ST09 critics, why don't you like it?

[TOS Purist]

But I don't mind people enjoying this movie. More power to them. But being attacked for not liking the movie or being derided for being in the minority is...distasteful.

Exactly.

 

[stonester1]

Incorrect. Each plot-hole can be objectively ascertained if someone is willing to be honest enough. No such number and size of flaws can be found in any of the other Star Trek films. It is thus an objective fact.

You say this about everything you have a hate-on for. You try to insist it is "science", to try to add legitimacy to your gripes.

But there also seems to be a pattern in almost no one taking you seriously.

 

[ST-One]

I refer to you back to the plot-hole of Spock arriving in the same transporter room that Chekov uses to save Sulu and Kirk after they are saved, Spock left the bridge minutes before Chekov did.

You may have noticed that all this happens very fast and that Spock is fastening a utility belt (with phaser and communicator) around his hip as he steps onto the transporter platform.
So, he obviously, logically equipped himself with the means to be easily picked up and beamed up by the Enterprise.
That is not a plot-hole.

 

[Shazam!]

As per your argument if you excuse the first two as poorly executed good ideas I don't really see how you can't have the same claim for the XI.

Because I believe Trek XI to be a poorly executed bad idea.

 

[3D Master]

I refer to you back to the plot-hole of Spock arriving in the same transporter room that Chekov uses to save Sulu and Kirk after they are saved, Spock left the bridge minutes before Chekov did.

You may have noticed that all this happens very fast and that Spock is fastening a utility belt (with phaser and communicator) around his hip as he steps onto the transporter platform.
So, he obviously, logically equipped himself with the means to be easily picked up and beamed up by the Enterprise.
That is not a plot-hole.

And this little thing took him more time than: 1. Kirk and Sulu starting to fall to their deaths, 2. the transporter operator not able to get them, 3. trying several times, 4. Chekov getting his idea, 5. Chekov running to the transporter room, 6. Chekov executing his idea and finally 7. Kirk and Sulu materializing.

If getting the belt took that much time, then the ship is horribly badly designed, because the equipment room has to be on the other side of the ship. That room should be close to, and ideally right next to or even in the transporter room; thus you not having to waste massive amounts of time getting some equipment to beam down when time is of the essence.

So no matter how you cut and past it, the problem still exists.

And even if Spock arriving after Kirk and Sulu finally managed to get beamed back was not a problem, there's still the problem that Spock had to beam down to get the council and his parents to begin with. A government in exile/hiding must have communications ability at least to someone who uses logic. All Spock should have had to do was contact them and tell them they're ready to beam them out if they get themselves to some place the transporters can get them.

 

[ST-One]

And this little thing took him more time than: 1. Kirk and Sulu starting to fall to their deaths, 2. the transporter operator not able to get them, 3. trying several times, 4. Chekov getting his idea, 5. Chekov running to the transporter room, 6. Chekov executing his idea and finally 7. Kirk and Sulu materializing.

If getting the belt took that much time, then the ship is horribly badly designed, because the equipment room has to be on the other side of the ship. That room should be close to, and ideally right next to or even in the transporter room; thus you not having to waste massive amounts of time getting some equipment to beam down when time is of the essence.

So no matter how you cut and past it, the problem still exists.

No, not really.
This takes... what?... a minute, two on screen?

And even if Spock arriving after Kirk and Sulu finally managed to get beamed back was not a problem, there's still the problem that Spock had to beam down to get the council and his parents to begin with. A government in exile/hiding must have communications ability at least to someone who uses logic. All Spock should have had to do was contact them and tell them they're ready to beam them out if they get themselves to some place the transporters can get them.

Yeah, but where would have been the drama in that?

 

[3D Master]

And this little thing took him more time than: 1. Kirk and Sulu starting to fall to their deaths, 2. the transporter operator not able to get them, 3. trying several times, 4. Chekov getting his idea, 5. Chekov running to the transporter room, 6. Chekov executing his idea and finally 7. Kirk and Sulu materializing.

If getting the belt took that much time, then the ship is horribly badly designed, because the equipment room has to be on the other side of the ship. That room should be close to, and ideally right next to or even in the transporter room; thus you not having to waste massive amounts of time getting some equipment to beam down when time is of the essence.

So no matter how you cut and past it, the problem still exists.

No, not really.
This takes... what?... a minute, two on screen?

Yes, that would be a VERY long time, considering he didn't even start putting it on until he got back. That means he ran, ran, ran, grabbed the belt, ran, ran, ran, and reached the transporter room and starting putting on the belt.

I, an overweight slow guy, as a 12-year-old, once managed a 400 meter lap in 2 minutes 26 seconds, and like I said, that was one of the slowest rounds of my age group. For a grown Vulcan used to higher gravity and much thinner air, in the 2-3 minutes he had, he could have ran all the way to the other side of the 700-meter super Enterprise, and back to the transporter room.

And that's assuming he ran the whole way instead of using the much faster turbolift. If that equipment room was right next to, or very close to the transporter room, as it would be in a properly designed ship; Spock would not have had to waste 10 seconds running into the equipment room, yanking a belt, and running back out.

And even if Spock arriving after Kirk and Sulu finally managed to get beamed back was not a problem, there's still the problem that Spock had to beam down to get the council and his parents to begin with. A government in exile/hiding must have communications ability at least to someone who uses logic. All Spock should have had to do was contact them and tell them they're ready to beam them out if they get themselves to some place the transporters can get them.

Yeah, but where would have been the drama in that?

Something that is utterly stupid, when noticed, destroys any drama you have attempted to put on screen. So if you can't do something without stupidity, it's best not to do it all. But if you're going with the stupidity, you better make sure it is the only, or one of a tiny few stupid things in your movie; especially before it comes up. That way, being still entirely immersed in the movie, they might miss it. And if they do notice it, they might be willing to forgive you for that one, although if they're honest, they'd still say it is stupid.

If however there's already been multiple stupid things before that to throw your viewers out of the movie, the chances they miss more stupidities are about the same chances a snowflake has in hell. And there are so many stupidities before this one, so many.

 

[stonester1]

If however there's already been multiple stupid things before that to throw your viewers out of the movie, the chances they miss more stupidities are about the same chances a snowflake has in hell. And there are so many stupidities before this one, so many.

But obviously, those "stupidities" didn't throw most viewers. I suspect you have to be a pretty anal killjoy determined to hate this movie for one to care, or even notice.

 

[3D Master]

If however there's already been multiple stupid things before that to throw your viewers out of the movie, the chances they miss more stupidities are about the same chances a snowflake has in hell. And there are so many stupidities before this one, so many.

But obviously, those "stupidities" didn't throw most viewers. I suspect you have to be a pretty anal killjoy determined to hate this movie for one to care, or even notice.

Or I just have a functioning brain that wasn't put in a trance by the loud noises and flashy sights.

 

[stonester1]

Or I just have a functioning brain that wasn't put in a trance by the loud noises and flashy sights.

Blade Runner is my favorite movie of all time. I love 2001 A Space Odyssey. I love Solaris. I hate Michael Bay's movies in general.

Make all the generalities in your mind to "explain" something that defies your worldview. Just know you will be wrong.

 

[3D Master]

Or I just have a functioning brain that wasn't put in a trance by the loud noises and flashy sights.

Blade Runner is my favorite movie of all time. I love 2001 A Space Odyssey. I love Solaris. I hate Michael Bay's movies in general.

Make all the generalities in your mind to "explain" something that defies your worldview. Just know you will be wrong.

What has liking good movies and hating bad movies got to do with getting your mind put in a trance by flashy lights and loud noises?

Especially considering the writers of Transformers and Transformers 2, two Bay movies also wrote Star Trek 09 in the exact same vein as those two; Star Trek 09 IS essentially a Bay movie.

The fact that you didn't notice rather proves my point; you went in expecting a good movie, all your minds defenses were down, the right combination of flashes and loud noises which have been shown to induce a brain to exude endorphines, and the rest is history.

 

[stonester1]

What has liking good movies and hating bad movies got to do with getting your mind put in a trance by flashy lights and loud noises?

That the trance thing is bullshit?

Plenty of "loud, flashy" movies on my "bad movie" list. Some on my good movie list, too.

We are trying to engage in movie critique, sorta. Please leave the pseudo science at home.

 

[3D Master]

What has liking good movies and hating bad movies got to do with getting your mind put in a trance by flashy lights and loud noises?

That the trance thing is bullshit?

Plenty of "loud, flashy" movies on my "bad movie" list. Some on my good movie list, too.

We are trying to engage in movie critique, sorta. Please leave the pseudo science at home.

Except that you find them bad, so if you go watch them you know it's going to be bad, and as a result your shields are up. Your mind will resist the flashes and the lights with those. Star Trek you went to see with an open mind, and thus flashes and lights can get to you.

 

[stonester1]

Except that you find them bad, so if you go watch them you know it's going to be bad, and as a result your shields are up. Your mind will resist the flashes and the lights with those. Star Trek you went to see with an open mind, and thus flashes and lights can get to you.

Uh...no. I walk into all movies with an open mind and judge them on their merits or lack thereof. If I'm sure it's going to be bad before I go...dude...I don't go.

What you wrote up there...was fucked up. And bears no relation to how real people see movies.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

No, not really.
This takes... what?... a minute, two on screen?

Actually, from the time Spock entered the iBridge trubolift until Sulu and Kirk materialized on the transporter pad was almost five minutes. That's a long time. Especially when the turbolift is apparently fast enough to get Spock from the shuttlebay to the iBridge in less than 3 seconds on a supposedly 700+ meter ship.

 

[Warped9]

I question whether anyone starts watching a movie with a truly open mind one way or the other in most cases.

There have been films that I've felt somewhat predisposed to dislike and then found myself presently surprised. There are others that I've tried to temper my enthusiasm and then found myself disappointed. Of course I've seen it the other way around as well.

The first time around I was greatly put off by the look of this film although I did notice other things in terms of story. The second time around I saw a few positive things, but mostly I saw so many things wrong with it in terms of credibility (within the context of the film's setting) and in terms of story.

 

[stonester1]

Speaking for myself, Warped9, most films I actually go to see, I have expectations, or at least hopes, I'm going to enjoy it. But if I end up not enjoying it, I won't.

But if I've found out enough about it to conclude I likely WON'T enjoy it beforehand, I won't go. That's time and money I can put elsewhere.

 

[Warped9]

^^ To be fair I encourage you to see it somehow. Perhaps you could borrow someone's dvd copy. Or you could rent it. It can be worth seeing something, not only so that you can comment on it more fairly, but also it can be somewhat educational in terms of understanding more clearly where you see things go right and go wrong.

 

[stonester1]

Wait...back up. Do you believe I haven't seen the new Trek? I have. Several times in theater, bought the pimped out Blu Ray set wit the Ent-mini. Just waiting to get the actual player.



In case I haven't made myself clear, I LOVED the new movie.

I've stated several times where I thought the film went right, and places I thought it went wrong. But for me, the right ovewhelmed the wrong rather handily.

 

[TOS Purist]

But obviously, those "stupidities" didn't throw most viewers. I suspect you have to be a pretty anal killjoy determined to hate this movie for one to care, or even notice.

Or I just have a functioning brain that wasn't put in a trance by the loud noises and flashy sights.

BEST. RESPONSE. EVER.

Even if someone likes this travesty of a film (for some reason), they still need to be able to be intellegent enough to admit when the movie screwed up, instead of trying to defend it as "perfect," as if it's the "Citizen Kane" of Star Trek films (which it is NOT, neither was it meant to be).