Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 30, 2009.
One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do...
I did indeed feel that it was dumb, but I also think it was dumb. And with all the plot holes, contrivances and foregone conclusions that happens in the film, I'd be willing to argue that on an objective basis.
(As an aside, I've always thought a good indicator of how much one enjoys a film is the extent one is willing to go to to explain away such inconsistencies. I've seen some pretty spectacular sophistry here and elsewhere to that effect, but having disliked most all other aspects the movie, I don't feel particularly interested in such efforts.)
Piffle and semantics. It's a film that takes place before previous filmed material; it is both prequel and reboot. The salient point here is that the film fails to deliver anything new, fails to move the metastory forward.
I was turned off by the trailers and the setting, which did reflect the film's problems (the trailers looked like any generic action film... and this movie was any generic action film). I've approached other films with this kind of skepticism before and nonetheless been convinced by viewing the movie itself (such as "Batman Begins"--after the last movie to bear that name, I wasn't expecting much [and it was a prequel!], but the quality of the film soon made a convert out of me, which this one did not). As for 'so-called', that's retrospective. I obviously didn't know going in the extent to which the movie wouldn't feel like Star Trek.
I wouldn't know; I'm Canadian.
I don't know what 'downside words' are, and Googling doesn't turn up anything relevant, so I can't really respond to that.
The use of the word "one", or also frequently "we", in my writing comes from over a decade of scholastic and academic writing where the use of the pronoun "I" was actively discouraged and penalized, as being 'too subjective' where objectivity was desired. Not something I ever agreed with, but it's pretty much a permanent part of the way I write now, and you can look elsewhere than this review to see that. If this is what bothered you, then feel free to replace all instances of the plural with the singular.
That's nothing; you should read the review where I tossed credibility's battered corpse from a tall ravine.
And the risk of being 'offensive' again, I really do think some people are being oversensitive if they need to go picking at pronouns and sentence structure and the vividness of my metaphors to find 'proof' that I'm tarring everybody who liked the film. I most certainly think it is a bad movie, and I would indeed be willing to argue that many of its failings are technical in nature and not just individual taste (of course, techne and it's applicability also vary from person to person); but from there to getting all bristly as though personally insulted... I don't see it. If you spend your time being offusqued whenever someone dislikes something you like (or vice versa), you'll be permanently peeved. If you disagree with my assesment of the film, it seems the thing to do would be to answer on the film's merits instead of trying to deflect onto straw men of some kind of vaguely trespassed etiquette of expression. (Not that I'm actually challenging you to do so, mind; there are already plenty of reviews, here and else, effulgent in their praise of the film for me to consult.)
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Id like to sift through all 100+ pages of this thread but I simply don't have the time. This is going to come off poorly here but it needs to be said. I hated the New movie for all the Same reasons as the majority of negative reviews Ive read. A few have chimed in to defend the Poster's right to have a negative opinion but the fanboys here seem to have the same mob mentality most other BBS's have and find every reason insult the poster. Seems that the Negative Camp is all on the exact same page with this movie so insulting one feels like insulting us all. As a Action Movie its fine I guess all the right elements that seem to appeal to today's movie goers are there: Cool SFX, hot chick(s), things blowing up, etc. This is a Vin Diesel movie in space (I really liked Riddick btw). Unfortunately the plot is horrible even if we over look the canon changes. Did we really need yet another Time travel movie? I don't care if I'm in the minority here I grew up in the 80's and I hated it along with Transformer's and the New Indiana Jones movie and several other "Reboots" that mutilate my Boyhood memories. Hollywood please stop. Come up with new IP and stop trying to cash in on old IP for the sake of Profit. Lastly I don't want to insult the ppl who liked the movie and one positive that it is accomplishing is bingning new Fans in with its "lets appeal to everyone" mentality but that wasn't my "Trek" and I cant understand why my fellow Trekkers are so forgiving of its faults.
I don't care if you like it or not. And perhaps I should have taken into account the possibility of having "I" drummed out of you by years of scholarly ïnsistence (I dealt with the same thing for years).
Essentially, your tone was reminiscent (fairly or not) of several other screeds wherein the implication--when not outright stated--that liking the film is a legitimate gauge of one's intelligence is quite strong and "my cup runneth over". I've read your posts on other topics and while I've not always agreed with you, I'd always considered your viewpoints as articulate and respectful--ordinarily, I'd have granted the benefit of the doubt here based on that. However, a poster (whom I shall not name--not the appropriate forum for that) for whom I had similar respect with regards to posts on general matters has, on more than one occasion, quite strongly expressed the notion that one needs to be "less than intelligent" (a paraphrase) to enjoy this film. I find such an attitude condescending and my respect for that poster has diminished. However, I should not have let that cloud my view of your post by not giving you the benefit of the doubt.
As for why I like the film, I've stated it in several places and I have no wish to get into another long exchange at this time. Short version: my expectations with regards to Star Trek, in all its iterations, have always been geared towards "having fun" while I watch it. I also have a soft spot for it (as I do for Bond) as I came to it as a child, so I willingly dial down my "critical eye" a fair bit. If it's fun, that's enough for me--and this one was more fun than many, to me.
No worries, then; just miscommunication. I've really no desire to insult anyone over something as pedestrian as a movie ("Birth of a Nation" excepted). Well, I'll insult the people on the production side of it, but that's because it was their job and I don't think they did it well.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
A great movie, my friend and I saw it twice in IMAX. well worth the wait.
I still think about it. I would love to see it a fourth time before it's out of theaters.
And then the arduously long wait until Blu-ray...
Trent, I don't mind if someone didn't like the film, I really don't. It's just that too often the negaive statements has a supercilious "oooo, you liked that? hmmm, not so bright" tone attached to them, and I get a bit thin skinned over that, though I probably shouldn't, I admit.
That said, as I said, you made salient points in your earlier comments, and like Voltaire, I defend your right to state them!
That goes to show how different someone's perception can be. For me, the movie felt like Star Trek, mostly because the feeling of adventure and the characters' interaction.
I saw the flaws you describe in your previous post but they didn't spoil my enjoyement of the movie.
We just have to agree to disagree because yes, this is only a movie after all
I'm getting thick skinned over that even if it's annoying. For instance:
Just an advice: if you don't want to insult the people who happen to like the movie, then don't say they like shit
Look I can't speak for Trent and others but I DON'T think you are Dumb for liking a DUMB movie. I enjoy a mindless action packed explosion romp as much as the next guy and I don't consider myself less sophisticated for it but I just don't feel Star Trek should have gone there and I really felt they went there to pander to the broader audience (money, money). I for one would rater have no Star Trek than this new processed, reconstituted for mass consumption Star Trek.
I don't care about wider audiences. Hell I'm a Serenity fan. I liked it. A lot. A cursory glance at the poll suggests I'm not alone.
I just don't think it's a "dumb" movie.
I mean, come on, people, "dumb" is Dumb and Dumber. give us a break!
I loved the movie! It flows by very quickly, and provides over two hours of some great escapism. I believe the goal of making an enjoyable, profitable movie, as well as "re-launching" a franchise, has succeeded. There are some emotional scenes, to be sure, but they way it is filmed, it ends with a "bright" future ahead, with plenty of adventure and excitement. The sky, (or galaxy) is the limit! In today's enviroment, it was great to see Gene Roddenberry's vision, from over 40 years ago, play out again, of the many races represented, on the bridge, getting along, and cooperating with one another. The movie left me feeling very optimistic, and GOOD! I can't wait for the next one!
I think it's probably a sign of a film's weakness if you can tell too clearly that it's a first film or introduction, at least it can feel like that but should also be a good story on its own. How did Spock or Kirk develop in this one?
^ From two guys who didn't know each other, to two guys that really disliked each other, to two guys that trusted waht the other brought to the table? Not bad in the timeframe of the film. We got to see most of the beats to the friendship being built. And through that friendshiop, each of them growing as individuals as well.
If I may, I'd like to offer my own opinion in regards to the subject brought up by this particular statement: I've heard both "Batman Begins" and "Star Trek" referred to as prequels before, but it is my feeling that neither one is what would come to be defined as a "prequel." It's true that both films take us back to the beginnings of our heroes' journeys but, once they do, they tell these origin stories in a COMPLETELY different manner. To me, a prequel implies a preceeding chapter to an already established line of stories (such as Episodes I-III of "Star Wars"). What both "Batman Begins" and "Star Trek" give us is an entirely new line of content. Events that we've previously seen that would take place afterwards chronologically happened in the previous series of films and would, I submit, therefore have no bearing or be in any way dependent on the events of the new one.
This is especially true for the "Batman" franchise, however I admit that it is a bit trickier for the "Star Trek" franchise. "The Dark Knight" (for example) features a new and darker take on the confrontation between Batman and Joker, rather than just rehashing the one from the Tim Burton movie from twenty years ago (good lord, has it really been that long?). "Star Trek," on the other hand, admits within the film's dialogue that the timeline would have progressed just as we remember it had it not been for the intervention of Nero. Therefore, while all that came before the events of the new "Star Trek" movie also happened in the original timeline, anything that happens from here on out will progress much differently from what would otherwise be expected.
Stricto sensu, you're probably correct--neither 'fits' with the material that came before it, although this so-called Star Trek is a more complex animal. Lato sensu, though, I think showing the origins of previously filmed material (or material that simply hadn't made it to film before, like Batman), can be considered 'thematically' prequels even where they don't lead, linearly, into the material it chronologically predates from an in-universe perspective. The idea of showing these events is, after all, illustrating how characters, settings, etc. become that which already has broadly defined, future existence in the popular consciousness.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
This "so-called?" It is called. People may not like it, but for better or worse, it is Star Trek now. Your critiques are otherwise well argued and well written, but do you have to preface the film with that phrase every single time? It's starting to get annoying.
No, no--"classic" is Dumb and Dumber...
"Throw another shrimp on the barby..."
Hmmmmmm <frowns deeply>
Separate names with a comma.