Screening report from chud.com
- Thread starter AudioBridge
- Start date
So many of the criticisms of the film are overwhelmingly trivial. The studio want an audience that will suspend disbelief for long enough to enjoy a fantasy film. Why does it matter where the ship was built? Have we seen anything in Trek before now to suggest a ship cannot be built on Earth? Or are people just upset that the eventual concensus of years of speculation is different to the creative judgement of the people in charge? It matters not.
As for the other concerns raised by the reviewer. Quintos makes for a perfectly adequate Sylar so I can't complain about his acting, but I've only seen Nimoy's portrayal of Spock, perhaps Qunitos' portrayal is just different. They are different actors afterall and Trek fans are hardly objective judges, many here would have you believe Avery Brookes can act.
I was under the impression that this was a fan-site but theres too much negativity to qualify it as such. I'm (and suspect many others)are here looking for the buzz, excitement and gossip about a new Trek film (also because I'm at work and genuinely absolutely do not have anything better to do) but many here just want to tear it down. I don't like mushy peas, but wouldn't dedicate my spare time telling the world what was wrong with them.
Thanks!
I know that was supposed to be a joke, but less flamey next time, okay?
Damnit in the text box it looks more BLOCKY to me, so shove the return key up your ass!!!
And Trekker: Grammar and Formatting Police... seriously?Turn in your badge, dude.
Grammar and Spelling =/= making huge blocks of text that makes a reader's eyes bleed.
Hey, in this case Trekker4747 is right.
Good article; I especially agree with the last paragraph (and have already said so in other threads here): just stop trying to have your cake and eat it, too; either reboot the concept and admit that's what you're doing, or accept the continuity and do something which adds to the overall tapestry instead of selectively rewriting anything you find inconvenient. We had 4 years of that already and it didn't work then, and it definitely didn't grow the viewer base; why do they keep thinking the same bad decisions will somehow produce different results.
Eh, what the hell, it'll be upstaged by Pixar's Up three weeks later, anyway ...
Eh, what the hell, it'll be upstaged by Pixar's Up three weeks later, anyway ...
Oh, I know. Diversity of opinion is so annoying!
Do you get that little tingle down your spine when you say that?
As long as it's not that "tingle down the leg" it's OK, right?
I think Quinto will do a fine job as Spock, and that's based on how I've seen him in Heroes and on the few snippets of him we saw in the trailer. I think he's got the right look and I really think think he can pull off a young Spock who hasn't quite mastered himself yet. Having Nimoy in the same film as a comparison point will be a good thing, I think, if viewed in the right context -- here is the Spock he will eventually mature into.
I'm still very much looking forward to the movie.
No, Ill informed opinions are annoying, as are knee jerk reactions. Theres not enough information yet to decide how good or bad the film is, and this reviewer is clearly biased by his own preconceptions of what he expects to see. Is it not enough to speculate the plot of the film, the characters, set design etc without assuming it will suck?
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe speculating on how lame the next installment of something you purport to love will be, or nitpicking the hard work and efforts of people you haven't met constitutes debate round here.
Its like watching someone in an abusive relationship, lying to themselves and their friends. Telling themselves things will change, but it never happens, and the only way to end the cycle is for one of them to say enough. Well this time, one of them did. Star Trek is ditching its fans, and about time too.
Maybe I'm flogging a dead horse, but it can't be healthy to harbour an intense interest in something you hate. Ultimately, if you expect the film to suck, don't see it.
Last edited:
Interesting. So, while you say that there is not enough information to decide how good or bad the movie is going to be, it is only the ill-informed negative opinions which bother you. All the ill-informed good opinions are, apparently, totally cool. Though both are, I would assume, equally ill-informed.
Sir, with that sort of hyperbole, you are destined to do well on this board.
That is a fallacy. People love various aspects of Star Trek and are interested in its entire history, including its next installment. They harbored hopes for this or that direction it might take and they are now going over whether those hopes look to be fulfilled or not. It is a common feature of engagement with any interest - art, sports, politics - to discuss both the things you love about it, and the thigns you hate about it. Any group of people who do nothing but cheerlead for an interest aren't fans, they're marketing executives.
And for someone who decries negativity, you are quite full of it - merely directed at other fans (people you have never met) rather than the movie. Ultimately, if you find people discussing their opinions of Star Trek, which will inevitably include negative as well as positive opinions, distressing, well, I'll bet you guess where I'm heading with this...
It's fandom. The "hate" is built in. Just look at all the "hate" that the new Doctor Who endures by "fans". And if Star Trek gets half the success Doctor Who currently gets, it will be fantastic.
Fans will always whine about the current state of their series. There's no way to prevent that, so I just accept this as the norm. And remembers that the fans are the small minority, and that the mainstream are the important group to please.
Fans will always whine about the current state of their series. There's no way to prevent that, so I just accept this as the norm. And remembers that the fans are the small minority, and that the mainstream are the important group to please.
So, the belief here is that fans who see little to no reason for negativity towards the new movie aren't fans, but marketing executives cheerleading for a certain wished-for outcome? Nope, sorry; not buyin' that.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's not even close to what I said.
You are certainly entitled to come onto this board and be negative about the negativity of other fans. Have a big ole time at it. But expecting that a fandom will only be made up of people with uniformly positive opinions about a work of art is unrealistic. The only people who (say they) have uniformly positive opinions of anything are probably trying to sell that anything to you.
In other words, lighten up, let people express their opinions, and deal with the fact that those opinions are not going to be exactly like yours.
McCoy: Remember what I said about space being all disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence.
Kirk: Yeah, whatever, Bones, we all know that it's about mini skirts and go-go boots and this ship being built in an Iowa cornfield.
Puhleeze.
I think in the end, putting a label isn't going to matter. It will be what it is and if people choose to accept it or not is the other thing. Especially when Roberto Orci has repeated that "this isn't merely a reboot" in the fast few days. If one person puts a label on it, not everyone is going to agree with what it is.
You are equating that Enterprise wasn't succesful because of some of the canon violations it had, which I think is bad judgment right there. Even if it got "canon" things right, do you think the fact that people found it to be a rather dull series, with dull characters, in an already tired franchise on a low rated network was going to change anything? Do you think the media or mainstream audiences would be flocking to the show just because they reinforced that Humans had no face to face contact with Romulans?
Oh boy, three weeks, watch out!
