Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 30, 2009.
I still love this movie let's hope the sequel will be one to cherish as well.
Baba gives this movie teh baba seal of approval
What did you think of the movie live up to your expectations?
Hope is unnecessary...the next effort is certain to have "Star Trek" in its title.
I have to say one year on and its still amazing so glad they went back to the TOS era .
I have some work colleagues that didn't even know about the NUTREK film so invited them round for the blu ray experience both of them loved in fact they now own there own copy,s of it !!!!
LLAP THE STAR TREK FRANCHISE !!!!!
None of you noticed or were bothered by dialog inconsistencies, nonsensical plot elements, and enthusiastic militarism in the film?
nope didn't bother me
Well of course not! The film comes with a label of Star Trek, characters having the same names as TOS, and you already did a good job explaining your critical standard. If it says "Star Trek" you love it. BTW - I have some STAR TREK souvenirs (from Admiral Archer's beagle) for sale...
Actually, the question was directed to Nero's Shadow. Some people actually do seem to believe "If it's Trek, it's good" is a reasonable standard for judging a film.
I look at the believability of a film, the story, the characterization, the effects, and many other elements when making a judgement. And I thought Star Trek measures up pretty darn well in a lot of departments. Sure, it isn't perfect. In fact, I have had my own personal little nitpicks with it. But they are easily forgivable in light of the majority of the film. Now, whether you enjoyed it or not is a personal taste preference I think. But to suggest that the film is serious flawed? I just don't see it.
Now, Transformers 2, Crank 2, Transporter 2, Quantum of Solace, Indian Jones 4, Die Hard 4 and Ghost Rider are seriously flawed films. They are just mindless entertainment in it's highest form. At least, in my opinion, anyways.
Also, to say that a film is good based on the fact that it has the title Star Trek in it is simply not true: In fact, general audience that brought in money for this film and not just the fans. Also, it was favored by critics, as well.
And as you know:
Recent previous Trek films didn't do all that well at the box office or with the critics.
I tend to agree with you, but some people do claim that "Good= I liked it" and that "If it's Star Trek, then I like it." Therefore, by such people's standards (even though they are generally considered "poor" criteria) the film is good. The accuracy of any observation that people hold what might be considered unreasonable views is not put in question simply because the views are demonstrably unreliable or inconsistent with norms of reasonable thinking.
On the other hand, popularity of unreasonable ideas (nor profitability of evil views) don't make them reasonable (or virtuous).
Having said that, can you explain why you thought the film believable? Specifically, I'm working on a "Minute 100" blog entry, when Spock mentally rapes an unconscious Romulan who was shot by Kirk. The plan they explained earlier was for Spock to get the info from the ship's computer, but without a word, the plan changed completely in the middle of a battle. Spock was then able to meld with a mind that does not exist, since the mind only exists when very specific brain processes are operating, and unconscious brains cannot produce a mind any more than a combustion-free candle can produce light. IMO: not believable or consistent.
As for believability, (your first criteria) I also thought about after the mental rape, when Kirk first asks about "it" when they are supposed to be rescuing Pike, since Kirk wasn't to tell altSpock about Spock Prime, or his ship. How the hell does Spock know of the "black hole device" being "stolen" from someone? When did that conversation take place? Inconsistent and unbelievable, IMO.
Next, why are there hundreds of people outside Starfleet Academy & HQ running TOWARD a giant, flaming pillar of death? Wouldn't they be on communicators trying to avoid whatever was about to happen? Unbelievable response on their part, IMO.
Star Trek (2009) is as believable as any other incarnation of Star Trek. There doesn't need to be a comparison. You're trying to compare two fantastic (not in reference to an indicator of quality) stories that contain elements of science and reason which give them a level of believability, but suffice to say, one is not more believable than the other in that regard. It's like saying "I know Christianity is wrong because Judaism is right". You have no verifiable data to support it beyond mere supposition. It all comes down to personal taste. You can point out plot holes, and people can point out plot holes in the movies you enjoy. You can say it's insane/weird/inconsistent, and others can point out insane/weird/inconsistencies in your favorite movies.
It is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.
When we say how bad Star Trek 2009 is, we say so by it's bad on it's own merits, not in comparison. And no, that means 2009 is not fantastic, it's horrifyingly bad.
Why? Because unlike other movies, regardless of franchise, none of them have the sheer amount of ineptness in them, than this movie has. And no, that means in other movies, you can NOT point out the plotholes. Oh, there may be a few tiny ones here and there, a flub there, one little thing to get the plot going there - you can expect them in all movies - but this movie, manages a staggering 14 in one 4 minute scene, and it just keeps on pumping them out. Every scene, with exception of three, is FILLED with them. Hell, I never counted them, but I don't think the first nine Star Trek movies, don't even manage to have 14 plotholes COMBINED.
But we're not yet done, then there's the inept camera work, the inept set-dressing; seriously, brick walls on starships? Then there's the fucking beer vats in communications; hell, the valve, the connector for the hose that pumps the beer out, wasn't even attempted to be covered up, it just sat there in the middle of the screen. Not even The ffing Asylum managed to have that bad set dressing, and they make ripoffs with sound-alike names of blockbusters on a shoestring budget.
Think of it; the first scene, the first ten seconds of this movie goes like this: "It looks like lightning in space! You should see it!"
Captain enters bridge, and an officer tells him, "We're not yet in visible range."
Uh... that's the first scene you write down, and it's not just a plot hole, it's an outright contradiction. The first FFING scene! How do you manage it!?
I have never watched a movie this bad, ever. There is so much bad in this movie, such an a vast amount, that bad covers up other bad. Repeated viewings, where other movies show you more depth, more good stuff, or more funny stuff you missed earlier times, Star Trek only reveals more bad stuff that the bad stuff you noticed the earlier viewings covered up.
You misunderstand my use of the term fantastic, which I have already clarified in the original statement. The usage is derived from the term 'fantasy'. As I said, it was not a descriptor of quality.
As I said, it is simply a matter of taste. Your personal opinion masquerading as fact, when it is not fact, or even generally accepted as true.
It is a tempest in a teapot. Your zealousness does not change that.
Nope, wrong. Plotholes have nothing to do with taste. Plotholes are plotholes are plotholes. Outright contradictions are worse so, and remain outright contradictions regardless of your taste.
Plotholes are objective.
People denying them, is deliberately trying to make a movie better than it really is. That's probably the worst anyone liking this movie; that they spend their time defending plotholes, or trying to say they aren't there; THAT is subjective, not only subjective, it is irrational.
Pointing out plotholes is not. And if people liking this movie were rational, they'd say, yes, indeed, the movie is filled and filled with plotholes, bad sets, barely disguised, or not disguised at all sets, it makes this movie bad, but I like it anyway.
Instead, they spend their time denying them, or claiming that the people who noticed the plotholes and point them out, are merely subjective, biased, childish, "producing a tempest", etc. etc.
Yes, indeed, you CAN judge a movie objectively, if you're honest enough. There are several movies that I like, that are bad movies, and I will tell so, honestly.
While plot holes are more objective, you are not being objective. The vast majority of your complaints have been wholly subjective, your posts laced with contempt that is also subjective. There are plot holes in this movie, yes. As there are in most movies where one has to fabricate something from nothing, there will be mistakes. That does not, however, invalidate the movie, neither does it make a movie "bad".
Your dislike of the movie is a subjective one, based on personal opinion in matters of taste. That is fine, but let us not defer it, by proxy, to matters that are objective, in an effort to validate your own personal tastes.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Every single flaw that I have mentioned, are actually flaws in the movie. Everyone who is objective will notice the same things. I am being objective about these things.
And the simple objective fact is, if you are being honest and objective, the more flaws there are in a movie, the less good it is.
If you are further honest and objective, you are capable of noticing once a movie has gone over a threshold. Having more plotholes, idiocies, contradictions and illogic in a single scene than multiple other movies combined, should, for anyone who is objective and honest, be a massive indicator you've crossed that threshold. Especially if this isn't the one exception scene, and pretty much every scene has one ore more such holes, contradictions, or idiocies; let alone the clearly bad set dressing. Let me repeat: Brick. Walls. On. Starships.
If you then go beyond, and find your movie has more such contradictions, holes and idiocies than universally named some of the worst movies ever created, if you're honest and objective, you should be able to fess up that the movie is bad, completely regardless of whether or not you like it, and enjoy watching it.
For example, I LOVE Mortal Kombat. I love that movie, I consider it one of, if not the most enjoyable movies to I've ever watched. I can also tell you, objectively and honestly speaking, it's not a good movie. It isn't quite as bad as some people claim to be; for that you need to go to the the sequel, but it's bad.
See, it can be done, you just have to be willing to be objective and honest about a movie. And I am objective and honest about the movie.
It depends upon how you would define honest and objective. One does not necessarily prerequisite the other accurately.
How many starships have you built?
What is the design layout for that section of the ship that has brick walls? Is it brick?
You see, I can ask these questions because we're not dealing with a reality, we're dealing with a fantasy. For all we know the brick wall could be an insulator that takes on the appearance of brick, yet has the qualities of steel or tritanium. There is no way for you to know, and to suggest otherwise is to remove the fantasy back into reality. At that point, when you judge the fantasy by reality, it fails, which is an unbalanced judgment.
If you are upset at the brick walls, then you must also drag the rest of Star Trek into reality and base it on that. Warp drive, transporters, earth like planets every week, funny forehead aliens that are extraordinarily like human beings.
If design is your issue, then you must dislike the plywood sets used on the original series (some of it quite noticeable). Perhaps you have issues with the obvious matte paper photos of starfields and nebulae that are plastered about the bridge, or perhaps Captain Kirk's Samsonite luggage?
So you must tell me whether you are going to judge this movie based on reality, in which all Star Trek movies would fail, or judge it based in fantasy, in which case you cannot complain about something with which you would only have a superficial acquaintance.
Either way, at this moment, your posts are not at all balanced in evaluating the movie. I will give examples later in this post.
However, your posts are not honest or objective in regards to the movie. I will give examples later in this post.
Star Trek XI has it's faults. Some of them plot based, others set based. It is, on the whole, however, a good movie.
I disagree. Your posts indicate little to no objectivity.
In fact, in example three, you call Star Trek XI the worst movie you have ever seen. Ever, whether Star Trek or not. Do you consider that even remotely honest and objective? You have opinions, strong ones, but that does not make them fact, neither does it take away from the successes the movie has garnered.
The point comes down to this: Are you arguing against the movie versus reality, or are you arguing against the movie in the fantasy universe in which it resides? You seem to bounce back from one to the other, and combine them in your strong hatred of the movie. It is similar to the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" method of critique, and that is a poor method to follow.
Well, if you're honest and objective, you define honest and object as... honest and objective. And I did not says anything about one then the other, or vice versa, or only one of the too, no, I said, honest AND objective. That rather requires both at the same time, or you don't have honest AND objective.
They are bricks, with cement between them. And you see, we are NOT dealing with a fantasy, we are dealing with SCIENCE FICTION. For SCIENCE FICTION, you actually require at the very least, some common sense.
Bullshit. Warp Drive, transporters, Earth-like planets every week, that's science fiction, and funnily enough, the more we know, the more science advances, the more reality starts to look like Star Trek.
Warp Drive - aka, Alcubierre (the guy who did the math and wrote the theory) Warp Drive, is a genuine scientific theory, and works.
We already got transporters - just energy for now, but we got them.
Mars had life, and undoubtedly still has life. Europa almost certainly has life, algae at a minimum. That's just three planetary bodies in one solar system alone. Recent biologists: some water in a comet/asteroid liquid at its core, could be enough to have life thriving in that asteroid. Combine that with the recent sightings of the building blocks of life in most star-birthing nebulas; and living planets should be pretty much everywhere.
And the forehead aliens; well, humans had to play them, and no television series has Avatar's budget.
Nope, no problems at all. You see, they were limited in technology and budget, a 170 million dollar summer blockbuster - not so much. Like I said; The ffing Asylum, ripoffs on a shoestring budget, manages better set-dressing a 170 million dollar summer blockbuster.
No, I base them upon SCIENCE FICTION. You know, this is a SCIENCE FICTION movie. And no, I do not have so little knowledge to not know that bricks and cement, simply the lacking proper set dressing, is idiotic.
No, it is on the whole however an extremely bad movie. The plot is... non-existent, there are just plotholes. There's not a single properly executed character-arc. Kirk is an asshole, who is taught he is always right, and thus has no growth, no change, and remains an asshole. The claim that this movie is about cheating, is utter bullshit. Every character is an idiot, Kirk's promotion is idiotic, etc. etc. etc. The camera work is horrible and dizzying. The Enterprise, instead of sticking to the design of the designer hired, is instead a mishmash of different styles and design philosophies, construction techniques and eras, as if they took the nacelles from one ship, the saucer form another, the engineering section from another, slapped it together, and hoped it worked. Then there's reducing Uhura to Spock's girlfriend. The idiocy of spending a whole time of Kirk trying to convince Pike there's a trap, and then when he finally does, have Pike stop the Enterprise, but they're at Vulcan already - making the entire scene useless and pointless. The idiocy of having two CGI monsters, and one monster grabbing the other... and tossing it away, not even killing the other monster. (How about using all those wasted millions on set-dressing instead!) The ridiculous juvenile jokes, the lack of any scientific merit whatsoever, a villain that is a frothing at the mouth idiot, putting Spock, who before only started a genuine relationship with a woman if his mind was either addled by some alien drugs, or spores, or by the Pon Farr, in a relationship with no more than writers saying so; which would have been bad enough on its own as this is a character development that actually needs to be dealt with, but on top of that... it's with one of his students.
And on, and on, and on, and on. I can spend a week writing and I still wouldn't have them all. Star Trek is a level of ineptness in each and every way that is mind boggling.
That is honest and objective, yes. You see, you are the one not honest and objective. You like the movie so much you haven't been honest and objective about it in ages; you can only see it as a good movie, as a great movie, so if someone comes along who after analyzing it, claims it's the worst movie he's ever seen, you don't even bother examining the objective problems he's raised, and dismiss everything as not being objective and honest.
But you're wrong. I'm honest and object, and Star Trek is the worst movie I've ever seen in my entire life. It is inept across the board; well, except the casting, the SFX didn't entirely look like more than five years old, and there were three scenes, count them THREE, that weren't riddled with idiocies, plotholes, or set problems. But seriously, having three such scenes isn't achievement, they're not redeeming qualities, proper casting, proper SFX, and competent scenes should have been the norm instead of the exception.
Result being: worst movie I've ever seen. And I've seen quite some bad movies, but in comparison to Star Trek they're master pieces.
1. It is not a fantasy universe, it's a science fiction movies.
2. What I use, is all the flaws in this movie. From horrifying science, to the plotholes, the bad camera work, the inept writing, horrifically bad sets and set-dressing, the contradictions, the lack of any characters and character development - the only potential development, Spock choosing to be in a relationship without getting his mind f-ed up first WITH HIS STUDENT to boot, being reduced to nothing - he just is - and ON and ON and ON.
3. You keep saying that I'm subjective and that my hatred created all the bad stuff. This does not happen. All the flaws exist, THEY created the hatred, not the other way around. If they didn't exist, there would be no hatred.
I trust we can agree that the Johnny Cage/Scorpion fight, set to the music of Fear Factory, is the best in the film?
I agree with you. Mortal Kombat is bad, but fun. ST09 is also bad and fun.
Thing is, I'd be more apologetic about ST09, except for the fact that I've seen lots of Trek that is *good* and fun.
That explains nothing.
Are you certain? What they call Transparent Aluminum certainly looks like glass or maybe plexiglass to me. Are the bridge components made of plastic? If not, what is it?
So we're basing the critique of the movie on fantasy. Right?
So we're basing the critique of the movie on reality. Right?
Ah, okay. Reality it is, then, since you cite real world reasons as to why aliens looked humanoid. This means that you're okay with the bricks in the movie, since those scenes were shot with a tight budget in mind.
That is solely your opinion. It is not an objective fact.
So we're basic the critique on fantasy, then. Right?
Is this your objective and honest review?
Is this part objective or honest?
Are you critiquing it on the level of fantasy or in basis of reality?
I disagree. You assume incorrectly about my motivations.
That is neither honest nor objective.
Of course I am, at least in the image that you have constructed basing your assumptions on what I think about the movie. I, on the other hand, disagree with your erroneous assessment of my motivations.
That is not objective. Basing it on reality, you would still be hyperbolic. Basing it on fantasy, you have no grounds to consider it the worst. There are much worse both on a quantitative and qualitative level. The vast majority of well reasoned and schooled Critics, professional at that, disagree with your statements. This means your statements are not objective based on the standard criteria for professional movie critiquing, but are instead completely subjective.
There were only three valid scenes? That is most certainly not objective in any way. It is of a hardcore bias against the film. No established professional Critic has counted only three valid scenes in the movie. The vast majority of them overwhelmingly approve of the movie, and even those who are staunchly against it have found far, far more than three valid scenes in the movie. This makes your statement subjective, and not objective.
That is not an objective statement.
Once more, the term fantasy is being used as an imaginative, not in the genre sense of the word. I have stated the usage of the words "fantastic" and "fantasy" and you are still misunderstanding them and using them incorrectly.
You are in the far, far minority in regards to professional Critics who are trained to review movies using specific methods. Your statements are subjective, not objective. Even Roger Ebert, a well known Critic who commands a great deal of respect and maintains a marked level of authority when it comes to movies, enjoyed Star Trek XI. His final verdict was 2.5/4.0 stars. That is not a bad review. It's not great, but it's not a bomb, and it's certainly not a recommendation not to see the movie, and further, it is most assuredly not considered the worst movie in what would be Roger Ebert's exceptionally large repertoire of critiqued movies. Roger Ebert's review is objective. It is balanced, honest, and he makes his stance clearly and with reason. Your statements have been very vitriolic, almost laced with an angry tone, and yet you insist your statements are honest and objective, when they most certainly are not.
So, you're being honest and objective, but they created your hatred. They did it. Interesting. I believe I will let your statements stand as testaments of themselves.
Separate names with a comma.