http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Heart_of_Gold
It's from Conspiracy, and it's another one of the in-jokes seen only on LCARS (in this case to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Heart_of_Gold
It's from Conspiracy, and it's another one of the in-jokes seen only on LCARS (in this case to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).
Registration chronology hypothesizing notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be any way the Heart of Gold could possibly have had another registry number than forty-two, and the side-effects of the Infinite Improbability drive would very likely have rendered the need for refits pretty much irrelevant.
Open question.
Why is it that some people seem to see all the flaws the way you do, and other people just lather on this unconditional praise "Loved it!!! Saw it for the 10th time and loved it even more!!!"?
I understand that taste differs, but the polar opposites that I see here are really baffling. I don't expect people to universally hate the movie, but to at least acknowledge that it has flaws. Your specific issues are not at all unique to your experience. They are what a lot of people, professional critics and average moviegoers alike, have been saying.
How much genuinely unconditional praise have you seen, really? What would you estimate to be the proportion of people giving unconditional praise to people who say—right up front—that they didn't think Star Trek Into Darkness was perfect, yet they still managed to have a good time? Just as a ballpark ratio.
Plenty of people have acknowledged flaws, beginning with the earliest showings. I read this forum every day; what I'm seeing is a pretty continuous spectrum running from "loved it" to "hated it," and the poll results at the top of this page would seem to support that picture. That you see it as strict polar opposites... well, I can only say that I'm not quite sure how you arrive at that conclusion.
You have an implied criticism of people who love the movie and see it 10 times yet praise for the people who see it your way (naturally).
I think the movie has a lot of flaws and if they stop you from liking it then that's fine. However if other people can overlook the flaws and inconsistencies and blatant homeage then why aren't their opinions as valid as yours.
You imply that all professional movie critics and average moviegoers agree with you and the rest of us are just delusional. I have a different experience with average moviegoers (don't even know Star Trek) who think its a great movie.
But I'm a bit of a nitpicker and every movie has flaws. I see them especially in Star Trek movies because I know it so well. My non-Star Trek friends don't see them. There are more flaws in TSFS or INS or NEM or GEN or TWOK than there are in STID IMO. Do you want me to list them? I could and I probably haven't seen them in 4 years or more. I still like most of those movies.
And opinions differ some people don't like the Nimoy cameo. I love it. You're not going to convince me otherwise., It isn't a flaw though. A flaw might be Khan not being Spanish or Indian or a Sikh or Carol being English or Kirk having blue eyes
All the Star Trek movies have flaws. But ST:TMP and ST 2009 spoke to me like no other movies have (except maybe "Silent Running", "Barbarella", "The Hunt for Red October", "Master and Commander", "84 Charing Cross Road", "Somewhere in Time", "Galaxy Quest" and "The Fellowship of the Ring" coming close). Movies that make me forget that I'm watching a movie, and I pop out the other end totally blissed-out.
"Star Trek Into Darkness" felt like a seamless elongation of the 2009 movie. I couldn't say the same for ST II, which departed from so much from the elements that I'd loved about TMP. As much as other fans love ST II, I see mainly all the missed opportunities. I can see why fans disappointed in TMP love ST II instead, but I sometimes like to daydream of a series of films or telemovies every few months extending TMP (as "Phase II" had originally been planned to do).
I enjoyed ST III, ST IV and "First Contact" very much, but they just didn't immerse me the way I'd craved since TMP. ST V, "Generations" and "Nemesis" were just chockful of missteps. A fun night at the cinema, but for too many wrong reasons. ST VI and "Insurrection" were okay, but didn't fulfill me.
I could list nitpicks for all twelve films, but my favourite three get a free pass - 'cos they enthralled me!
How is that unconditional ?
For myself, I've become less critical of movies recently. I realised that I want to be entertained, and also realised the difficulties of making movies -- the impossibility, I would say, of making flawless ones.
And those who didn't have 'fun' and didn't find it to be a 'fun' movie are joyless douchebags and the movie is perfect and immune from criticism so ner?
This was also said:
I don't think one person has said its flawless and there's over 4000 posts about STID. Perhaps the most they've said is that they don't CARE about the flaws or other things they love and admire have flaws.
Yes, but it seems to be okay to admit to not caring about the flaws of STID yet try to do the same for TWOK or FC and you're labelled a hypocrite.
When I posted about liking both TMP and ST (2009) in 2009, I was often told it was impossible to like both films!
For me, Spock yelling "Khaaan!!!!" or running down the street like a dork destroys my suspension of disbelief in a way that thinking "Gee, wasn't Checkov not on the Enterprise during Space Seed?" doesn't.
I just don't care what the "flaws" in the movie are - and I care even less, if that's possible, why someone else doesn't like it.
Anyway, the criticisms that are annoying here are less along the lines of "the movies I like have flaws, I admit that, and so does this one," and more often "the movies I like had flaws but never mind that because this one shouldn't."
Anyway, the criticisms that are annoying here are less along the lines of "the movies I like have flaws, I admit that, and so does this one," and more often "the movies I like had flaws but never mind that because this one shouldn't."
They all have flaws and would you care to point to a post where you were labelled a hypocrite?
I'm not going to specifically name posters, but there is this as an exammple:
"But the issue with their argument is, is that the original show and movies on which this reboot was based have THE EXACT SAME PROBLEMS. And for some reason, you can ignore those issues, but when it comes the the reboots, because you don't like how they were done, they are now "legitimate criticizes"'
As though any nu-Trek criticism is in need of a disclaimer providing a detailed justification of why you are accepting of flaws in previous Trek adventures but not this one, because it's obviously a simple black-and-white thought process...
"But the issue with their argument is, is that the original show and movies on which this reboot was based have THE EXACT SAME PROBLEMS. And for some reason, you can ignore those issues, but when it comes the the reboots, because you don't like how they were done, they are now "legitimate criticizes"'
As though any nu-Trek criticism is in need of a disclaimer providing a detailed justification of why you are accepting of flaws in previous Trek adventures but not this one, because it's obviously a simple black-and-white thought process...
Did not Chekov run along a navy vessel like a dork in ST IV, complete with Russian-themed chase music?
But why do people condemn one version of Trek for doing something that another version they liked did?
It does come off as hypocritical.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
