Trek XI And Internet Criticism: Makes You Wish It Was 1982...

[Roald]

In 1982, there was no internet. At least, not in the way there is now. The general public (yes, us) were not offered an open forum to bitch about anything, ranging from politics to Britney... I must say that the constant spew of harsh internet critism is getting quite irritating, at least that's how I feel... Why do people shamelessly make anyone who likes Trek XI feel like a complete donkey around here? And it happens everywhere around the net. Instead of an open forum where people can debate, the internet seems to have turned into a platform where people just climb into their ivory tower, claiming they own the ultimate truth and insight...

For crying ot loud, the film is a great success: it's already making profit and it's 95% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Apparently, both public and critics favor the film greatly...

It made me wonder: how would the internet reaction have been in 1982 to TWOK had internet been around like it is now.... Oh, I can just imagine...

- "Khan Recognizes Chekov??? Okay, this film SUCKS..."
- "A Vulcan that says 'Damn!'... This is NOT Trek!..."
etc., etc., etc...

So what if Kirk happens to stumble upon Spock on Delta Vega..? What, would you let your enjoyment of 'The Empire Strikes Back' be spoiled just because Luke happens to meet Yoda at about exactly the same spot where he crashes his X-Wing..?? And I think Dagobah is bigger than Delta Vega..!

 

[Thrawn]

Yep. Online fandom. We go from criticizing, to criticizing people who are criticizing (that's your post), to criticizing people who are criticizing people who are criticizing (that's this post). Pretty much how this works.

For what it's worth, I totally agree with you about the movie, but I don't think your post is anything better than what you're ranting about.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Makes you wonder if people back then had to write letters to bitch about people writing other letters they didn't like.

 

[Tentacle]

For crying ot loud, the film is a great success: it's already making profit and it's 95% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Apparently, both public and critics favor the film greatly...

and that makes the film good?

I have seen alot of good comments on why the film didnt live up to the name of trek. (violating cannon not withstanding)

But so far the only defending point of the movie i have seen is, it looks good.
Its fast action, great CGI. All cosmetic effects.

Its hard for people not to look down their noses at these reasons.

Now if you really want to defend this movie. Here are a few scenes where i thought was very powerful.

-The open scene with kirk being born. (brought a tear to my eyes)
-The way pike talked kirk into joining starfleet.

Sadly the movie went downhill after the crew got on the enterprise.

 

[STIntergalactic]

I don't see why you have to wish it was 1982. If the opinions on the internet are bothering you, you don't have to read them.

 

[startrekwatcher]

Makes you wonder if people back then had to write letters to bitch about people writing other letters they didn't like.

I'm sure people had criticisms but the advent of the internet only served to amplify them. Before the internet, when someone didn't like an episode or film they would only have themselves to complain to it about--for the most part. But nowadays you can immediately log on not two seconds after the credits roll and vent or gush to other people. And then of course those that agree with you will give you validation and those that don't will make some defensive. Afterall, who wants their tastes questioned or challenged. So ironically instead of the internet discussion boards being a place where individuals can read varying opinions and possibly see something they didn't and be open to re-examing their initial impressions they become all defensive which only leads to polarization and escalating the back-and-forth as both sides are determined to have the last say.

So what started out as a reasonable criticism blows up into a vicious attack and the side that likes the film now loves it and the side that didn't much care for it is frothing at the mouth with hatred for it. Simple social psychology at work.

What I'm basically saying is that this has all happened before and will happen again whether it is Star Trek XI, ENT, VOY, BSG etc etc. All that really matters is that you liked it or not. Don't care what anyone else says.

 

[Amaris]

Makes you wonder if people back then had to write letters to bitch about people writing other letters they didn't like.

I'm sure people had criticisms but the advent of the internet only served to amplify them. Before the internet, when someone didn't like an episode or film they would only have themselves to complain to it about--for the most part. But nowadays you can immediately log on not two seconds after the credits roll and vent or gush to other people. And then of course those that agree with you will give you validation and those that don't will make some defensive. Afterall, who wants their tastes questioned or challenged. So ironically instead of the internet discussion boards being a place where individuals can read varying opinions and possibly see something they didn't and be open to re-examing their initial impressions they become all defensive which only leads to polarization and escalating the back-and-forth as both sides are determined to have the last say.

So what started out as a reasonable criticism blows up into a vicious attack and the side that likes the film now loves it and the side that didn't much care for it is frothing at the mouth with hatred for it. Simple social psychology at work.

That does tend to happen all too often.

Why, you want to fight about it?!



J.

 

[CaptainJon]

I have seen alot of good comments on why the film didnt live up to the name of trek. (violating cannon not withstanding)

But so far the only defending point of the movie i have seen is, it looks good.
Its fast action, great CGI. All cosmetic effects.

Its hard for people not to look down their noses at these reasons.

Now if you really want to defend this movie. Here are a few scenes where i thought was very powerful.

-The open scene with kirk being born. (brought a tear to my eyes)
-The way pike talked kirk into joining starfleet.

Sadly the movie went downhill after the crew got on the enterprise.

Which comments are you referring to? I must be reading a very different board then you because I've seen plenty of comments and reviews stating more then just the "fast action, great CGI" as defending points. I've read comments and reviews stating the level of the acting and even the writing, which are hardly cosmetic. In fact, my own review of the movie (definitely not a professional review) I spend multiple paragraphs reviewing the acting while I gloss over the special effects.

There's a lot to defend this movie with then just the "fast action" and "great CGI". Is the action fast? Yes. Is the CGI great? Yes. But I personally feel it's a strong story, has great dialogue, is funny, and has very strong acting.

 

[Thrawn]

But so far the only defending point of the movie i have seen is, it looks good.

Then you haven't been paying attention, because there are a ton of others.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^^ (responding to two up) I suppose, it just seems that these threads only come about to try to discredit the naysayers. Just like no good intentions ever come from the question "How old is everyone here?".

 

[Roald]

and that makes the film good?

Whether the film is good is totally subjective.

The percentage of good reviews and box office results are at least objective.

 

[CaptainJon]

^^ (responding to two up) I suppose, it just seems that these threads only come about to try to discredit the naysayers. Just like no good intentions ever come from the question "How old is everyone here?".

I'm not sure if you were referring to my post or the one above, so forgive me if you weren't referring to mine.

I feel that everyone has the right to their own opinion, and there are people who did not like the new Star Trek movie. That's fine with me, however I feel that they should be accurate in what they say. I've seen people praise the movie for more then just its action and CGI. I've seen people praise it on every level.

I've also seen people criticize it on every level, which is fine because that is their opinion. But I don't say that people are only criticizing it because it's "not their idea of Star Trek" (which if it's not, that's fine by me), while some people say that it's only being praised on a cosmetic level, which it's not.

I honestly feel that if you are going to state something, you should be accurate to the best of your ability. If you don't know all the facts off-hand and misstate it, at least being willing to say, "Hey, my bad" when you discover something that goes against what you said. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'll freely admit it. I feel everyone should have the same mind set.

 

[Peter the Younger]

Ah but if it were 1982, we couldn't share the stories of how seeing Trek resurrected made us feel. We couldn't go to Memory Alpha and instantly locate counterexamples for every outrageous claim made by the canonistas. Most important of all, we couldn't check out the polling and constantly updated revenues that remind us: the hardcore detractors are a very small minority. Loud, yes - screaming in your ear, wake you up fifteen times a night loud. Yes, it's annoying when somebody goes out of their way to spew bile in a thread where people are discussing something they liked. But in the end, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

Of course, that's part of why they feel angry. People don't like being powerless in the face of something they don't like, even if it's entertainment. So I guess we should be glad they have this place in which to vent.

 

[Tentacle]

I have seen alot of good comments on why the film didnt live up to the name of trek. (violating cannon not withstanding)

But so far the only defending point of the movie i have seen is, it looks good.
Its fast action, great CGI. All cosmetic effects.

Its hard for people not to look down their noses at these reasons.

Now if you really want to defend this movie. Here are a few scenes where i thought was very powerful.

-The open scene with kirk being born. (brought a tear to my eyes)
-The way pike talked kirk into joining starfleet.

Sadly the movie went downhill after the crew got on the enterprise.

Which comments are you referring to? I must be reading a very different board then you because I've seen plenty of comments and reviews stating more then just the "fast action, great CGI" as defending points. I've read comments and reviews stating the level of the acting and even the writing, which are hardly cosmetic. In fact, my own review of the movie (definitely not a professional review) I spend multiple paragraphs reviewing the acting while I gloss over the special effects.

There's a lot to defend this movie with then just the "fast action" and "great CGI". Is the action fast? Yes. Is the CGI great? Yes. But I personally feel it's a strong story, has great dialogue, is funny, and has very strong acting.

Well my bad I was generalizing. There are some good reviews out there that praise the movie. But those are far and few in between. The majority impression I got from the cheerleaders were they like it from a cosmetic point of view. But to be fair alot of the criticism is about cannon violations and all that none sense. Which I guess evens out the "rar rar haray".

I guess all the good arguments got buried under the name calling.
I wish there were a thread where all the pros and cons are listed minus the name calling, but that's wishful thinking.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

So what if Kirk happens to stumble upon Spock on Delta Vega..? What, would you let your enjoyment of 'The Empire Strikes Back' be spoiled just because Luke happens to meet Yoda at about exactly the same spot where he crashes his X-Wing..?? And I think Dagobah is bigger than Delta Vega..!

Dude. It was the Force.

Which in Abramspeak is Destiny.

 

[Eddie Roth]

I think the OP makes a good point. The internet is, for better or worse, a forum where everyone can say anything immediately... and they will. I suppose the equivalent in 1982 (or much later even) was in fact writing letters. See, I'm 30, which is not THAT old, and I've been a ST fan since 1992. I only got internet access in the fall of 1999. But I've had strong opinions about Star Trek before that. When I wanted to voice them, and sometimes I did, I would speak to local people who shared my interest in the show. In those days, there was a thing called "Trekdinner" in every major (and many not so major) city in Germany where Trek fans would meet, socialize and talk about Trek. I only ever attended such an event once. It would be like a very small, very intimate convention.

So if you didn't do that, you wrote a letter to a fanzine. I did once, too, in 1998 or so. Trekworld was the name of the magazine. The topic was the hit-and-miss quality of VGR episodes. Today, I would just post that topic here. But I would not spend as much time trying to bring my thoughts on the matter into a concise readable form. And someone replying to my post would possibly not take the time to make his answer into something that could stand on its own either. The internet is too instantaneous for that. So you write a long-ass post about something and someone replies "Nope." or "I agree."

The difference between fan discussion in pre-internet days and now is like this: Back then, it would happen in a form similar to a parliamentary debate. Someone gives a (more or less well-written) speech about a certain topic, everone listens. (As in a letter to a fanzine, as I mentioned.) Then the next speaker goes up and gives his own speech arguing a different point of view. And so forth. The internet is more akin to a room full of people shouting their opinions every which way and it's a cacophony sometimes. You're in ten discussions at the same time which gives you no time to be precise or in-depth about any of them. And at any time you could start an eleventh discussion, then about some unimportant nugget that might not even be worthy of a debate.

So I suppose in those days, people did wonder about a Vulcan saying "Damn" and such, but the forum in which they would address their impressions of the latest ST film were such that minutiae like that didn't find much room to dominate discourse about the movie.

 

[Holodoc]

So... The OP wants to do away with twenty-seven years of technological advancement just to keep a few dozen people from talking about how they don't like a movie?

 

[CinC_UFPForces]

So... The OP wants to do away with twenty-seven years of technological advancement just to keep a few dozen people from talking about how they don't like a movie?

Only if one isn't paying attention.

 

[Cdr MacDuff]

This thread is ridiculous. For one, this movie received more hype that criticism. And, while I really like the movie, it was still mainly popcorn action summer blockbuster. Which open itself up to some criticism. I begin to be tired of people who can't accept that some people have some criticism for the movie. If you don't want to hear them, don't read them.

 

[Trekwatcher]

I think that people have a right to voice their displeasure with the movie. Period. That is one of the key things this bbs is for-to allow people to voice their opinions of all things Star Trek. Everyone should be civil-that goes without saying. Believe me, I liked ENT more than most people and when a great many people were saying it was the worst thing to ever happen to Trek I didn't flame them or try to stop them. I either tried to write back about why I felt differently, or I just stopped reading their threads.