Gosh, I didn't like the movie, and I'm even getting sick of this kind of comment. I thought it was pretty bad, but it ain't "Manos: the Hands of Fate." I'd rather watch the silly movie than "And the Children Shall Lead" any day.
Shatner's 'Trial Run'
- Thread starter Procutus
- Start date
Gosh, I didn't like the movie, and I'm even getting sick of this kind of comment. I thought it was pretty bad, but it ain't "Manos: the Hands of Fate." I'd rather watch the silly movie than "And the Children Shall Lead" any day.
I agree with everyone else on personal opinions should not be put in the concordance, but if CRA's opinion or at least his view points are going into this new concordance, I will have to have to pass on it then.
That's your own opinion, your own prejudice. And it has no relevance to The Star Trek Concordance. Love the movie or hate it, your obligation as a participant in that work is to document it objectively. If you can't do that, if you insist on putting your fanatical hatred into the text, then you will corrupt its integrity. As long as you refuse to set your personal hatred for the film aside, you are not qualified to do this job, and I sincerely hope Ms. Trimble comes to her senses and fires you before you contaminate her legacy.
That probably is what's gonna happen, so relax.
Too many characters to fit in the sig line.
Personally, I'm getting a little sick of having to make it, so we're even.
Consider yourself lucky, because at some point soon, I'm gonna have to watch "And the Children Shall Lead" to confirm some data points.
Now, to ask what some reader is wondering right now, what in the frell has this got to do with Shatner's "Trial Run" idea?
Captain Robert April said:
Need some help getting up on that cross, or can you drive the nails yourself?
Nah, I got a nice stepladder and a houseboy named Guido to work the nailgun. Thanks for the offer, though.
I am perfectly capable of putting my disgust for the film aside and objectively deal with documenting the various details. Kind of like dissecting a fetal pig, once you start rooting around in the guts, you forget how disgusting the thought of cutting into the poor little guy was.
And, again, we're starting a flame war over something that hasn't even come close to happening yet, namely incorporating the new movie into the Concordance. There's still a lot of work to do just reconstructing, and correcting, the existing text before there's any attempt at adding any new entries.
If it makes you feel any better, I'll share the analysis of the film that I send to Bjo, in the appropriate thread when we actually get to that point, and then decide just how objective I can be, 'kay?
'Till then, you have less of an idea of what I'll write than I do, and I'm not entirely sure myself, so you might want to look to the prejudices you're bringing to the table.
I am perfectly capable of putting my disgust for the film aside and objectively deal with documenting the various details. Kind of like dissecting a fetal pig, once you start rooting around in the guts, you forget how disgusting the thought of cutting into the poor little guy was.
And, again, we're starting a flame war over something that hasn't even come close to happening yet, namely incorporating the new movie into the Concordance. There's still a lot of work to do just reconstructing, and correcting, the existing text before there's any attempt at adding any new entries.
If it makes you feel any better, I'll share the analysis of the film that I send to Bjo, in the appropriate thread when we actually get to that point, and then decide just how objective I can be, 'kay?
'Till then, you have less of an idea of what I'll write than I do, and I'm not entirely sure myself, so you might want to look to the prejudices you're bringing to the table.
See, this is what I don't get. As far as I know, it's Bjo's book, not yours, so your analysis is not necessary.
And the Concordance has never included analysis. It contains plot summaries and descriptions of the characters, places, things, and phenomena in the episodes and films. No reviews or analysis involved.
The analysis would be for her use in putting together the entry for the new movie. The last edition had a short statement regarding the disputed status of TAS, so it's only fair, in my opinion, that a write-up of the new movie make note of the controversial nature of the film.
I'll only be providing her with the info. What she does with it, and whether (or how much) she decides to include in the Concordance itself is entirely up to her.
My blog posts show up on Facebook automatically, which means they show up in Bjo's news feed, so she is very much aware of my views regarding this film, in no uncertain terms. Suffice it to say that the question of whether my views might adversely effect my ability to help assemble a new edition has never come up, and likely never will.
After all, out of over a hundred episodes and nearly ten films, it's only one movie, right guys?
I'll only be providing her with the info. What she does with it, and whether (or how much) she decides to include in the Concordance itself is entirely up to her.
My blog posts show up on Facebook automatically, which means they show up in Bjo's news feed, so she is very much aware of my views regarding this film, in no uncertain terms. Suffice it to say that the question of whether my views might adversely effect my ability to help assemble a new edition has never come up, and likely never will.
After all, out of over a hundred episodes and nearly ten films, it's only one movie, right guys?
Holy shit. The status of TAS was actually disputed by the creators/people in charge, but this movie is not "controversial" in anyone's mind but yours. Everyone in charge has said explicitly that Spock Prime IS the Spock we've all come to know and love, it's definitive, it's fact, it's done, get OVER it.
Some people don't LIKE it.
But no one thinks its continuity is in dispute, except in their imaginations.
Does the concordance have a huge section about how much the fans hated The Final Frontier? That was MUCH (like, orders of magnitude) more universally reviled than this one.
Nothing controversial about that one. Even Shatner admits it's a disappointment.
Just to give a sense of perspective, here are Rotten Tomatoes' approval ratings for all eleven films:
ST 2009: 94%
FC: 92%
TWOK: 90%
TVH: 84%
TUC: 82%
TSFS: 76%
INS: 55%
TMP: 50%
GEN: 45%
NEM: 37%
TFF: 23%
Here are IMDb's ratings (on a scale of ten):
ST'09: 8.2
TWOK: 7.8
FC: 7.6
TVH: 7.3
TUC: 7.2
TSFS: 6.5
GEN: 6.5
INS: 6.4
NEM: 6.4
TMP: 6.2
TFF: 4.9
And Netflix (on a scale of five):
ST'09: 4.3
FC: 3.8
TWOK: 3.7
TVH: 3.7
TUC: 3.7
TSFS: 3.6
GEN: 3.6
INS: 3.6
TMP: 3.5
NEM: 3.5
TFF: 3.4
So there is no measure by which ST'09 is anywhere remotely close to "universally reviled." More like "universally liked." More like the most popular Trek film ever made, even beating out the favorites TWOK and FC.
This is how the Internet can be misleading. Sure, on a BBS it may seem like there's a huge swell of protest and contempt for the movie. But this BBS has only 5,281 members as of this writing, and probably only a few hundred of those are active, regular posters; the most that's ever been online at any one time is 893 people. And the board's broken down into various areas of interest, so any given forum may have an even smaller number of participants. So even a mere handful of individuals can seem like a prominent bloc, especially if they keep posting the same criticisms over and over as loudly as possible.
Star Trek '09 has taken in over 257 million dollars at the box office as of last September, according to IMDb. At an average US ticket price of $7.50, that's over 34 million tickets sold. Many of those would've been repeat viewers, so let's just say the audience size for the film was on the order of ten to the seventh power in theaters alone. And the size of the vocal ST'09-hating community on this BBS would be more on the order of ten to the first power. (If even that much.)
So "controversial?" No. This is the most well-loved ST movie ever made. Most people are quite happy with it despite the holes in its plot, just as they're happy with TWOK despite the enormous holes and stupidities in its plot. It's just the insular, statistically skewed world of online bulletin boards that creates the illusion that there's some huge furor over this movie.
Why continue this discussion with "Captain Robert April"? Obviously, he finds no redeeming or entertainment value in the new Star Trek film. He responds with petulence and blanket statements concerning the film. It's obvious he won't buy tie-in products for the new continuity and it is highly unlikely he will view any future sequels.
For the first reason, he is working on the Concordance, and since he is foaming at the mouth against the new film in every topic that even mentions the new film. Is it tiring yep, is it fun to argue against him, yep. Is he the reason I will not buy the new Concordance, yep (By the way, I loved the Concordance, it was the first Trek Encyclopedia that I read, and yes I know it is not just an encyclopedia)
So anyways, I hope there will be a Trial Run not because I see Shatner's version as a better version (I don't because I don't think Kirk is the center of the universe) because I like his co-authors' writing with their endless nods to every Trek.
So anyways, I hope there will be a Trial Run not because I see Shatner's version as a better version (I don't because I don't think Kirk is the center of the universe) because I like his co-authors' writing with their endless nods to every Trek.
