretty.

Mr. Dixon has been out of the main stream for years... 17 was his last. Which I still have some where.

I wasn't referring to his Trek timelines, particularly -- those evidence an agenda on his part, to be sure, but they're very thorough and thus not without value -- I meant rather the gigantic ugly tantrums and flame-jobs he was known for pitching right here on this BBS, often over "Treknological" issues. Most unpleasant, those. It has been a while, though.

It's a shame that some "fans" have used this movie to attack more than 40 years of Trek history.

I think you'll find that people doing that are as much a minority as are those attacking others for having the nerve to say they like the movie. Most of us are a pretty reasonable bunch, really, and don't mind that others hold opinions which may differ in one way or another from our own. There's plenty of room.

 

[Overgeeked]

I guess I missed the memo that the rest of you folks seem to have gotten telling everyone what opinion to have of the new Star Trek movie.

Why can't this guy have his opinion withour other folks accussing him of destroying Trek fandom? I don't know where the rest of you have been the last forty years, but there has always been dissent in Trek fandom. If you disagree with him, that's fine nothing wrong with that. But how about having some fucking grace and civillity while you do it?

Good to know that whole IDIC thing from TOS took hold so well.

I love the idea of the IDIC, but to be fair, it was created as a marketing ploy. And, you have to remember this is the internets, there's no such thing as civility and grace. That's the beauty of the net, people get to be as big a douche bags as they want with no repercussions.

Yeah this isn't surprising and to be expected. If he hadn't done it some one else would. I definitely wouldn't but I'll say one thing, either he watched the film 20 times or downloaded an illegal copy!

He'd be only one of well over 75,876 downloads completed; 10,175 seeders; and 16,071 leechers of one version of the movie on the net. Those numbers are taken from one file, from one site. There are hundreds of version of the movie on hundreds of sites across the net. I have not downloaded the movie, but it's a safe bet that quite a few people here have. No I will not cite the site as that could be construed as promoting theft and copyright infringement, which I will not.

It's a shame that some "fans" have used this movie to attack more than 40 years of Trek history.

It's a shame that some "writers" and "directors" have used this movie to attack more than 40 years of Trek history.

 

[Akiraprise]

I've read this entire thread and I'm amazed at how many people take offense at pointing out any inconsistencies in the plot. I thought this movie kicked ass. But it had plot holes. We don't need to make excuses for the writers or try to explain them away. They're there. Doesn't mean the movie sucked, or a person is anti Trek, to point them out.

 

[Kelso]

^ Exactly right.

I love the flick... but most of Bernd's points are completely valid.

 

[ST-One]

I've read this entire thread and I'm amazed at how many people take offense at pointing out any inconsistencies in the plot. I thought this movie kicked ass. But it had plot holes. We don't need to make excuses for the writers or try to explain them away. They're there. Doesn't mean the movie sucked, or a person is anti Trek, to point them out.

But explaining them is part of the fun.
We've done it with the other films so why shouldn't we do it with this one?

 

[Tentacle]

I've read this entire thread and I'm amazed at how many people take offense at pointing out any inconsistencies in the plot. I thought this movie kicked ass. But it had plot holes. We don't need to make excuses for the writers or try to explain them away. They're there. Doesn't mean the movie sucked, or a person is anti Trek, to point them out.

But explaining them is part of the fun.
We've done it with the other films so why shouldn't we do it with this one?

the whole tone of this thread giving its subject title is directed at making fun of the nerd.
And now somehow you are saying making stuff up trying to patch up plot holes is less nerdy than pointing them out?

 

[Akiraprise]

I've read this entire thread and I'm amazed at how many people take offense at pointing out any inconsistencies in the plot. I thought this movie kicked ass. But it had plot holes. We don't need to make excuses for the writers or try to explain them away. They're there. Doesn't mean the movie sucked, or a person is anti Trek, to point them out.

But explaining them is part of the fun.
We've done it with the other films so why shouldn't we do it with this one?

the whole tone of this thread giving its subject title is directed at making fun of the nerd.
And now somehow you are saying making stuff up trying to patch up plot holes is less nerdy than pointing them out?

I guess that's what I'm sensing too. The tone. People seem genuinely pissed at Bernd for pointing out the films flaws. I know we've tried justifying other film's plot holes for fun too, in the past. I'm just getting the sense, from some, like that's not permissible with this flick because it has no flaws. Which is a bit of an exaggeration too, I know.

 

[Overgeeked]

I guess that's what I'm sensing too. The tone. People seem genuinely pissed at Bernd for pointing out the films flaws. I know we've tried justifying other film's plot holes for fun too, in the past. I'm just getting the sense, from some, like that's not permissible with this flick because it has no flaws. Which is a bit of an exaggeration too, I know.

Which is exactly why I started the Is Star Trek 2009 Beyond Criticism? thread. I've sensed that drive on the board as well. If you criticize the film at all you're somehow a hater and should go die (or get a life) and leave the "real" fans alone. Any threads pointing out the problems the new film has immediately turn into a "look, what a nerd" thread.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

People seem genuinely pissed at Bernd for pointing out the films flaws.

Of course, I can only say this for myself, not others. But, I don't think it's a case of being pissed off at the author for pointing out the films flaws; it's more likely a case of being disappointed by the author due to the nonsensical stuff he points out.

His website has always been a good, comprehensive library of information. His articles are mostly unbiased, (seemingly) made with a genuine effort to point out inconsistencies, offer possibilities as to how they might have occurred and even possible ways as to how they might be explained.

However, lately, his articles (especially those about the new movie) seem to be written from a different perspective: no longer trying to point out and explain inconsistencies, Mr. Bernd Schneider now seens to revel in presenting personal opinions as facts and stating inconsistencies while doing no real effort to deduce why they might have occured.

The newer articles simply add nothing to the table, while some of his old articles certainly did. Of course, Bernd Schneider doesn't have to write up these articles in his free time; we should be glad he does that for us.

Still...

Somehow, it feels a little bit as if he's misusing his own name. As a reader, you might think: "Oh, an article on EAS, by Bernd Schneider? I'll read that, it'll probably be a comprehensive article about the inconsistencies and how they might be explained!". It might not be fair, but that's simply how it is; he's made a name for himself and people hold him to the standard they've come to expect.

Instead of the article you expected, you get some half-baked writeup about inconsistencies, personal opinions stated as facts and a general tone of "I don't like anything about this movie, but I'm going to vent my frustrations anyway". It simply seems wrong; going by older articles, Mr Bernd Schneider seems more capable then this.

Yes, the movie has it's flaws. And its plotholes are large enough to fly the Nerada through. But it's been explained -- in-movie, I might add -- that it's an alternate universe. Things are different. Yet, mr. Schneider seems to revel in the opportunity to present his personal opinions as facts. Not only that, but he tries to back up his claims by pointing out that these issues are wrong because they're different from the original Star Trek series. Well, of course they're different, it's an alternate universe!

It's apparent he doesn't like the new movie. Well, his loss. Not everybody likes it, that's to be expected. But, it seems wrong for him to use his, previously (seemingly) unbiased website, as a way to vent frustration; readers aren't going to expect that and some will be insulted by it. You don't browse there if you want to read a rant; there's lots of other places to read those.

This article (and others about the movie) doesn't clear things up. If anything, it confuses the reader even more.

 

[Gepard]

^Well said. It's like he used to be a journalist but now he's a 'fanboi.'

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

On some points he's absolutely correct; big plot holes there. Others, are minutiae, but that's what readers expect. But points like these are simply silly:

# Since when is the sky of Vulcan blue? While it used to vary between red and yellow shades from TOS to ENT, we never saw a blue sky so far.

The color of the sky depends on the light from the sun hitting certain particles at a certain angle, absorbing certain colors, as far as I know. The sky isn't always blue on Earth, either; just wait 'till the sun goes down. Oh no, it's becoming red! Are we dying??!

# There is a window on the Kelvin bridge instead of a solid wall with a viewscreen as on all other Starfleet vessels of the future or past that were ever shown. This is not a one-off phenomenon, considering that the redesigned Enterprise has such a window too. So there is something different about the parallel universe designs, only that the Kelvin predates this universe.

We never saw the Kelvin in the old universe. Besides: Redress -- viewers won't accept that to be the future otherwise.

The warp drive, the phasers and even the transporters all make some sort of shooting noise when they are activated. There used to be a "bang" at times when the warp drive was activated (most memorably in TNG), but there is supposed to be no sound in space anyway. A traditionally sizzling transporter noise is in the new movie too, but there is also the bang. And the previously just hissing (pulse?) phasers suddenly sound a bit like the machine ray guns of Battlestar Galactica (reboot).

Speaks for itself -- so the sounds are a bit different. As if a Corvette sounds the same as a Toyota -- even though they're both cars and both have a combustion engine.

# When the shuttles from the Academy arrive at the Enterprise, we can see that about a dozen of them are stacked on two levels on either side of the shuttlebay. The shuttlebay has to be some 40m across to accommodate the 10m+ shuttles in the shown fashion. This would translate to a length of the Enterprise of some 800m meters! Such a monster ship would be considerably bigger than a Galaxy class, and its volume would be 20 times(!) that of the Prime Universe original Enterprise. Fortunately the windows, hatches and deck structure clearly indicate that a size around 300m is true, no matter what the people in charge of the VFX keep saying. What remains is just a blatant scaling error that has to be ignored for anything about the ship design to make sense.

Speaks for itself; the windows, hatches and deck structure doesn't clearly indicate that a size around 300m is true. The rest is a personal opinion stated as fact: we don't know how long the Enterprise is, but all evidence supports a length of 600-735m, so his statements about the ship are false at best.

It's a shame the recent articles are so opinionated; seems to me Mr. Bernd Schneider wants all visual and sound effects to be exactly the same as in TOS. Certainly, he quoted elsewhere on his site: "Only an Enterprise with minimal alternations would have been acceptable." but it seems I can't find it any longer. I don't know if the article's still there, or if it has changed somehow.

I hope Mr. Bernd Schneider will soon get back to his original method of writing articles.

 

[miraclefan]

WOW! when I started this topic I had NO idea it would become such a debate! Sorry I haven't posted sooner, but I had to go in to town. And I didn't mean to ''BASH'' this guy, I was just trying to point out that some ''fans'' ether it be trekies or wars fans or some other genre seem to take pieces of fictional work too seriously!

 

[The Wormhole]

While I admit, Ex Astris Scientia is not my favourite Trek site and Bernd is at times rather opinionated and I find myself saying "WTF?" over quite a few things on that site, this list of nitpicks over Trek XI is actually quite good and very legitimate.

 

[Falconfire]

Instead of the article you expected, you get some half-baked writeup about inconsistencies, personal opinions stated as facts and a general tone of "I don't like anything about this movie, but I'm going to vent my frustrations anyway". It simply seems wrong; going by older articles, Mr Bernd Schneider seems more capable then this.

I agree, the minute he put up the picture of the Starbase, and made a crass comment to the effect that a nod to the mushroom would have been better, I gave up on his articles.

Never mind the fact we have seen a multitude of starbases and this one looks closer to all of them EXCEPT the stupid mushroom, it was also a clear nod to the old FJ Starfleet design, which predated ILMs mushroom by decades, even if it was Fanon.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Well, as long as he's happy, I guess...

 

[Trekker4747]

He makes a lot of good points, some senseless rants than can easily be explained away, and some petty nit-picking.

But I don't think he's a "fan who makes Trekkies/Trekkers look bad."

You're only saying that because you disagree with him.

If he raved about every changed detail in this movie to mastubatory levels like some have done then no one would bat an eye.

 

[donners22]

He actually gave the film a reasonably solid rating (7 out of 10 as I recall), so I think some people are a bit off the mark with their assessment of his motivations or reactions.