Trek 09 disapproval questioned.

[BurntSynapse]

...everyone will instantly agree with how it would be done.

"Everyone"? "Instantly"?

This standard is so blatantly unreasonable it seems clear your argument is with an imaginary extremist - the fallacy of the strawman.

The other problem is your appeal to general popularity as having something to do with whether nuTrek (or any film) is bad or good in a critical sense.

I don't think the gigantic plot holes can reasonably be overlooked by anyone who cares about minimal standards of plot progression.

Recently from my blog was Spock and Kirk's unbelievable series of miracles leading them to the one person out of many billions in the Federation with the core background needed to produce a revolutionary new model in theoretical physics, and who also happens to be able to build the technology to take advantage of it, and who happens to be on the uninhabited ice world on which they are stranded, and just happens to be there with all the components needed to express the theory, reprogram whatever was needed and just happened to have the technical equipment to make the changes so perfectly to the the sensors and transporters that beaming could take place live, without any need for testing, right when Kirk and Spock want to get Kirk back on the Enterprise Bridge.

Unlike the aversion to a reboot which I don't share, I'm not against them retelling a new trek, but like lawman, I'm offended when its deliberately dumb, just like I felt offended that Abrams boasted that he never loved Star Trek, was never a fan, but was going to have his way with the franchise... the kind of thing a rapist might say, except Abrams got paid wheelbarrows full of cash for his trouble.

Abrams, O&K weren't even raping Trek to make a statement, it's their in-your-face apathy that sits badly with me, especially since "the system" rewards them so well. (Not that my professional life has always been so clean either...)

 

[I-Am-Zim]

...everyone will instantly agree with how it would be done.

"Everyone"? "Instantly"?

This standard is so blatantly unreasonable it seems clear your argument is with an imaginary extremist - the fallacy of the strawman.

The other problem is your appeal to general popularity as having something to do with whether nuTrek (or any film) is bad or good in a critical sense.

I don't think the gigantic plot holes can reasonably be overlooked by anyone who cares about minimal standards of plot progression.

Recently from my blog was Spock and Kirk's unbelievable series of miracles leading them to the one person out of many billions in the Federation with the core background needed to produce a revolutionary new model in theoretical physics, and who also happens to be able to build the technology to take advantage of it, and who happens to be on the uninhabited ice world on which they are stranded, and just happens to be there with all the components needed to express the theory, reprogram whatever was needed and just happened to have the technical equipment to make the changes so perfectly to the the sensors and transporters that beaming could take place live, without any need for testing, right when Kirk and Spock want to get Kirk back on the Enterprise Bridge.

Unlike the aversion to a reboot which I don't share, I'm not against them retelling a new trek, but like lawman, I'm offended when its deliberately dumb, just like I felt offended that Abrams boasted that he never loved Star Trek, was never a fan, but was going to have his way with the franchise... the kind of thing a rapist might say, except Abrams got paid wheelbarrows full of cash for his trouble.

Abrams, O&K weren't even raping Trek to make a statement, it's their in-your-face apathy that sits badly with me, especially since "the system" rewards them so well. (Not that my professional life has always been so clean either...)

I could not agree more. This movie was just a way for JJA and co. to remake Star Trek into Star Wars for a new generation. And to show us old timer TOS fans that this was in no way, shape, or form "Our" Star Trek anymore. And it worked. Even the ad campaign, "This isn't your father's Star Trek" proved that JJ-Trek isn't our Trek anymore. My Trek is sitting on my DVD rack. Thankfully, I have all three seasons of TOS-R and all 10 Movies to watch whenever I want to see some "real" Star Trek.

 

[lawman]

No, no, I don't tell people to suck it up. They don't have to like the movie. I'm more likely to find a common ground. ...

Art is subjective. Ethics are even moreso. We can all agree on some basics, but when it gets into the finer details, it really is in the eye of the beholder. We can discuss that, which I would do so (and have done in the past many times with others) gladly.

Thanks for clarifying. Sorry if my initial response seemed a little defensive. I agree that when it comes to questions of characterization and theme, there's a lot of room for different interpretations (as opposed to questions of plot logic or science, where it's bizarre to see people insisting that obvious errors aren't really errors). It seemed to me that you were trying to say my interpretation of Kirk's test scene wasn't relevant or worth discussing, and I'm glad to see that wasn't your intent.

The rest of it went something like this; they went to great efforts to appease this relatively small, generally older (you'll note the qualifying words before each of those assessments) group in the fandom that covet the TOS era as the “Golden Age of Star Trek.” That faction has been expressing their disapproval of pretty much everything since the first episodes of TNG anyway. So why the lip service? Why make this movie about the TOS era characters at all? Since that group of fans won't be happy with anything but acting appropriate for the 1960's and the special effects to match...

I think you're still assuming things not in evidence regarding those who disagree with you about this film, and thus arguing against a straw man.

Personally, I'm by no means old enough to have seen TOS in first run; I'm just barely old enough to have seen all the movies in theatrical release. I do think that the TOS concepts and characters represent the essence of what Star Trek is about (although I wouldn't call it a "golden age" or assert that later shows have nothing interesting to add). I'd even argue that fans who don't enjoy TOS don't really "get" Trek. (Your repeated dismissals of prior Trek as a "corpse" are not exactly conducive to civil discussion.)

However, neither I nor any defender of TOS I've ever seen has argued that the value of TOS lies in its acting (although IMHO its acting isn't especially dated, and can stand up against that of later series, which, Patrick Stewart aside, often isn't exactly top rank either) or its special effects (which were state of the art for TV at the time but which obviously couldn't anticipate modern technology, and shouldn't be expected to compete with it). No, when we talk about what makes Trek special, it's all about the writing, the ideas, the characters, the process of building up a complex and thought-provoking fictional reality.

It's that combination of qualities that I think was sacrificed in this film. And it would've been just as bad in that regard even if it was about a whole new set of characters.

They killed my sacred cow!
And carved it up!
And ground it into wee little bite-sized, lense-flaring chunks.
And the public just LOVED the horrid Trek-burgers made from it and scarfed them down by the millions.
All I can do about that is grumble.

Well put.

People who discuss to learn and gain insight into truth understand and appreciate the tools that have been developed to accomplish these things, but for those who do not understand them, tools like logic, reasoning, and standards of evidence seem like trickery, especially when used against their position, which they mistakenly believe is against them.

Good point. One certainly sees this dynamic again and again in internet discussions, especially when the subject turns to matters like politics or religion. It's a little disappointing to see so much of it here, though... both because one wouldn't necessarily expect people to have the same degree of personal ego invested in a fictional franchise as they do in things like politics or religion, and because I've always liked to think that people who appreciate good SF are better at approaching things from an intellectual stance that's not ego-bound.

I think such people include the writers who made the Vulcans in ENT so bigoted, emotional, arrogant jerks. That's the way a person with a really sharp mind seems to us when they cut our cherished beliefs to shreds with arguments we can't answer...

Interesting thought. Certainly I've often thought that Berman and Braga just didn't grasp the underlying philosophy that made Trek successful (no better than Abrams and company, really, albeit in a different way), but I hadn't made this particular connection. It kind of makes sense.

(FWIW, though, after giving up on ENT early in season 2, I've recently begun watching season 4 on DVD after hearing that it was better... and honestly, it's impressive how much better it was, including in its treatment of Vulcans. Amazing what a difference a new writing staff can make, even when they have to start with the foundation laid by their predecessors!...)

I could not agree more. This movie was just a way for JJA and co. to remake Star Trek into Star Wars for a new generation. And to show us old timer TOS fans that this was in no way, shape, or form "Our" Star Trek anymore...

Yeah, it's kind of sad. The "franchise" goes on, which apparently makes a lot of people happy, but it's like a crude palimpsest in place of what went before.

---
Aside to startrkrcks: if you look at your keyboard, you'll see that some keys have symbols on them instead of letters. These are called "punctuation." If you learn to use them, they'll make your posts much more readable for the rest of us.

 

[startrekrcks]

I don't need your advice thanks, I do know what punctuation is.

 

[startrekrcks]

Is that a bad thing that it is not your Star Trek that you grew up with personally, I am so happy that JJ Abrams has reimagined Star Trek for a new generation.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

To me it is a bad thing. To others, it's not. That's the great thing about opinions. Everybody's got 'em. It's also the great thing about discussion. There wouldn't be any if everybody agreed about everything.

 

[startrekrcks]

True don't opinions differ that's what is good about a discussion board isn't it

 

[lawman]

It's really not a matter of whether it's the same as what I "grew up with personally," as I've tried to make clear here and in other threads. There are kinds of stories I find worthwhile, and kinds I don't, from every era of storytelling, and it seldom has much to do with what I personally may have encountered previously.

(E.g., to offer just one example, the first two X-Men movies were high-quality, enjoyable films, despite being very different from the comics I read as a kid. The third X-Men movie was all but worthless, thanks to a change in the director and writer(s). This isn't the place to delve into the differences, but those differences are definitely there.)

As for a phrase like "reimagined it for a new generation," I'm sorry, but that just comes across as empty corporate buzzwords to me. Marketing-speak. Public relations. It can be (and routinely is) used to justify almost any kind of change to the creative characteristics of a pre-existing property, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

The phrase assumes several things without proving them. For one, it assumes that there's a "new generation" of audience (or potential audience) that is significantly different in some way from the pre-existing audience, and the interests of which are more important than those of the pre-existing audience. This isn't necessarily true, no matter how much marketing departments and demographers would like to make it so (and thereby simplify their jobs). We live in a diverse society where the audience for any mass-market intellectual property is inevitably made up of people of all ages and backgrounds.

For another, it assumes that the property in question as it already exists is somehow unsuitable for the tastes of that "new generation." Yet why should this be so? Regardless of the "market segment" into which one falls, personal taste still remains a subjective and unpredictable thing. People of any kind and all kinds can still appreciate a well-told story. Is Casablanca unsuitable for today's audiences, and in need of a remake? Is Huckleberry Finn unsuitable, and in need of a rewrite? Such assumptions are an insult to the audience(s).

For a third, it assumes that the "reimagined" version of the property is in some way an improvement over what went before. The track record of Hollywood remakes (even of lightweight fare like Dukes of Hazzard or Get Smart!) suggests that more often than not, filmmakers are just guessing, making it up as they go along, and have no real idea of what makes the property work or why people liked it in the first place. They don't know what to keep and what to change.

When it comes to Star Trek, certainly Abrams' admission that he never cared for the show suggests that he never understood what made it successful, which makes him a perplexing choice for a "reimagination." One might as well ask someone known for period costume dramas to reimagine a horror-movie franchise, or a soccer fan to rewrite the rules of American football: the initial tastes and assumptions of the people involved will simply conflict with the requirements of the material.

---
So I don't really care for rhetoric about "reimagining Trek for a new generation." What I'm looking for is a well-told story, first and foremost. Secondary to that (which this film didn't manage), we can discuss whether the project respects the essential characteristics that define Trek (which this film also doesn't, although it retains a lot of the superficial characteristics).

But framing the whole thing as a matter of market segmentation while implicitly denegrating the property as it existed and the audiences that liked it? Sorry, not buying.

 

[Withers]

I think you're still assuming things not in evidence regarding those who disagree with you about this film, and thus arguing against a straw man.

I took special care to qualify my statements and even pointed out the fact that I was making said qualifications to avoid just this argument. You're young and you think TOS is amazing. That's fantastic. That doesn't negate what I said. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove the majority of people under 30 think TOS was "The Golden Age of Trek" which is specifically the line of thought I was addressing in that post. You want to talk about straw men you have to make sure you aren't arguing against points that nobody was trying to make in the first place, right?

It's that combination of qualities that I think was sacrificed in this film. And it would've been just as bad in that regard even if it was about a whole new set of characters.

Fine, that's great; I'd rather hear complaints about how bad a film was on its own merits than perpetually listen to this "all the stuff that made TOS Jesus On Earth was booted to make this film." Hearing that it sucked wouldn't be nearly so... baffling if the rest of that sentence wasn't in comparison to the magnificence that was the depth and brilliance of TOS.

They made that movie to appease the TOS generation. That comparatively small group of people that consider TOS to be so deep and thought provoking and elegant and what have you aren't going to be pleased with anything new that comes from it and the rest of us aren't so deeply attached to those characters that we need to have them resurrected every few years in order to enjoy Star Trek.

(And just to point it out; I wasn't the one who brought up the word "abomination." If calling a specific branch of Trek and group of characters that was likely to never see the big screen [or any other screen for that matter] again without a reboot 'a corpse' detracts from the ability to have a "civil conversation" I apologize... kind of.)

-Withers-​

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I, personally, don't think TOS was all that "deep" or "thought provoking". It was just fun. It was interesting. It was revolutionary and ahead of it's time when it was introduced. I love TOS because of the cheesiness, and Shatner's mannerisms, and the chemistry between the characters. I also love TOS becuase of the aesthetics. The original Enterprise is a masterpiece of design. It's simple, elegant, and timeless. It was unlike any ship design ever seen before in sci-fi. It was as revolutionary and ahead of it's time in 1966 as it is now. The Abramsprise may have a saucer, two (gargantuan) nacelles, and a secondary hull, but it is NOT the Enterprise. Not to me anyway. The iBridge may have a captain's chair, helm, nav, science, comm, etc., but it's not THE BRIDGE as far as I'm concerned. And don't even get me started on engineering. I liked "my" Star Trek the way it was. Some things are not meant to be tampered with. TOS is one of those things. JJA's lack of respect for the vast history of the Star Trek universe apalls me. The only thing this movie got right were the uniforms. Everything else was total farce. In my opinion of course.

 

[lawman]

I think you're still assuming things not in evidence regarding those who disagree with you about this film, and thus arguing against a straw man.

I took special care to qualify my statements and even pointed out the fact that I was making said qualifications to avoid just this argument. You're young and you think TOS is amazing. That's fantastic. That doesn't negate what I said...

I pointed out that a couple of your premises were faulty. If you'd like, we can take a closer look at the entire sentence I was calling into question:

...they went to great efforts to appease this relatively small, generally older (you'll note the qualifying words before each of those assessments) group in the fandom that covet the TOS era as the “Golden Age of Star Trek.”

Honestly, there's nothing in this sentence I find accurate. There's no evidence adduced to prove that fans of original Trek are a "small" group. There's likewise no evidence that they are "generally older." Thus, the statement remains questionable even with your caveats included. (And of course, it also begs the question: "small" and "older" compared to what, exactly?)

There's likewise no evidence that fans of original Trek consider it a "golden age" (one could accept this as rhetorical excess on your part, but it does at least imply that they dismiss all other Trek as inferior, and that isn't really so). There's likewise no evidence that what they particularly like about Trek is the '60s acting and effects, as you suggest, but I've already addressed that.

Finally, there's no evidence that that the filmmakers did Thing One to "appease" this particular cohort of fans you've imagined. In fact, aside from the names of the characters and ship, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anything about this film designed to appeal to the tastes of fans of original Trek. And in regard to those names, I would submit that Abrams and company chose to use them not out of concern for die-hard fans, but rather because they believe the mass audience of non-fans, at whom this film was clearly aimed, associates the words "Star Trek" first and foremost with that set of characters: Kirk, Spock et al.

So there's literally not a single clause in what you posted there that I think supports a legitimate argument. When you add in the undeniable fact that anyone who does exclusively "covet" TOS and its characters has to recognize that the passage of time means the only way to ever see them again on-screen would be a new cast in a reboot of some sort, then it becomes clearer than ever that the focus of criticism is this film's qualities (or lack thereof) as a story, regardless of its status as a reboot.

 

[startrekrcks]

Well that is what you think Zim but don't expect other people like me to agree with your thoughts on Abrams Trek.

 

[Withers]

Honestly, there's nothing in this sentence I find accurate. There's no evidence adduced to prove that fans of original Trek are a "small" group. There's likewise no evidence that they are "generally older." Thus, the statement remains questionable even with your caveats included. (And of course, it also begs the question: "small" and "older" compared to what, exactly?)

that covet the TOS era as "The Golden Age of Star Trek."

Does that clear it up at all? I can understand how omitting parts of the sentence make comprehending and analyzing it difficult. I wasn't talking about just TOS fans in general because, much to the chagrin of some, there are TOS fans who didn't have a problem with the new movie. The people who think that way (remember to take the full sentence not just the first half) are generally older and it is a comparatively smaller group than... you know, people who don't think that. I could probably make a pie chart if that would help?

The very idea that you a.) have such well defined disdain for the movie and b.) hold TOS to be such a shinning example of what all things Trek should be only completely validates what I said even further. Your brand of fandom won't be happy with anything new that is provided unless it is some sort of carbon copy of what has already been done (whether its the actors, the effects, the stories- I've heard it all. It boils down to this being nothing like that and thus a point of contention.) The fact that you weren't appeased by their efforts doesn't mean said efforts were non-existent.

You also seem to be under the impression that I'm deeply in love with this film and like it above anything else that ever came before it. That's simply not the case. The film has holes big enough to fly the Death Star through and I get it. I'm just sick of the "It's terrible by comparison to TOS/What Trek is supposed to be/What Trek used to be/My Trek" business. Since the fans who care about TOS enough to be delighted by seeing those characters return in a movie likely won't be satiated by attempts to be true to the original (as evidenced) and since those of us who were "fine with it" (in varying degrees) probably wouldn't care any way... why make it about TOS at all?

-Withers-​

 

[BurntSynapse]

There's likewise no evidence that fans of original Trek consider it a "golden age" (one could accept this as rhetorical excess on your part, but it does at least imply that they dismiss all other Trek as inferior, and that isn't really so).

Here is a point on which we differ. I think SheliakBob does seem to convey that he regards TOS in a manner it would seem fair to call "a golden age", and that he objects *in principle* to rewrites.

I hinted that I don't entirely understand this, perhaps because of how I feel about reboots like Kenneth Branaugh's Hamlet that came out right next to diCaprio's Romeo/Dane's Juliet. I though the reimagining of Shakespeare these teams produced ranged from delightful to awe-inspiring, leaving me with emotional engagement and an impression that real passion was racing through the arteries of these films.

You brought up X-Men, which demonstrated how the arch villain should be: smart, tough, and even likable. Magneto had good, intelligent justifications for his predictions of war with humans and rock solid evidence to back it up. It was the self-fulfilling tragedy of his certainty that made him one of the greatest foils in recent cinema. The Aliens posses similar depth in the monster category, IMO...but look at the travesty of non-stop cliche and bad writing in AvP Requiem.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anything about this film designed to appeal to the tastes of fans of original Trek. And in regard to those names, I would submit that Abrams and company chose to use them not out of concern for die-hard fans, but rather because they believe the mass audience of non-fans, at whom this film was clearly aimed, associates the words "Star Trek" first and foremost with that set of characters: Kirk, Spock et al.

Its a question of competence. JJA+Co claimed their schedule was frantic, when (as is typical in project scheduling) they worked backward from the release date and discovered they lacked adequate time for writing. I tend to believe their claims that they gleaned ideas from the most popular film (WoK) and TrekMovie.com posters and incorporated some of those ideas. It resulted in a predictable train-wreck, but it seems more like apathy and hideous incompetence rather than deliberate deception. As Hanlon said: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence, ignorance, or stupidity."

 

[Withers]

That said it doesn't mean everyone will instantly agree with how it would be done. ...

which went on to be quoted as...

...everyone will instantly agree

which was then responded to like this;

"Everyone"? "Instantly"?

This standard is so blatantly unreasonable it seems clear your argument is with an imaginary extremist - the fallacy of the strawman.

by someone I thought was on the same side of this thing at that. Did I read that wrong somehow? Was that another joke like whatshisface that I had to have been here for all however-many-pages to get? I'm sorry... the misquoting bit is just on my mind, no idea why.

-Withers-​

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Well that is what you think Zim but don't expect other people like me to agree with your thoughts on Abrams Trek.

Yeah. I know.

 

[thumbtack]

The other problem is your appeal to general popularity as having something to do with whether nuTrek (or any film) is bad or good in a critical sense.

We already know what the critics thought. We have computers.

 

[lawman]

Honestly, there's nothing in this sentence I find accurate. There's no evidence adduced to prove that fans of original Trek are a "small" group. There's likewise no evidence that they are "generally older." Thus, the statement remains questionable even with your caveats included. (And of course, it also begs the question: "small" and "older" compared to what, exactly?)

that covet the TOS era as "The Golden Age of Star Trek."

Does that clear it up at all? I can understand how omitting parts of the sentence make comprehending and analyzing it difficult...

The sarcasm is uncalled-for. I'm disappointed that you seem to have taken my last post personally, but honestly I didn't intend it that way. I was merely trying to express, as methodically as possible, my difficulties with the claim you were making.

Those difficulties remain. And I think, if you read my last post in toto, you'll see that I did address the entire sentence quoted, and that I've already dealt with the objections you raise here.

The fact is, absent some specific examples, it's unfair of you to posit any group of Trek fans "who covet the TOS era as the golden age"... much less to make any claims about the demographics of that group. (Incidentally, the word "covet" seems somewhat less than apt here, since its primary meaning suggests a desire to possess the object of the sentence... which, given the existence of DVDs, is actually entirely possible, but unrelated to the existence of this movie. I assume you meant something more like "regard.")

Moreover, even if you can point to evidence that such a group exists, you haven't put forward any evidence that Abrams, O&K actually made any creative decisions to "appease" these people. In fact, you've actually painted yourself into something of a logical corner, since the smaller this alleged cohort of fans is, the less reason the filmmakers would have to try to appease them at all, and the harder it is to demonstrate that they did so.

Essentially, you're arguing that the filmmakers targeted their work to an audience predisposed to dislike it... which simply makes no sense. I've already provided a far likelier explanation for their decision to use the Kirk-era characters... so what other example(s) did you have in mind?

I wasn't talking about just TOS fans in general because, much to the chagrin of some, there are TOS fans who didn't have a problem with the new movie. The people who think that way (remember to take the full sentence not just the first half) are generally older and it is a comparatively smaller group than... you know, people who don't think that. I could probably make a pie chart if that would help?

Or perhaps you could just think about the logical implications of your own statements. In this case, for instance, you're implying that those TOS fans who disliked this movie are coextensive with the "small, older... golden age" group you posited... which is obviously an easy thing to disprove, merely by pointing to examples of people who are critical of the film yet don't meet your description. I used myself as one such example, but there are plenty of others in these forums.

Moreover, the larger argument in which the debatable sentence was lodged went on to assert that "that group of fans won't be happy with anything but acting appropriate for the 1960's and the special effects to match and... the people who were happy with this film would have likely been just as happy with different characters." I've already disposed of one set of unsupported assumptions in this part (re: what the film's critics actually want), and I hope I don't have to spell out how unsupported the other part is (re: what the film's fans would have enjoyed).

When all is said and done, you just seem to be complaining that the movie used Kirk/Spock et al., whom you apparently don't care for for some unexplained reason, and backfilling a number of superficially logical but actually unsustainable generalizations to rationalize that complaint.

Your brand of fandom won't be happy with anything new that is provided unless it is some sort of carbon copy of what has already been done (whether its the actors, the effects, the stories- I've heard it all. It boils down to this being nothing like that and thus a point of contention.)

In other words, you're disregarding the actual criticisms that I and others have put forward, instead stereotyping us all as impossible-to-please on the basis of unrelated and unsupported assumptions about our desires and motivations? You think you understand our discontent better than we do, and thus see no need to respond to criticisms on their actual merits? That seems rather presumptuous.

You also seem to be under the impression that I'm deeply in love with this film and like it above anything else that ever came before it. That's simply not the case. The film has holes big enough to fly the Death Star through and I get it.

I don't recall posting anything to suggest you viewed the film as the best thing since sliced bread. For the record, though, if you do recognize its flaws, why are you taking such pains to defend it and distinguish yourself from its critics?

Since the fans who care about TOS enough to be delighted by seeing those characters return in a movie likely won't be satiated by attempts to be true to the original (as evidenced)...

As evidenced where? How? You haven't pointed to any "attempts to be true to the original" (although, I reiterate, most of my criticisms of the movie aren't about that anyway).

...since those of us who were "fine with it" (in varying degrees) probably wouldn't care any way... why make it about TOS at all?

I've already answered that once: a calculation of mass-market expectations. You still haven't responded to that answer.

... I think SheliakBob does seem to convey that he regards TOS in a manner it would seem fair to call "a golden age", and that he objects *in principle* to rewrites.

Okay. I haven't really seen his posts (or anyone else's) that way, but maybe. While it's possible that some people may simply object to a reboot on principle, though (and in a sense I can understand that; one might argue that it diminishes the significance of TOS as a cultural artifact in its own right, and turns it more explicitly into a corporate product), that doesn't actually mean such people would automatically consider the film to be a bad movie. Thus, again, criticism of the concept is logically distinct from criticism of the execution.

Its a question of competence. JJA+Co claimed their schedule was frantic, when (as is typical in project scheduling) they worked backward from the release date and discovered they lacked adequate time for writing... As Hanlon said: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence, ignorance, or stupidity."

This is interesting. I hadn't read that they'd made any claims along those lines. I know there were some issues regarding the timing of the Writers Guild strike, but that was true for lots of projects. (Besides which, the release date got pushed back six months.) Is there a link you could point to where they discuss this?

 

[M'Sharak]

A JJ movie that was not a crowd-pleaser, but thrilled every ST fan, would certainly not have made sufficient money to guarantee a sequel. So some compromise is necessary. As it has always been.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. What about a movie (even a reboot! whether by Abrams or not) that pleased both Trek fans and enough casual viewers to make good money? You seem to be operating on the same assumption as the executives I hypothesized: that we can have art or commerce, but there's no middle ground.

...or good art and good money...

I've edited your quote tags here so that what Therin and lawman said are properly attributed to them.

I missed this comment. Did someone really say that, or did you invent it, in a manner similar to lying? In your defense, I searched for "niche" and only found your post.

It was not invented. That sentiment was indeed expressed on a number of occasions over a period of months by one poster in particular, though not by that poster alone, and I won't maintain that the person in question used the word "niche" in all instances, or necessarily in any of them. (As for finding only Aragorn's post in a search for the word "niche," well... )

If you bring up legitimate, profound defects detectable by an alert 11 year old, some fans are going to consider you a "basher", "hater", and other negative labels <snip>

I'm no fan of those terms or their counterparts, but since it has already been explained in this thread that lawman is not the person to whom Aragorn was referring, I don't see why you felt it necessary to dredge it up again here. (And "detectable by an alert 11 year old"? Nice.)

That said it doesn't mean everyone will instantly agree with how it would be done. ...

which went on to be quoted as...

...everyone will instantly agree

which was then responded to like this;

"Everyone"? "Instantly"?

This standard is so blatantly unreasonable it seems clear your argument is with an imaginary extremist - the fallacy of the strawman.

by someone I thought was on the same side of this thing at that. Did I read that wrong somehow? Was that another joke like whatshisface that I had to have been here for all however-many-pages to get? I'm sorry... the misquoting bit is just on my mind, no idea why.

No, that one's not a joke; it's a plain misread and cherry-pick by BurntSynapse of a post by someone long on record as being critical not only of the recent movie but of the overwhelming majority of the Trek produced after The Motion Picture. In his haste to make a point about something or other, BurntSynapse sucker-punched someone nominally on his own side, so to speak, and I think you may safely disregard that portion of the post, at least.

 

[Withers]

The sarcasm is uncalled-for. I'm disappointed that you seem to have taken my last post personally, but honestly I didn't intend it that way. I was merely trying to express, as methodically as possible, my difficulties with the claim you were making.

I'm sorry you thought I was being sarcastic. I was merely trying to respond to the tone I felt was set by the original message.

The fact is, absent some specific examples, it's unfair of you to posit any group of Trek fans "who covet the TOS era as the golden age"... much less to make any claims about the demographics of that group. (Incidentally, the word "covet" seems somewhat less than apt here, since its primary meaning suggests a desire to possess the object of the sentence... which, given the existence of DVDs, is actually entirely possible, but unrelated to the existence of this movie. I assume you meant something more like "regard.")

I know how to use transitive verbs but thanks for the English lesson. If you want a specific example of an older person who thinks TOS was amazing and that most of what followed it is crap I'll point you to the TOS forum. To threads like “Did Any Other TOS'ers Give Up Post Abrams?” They're filled with them and it is about these specific attitudes that I decided to post. You're not in the majority and making note of other exceptions does not make such examples the rule (See? I took 8th grade debate too.)

Moreover, even if you can point to evidence that such a group exists, you haven't put forward any evidence that Abrams, O&K actually made any creative decisions to "appease" these people. In fact, you've actually painted yourself into something of a logical corner, since the smaller this alleged cohort of fans is, the less reason the filmmakers would have to try to appease them at all, and the harder it is to demonstrate that they did so.

You say they made this movie about Kirk and crew because it would make money. That worked. Was that the only way Star Trek could have made money as an action film? No. They made this movie about Kirk and crew and made the conscious effort to dodge cannon gaffes through a plot point for the purpose of satiating and appeasing said group of people. That the task was impossible at the onset is what I'm saying negates that point altogether. It wasn't necessary to make money and it didn't accomplish the goal they were hoping it would. So why? (I can muddle that with some rhetoric if its necessary but I think I got the point across.)

Or perhaps you could just think about the logical implications of your own statements. In this case, for instance, you're implying that those TOS fans who disliked this movie are coextensive with the "small, older... golden age" group you posited... which is obviously an easy thing to disprove, merely by pointing to examples of people who are critical of the film yet don't meet your description. I used myself as one such example, but there are plenty of others in these forums.

This is not so unlike disproving the existence of Climate Change by noting that it is actually warm out side right now. One example doesn't make it the rule. You're arguing that people who hold up TOS as “the best thing since sliced bread” are not generally older and that it is not a smaller group of people than those who think otherwise. Are there people who confound those generalizations? Of course there are. You are one of them as we have both taken time to note. That doesn't mean you are now the rule as opposed to the exception. We can go back and forth ad nauseum (Isn't Latin fun?) over this but I think you would be hard pressed to prove that the people I'm talking about aren't generally older and that their numbers don't constitute a smaller group in the fandom than those who think otherwise.

When all is said and done, you just seem to be complaining that the movie used Kirk/Spock et al., whom you apparently don't care for for some unexplained reason, and backfilling a number of superficially logical but actually unsustainable generalizations to rationalize that complaint.

Well, if you'd read my post in toto you'd note what my problem is and it isn't that. I'm the one that likes this movie, remember? What I am tired of is the complaint that this movie sucks by comparison. I could re-type but page nine isn't all that far away.

In other words, you're disregarding the actual criticisms that I and others have put forward, instead stereotyping us all as impossible-to-please on the basis of unrelated and unsupported assumptions about our desires and motivations? You think you understand our discontent better than we do, and thus see no need to respond to criticisms on their actual merits? That seems rather presumptuous.

You're not going to convince me that you're a victum. Even if you somehow did I wouldn't feel sorry for you so... you know, don't bother trying. I made a very, very specific observation about a group of people and their specific complaints. If you identify with that group and somehow feel slighted... I don't know what to tell you; that's how I feel about the general criticisms. You can take it personally and call foul all you like but the fact remains;
whether you are one of them or not there are people who were never going to be happy with this movie. They exist. And they make themselves apparent by blasting this film for things that exist in every incarnation of Trek, for lampooning ideas that are no more or less silly than others that have been presented in movies, and in a fashion that always boils down to 'it sucks by comparison.'
I don't know if you're one of those people or not but that's who I'm talking about and that's who what I initially wrote about was directed towards... but I guess since you're the self appointed spokesperson for the opposition to this film I can understand where anything contrary to “This film sucked” warrants a response.

For the record, though, if you do recognize its flaws, why are you taking such pains to defend it and distinguish yourself from its critics?

That's an important question and here's the answer;
I'm not over the moon about this movie. It was decent and I liked watching it the first few times... but it's lost its appeal (just like pretty much all the Trek movies have in my case after repeated viewing.) But it isn't because it wasn't TOS. It isn't because the higher ideals that were present in other incarnations were somehow absent here. It wasn't because the writing was way worse than it was for Nemesis or anything like that and I'd hate to be mistaken for that sort of... “hanger on” to the glory days. I didn't love it. But I don't really get the bile over it either.

-Withers-​