The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

[jamestyler]

I qualified, precisely, what I found non-trek about the film in the round-filed thread I started. I'd be glad to defend, at length, my opinions on the subject in a thread titled Star Trek, 1966-2009, R.I.P. which is what I intended to do when I started that thread.

After reading the whole thing... I couldn't help but notice the opening which makes it sound like you didn't like the film because it was entertaining.

I think thats what my problem is with a few poster on this board. The attitude of "Oh my GOD! It's entertaining, how dare they!" as if nothing that came before it was, y'know... good.

 

[RAnthony]

After reading the whole thing... I couldn't help but notice the opening which makes it sound like you didn't like the film because it was entertaining.

That's the argument, eh?

For the record, I've found every Trek film entertaining on some level. It's one reason I've been a Trek fan for 42 years. Entertainment isn't that hard to come by.

But... It's not the be all and end all measurement for what makes something 'good trek' or even star trek at all.

So, no, that isn't the crux of my argument.

-RAnthony

 

[Amaris]

After reading the whole thing... I couldn't help but notice the opening which makes it sound like you didn't like the film because it was entertaining.

That's the argument, eh?

For the record, I've found every Trek film entertaining on some level. It's one reason I've been a Trek fan for 42 years. Entertainment isn't that hard to come by.

But... It's not the be all and end all measurement for what makes something 'good trek' or even star trek at all.

So, no, that isn't the crux of my argument.

-RAnthony

Star Trek is many things to many people, but for Paramount, above all, it must be entertaining, and it must bring a profit. In that, this movie has succeeded. In all else, that is up to each person.

J.

 

[Ovation]

Here's what I have a "problem with". Self-styled arbiters of what constitutes "real" (fill-in-the-blank--in this case "Trek"). Make a qualifying statement, why don't you.

I qualified, precisely, what I found non-trek about the film in the round-filed thread I started. I'd be glad to defend, at length, my opinions on the subject in a thread titled Star Trek, 1966-2009, R.I.P. which is what I intended to do when I started that thread.

But I've been told the sandbox isn't large enough for grownup discussions, consequently bellyaching on this thread is all I got.

BTW, I have personally attacked nobody at this point. Check the posts and they will speak for themselves. OTOH, every response to my posts, with the notable exception of erastus25, has been a personal attack (combined with coarse language) against me. Strange how accusations of incivility are generally leveled by those who are the least civil.

All I'm waiting for now is a review by the owners/moderators of this site, to which I have already complained. Either this site welcomes free and open discussion, or it doesn't, and I won't be here any longer.

Feel free to hold your breath, I won't be.

-RAnthony

From your own link:

Fans are dragging their friends out to watch it; in much the same fashion as if the average American needs to be convinced to chew bubblegum. Abramstrek is bubblegum. I don't see the point in promoting bubblegum; people will chew it anyway.

No, nothing insulting there. Not at all. You're merely masking your insults in less scathing vocabulary than some others.

And you did not qualify the statement "It's just not Star Trek". You asserted it and listed why it isn't. That is NOT a qualified statement. A qualified statement would be, "I don't think it follows in the tradition of..." or "to me, it lacks significant qualities about Star Trek that I find indispensable for it to be good Star Trek..." or something like that.

You do NOT get to define "Star Trek" for anyone else. You simply don't.

 

[archeryguy1701]

RAnthony, I think you're missing the point that some people are trying to make. You weren't shut down for making any sort of radical post. You were seemingly shut down because you felt you needed your own personal review/ discussion thread. You're not the first thread to be shut down for that, and probably won't be the last. There's only 3 moderators running this place, and they already have to keep an eye on a billion threads that have been started since last Thursday. Imagine how much harder their work is going to have to be if they are forced to leave open every additional review thread that comes up, particularly ones that get people worked up. Just chill, go with the flow, and let the mods do their thing.

 

[Gepard]

The Plot and some of the FX weren't very good, the half-assed matte painting of the Enterprise that Kirk was looking at while sitting on his motorcycle was very poor.

Matte painting?

Digital matte painting, but likely a matte painting nonetheless, combining 3D and 2D elements. They still use those these days.

And the blackpoint on the digital parts of that image is messed up. All the "pure" blacks where no detail is visible are actually a very, very dark grey. That's why it looks like it's a billboard or back-projection screen behind Kirk. (With all the great tools effects artists have, it escapes me why mismatching the black levels in FX plates is a frequently seen problem.)

 

[jamestyler]

After reading the whole thing... I couldn't help but notice the opening which makes it sound like you didn't like the film because it was entertaining.

That's the argument, eh?

For the record, I've found every Trek film entertaining on some level. It's one reason I've been a Trek fan for 42 years. Entertainment isn't that hard to come by.

But... It's not the be all and end all measurement for what makes something 'good trek' or even star trek at all.

So, no, that isn't the crux of my argument.

-RAnthony

I've said in this thread alone more than once the film isn't for anyone, even gave a nod of respect to one or two posters for their opinion. But your view does say it's entertaining but thats wrong because they've taken out something you find key to the old Trek and made it hollow.

I'm not saying this to cause an argument or bash you - I don't care whether you like the film or not, I'm not the type to impose my taste on anyone, it's just... if ST is something more than entertainment to you - explaining that and how the film failed to represent that feeling would make your opinion clearer to me, and perhaps others.

 

[RAnthony]

No, nothing insulting there. Not at all. You're merely masking your insults in less scathing vocabulary than some others

I can't control what any individual finds insulting. As your argument states, I can only define what I find insulting. An ad hominem attack, a personal attack, is something that can clearly be defined.

The use of the word you, as in "You do NOT get to define "Star Trek" for anyone else. You simply don't. " can be construed as a personal attack, because it is addressed to me personally. Just FYI.

If you want to self identify as someone promoting the use of bubblegum, that is outside of my abilities to control.

The objections to my quantification are duly noted. They are in error, but noted. I listed, in the spoiler section, my objections which are a qualification as to why abramstrek is not trek.

-RAnthony

 

[RAnthony]

if ST is something more than entertainment to you - explaining that and how the film failed to represent that feeling would make your opinion clearer to me, and perhaps others.

...and if I had been given a place to have that discussion, I would have done so...

-RAnthony

 

[RAnthony]

Star Trek is many things to many people, but for Paramount, above all, it must be entertaining, and it must bring a profit. In that, this movie has succeeded.

I think it goes without saying that Paramount thinks this is the best Trek ever created, including being better than the first one. After all, it has made them more money in a very short time than most of the other films or series have ever made.

But as my arguments about the relative success of Serenity adequately point out, there's more to success than strict financials might reveal.

...and I don't really care about anyone's opinion but my own (especially not Paramount's) other than the discussion points that might be revealed in them.

It is, after all, about understanding.

-RAnthony

 

[Ovation]

No, nothing insulting there. Not at all. You're merely masking your insults in less scathing vocabulary than some others

I can't control what any individual finds insulting. As your argument states, I can only define what I find insulting. An ad hominem attack, a personal attack, is something that can clearly be defined.

Now you're being obtuse. Surely you are not suggesting that insults cannot be implied through the juxtaposition of words that, while in and of themselves are not offensive, taken as a whole are readily apparent as insulting.

The use of the word you, as in "You do NOT get to define "Star Trek" for anyone else. You simply don't. " can be construed as a personal attack, because it is addressed to me personally. Just FYI.

It is not an attack, it is a statement of fact.

If you want to self identify as someone promoting the use of bubblegum, that is outside of my abilities to control.

A perfect example of an implied insult.

The objections to my quantification are duly noted. They are in error, but noted. I listed, in the spoiler section, my objections which are a qualification as to why abramstrek is not trek.

-RAnthony

TO YOU. That's the missing qualifier. Your entire rant is attempting to assert that it is not Trek. Full stop. You dismiss the notion that it could be considered "real Trek" by anyone else with the structure of your statements and, by implication, call into question the validity of anyone who does consider it "real Trek" to be a "real fan". That is arrogant presumption and it is extremely irksome. Again, YOU don't get to decide for OTHERS what is "Trek" or not. You don't own it.

 

[RAnthony]

RAnthony, I think you're missing the point that some people are trying to make. You weren't shut down for making any sort of radical post. You were seemingly shut down because you felt you needed your own personal review/ discussion thread. You're not the first thread to be shut down for that, and probably won't be the last. There's only 3 moderators running this place, and they already have to keep an eye on a billion threads that have been started since last Thursday. Imagine how much harder their work is going to have to be if they are forced to leave open every additional review thread that comes up, particularly ones that get people worked up. Just chill, go with the flow, and let the mods do their thing.

Uhmmm....

No. No, there are no threads with titles that I find address the true nature of the problem. There are no arguments being advanced that enumerate the philosophical problems with this film in relation to established canon (at least that I've seen) which necessitate an ending of Trek fandom as it once was.

If there is, then why was my post moved to a locked thread? Nope, I will not sit silently by and allow myself to be censored. Kick me off the board if you want me to be quiet.

-RAnthony

 

[jamestyler]

if ST is something more than entertainment to you - explaining that and how the film failed to represent that feeling would make your opinion clearer to me, and perhaps others.

...and if I had been given a place to have that discussion, I would have done so...

-RAnthony

I was thinking more in the medium of the blog. To be honest, the threads have came and gone so quickly here in such a short space of time I haven't even seen yours.

But I think your point would be clearer if you gave that feeling of what Trek means to you, and linking that to how the film never measured up to start with. It would help misunderstandings and perhaps make it seem less like one of the many generic bashings the films taken.

 

[RAnthony]

Your entire rant is attempting to assert that it is not Trek. Full stop. You dismiss the notion that it could be considered "real Trek" by anyone else with the structure of your statements and, by implication, call into question the validity of anyone who does consider it "real Trek" to be a "real fan". That is arrogant presumption and it is extremely irksome. Again, YOU don't get to decide for OTHERS what is "Trek" or not. You don't own it.

Paramount owns it, and they don't get to define it for me, either. Strange, but most of the arguments amount to property rights defining what is or isn't Trek; and yet, like the Disney company and Walt's creations (which they manhandle) Paramount has not honestly created anything successful with Star Trek. What they have managed to do is get in the way of successful storytelling over the years (I suspect even in this film this is true) while the true author was still alive, and have bastardized (and yes, that is the word I mean to use) what was Trek to create this thing currently in theaters today. For all I know, J.J. Abrams should be credited for doing the best he could with the materials he was provided.

What I do know is that by any definition I care to use, it's not Star Trek.

...and it goes without saying that my opinion speaks for no one but me. I do not need to labor under the burden of continuously justifying my opinions as only my own. I leave that to the CYA obsessed soulless corporations that wouldn't know a good story idea even if it was repeatedly bashed into their collective foreheads.

So, don't hold your breath about my presentation style. It ain't changin'.

-RAnthony

 

[archeryguy1701]

The use of the word you, as in "You do NOT get to define "Star Trek" for anyone else. You simply don't. " can be construed as a personal attack, because it is addressed to me personally. Just FYI.

Surely you can't be serious! The simply use of the word "you" doesn't contrue a personal attack, particular in the cited context!

As for your response to my post... First, your "cenosored" post didn't cover any of the things you mentioned.... what was it you said you wanted to discuss?

No. No, there are no threads with titles that I find address the true nature of the problem. There are no arguments being advanced that enumerate the philosophical problems with this film in relation to established canon (at least that I've seen) which necessitate an ending of Trek fandom as it once was.

The post that got merged with the closed one, had nothing to do with any of the above. It was a review. And, if it wasn't, you certainly wrote it and it certainly read very review-like. Should it probably have been merged with this thread and not the other one? Probably. But your thread/ post certainly isn't the philisophical discussion you're trying to make it out to be.
Second, don't pull that censoring crap. A)There's much more effective ways to censor you that to stick your posts in a closed thread. B) Are you really basing those accusation on that fact that a single thread of yours disappeared? I've had a couple threads locked on me as well. Should I be feeling censored?

 

[TheMurph]

Uhmmm....

No. No, there are no threads with titles that I find address the true nature of the problem. There are no arguments being advanced that enumerate the philosophical problems with this film in relation to established canon (at least that I've seen) which necessitate an ending of Trek fandom as it once was.

If there is, then why was my post moved to a locked thread? Nope, I will not sit silently by and allow myself to be censored. Kick me off the board if you want me to be quiet.

-RAnthony

"Get tae..."

Paramount finally gets it's way and removes those pesky Vulcans that are so hard to understand and write for (logic, what's that?) by having Vulcan destroyed by an artificially generated black hole (the explanation for which would be technobabble, had they only attempted to explain it) thus insuring that the only Vulcan they will have to write parts for in the future is the half-Vulcan Mr. Spock, who seems to have a lot more trouble restraining emotion in this universe.

There are still Vulcans left and what becomes of them now is excellent source material for the next movie. I applaud JJ for doing something bold and sticking with it and not using the reset button (yet).

The lack of a detailed explanation for the red matter is fine by me, not everything needs to be spelled out in convoluted detail. And Mr. Spock having trouble restraining his emotions? Well if we won't to go canonistic I seem to recall a smiling and shouting Spock in TOS. It seems natural to me for a person with conflicting heritage to have moments where control fails.

Uhura in essence sleeps her way onto the bridge of the Enterprise by having a relationship with Mr. Spock, who is not only one of her professors, but also a superior officer. The moral issues of this arrangement are never questioned, leading me to wonder if we haven't somehow stumbled into the Mirror, Mirror universe (Sylar, is that you?) where that type of behavior is run of the mill.

Well according to Uhura's abilities she was suppposed to be on the Enterprise anyways and Spock took her off so that there would be no conflict. She corrected that problem. As for their relationship, that didn't really come out into the open until they had more important things going on.

James T. Kirk becomes captain of the Enterprise largely influenced by the career of his father. In this alternate timeline, the now fatherless Kirk (dad being killed in the opening sequence of the film. The com conversation between the two parents, as George Kirk is about to be killed, being one of the silliest parts of the film) still becomes captain of the Enterprise; proving the modern belief that fathers are irrelevant in the scheme of things, and can be disposed of with no ill effects for any required plot device.

Well nepotism is something that goes on strong in today's military, talk about realistic. It may have been the same in TOS, we don't know, never spoken on screen before (to my knowledge) so first time it comes up it's canon.

The second half of your paragraph is downright silly. I thought the com conversation was done well considering that a father was giving up his life to save his crew and wife and child. What did you want? The emotional impact of George's death is lost because it supposedly makes fathers irrelevant because Jimmy succeeds despite George not being there? Seriously?

Then there's the running gag of Bones McCoy infecting the recently reprimanded Kirk with a mock disease in order to smuggle him on the Enterprise. This leads to a subsequent series of injections in order to cure him of humorous side effects. Or the transwarp beaming accident that leaves the recently found Scotty floating in engine coolant until conveniently rescued by Kirk through an inexplicably placed access hatch in the coolant tube. both situations so clearly contrived as to almost be cringe-level uncomfortable for me.

Yep, no such thing as a running gag in Star Trek. True Trek has never lowered itself to that level. (Hmm except maybe every single show and movie except maybe TMP)

And of course no such thing as a convenient item or placement of said item has occured in any Star Trek before either. I've never seen a contrived moment of Trek in my life.

I find myself at a loss now. Unlike many fans, I'm not insulted by the content of the film. I just can't grasp what it is that the vast majority of the fans and viewing public see in the film.

What I find in the film is an enjoyable movie that washes the stench of Nemesis from my memory and captures the spirit of Star Trek once more.

With this film, Paramount can pat itself on the back for finally successfully milking this franchise the way it wanted to when the property was acquired with Desilu Productions.

Good for them, they are making a profit on a product that I and many others enjoyed greatly and with these great profits they have breathed new life into a franchise that was becoming stagnant and on life support.

Are you happy now?

 

[Jim Steele]

TO YOU. That's the missing qualifier. Your entire rant is attempting to assert that it is not Trek. Full stop. You dismiss the notion that it could be considered "real Trek" by anyone else with the structure of your statements and, by implication, call into question the validity of anyone who does consider it "real Trek" to be a "real fan". That is arrogant presumption and it is extremely irksome. Again, YOU don't get to decide for OTHERS what is "Trek" or not. You don't own it.

I'm not going to get into an argument about the film (I've already made my (mixed) feelings clear, can't be arsed doing it again), but I have to point out here that he doesn't need to qualify that HIS opinion is HIS opinion. That's implicit. HE said it.

Do you really need an IMHO disclaimer after ever assertion?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

TO YOU. That's the missing qualifier. Your entire rant is attempting to assert that it is not Trek. Full stop. You dismiss the notion that it could be considered "real Trek" by anyone else with the structure of your statements and, by implication, call into question the validity of anyone who does consider it "real Trek" to be a "real fan". That is arrogant presumption and it is extremely irksome. Again, YOU don't get to decide for OTHERS what is "Trek" or not. You don't own it.

I'm not going to get into an argument about the film (I've already made my (mixed) feelings clear, can't be arsed doing it again), but I have to point out here that he doesn't need to qualify that HIS opinion is HIS opinion. That's implicit. HE said it.

Do you really need an IMHO disclaimer after ever assertion?

You can't expect people to infer opinions from what people say. Are you crazy?

 

[Jim Steele]

SEAN BEAN

Nah, I guess I'm asking a little too much of people there...

 

[Ovation]

TO YOU. That's the missing qualifier. Your entire rant is attempting to assert that it is not Trek. Full stop. You dismiss the notion that it could be considered "real Trek" by anyone else with the structure of your statements and, by implication, call into question the validity of anyone who does consider it "real Trek" to be a "real fan". That is arrogant presumption and it is extremely irksome. Again, YOU don't get to decide for OTHERS what is "Trek" or not. You don't own it.

I'm not going to get into an argument about the film (I've already made my (mixed) feelings clear, can't be arsed doing it again), but I have to point out here that he doesn't need to qualify that HIS opinion is HIS opinion. That's implicit. HE said it.

Do you really need an IMHO disclaimer after ever assertion?

No. However, there is a small coterie of "dissenters" that not only makes declarative statements without any disclaimer ("This just isn't Trek" or "This ain't Star Trek" or some variation), they go on to explicitly or implicitly state that anyone who doesn't share their view is not a "real fan" and is some sort of imbecile to boot. Such self-appointed "guardians of real Trek" annoy the shit out of me because they presume to decide for others something that is not theirs to decide. RAnthony is among that coterie. So if I have time to kill, I'll call him (or anyone else who offers the same drivel) on their bullshit. Beyond that, he's essentially stated that he plans to be deliberately obnoxious until he gets what he wants and that's one more reason to single out the bullshit.

I've read your objections--I don't share all of them but I have not challenged them because you, unlike him and a few others, don't go around stating or implying that those who don't agree with you are idiots and not "real fans". That's the difference.