ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Highly unlikely.
You just want to contradict - perhaps because you're annoyed that I called you on your - let's euphemistically call it self-contradiction?
Read my previous posts and learn, as you claim to want.
Just watched Star Trek V - pros and cons
- Thread starter Aslan ch'Shran
- Start date
Highly unlikely.
You just want to contradict - perhaps because you're annoyed that I called you on your - let's euphemistically call it self-contradiction?
Read my previous posts and learn, as you claim to want.
Seriously, I can't find much.
You said this:
As for - there are no objective criteria by which to judge a work of art - well, this is absurd. What I find surprising is that such an obviously erroneous argument was even invoked by some in order to save their pet movie. Anything, just to avoid admitting the movie is sub-standard.
Objective criteria is what differentiates the artistic masterpieces from mediocre works - not how you happen to think about them.
For example, Rembrand's work is FAR better than the work of some untalented nobody, despite the fact that someone would like Rembrand's paintings less.
'Contact' is FAR better than 'Lost in space' even if someone would like 'Lost in space' more.
You said the idea that there are no objective criteria is absurd, yet you never gave an example of what such an objective criteria might be.
You never said WHY Rembrandt's work is FAR better. You also never said WHY Contact is FAR better.
You also said that the VFX are objectively garbage because of the wires. Then I answered that the evaluation "wires = garbage" is purely subjective. A statement you didn't reply to.
So I ask you, please clarify.
A
Amaris
Guest
One of my favorite scenes from the movie is the campfire scene. Now, I realize people cringe at "row, row, row, your boat", but I love that whole scene, and I love it specifically for McCoy's "I liked him better before he died" comment right after the song. 
It's just a brilliant moment of interplay between the Big Three and a gem in the movie.
It's just a brilliant moment of interplay between the Big Three and a gem in the movie.
That scene usually is the one I use an example of the TOS crew being more together, more family, than the other crews in TNG, DS9, and Voyager.One of my favorite scenes from the movie is the campfire scene. Now, I realize people cringe at "row, row, row, your boat", but I love that whole scene, and I love it specifically for McCoy's "I liked him better before he died" comment right after the song.
It's just a brilliant moment of interplay between the Big Three and a gem in the movie.
Whatever behind the scenes BS over the years, this cast just worked in a way that I think the others never captured.
No it doesn't. The reason it was rejected from the city hall was because it did not correspond to then current ideals and criteria regarding history painting. That's the whole point. It was not appreciated by most at the time. How hard is that for you to understand. The fact that Rembrandt had to resort to cutting it to pieces so that he could sell them should be evidence enough. The fact is the same is true of all of his later work which was not appreciated until much later.
I've answered you before you asked the question. My first example still stands. Besides what are you saying? That all works of art that are now considered masterpieces were always so regarded and immediately recognized as such? Because that's a pretty absurd claim to make.
A
Amaris
Guest
That scene usually is the one I use an example of the TOS crew being more together, more family, than the other crews in TNG, DS9, and Voyager.One of my favorite scenes from the movie is the campfire scene. Now, I realize people cringe at "row, row, row, your boat", but I love that whole scene, and I love it specifically for McCoy's "I liked him better before he died" comment right after the song.
It's just a brilliant moment of interplay between the Big Three and a gem in the movie.
Whatever behind the scenes BS over the years, this cast just worked in a way that I think the others never captured.
I'm not sure if it was ever as bad as we think it is. As I've listened to the cast and crew over the years, I am starting to get the idea that in the original series years, the Shat was a prankster and a bit insufferable, kind of like the jock that's a pretty good guy but can come off as a smug jerk sometimes. I think, over the course of the movie years, things changed. Nimoy, Shatner and Kelley became the best of friends, and I think what made things worse was that Nichols, Doohan, Koenig and Takei weren't put in the spotlight like the Big Three. That doesn't invalidate their opinions, as I highly respect and like them all, but it does put things into a little more perspective. By the time of STV, De, Bill and Leonard were family, so I always feel those scenes are very genuine.
^ Nichols says that Shatner was a wonderful director to work with -- she attributes it to his being in charge, and so not feeling threatened. As she put it, "our wonderful old Bill was back."
The gang of four were bit players in a three year-long tv show in the 1960s. They were lucky to have steady work. I say that not because of their talent, but simply because that's what their roles were. Over the following 40 years they had millions of fans telling them that they were the stars of the show, and it went to their heads -- all four of them.
Could Shatner be an asshole? You bet. But he was the star of the show. Deal.
Edit: To be clear, I like all four of them. Doohan was a charming man, Koenig remarkably bright and well-versed in theater, Nichols is just lovely inside and out, and... well, I don't know much about Takei, but he clearly has a healthy sense of humor.
The gang of four were bit players in a three year-long tv show in the 1960s. They were lucky to have steady work. I say that not because of their talent, but simply because that's what their roles were. Over the following 40 years they had millions of fans telling them that they were the stars of the show, and it went to their heads -- all four of them.
Could Shatner be an asshole? You bet. But he was the star of the show. Deal.
Edit: To be clear, I like all four of them. Doohan was a charming man, Koenig remarkably bright and well-versed in theater, Nichols is just lovely inside and out, and... well, I don't know much about Takei, but he clearly has a healthy sense of humor.
Here's a pro from STV. The one good effect Bran Ferren and Associates did in the whole film; get the size difference between the Enterprise and the BOP correct, something ILM wasn't able to do, ever.
I like STV warts and all. Despite what many say, I think Shatner did a good job directing. The shots were set wonderfully, he got the most from his actors, sets and lighting were good, grading was good (especially for an 80's movie), etc...
Now what kept Shatner from being a great director and from STV from being a great film are things that may or may not have been in his control. Cheap effects, crappy plot (writing was weak overall, though I do like the more natural dialog for the characters)... and well, that's really it. The effects have been shown to be out of his control, the crappy plot, well... I don't know the particulars of the writing, but it's a shame that Shatner didn't take more control of the scriptwriting to doctor it up, but Paramount wanted what they wanted, which was a forced STIV humor. Of course that brings Shatner back into better light, the humor wasn't meant to be in it, but making lemonade out of lemons, the actors do the humor well and Shatner brings it out of them well.
Now what kept Shatner from being a great director and from STV from being a great film are things that may or may not have been in his control. Cheap effects, crappy plot (writing was weak overall, though I do like the more natural dialog for the characters)... and well, that's really it. The effects have been shown to be out of his control, the crappy plot, well... I don't know the particulars of the writing, but it's a shame that Shatner didn't take more control of the scriptwriting to doctor it up, but Paramount wanted what they wanted, which was a forced STIV humor. Of course that brings Shatner back into better light, the humor wasn't meant to be in it, but making lemonade out of lemons, the actors do the humor well and Shatner brings it out of them well.
Since the effects are mentioned again and again by almost everyone, one just has to assume that the movie would be MUCH better perceived had ILM done the effects.
Sorry to keep going with this guy, but I think I may be amused to see what hilarious rhetoric he'll come up with next...
Yeah, that and all the other arguments which have been given here.
It seems funny, then, that you've never applied such mythical criteria, only your conclusion which you claim is based on those objective factors. Go ahead, break it down for us. Show us in detail how you arrived at this supposedly irrefutable conclusion.
If there are objective criteria for judging art, then where's the website that rates every movie according to these infallible standards and gives us the final, objective rating for them? Why are so many professional critics being paid a lot of money to provide subjective reviews of movies, if these alleged objective criteria do exist?
And there, you have another false premise. Besides the fact that TFF is not my "pet movie," I have no need to attempt to "save" it. I will continue to enjoy it each time I watch it, no matter what you say. So unless you intend to come to my home and forcibly remove my DVD, then there is nothing you can do harm it. Therefore, it does not need to be "saved."
And if the argument that there are no objective criteria for art is so obviously erroneous, then why is nobody agreeing with you? I guess it doesn't seem so obvious to anyone else.
If I said the movie was substandard but I love it anyway, would that change your opinion at all? Or are you making the classic logical fallacy of starting from the conclusion and then just making everything you perceive fit the view you've already chosen?
Go ahead, rate Rembrandt's work according to objective criteria. I don't mean using general terms like "style, composition, etc." Explain exactly what objective criteria are met in any work by Rembrandt, in detail, if you would.
Of course his work is far better than that of some untalented nobody, but it may not be better than that of some talented nobody. Or then, are you suggesting that popularity is the objective standard that defines quality in art?
Well then, maybe you should have read more than just a part, because you clearly have absolutely no understanding of why I so dislike the movie (and since I've stated it repeatedly, you must have read very little indeed). Thus, your accusation is baseless as your premise is flawed.
But I will give points to JarodRussell for accurately predicting that you would try to tell me what I think. Try again, Kreskin.
A wiki page cannot conclusively deny anything, since anyone can modify them. That's about as subjective as it gets.
Go ahead, again; break it down for us point by point. What is the objective criterion ("criterions" is not a word, by the way--objectively) for a good plot? What is the objective criterion for good pacing? What is the objective criterion for good SFX? What the heck are you talking about when you say "image?" Go ahead, explain these objective standards to us, and we shall believe in you.
Yeah, that and all the other arguments which have been given here.
It seems funny, then, that you've never applied such mythical criteria, only your conclusion which you claim is based on those objective factors. Go ahead, break it down for us. Show us in detail how you arrived at this supposedly irrefutable conclusion.
If there are objective criteria for judging art, then where's the website that rates every movie according to these infallible standards and gives us the final, objective rating for them? Why are so many professional critics being paid a lot of money to provide subjective reviews of movies, if these alleged objective criteria do exist?
And there, you have another false premise. Besides the fact that TFF is not my "pet movie," I have no need to attempt to "save" it. I will continue to enjoy it each time I watch it, no matter what you say. So unless you intend to come to my home and forcibly remove my DVD, then there is nothing you can do harm it. Therefore, it does not need to be "saved."
And if the argument that there are no objective criteria for art is so obviously erroneous, then why is nobody agreeing with you? I guess it doesn't seem so obvious to anyone else.
Anything, just to avoid admitting the movie is sub-standard
If I said the movie was substandard but I love it anyway, would that change your opinion at all? Or are you making the classic logical fallacy of starting from the conclusion and then just making everything you perceive fit the view you've already chosen?
Go ahead, rate Rembrandt's work according to objective criteria. I don't mean using general terms like "style, composition, etc." Explain exactly what objective criteria are met in any work by Rembrandt, in detail, if you would.
Of course his work is far better than that of some untalented nobody, but it may not be better than that of some talented nobody. Or then, are you suggesting that popularity is the objective standard that defines quality in art?
Well then, maybe you should have read more than just a part, because you clearly have absolutely no understanding of why I so dislike the movie (and since I've stated it repeatedly, you must have read very little indeed). Thus, your accusation is baseless as your premise is flawed.
But I will give points to JarodRussell for accurately predicting that you would try to tell me what I think. Try again, Kreskin.
A wiki page cannot conclusively deny anything, since anyone can modify them. That's about as subjective as it gets.
Go ahead, again; break it down for us point by point. What is the objective criterion ("criterions" is not a word, by the way--objectively) for a good plot? What is the objective criterion for good pacing? What is the objective criterion for good SFX? What the heck are you talking about when you say "image?" Go ahead, explain these objective standards to us, and we shall believe in you.
Last edited:
Only so much, it would have lessened some of the problems on the visual level. But the script really did need a few more revisions to tweak it here and there. The chance to really shake up and test the friendship of the big three was glossed right over. Especially with Spock being forced between siding with Kirk or siding with his estranged Brother.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
RookieBatman
You can always read my posts if you want details about what I said about star trek V.
As for the rest - as I already made clear, I have no more interest in wasting my time arguing this subject with you or JarodRussell.
You've more than proven in that Trek lit star trek XI thread that it would be a waste of my time - no matter how absurd your position becomes, you just keep repeating the same information. You even got to the point where you admitted that you will never change your mind, regardless of the counterarguments (not a very inspired admission, RookieBatman) - which is really everything I need to know.
You can always read my posts if you want details about what I said about star trek V.
As for the rest - as I already made clear, I have no more interest in wasting my time arguing this subject with you or JarodRussell.
You've more than proven in that Trek lit star trek XI thread that it would be a waste of my time - no matter how absurd your position becomes, you just keep repeating the same information. You even got to the point where you admitted that you will never change your mind, regardless of the counterarguments
(not a very inspired admission, RookieBatman) - which is really everything I need to know.
I do think VFX play a much bigger role than we all realize.
Imagine Star Trek 2009 with effects at TFF level, but with the exact same story, actors, dialogue, etc... . Almost everybody would hate it.
I asked you in my last post to clarify specific points, because I want to understand your POV, but you refuse to do it. Why?
I have read your posts. All of them, which is apparently more deference than you've given me. And I haven't yet found anything but gross generalizations. If these objective criteria exist, share them. If you don't share them, I will be forced to assume it's because you know they don't stand up to scrutiny.
You even got to the point where you admitted that you will never change your mind, regardless of the counterarguments
THAT NEVER HAPPENED. Let me make this perfectly clear. Perhaps I should've made my meaning more overt in the first place (silly me for thinking people wouldn't assume the worst on the internet), but the misunderstanding would not have happened if both you and Christopher weren't determined to assume the interpretation that was the most damning.
And besides, interpretation notwithstanding, "admitting" that I only see one side of an issue is lightyears away from saying I "will never change my mind, regardless of the counterarguments." Have you ever stopped to consider how much these things you're accusing me of sound like yourself?
On this at least, we can agree. You certainly are wasting your time arguing this subject, because your position is clearly and blatantly wrong to everyone but yourself.
I can never get my head around people saying STV sucks because of the effects. It's a TOS movie. TOS's effects were shit, yet it launched a gigantic film and TV franchise.
No. They weren't.
They were by the time the home videos and DVD's were released, and it sold just fine.
They were starting to show their age during TOS's famous run in syndication. Yet people still watched and became fans.
I agree that they definitely were not by the standards of the day (in fact, they were fairly groundbreaking, as I understand it), but I think the point KingDaniel was trying to make is that even if they don't stand up as well to the effects of today, there are a lot of people who greatly enjoy the show despite that. And the same can easily apply to TFF. For myself, I watched it on a little TV the first time I saw it, so I don't know if that made a difference, but I didn't really notice anything wrong with the effects. Of course, I wasn't looking for it. Maybe next time when I watch it on a big flatscreen, now being more aware of the issues, I may be more sensitive to it. But I think I'll just make the decision to not let that ruin my enjoyment of the story and the characters.
Similar threads
- Poll
