Devon, of course his post is his opinion. If you want to disagree, that's fine but inaccurate snarkiness merely indicates you're upset and are unwilling to put forward a decently supported objection.
No, it means I'm clarifying for him that his statement is his opinion.
IMO, the “clarification” appears to be more notable as a change of subject away from the criticism that off-screen chatter was generally executed badly. There is evidence the criticism is justified, and a dismissive “…for you” reply does not say anything related to the film or the criticism, discussing the author personally, an ad hominem fallacy.
IMO, “inaccurate” appeared in the term “inaccurate snarkiness”, referring to how some readers are likely to regard a reply of “…for you” when a poster shows courage to voice unpopular criticism of ST09 (here: bad dialog) that appears justified (by many examples, IMO).
IMO, math, philosophy/definitions, and logic are the only areas where we should expect simple “proofs”. In the real world, our knowledge ranges in uncertainty across a very broad spectrum from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “all but impossible”, with most things between.
Could George Kirk really have had no escape from the Kelvin in the last minute? IMO: maybe; But since this main character doesn’t follow the most basic survival instincts, (protect his own life, his child, wife), we might expect some mention of why this failure occurred, or they should change the visuals so GK was actually doing something like maneuvering the ship for ramming, etc., during that last 58 sec.
We can keep in mind however, that this error was right after we were shown that George Kirk was able to pick off MIRV torpedoes substantially beyond any technology known to Starfleet, AND he was able to complete this miracle marksmanship perfectly with 100% accuracy, AND this was while battling a planet destroying-ship from the future able to wipe out fleets of Klingon battlecruisers without notable damage, outmassing the Kelvin by numbers for which we need scientific notation, AND he did this completely by himself with a ship that was essentially an antique piece of wreckage, on fire and exploding around him. Yet he still finds time to say the little things that make a woman feel special and supported.
If all those elements in one sequence does not exceed a relatively average limit for a plausible narrative elements, I would sincerely ask again for worse examples, as my last request seemed unproductive.
No, you're doing it again. You're saying "My opinion is fact."
Using “I personally think” and “there is ample evidence” seem (to me) to convey something different from "My opinion is fact". I apologize that I did not make this clearer.
I would like you to provide me with polls that states that "most people were not satisfied with the writing."
The claim is: evidence exists which would lead the average person, who was put in a position of creating minimal standards for narrative writing would find that this film does not meet them consistently enough to be “acceptable” for a major release. It has too many violations of rules like: believable characters should deal with the most important things in their situation first. Broken when Nero murders Robau, George commits suicide and does nothing but talk in the time he could be escaping (and talking), the Narada lets itself be rammed by sub-light debris representing what’s left of the Kelvin, none of the Narada crew do anything about the depraved lunatic on the bridge – for 25 years, a space doctor who doesn’t know the physiology of being in a vacuum, the list seems, IMO, huge. Hundreds are listed on the blog, and its only 2/3 complete.
So you couldn't prove it?
In the best possible case, all anyone can provide is overwhelming evidence, not proof. For assurances of infallible certainty, one must turn to faith. I think hundreds of pieces of evidence can make us pretty certain, perhaps even beyond a reasonable doubt.
You were talking about how one line must mean that they have a supposed opinion of their audience.
There is no claim “one line must mean” anything. When there exist many examples which illustrate consistent patterns we should stand by the preponderance of evidence until a better explanation comes along. I feel my assessments generally obey this rule, although I certainly make mistakes and am glad to have them refuted with better evidence.
…failing to recognize how most other Trek would have entire scenes where they spelled out the obvious, beat us over the head with it, or resolve the issues with unnecessary technobabble instead of real life issues.
I agree with you that most other Trek has similar defects, but even some of the films I regard as disasters of botched writing (i.e.: ST:TUC) don’t seem have anywhere near the same sheer quantity, or rapid-fire barrages appearing in this one. I am happy to admit I could well be mistaken, influenced by my bias toward wanting to like the movie and had high expectations, and also because I have not studied any others as carefully as ST09.
The distress of Nero's attack induced premature labor on JANUARY 4, 2233. (You'll notice I had no problem figuring the story out as I paid attention.)
Premature means the baby was not full-term, correct? If so, my question remains: why contradict this plot element by showing us a baby which is days old after full-term delivery combined and an alternate timeline derivation of the identical name? Why not simply suppress labor and keep the alleged preemie in the safest environment for it until the emergency passed? Also, we were told the distance to any help, much less Earth, was too far for the Kelvin to expect any help.
OK, why would a Romulan mining ship have Kirk's family tree on board, Spock's service record, and why would Nero spend his time memorizing such things in a level of detail that he could instantly recall them many years later?
First, I want you to show me where the Narada had this information.
When mining foreman Nero made his statement about Kirk’s father, I do not recall him having anything revealed in dialog about George. I want to stress: I have not gotten to this point of the film in my analysis, and I have no recollection of that line, I could even have stepped out of the film at that time, so my opinion on this is really unreliable.
In my ignorance, I assume we can guess Nero could have information from the prime timeline on the Kelvin’s crew manifest, and that he had somehow found the connection, or studied the Winona-George subspace chat after the Kelvin incident.
Even so, I consider myself fairly well informed on world politics, but I could not tell you the name of any parents of official enemies of the US. I know Admiral Yamamoto, or Saddam Hussein, but I couldn’t tell any of their parent's names, much less parent career – even with a fancy education. A lunatic miner who could pull up this quality of military intel mid-battle seems a bit unlikely IMO, and not someone we would normally describe as “a simple miner” which Nero claims he is.
Then I want you to think about this. I want you to think about this. Nero is from the same time frame as Elder Spock. Correct? Right. He is from Romulus, in which Spock is a prominent ambassador to Romulus (we know that Spock had been there as per "Unification.") Kirk is also a PROMINENT figure in history at this point. You don't think any Romulans aren't going to know a few things about these guys? At the very least most people would know that their Vulcan ambassador once served on the Enterprise.”
Can you name any important real world ambassador and anything about their history from 20 years ago? I can’t, and although I know people in the State Department, I wouldn’t bet money that I could call someone right now who could meet that standard either. Again, to me this seems very implausible for Nero's character but if there is reason to believe this, some (or all) of these objections are unjustified, I’m very interested in the evidence.
