A
Amaris
Guest
It was okay, but I think I've been spoiled by Plinkett.
The Nostalgia Critic: Odd Numbered Trek Films
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
This. RLM's review was so in-depth, that it would be tough to compare.
I do think Doug/TNC has good on-screen chemistry with Obscurus Lupa. My feelings about Linkara can really go either way but in this review he was more on the "bad" as his opinions on the plot of the movie apparently stem from a "rape the land, deal with the consequences later/capitalist" idea which runs pretty counter to everything Trek tries to teach. As Picard points out in the ready room scene with the Sona and Admiral, "How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?"
TNC quips in the review "601, apparently." Which is ignorant and foolish as it misses the point. It also misses the point the people were intended to be moved without their knowledge.
But man was Linkara just a giant ass in this and I don't know if that was the Linkara character or Lewis (the "actor" who plays him) coming out. I've hard times finding the line between The Nostalgia Critic ans Doug Walker sometimes as well.
But the movie makes many of the issues they had clear and anyone who is familiar with the movie can point out their flaws in logic. Hell, they even questioned how it was that they were walking on the planet and not being beamed. Ignoring the transporter inhibitors and the need for the drones to tag people to beam them with.
I mean the "slowing down time" thing could have been pointed out.
The stupid "boobs" scene.
The "chroma-key blue" interior of the collector.
The disregard for life with the Enterprise not beaming up the head Sona as well as Picard.
I did like they joked about F. Murray's "wail like an elephant" but their "nitpicks" on the movie don't hold up well if you've seen it and, hell, I've not seen Insurrection in a few years and I own it on DVD! I assume Doug and Linkara watched the movie in preparation for the review and would've known some of the things they were saying were just flat-out wrong.
This may be the worst "researched" or prepared review Doug has done and he may end up needing to a do a retraction/revisit with help from Douchey McNitpick.
The thing that gets my goat so to speak, is that the numbering of Trek features quit with STVI and the next five films do NOT use the roman numerals or even the basic numbering systems, just individual titles. Yet people constantly use the even-odd system to criticise or bless whatever film they are talking about.
I thought this one was the best review of the Trek ones-all the points made by Linkara about the "dilemma" were spot on, and they were the same points made by RLM and SFDebris in their reviews of the film. The premise is just fatally flawed from the start.
And as Doug pointed out, even if you put the crappy dilemma aside, it's STILL a boring, weak movie that plays like a subpar TNG episode from one of the later seasons.
And as Doug pointed out, even if you put the crappy dilemma aside, it's STILL a boring, weak movie that plays like a subpar TNG episode from one of the later seasons.
Ugh...Lupa is probably the worst critic affiliated with that site. From the few of hers that I've bothered to watch, she tries way, way, way too hard, and her delivery is terribly flat. I don't get why people love her so much (well, I have a theory...).
My problem with Lupa is that her stuff is wayyyy to obscure for me to find it interesting to really watch her reviews, she can be a bit flat but at the same time she is a bit... fun to watch.
I've seen a few of Lupa's reviews. I thought she was pretty good - though at times she has a tendency to drag a joke out for far too long.
I did think she had some pretty good chemistry with the Critic in their crossover.
I did think she had some pretty good chemistry with the Critic in their crossover.
I watched RLM's review again last night, and I don't see a big difference between the NC's review and RLM's. Sure, RLM goes a little more in-depth while the NC review sacrifices deeper analysis in favour of comedy, but they pretty much make the same complaints.
One point I'll give to the NC is that Linkara actually mentions the problem with the Dominion while RLM completely avoids mentioning anything from DS9 except for Worf. I was very surprised that RLM didn't even touch on that when we saw him make a reference to DS9 in the Nemesis review (Romulan ale not being illegal).
One point I'll give to the NC is that Linkara actually mentions the problem with the Dominion while RLM completely avoids mentioning anything from DS9 except for Worf. I was very surprised that RLM didn't even touch on that when we saw him make a reference to DS9 in the Nemesis review (Romulan ale not being illegal).
Apparently they took the technology/ships and pulled it off that way.
On the NC's message boards I raised some issues I had with the episode and got a response from Linkara (as most of the complaints I had dealt with him.)
On the NC's message boards I raised some issues I had with the episode and got a response from Linkara (as most of the complaints I had dealt with him.)
....and what'd he say?
I guess, the only way I can see that working is if the planets they conquered were in cave man days.
I'm sorry Trekker, but just on your first post, 2 and 5 are "Rule of Funny" quibbles, and the only thing gained from pointing out the Treaty of Algernon thing is to highlight these are Bad Guys. And I'm pretty sure it was pointed out that part of the reason for helping the Son'a is to get them away from the Dominion's clutches. Anyway, let's see the responses.
ETA: Looks like it was a good debate though.
ETA: Looks like it was a good debate though.
Last edited:
I think Trekker was spot on.
His response that "the morals it preaches, I feel, are incompatible with what Star Trek is all about" gave me epic facepalm. I'd like to ask him just what the hell morals does he think are compatible with Star Trek? If he says "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few..." I'm stealing all his Star treks stuff.
His response that "the morals it preaches, I feel, are incompatible with what Star Trek is all about" gave me epic facepalm. I'd like to ask him just what the hell morals does he think are compatible with Star Trek? If he says "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few..." I'm stealing all his Star treks stuff.
Linkara has demonstrated and expressed in the past that he has very capitalist/conservative views so it's not too out of place for him to value the removal of people from the land in order to use the land for a "greater good" or the needs of the government.
Which, again, I can see the Federation's position but the problem I have comes from how the Federation went about doing the whole thing and the Federation had to have known the real technological capacity of the Baku.
Which, again, I can see the Federation's position but the problem I have comes from how the Federation went about doing the whole thing and the Federation had to have known the real technological capacity of the Baku.
Which is fine for him but his ideals =/= "Star Trek" ideals.
To say he disagrees with the moral view presented is one thing. But saying it's not "Star Trek" just because he happens to disagree with it his fail logic.
The other problem is "greater good" is ultimately an arbitrary figure that only accounts for the immediate situation.
To say it's only sacrificing 600 to save a billion is a very myopic view of the numbers.
For starters, the science behind it was very unproven. As far as anyone could know, the result may only be it saves a few people or could even have long-term negative effects. The Baku may have looked human, but they weren't human--or Vulcan, or Andorian, or Betazoid, or Trill or Rigelian or whatever.
There's also the fact that, had the Fed got its hands on such a magical elixir, that the other races might not look too fondly on the situation. Hell, it could even start another war.
But one thing that would come with the package is a new found power--a power that would quickly evolve into absolute and we all know how that turns out.
In any case, it would radically alter the natural biological and cultural evolutions of all the races involved ... including the Baku.
They would have theirs completely eradicated. So it doesn't really just effect 600; it effects all those who come after. Who knows what the Baku would become if they were left alone on that planet for a few millennia or so. The potential number is infinite. How's that for "many?"
It's no different than Dr. Marcus not wanting to use the wave on a planet with "a single microbe." The microbe is most likely just going to chillax on the sun for a few years and die out. But there's also the possibility that it has an evolutionary explosion and someday winds up being Q.
It's no different for the Bakku.
And the "well they aren't original from there" argument is a non starter. Before someone even brings it up I'll insist he bring me proof a sentient lifeform (human or otherwise) started from scratch on either of the American continents.
Ironically (especially for a "two-hour episode"), TV Picard would have made all of those arguments. Action Picard wasn't interested. He just wanted to blow shit up. As such, critique the film for poorly presenting its moral dilemma is one thing, but anyone who says it's "unsound" or "false" to begin with needs to go bury his nose in some Plato.
Similar threads
