Indeed
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
No, it's not my job to prove a negative. You have failed to show it's stupid, and thus you can't use that conclusion as a premise without expecting to be challenged.
What are you on about? How can I not dictate what my own point is? Do you not see how ridiculous you sound? You are basically saying that I shouldn't get to decide what my own points are. This is downright bizarre.
Once again, and for the last time, you don't get to tell someone else that a movie is "bad" as an explanation as to why its director is berated when that movie has been well received the vast majority of viewers, has been well reviewed, and has been financially successful. You are projecting your own opinion of that movie onto reality, here.
I don't think you know what that means. The rest of your post is nonsense, as usual.
Last edited:
Although I kinda wish they were investigating it on the Enterprise while the Discovery went in for extensive refit to remove the spinny saucer and put round nacelles on her.Indeed
But... I guess the constitution class is older than the Crossfield class so would be the inferior ship to explore the swirlies?
It also has the spore drive.
Well, fuck. By your interpretations, Jefferies could've just tossed anything on screen and it would've been just as iconic as what we got.
I guess we now have our explanation for Discovery's "aesthetic".
If they had been smart, that is what we would've gotten. But I think they ended up spending a shitload of money on a bridge set they'll hardly use.
It's not "your" point. It's a discussion. The point of a discussion is an intersubjective construct; no one person gets to dictate it.
I painstakingly spelled out, step by step, what that discussion actually was about, in response to your false claim that I was mischaracterizing your post. I notice you've declined to respond to that part at all.
I quite frankly don't give a fuck how much money it made, nor should anybody else. It's equally irrelevant how many other people like it: millions of people support Donald Trump, but that doesn't mean he's a good president, or would even recognize one if he tripped over him.
I stand by my position that ST09 is a bad movie by any reasonable standards of competent storytelling. I could argue that position in tremendous detail and I'd be happy to do so in some other thread, but as I mentioned at the outset, this isn't the place for it. If you want to boil that down to simply "I didn't like it," you're being deliberately simplistic because there's a lot more to it than that, but hey, be my guest.
(And at the very least, if Abrams has in fact been "berated" for the film to a degree worth noticing, that stands as evidence that some meaningful contingent of other people also didn't like it.)
Why do I continue to treat you as a sincere interlocutor? Cheap shots and dismissals do not make for a constructive conversation.
Last edited:
Did they? Have we seen something we're sure is the Enterpise bridge?
Hopefully it doesn't start with "Not real Star Trek."
I respect your position but I have yet to hear an argument that makes me go "Oh, that's bad storytelling."
No. But they showed something under construction that looks to have the same shape.
Fair enough! I'm not trying to tell you (or anybody else) that you shouldn't. There are other objectively bad films that I enjoy as guilty pleasures myself.I like your overall point, but I love the Abrams films. Tremendous fun.
My point (not "the" point, but mine) was simply that its financial success is not evidence of its artistic merits. Hell, the Transformers movies (by the same writers) made gazillions of dollars too, but hopefully we can all agree that they're crap.
I think it's time to start giving other examples. Constantly bringing up the guy in the White House in the middle of threads that have nothing to do with him is just tiresome.
Having a dangerously narcissistic corrupt delusional idiot in the White House is pretty damn tiresome as well. Can I help it if he's the obvious go-to example of something that's popular with millions yet nonetheless awful?
(Besides, I did offer another example already: the Transformers films.)
(Besides, I did offer another example already: the Transformers films.)
No such thing. That would require every human on the planet to feel they were bad.
Also, he probably isn't the best example in this particular discussion since he lost the popular vote. Erdogan on the other hand...
The critics on Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB and Metacritic must be way off their game
I think the TOS Enterprise is more of a Star Trek icon than the TMP ship - although I have no evidence upon which to base that assertion.
It seems to me when you see new Trek toys, merhandise, etc. They gravitate towards TOS and the classic prime Enterprise. The refit version doesn’t often get a look in - or so it seems.
So the TOS Enterprise is arguably iconic in relation to Star Trek, and the TMP ship isn’t.
Maybe that says something about the TOS design insofar as if it had looked like the TMP refit in the classic show it might not have become the icon it has.
I can’t decide whether my argument is circular or strawman there. Maybe it’s a group of straw men standing in a circle holding hands chanting “space the final frontier”.
There’s no way to prove whether the tos ship would still have been the icon it is had it looked like the TMP refit of course.
Similar threads
