Yeah, you are basing this on a 2 minute trailer. Come on.
Star Trek Receives Four Oscar Noms...all Technical Awards
- Thread starter MvRojo
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, you are basing this on a 2 minute trailer. Come on.
It's actually not a rom-com at all. There's a relationship that goes on for part of the movie, but it definitely isn't the main point of the movie.
Star Trek looks like an exciting standard sci-fi/action movie based on its trailer.
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
How was it a standard movie some people don't care for Star Trek that's the issue.
Read the post again, and the post to which it was a reply; that's not what he actually said.
You must hang in different places to many of us.
While I certainly wasn't expecting a "Best Picture" nom for "Star Trek" (knowing the Oscar track record for the types of films that are usually nominated and ultimately win), when I heard that there would be ten nominations this year, I instantly thought of "Avatar" and "District 9" making the list.
As a diehard ST fan though, I saw ST at the cinema five times and enjoyed it every time. I saw "District 9" once (and have bought it on DVD) but it's so bleak I'm not sure I'll watch it all too often; mainly curious about the bonus features. It has a good chance of winning the Oscar, though. I saw "Avatar" twice and was totally underwhelmed by its storyline both times. Gorgeous 3D cinematography and CGI makeup, but also not a movie I'll see again and again.
Seemed to me the Oscar was awarded to the whole trilogy, but the Academy was loath to present a trophy to only the first third of a saga - and made them wait it out to see if the consistency was still there for #3. So it's a movie that became hard to snub.
According to?
All based on your personal opinion, mind you.
What in "Nemesis" involved a Romulan avenging the destruction of his world by seeking the man he felt responsible for it?
(I'll make it easier for you, there wasn't. So saying it's a rehash of "Nemesis" is rather moot)
Well, I actually saw the film (shocking, I know) and I have to say Up in the Air was a wonderfully timely film balancing comedy and drama and deserved to be nominated, and I liked Star Trek significantly more.
I wasn't expecting Trek to be nominated for a Best Picture award but I was holding out that it would. Oh, well. Four nominations is still pretty impressive, and enough to be excited about.
oh can it.
like you were gonna make a better movie!
That's the kind of critical depth and insight that makes Abrams rich, "defends" freedom & democracy, supports our troops, and makes the US the greatest country in the history of history. This swine would normally need to go to a Sunday School Class for such pearls to be cast before me.
However, I do appreciate your confirmation of my general opinion regarding fans of this so-called "Trek".
There do exist some rules, like something "out of visual range" is not normally something that is simultaneously blinding everyone on the Bridge.
Nonsensical and insulting fallacy, proving only that you do not intend to respect the poster or his opinion. If you object, reasonable readers would appreciate learning why.
You assume "a Romulan avenging the destruction of his world by seeking the man he felt responsible for it" is the only similarity that could constitute a rehash - such an assumption seems like quite a leap of faith.
I don't know Nemesis very well, but I'd like to hear why the original poster considers it a rehash. Wasn't there a revenge theme with hand-to-hand fights in the dark, Romulan/Reman evil lair?
The sun was not out of visual range. The anomaly was.
Indeed. It's amazing how many of the haters sat through the entire movie without hearing a word of it.
Come on, now -- your post in response to her previous one verged on the comically hyperbolic, to put it kindly. All opinions are welcome here, but how serious a response to something like that did you really expect? A claim of "outraged & betrayed" probably wasn't the best way of inviting meaningful discussion, particularly when there was nothing in your post everyone hadn't heard and answered dozens of times before and months ago. It's been done. Had it been presented more calmly, then perhaps the response it received might have been different.oh can it.
like you were gonna make a better movie!
That's the kind of critical depth and insight that makes Abrams rich, "defends" freedom & democracy, supports our troops, and makes the US the greatest country in the history of history. This swine would normally need to go to a Sunday School Class for such pearls to be cast before me.
Offering an opinion of the movie--even a bitingly negative one--is one thing. I'd prefer, however, that blanket swipes at groups of fans be avoided here, particularly at those fans who are members.
Excuse me, do not tar us all with the same brush. This "so-called Trek" you mention happens to appeal to a lot of people out there, and it fits with many visions of "Star Trek". Just not yours. We know we can't help you like the film - ever - but there's no need for you to continue the insults.
Taking umbrage at Star Trek being used for propaganda by the military and a compliant chicken hawk (Abrams) which has simultaneously helped murder people around the world in massive numbers, is wrecking our economy and has all but destroyed previously good, moral people like my best friend is "put kindly" when ridiculed as "comically hyperbolic", eh?
Your sense of "kindness" appears to confirm my general opinion of the level of awareness typical for fans of the film, but I always leave open the door for evidence to the contrary.
Contrast this with the belief that presenting evidence is unnecessary because "we know we can't help you enjoy the film." Are participants seriously supposed to accept non-sequiturs like that? This ignores the issue that the poster is rejecting a key aspect for reasonable debate.
Please note: my statement very carefully refers only to my opinions regarding fans, but thank you for sharing what you prefer others should do to make you more comfortable. Perhaps future posts will be more sensitive to your feelings. I hope so.
Then how do we explain the preceding external shot, where we are looking past the Kelvin and see the huge anomaly while the subspace chatter describes "It looks like a lightening storm"?
This would be an example of insulting language: it directly ridicules people, and with a biased epithet.
BTW-If you are unable to produce "a hater" who "at through the entire movie without hearing a word of it", some might judge you to be a liar.
And if you were to search the forum, you'd find plenty of places where I've said I don't care for that word, either, and would prefer that it not be used. For that matter, insulting language and ridicule, direct and indirect, seem to have figured in many of the posts you made here so far; I'd recommend instead addressing the topic and leaving the personal stuff out. Further, the confrontational, angry tone you've been adopting here doesn't help anything, least of all your arguments; losing that could only be a plus.
Edit:
(resuming, after a RL interruption)
There was nothing of the sort referred to in the post I linked and I don't know anything about your friend or who he might be, but in any case, real-world politics fall well outside the topics of discussion for which this forum is intended unless they can be shown to figure directly in the story told by this movie (and here it seems clear that they do not.) There are forums in which such a topic would be appropriate, but this is not one of them. Please bear that in mind in the future.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
