ST09 fans, why do others not like it?

[Warped9]

Browsing threads around this site you can't help but see how many fans of Abrams' film can freely offer up opinions of why others don't like the film. And so here is a sounding board for you. Tell us why you really think others don't like the film you enjoy.

Please, don't be shy and don't pull punches. Tell us what you really think.

And to the dissenters, those who don't care for Abrams' film, let's please let the supporters have their say. Don't argue, just let them speak freely.

My idea with these twin threads is to try to air both sides and hopefully clear some unfair generalizations away.

 

[Withers]

Let me first say that we're not talking about my best friend, my mother, or my significant other. I don't want to come off as the guy that loved this thing like no one has ever loved a thing in the history of man kind. I am not that guy. That said I haven't heard a lot of criticisms of this film that couldn't be cross applied to pretty much everything that bears the Trek label.

"The Enterprise didn't look good." "The plot was silly." "The science was too juvenile." "The plot had way too many holes." All of those things could be said of just about any Trek so to hate this movie and use those as examples of 'why' doesn't hold much water for me.

There is a more esoteric debate out there that says this movie was absent the "ideals" and "values" of previous incarnations (specifically TOS.) Well, having sat through most of that at this point... I don't really see that either. Higher brain functions weren't necessary to watch Trek 09 but, c'mon, they weren't necessary to watch TOS either. One is lauded as the prime example of thoughtful, moving art and the other is likened to a cock fight. I just don't see the two as so fundamentally different. I certainly don't see Trek 09 as the affront that some people see it as.

So, having debunked what I'm told, what do I think? That's the question right? Well, here's my answer; they used something that had already been done. They set a standard that they had to live up to by using the TOS era, its characters and its Enterprise. They dodged the bullet with continuity through use of the "re-boot" plot point. They dodged the bullet of casting new people by simply waiting long enough for the original actors to be too old to do it. They could have dodged the rest of the TOS onslaught (and let's be honest about that- the people who hate this movie are the people, by and large, who love TOS. Yes, yes, yes lawman, I know there are exceptions to the rule but that doesn't change the fact. The majority of people liked this move but the majority of people who went beyond disliking it into hating it are big-big fans of TOS) by just making new Trek rather than rehashing James Kirk and company.

Essentially

STAR TREK: 1964-1979

is why there are fans who outwardly hate this movie as opposed to (not so unlike me) just regard it as another installment that could've been better (like all 10 of the others) but wasn't "blasphemous," or "unwatchable."

-Withers-​

 

[Warped9]

^^ Fair enough. And standing by my own suggestion I'm not going to argue or debate. I'm just going to sit back and read.

 

[Kelso]

Those who genuinely didn't like it just didn't find it fun enough to ignore the faults. Some of us did find it fun enough to ignore the faults.

I think we'll all survive.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I'm not about holding back, but there are many and varied reasons that some don't like the movie.

And as much as I absolutely LOVE the movie, I'm under no illusions that it is perfect.

Some apparently believe that the story/plot does not bake sense, when in my view, it does.

There are those who state that there are plot holes, whereas most of these are not so much holes as details not portrayed, implied rather than explicit, or simply not important enough to deal with.

There are some who disapprove of the Enterprise or Narada's designs, and often the interiors, especially the Engineering section, and there are some things I take issue with involving Engineering, overall for me they pretty much work, and are some of my favorite things in the movie.

There are those who have issues with the writing, aka Captain Pike saying "Federation" when he probably should have said "Starfleet", or Spock's mind-meld could have said something more immediately realistic about the Supernova that could destroy the Galaxy.

I find the Supernova destroying the Galaxy to be a minor issue, the same with the way Black Holes work, but can fill in enough gaps myself, and look at them as good enough for the basic story to work.

Many simply disapprove, or find somehow illogical, the way Time Travel works with MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation), and maintain (incorrectly, I might add) that the Alternate Reality is not supported by dialog and circumstances within the movie.

This leap of misunderstanding is sometimes taken to mean that the events portrayed in TOS thru to Nemesis have been wiped from existence, or are no longer relevent.

Of course, I completely disagree.

Some find Kirk's rapid promotion to be an issue, when I look at it as a "necessary evil" and justified enough by events to get the crew where they should be for further voyages.

The scientific inaccuracies, especially involving the Black Hole, are also brought up, but there is not as much wrong there as is claimed.

I LOVED the movie for all of the things it got right, including the characters, most of the designs, the sound, the visual style (yes, even the lens flares), the humor and fun, the fast pace, the music, and the heart.

I did not expect, nor necessarily want, a social commentary/allegory in an origin film, while some detractors do.

I'd say that in some ways, this movie was the closest Star Trek movies have ever gotten to TOS.

The movie is 90% of the way to the perfect Star Trek movie. With a few tweaks, and a little more attention paid to scientific accuracy, and maybe some social allegory, the next film could prove the magic dynamite. As it is, it is perhaps my favorite of the Star Trek big screen adventures.

ADDENDUM:
To clarify, the movie is not perfect. We all have little things we've noticed. But most of what I saw was great. This is the first step of many along a new road, and the trees look lovely.

 

[SheliakBob]

What, exactly, is the point of asking those movie-lovin' fans to SPECULATE or THEORIZE on the motives and opinions of others, when you've already asked those others their reasons--which, by the way, is pretty damn redundant 'cause you will find hundreds of posts worth of criticism already posted in other threads.
Wouldn't asking why fans love the movie (which has also already been covered in exhaustive detail) be a more legitimate pairing with asking non-fans why they don't?

It seems to me that this thread is just begging for a torrent of "those old fossil bastards hate everything kewl" or some similar such generalizations. If you really need to know why I don't like the film, PM me and I'll be happy to tell you. If you're going to indulge in telling me my "real" reasons for disliking the film, then don't expect me to sit by and let that stand.

The Sheliak will not be slandered! 'Least not while I'm bored with nothing better to do than argue...

 

[Withers]

The Sheliak will not be slandered! 'Least not while I'm bored with nothing better to do than argue...

I imagine we have wildly different takes on Trek specifics but somehow your approach to the discussion is infinitely more tolerable than the majority I've read who seemingly share your thoughts. Maybe it's the sense of levity you bring to it... I'm not sure. Whatever the case- well done. It is a trait worthy of emulation.

-Withers-​

 

[Warped9]

What, exactly, is the point of asking those movie-lovin' fans to SPECULATE or THEORIZE on the motives and opinions of others, when you've already asked those others their reasons--which, by the way, is pretty damn redundant 'cause you will find hundreds of posts worth of criticism already posted in other threads.
Wouldn't asking why fans love the movie (which has also already been covered in exhaustive detail) be a more legitimate pairing with asking non-fans why they don't?

It seems to me that this thread is just begging for a torrent of "those old fossil bastards hate everything kewl" or some similar such generalizations. If you really need to know why I don't like the film, PM me and I'll be happy to tell you. If you're going to indulge in telling me my "real" reasons for disliking the film, then don't expect me to sit by and let that stand.

The Sheliak will not be slandered! 'Least not while I'm bored with nothing better to do than argue...

This forum is brimming with why the fans of the film like it. But as I stated in the OP I'm not going to argue. I'll just let folks say their peace.

In all candor, though, I've seen some make sweeping generalizations of why they think others dislike the film. It's no more fair to make such generalizations as it's unfair to make generalizations of those who do like the film.

 

[Rii]

Star Trek was a Bond flick - and not one of the more nuanced ones like Goldeneye - with everything that entails. It was certainly entertaining enough, and there are many elements I'd like to see carried over into future productions, but ultimately it's an insubstantial film, and if it's remembered five years from now it'll be because of its place in the franchise, not for its qualities as a film.

The film's most significant achievement, I think, is in so successfully recasting the characters. Excepting Chekov - because he's as irrelevant in nuTrek as he was in TOS; incidentally I still think they should've made him female - Pine as Kirk is the least impressive of the bunch, but still turned in a solid performance and I think he'll grow further into the role.

TL;DR: Rekindled my interest in the franchise, let's try for a little more substance next time.

 

[TOS Purist]

Essentially

STAR TREK: 1964-1979

-Withers-

Haha, that's my avatar!

 

[Withers]

In my head anybody who hates (not just dislikes but openly despises this film) are just a tick to the left or right of being that guy. It might be veiled in a bunch of convoluted sentences, wrapped in what are presented as expert debate tactics, and masked in two dollar words and uses of Latin but it is essentially that. You loathed this film? It makes your blood boil? It's so stupid you can't fathom why anybody with half a brain would like it?

Well ^ that is why and, frankly, I find the tactics to explain it as anything but that to be more insulting to my intelligence than the film ever had any chance of being. At least in TOS_Purists case he admits how he feels straight up (as plenty of others do I guess.) It's the ones that want me to believe the plot was so much more ridiculous and stupid than anything we've seen before that bother me. It's the ones who try to convince me that the "trekkian ideals" aren't present in this film but were in other incarnations like Nemesis that upset me.


Yeah, you want a reason, there it is. Plain as the avatar on his... ya know, side profile... thing. And for those of you reading this who are thinking "Wait a minute Withers! I've never seen anything like that!" Well, take a look at the first page of the sister thread to this one. It's all the evidence anybody would need to validate what I've just said (without using terms like in toto).


http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=116322

-Withers-​

 

[Warped9]

^^ I said I'm not going to argue and I'm not.

 

[Withers]

^^ I said I'm not going to argue and I'm not.

Well, that's good, because you and I actually agree on a fundamental that I really think shouldn't be overlooked. Allow me to quote you:

it felt as if they wanted to be both connected to TOS and divorced from TOS simultaneously. They wanted to be "not your grandfather's Trek" and yet not gutsy enough to really go the distance.

Exactly. You don't want to be my grandfather's Trek? Then don't make it about the characters from his era. If you're going to re-boot the damn thing go all the way not just to third base.

But where we differ is here; (another of your quotes which exemplifies exactly what I'm talking about)

I do see something deeper in TOS and that's the expectation I bring to anything new connected to Star Trek. And that is where I feel much of this film falls down.

Whatever it is that you see as deeper I'm not seeing. I don't know if you qualify as one of the people that hate 09 Trek or not (if I had to wager a guess I'd say that you do) but regardless the source of your discontentment is that 09 Trek did not live up to the standard set by TOS in your opinion. Without TOS to compare this thing with (i.e. had it been a totally new animal set in the TOS era or something like that) I don't think the bile spewing would be quite so regular an event (and you, if I read correctly, as good as said so yourself.)


It isn't wrong to dislike this movie because you think Star Trek died in 1979. What's wrong is trying to stage dress that as something else in order to avoid admitting that's what you didn't like (and just there I was using the universal sense of the word, not as in you personally Warped9.)

-Withers-​

 

[Kirk1980]

It's always interesting to hear people speculate as to why I like things.

*puffs bubble pipe

 

[Warped9]

This film isn't TOS, but then it could never be because the people involved in making it are not the ones who created TOS. And the time in which the film was made is so very different from when TOS was made. To expect it to be exactly like the original subject is irrational. To dislike it simply because it isn't like the original might be understandable (for some) yet that's also somewhat irrational.

Tastes vary and people see different things or fail to see the same things. If we're honest we've all experienced it--seeing something in a work that many others cannot seem to see or conversely we cannot see something that many others apparently can.

In real life offline I've seen it often enough (and this film is but just one example) of people giving you a blank look because they cannot fathom why you don't like something they like or conversely cannot grasp why you're juiced over something that leaves them cold.

I can see why many can like this film. And while I disagree strongly about it I'm not going to blame them for it. Conversely people who don't like the film shouldn't be blamed either.

When you like something some measure of personal ownership seems to kick in wherein if the thing you like is criticized you can experience something of a personal affront as if it's you who is being personally criticized. It's hard to step back and realize it isn't (or shouldn't be) personal. Nevertheless our usual reflex to being offended, whether personal or not, is to retaliate, and it can be a very hard thing to resist.

Something to think about.

 

[TOS Purist]

I think it's funny that someone quoted my avatar.

Other than that, I'm probably better off not even reading this thread, because I'd doubtlessly end up getting angry and not able to express my opinion (because it's off-topic for this thread). So let the ST09 lovers have their say!

I often complain how a lot of Star Trek fans praise the IDIC concept while being intolerant of those they perceive as "dissenters," so I won't make a hypocrite of myself. IDIC, people!

 

[Kelso]

I thought he was quoting Warped9's sig.

 

[Withers]

For the record it was Warped9's signature I was quoting but had I seen your avatar before I wrote that post it would have been both (though TOS_Purist seems to exemplify what I'm talking about slightly more.) But even without either of you to point at (gesture towards?) as examples of what I'm talking about the other thread is literally rife with examples. Allow me;

It catered to the lowest common denminator of the moviegoing audience and it was not really Star Trek.

The problem I had with the characters is that the movie presented caricatures of the TOS cast.

That having been said, I can tell you why it didn't grab me and hold my attention the way TOS or other films ... did

It goes on and will no doubt get worse. The only complaints in the other thread that aren't from self-declared "TOS'ers" are either qualified with statements like "I actually liked this movie but" or consisted of three words and don't warrant much of an analysis anyway. Only like three posts don't explicitly mention TOS as something the new movie just cannot compete with.

Doesn't that seem like 'case closed?'

-Withers-​

 

[Shaw]

But even without either of you to point at (gesture towards?) as examples of what I'm talking about the other thread is literally rife with examples. Allow me;

...

That having been said, I can tell you why it didn't grab me and hold my attention the way TOS or other films ... did

It goes on and will no doubt get worse.

It is funny that I was included in the set of quotes (and is a good example of why I haven't said much about the film). Apparently saying that a movie or TV show did not grab my attention is a slanderous condemnation of it now. Of course by that leap of logic the third season of TOS, first two seasons of TNG, first three seasons of DS9, all seasons of VOY, all seasons of ENT, TSfS, TVH, GEN, INS and NEM have the horrific criticism heaped on them (of not holding my interest).

Yes, it seems that for my friend Withers, the worst criticism of STXI (so far) is that I wasn't totally enamored by the film.




On the plus side... it is amazing that my opinion matter so much (even if it is only to Withers). What power I must have.

Only like three posts don't explicitly mention TOS as something the new movie just cannot compete with.

For the record (just in case you hadn't seen the movie), it was based on TOS and invites a comparison even though it attempted to side step it. While I think that people are taking the comparison stuff a little far at times (rather than letting it stand on it's own), comparisons with TOS are completely valid.

Just FYI (as I know how much my opinion on such things matters to you).

 

[Withers]

But even without either of you to point at (gesture towards?) as examples of what I'm talking about the other thread is literally rife with examples. Allow me;

...

That having been said, I can tell you why it didn't grab me and hold my attention the way TOS or other films ... did

It goes on and will no doubt get worse.

It is funny that I was included in the set of quotes (and is a good example of why I haven't said much about the film). Apparently saying that a movie or TV show did not grab my attention is a slanderous condemnation of it now. Of course by that leap of logic the third season of TOS, first two seasons of TNG, first three seasons of DS9, all seasons of VOY, all seasons of ENT, TSfS, TVH, GEN, INS and NEM have the horrific criticism heaped on them (of not holding my interest).

Yes, it seems that for my friend Withers, the worst criticism of STXI (so far) is that I wasn't totally enamored by the film.




On the plus side... it is amazing that my opinion matter so much (even if it is only to Withers). What power I must have.

Only like three posts don't explicitly mention TOS as something the new movie just cannot compete with.

For the record (just in case you hadn't seen the movie), it was based on TOS and invites a comparison even though it attempted to side step it. While I think that people are taking the comparison stuff a little far at times (rather than letting it stand on it's own), comparisons with TOS are completely valid.

Just FYI (as I know how much my opinion on such things matters to you).

And then there's Maude.

When there are ten pages I can understand not reading every one of them. When there's like... 1 1/2 pages... it really makes you want to donate to a charity doesn't it? I wasn't baited by the kids on a the short bus growing up and I won't be now. Even with the eye rolling smiley of doom you'll need to prove you can read before you'll get more of a response out of me than that.

-Withers-​