Kevin Smith Hints that Trek-XI is "Phenomenal"

[Amaris]

Yeah, I'm very encouraged at this latest assessment by Smith.

All together, now:

He's seen the movie.

We haven't.

Regardless of his taste, his opinion is an informed one.

We're just pissing in the wind, here.

Unlike others who have actually eaten faeces, I haven't eaten it, but I'm pretty sure it tastes... like s***.

Indeed. Except that's not what is being discussed.

This is an unknown entity.

Suppose you and a friend who had totally different tastes from you were hungry, and found a fruit tree in the middle of the desert. You've never seen anything like it before. Your friend takes one from the tree and bites first and after a moment, says "it's phenomenal, it tastes wonderful!", would you then reply, "I haven't eaten it, but I'm pretty sure it tastes like crap." Is that what you would do?

That's what you're doing here.
Tastes vary, but if you won't even try it, then you starve because of your own ignorance.

Just food for thought on how you perceive things.

J.

 

[CaptainWacky]

No mention of abusive uncles in Smith's review. I'm beginning to doubt that he actually saw it.

You mean in that extremely brief and deliberately vague review of the quality of a film he couldn't directly admit to talking about he didn't mention a specific plot detail?

SHOCKING.

Yes, that's what my 100% deadly serious post was refering to.

 

[M'Sharak]

I think it was 98 per cent deadly serious, myself, but I could be convinced to go as low as 95.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

No mention of abusive uncles in Smith's review. I'm beginning to doubt that he actually saw it.

You mean in that extremely brief and deliberately vague review of the quality of a film he couldn't directly admit to talking about he didn't mention a specific plot detail?

SHOCKING.

Yes, that's what my 100% deadly serious post was refering to.

Then I apologize for misunderstanding, but to be fair, that's not exactly an inconceivable comment for a lot of people around here to make, so it's hard to tell whether it's serious or not.

 

[Gepard]

I agree. No offense to CaptainWacky, who I'm sure is a very funny person, but I thought it was deadly serious too.

 

[3D Master]

Indeed. Except that's not what is being discussed.

This is an unknown entity.

Suppose you and a friend who had totally different tastes from you were hungry, and found a fruit tree in the middle of the desert. You've never seen anything like it before. Your friend takes one from the tree and bites first and after a moment, says "it's phenomenal, it tastes wonderful!", would you then reply, "I haven't eaten it, but I'm pretty sure it tastes like crap." Is that what you would do?

That's what you're doing here.
Tastes vary, but if you won't even try it, then you starve because of your own ignorance.

Just food for thought on how you perceive things.

That's ridiculous. If we're starving in the desert, then it doesn't matter what it tastes like, you eat it anyway. But we're not starving, now are we? Neither are we starving for SF/Star Trek whether bad or good. Plenty of SF around, if not on the screen, then in books, more than I can read in a lifetime.

 

[Gepard]

That's ridiculous. If we're starving in the desert, then it doesn't matter what it tastes like, you eat it anyway. But we're not starving, now are we? Neither are we starving for SF/Star Trek whether bad or good. Plenty of SF around, if not on the screen, then in books, more than I can read in a lifetime.

"Starving" was not the operative thrust of J. Allen's argument. It's that we have the opportunity to try something that may be delicious, and some people won't for fear that it could be yucky. Fine and dandy, but nobody stands to lose anything here except eight bucks, so why not keep an open mind?

 

[MyCylon]

I'm really starting to get interested in the movie, I have to say. I'm still keeping it to 'mildly optimistic' for the time being (just to be on the safe side ;-)).

I'm wondering how much this will be like the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica on some levels. From what little I've seen, I get the impression they're going for a retro look & feel on the one hand and somewhat more realism (maybe even grittyness) on the other, which is similar to what nuBSG has done. I also think a re-imagining would be the right way to go.
And the fact that Smith likes the new movie so much makes me even more inclined to think there may be some similarities to what Moore did on nuBSG since Smith's a great fan of that show.
Looking at the critical acclaim nuBSG has received I wouldn't be surprised if Abrams and his team picked up on a few of the things the show has been doing. I think that would be really cool.

P.S.: I'm not well informed about the new movie by any standards. I tend to read the TrekToday headlines and lurk here every now and then (among other things, I don't want to be spoiled). However, I've seen the teaser trailer and, as mentioned above, some of the pictures from the set that were on the net some time ago.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^Re-imagined BSG had very little in common with the original, except for character names, the basic premise, and the general shape of some of the ships.

I think Star trek on the other hand will be a re-imagining, but the story told will fit nicely in with the existing universe. It will be as if you read this script without seeing the film -- you would have no doubt it was a Star Trek story set in the Star Trek universe, since (hopefully) the characters act like the originals, and the facts jibe with the other parts of the greater "Star Trek" body of work.

The same can't be said about nuBSG with regards to the original. If you read one of the scripts of the modern BSG, you would be hard pressed to believe it had any connection to the original.

That's not to say that nuBSG should be more like the original. In fact I'm glad it is only superficially like the original.

 

[MyCylon]

^
I'll certainly agree that there's more in Trek that's worth keeping than the original BSG. I just hope the makers of the new Trek movies are really taking the liberties they need to make this good.

 

[Steven Of Nine]

Unlike others who have actually eaten faeces, I haven't eaten it, but I'm pretty sure it tastes... like s***.

Me too, but I'd still give more credit for experience to an assertion by someone who had than someone who hadn't.

You'd take the word of someone stupid enough to eat fecal matter?

And your vote counts...

 

[ancient]

You know, at this rate we should just stop discussing Star Trek and start discussing Shit instead.

Since it's something people in here apparently can form intelligent opinions on.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Unlike others who have actually eaten faeces, I haven't eaten it, but I'm pretty sure it tastes... like s***.

Me too, but I'd still give more credit for experience to an assertion by someone who had than someone who hadn't.

You'd take the word of someone stupid enough to eat fecal matter?

And your vote counts...

You know, you're just not going to be able to sell the premise that an uninformed opinion is more worthy than that of someone who's seen the film. You set yourself up by leading with the "I don't have to eat a whole egg to know that it's rotten" cliche even though that logic doesn't track the situation at hand, and so you're boxed in.

 

[ancient]

Ok, here's an even better analogy:

I never met Hitler, but I know he was bad.

Therefor, Star Trek will be bad.

Because I never saw it, either.

End of discussion.

...

And now to continue with another solid peice of logic:

I never saw the Earth get sucked into a black hole, but I know it would be bad.

I never saw Star Trek XI either.

Therefor, it will also be bad.

Man, I have to explain everything to you people!