What Amazes Me

[Withers]

I'm as demanding as anyone I know when it comes to what I deem as "good sci-fi." I know what constitutes a good story, what well executed special effects look like, and what good acting makes feel. Having been a fan of the genre since I was a very little boy I've experienced all points in the spectrum. The Star Trek Universe is unique, however, in that what works well and is accepted in one place might not work well or be accepted in another. That seems to be the case with 09's Star Trek.

They managed to doge the huge bullet of continuity fallacies (for the most part) by essentially rebooting the time line. So that took the wind out of those determined not to like this film... for a little while. But the more I've read from so called "Star Trek purists" the better I'm able to see a larger picture.

Why do so many people excuse the flaws of Deep Space Nine yet so few people excuse the flaws of Voyager? Plenty of things in Deep Space Nine were inconsistent (quantum torpedo damage), unresolved (Tomas Riker), or just flat out didn't make any sense (Defiant Bridge Crew). So why does DS9 get away with it while Voyager gets nailed to the cross? The answer is pretty simple. DS9 was more fun to watch and more people wanted to like it. When you want to like something you'll make note of but ultimately let slide the details about missing collar pips and faulty registry numbers. Voyager was not fun to watch. We sat there saying to ourselves "It's Star Trek. How can I not like this?" And then you start to focus on the reasons. (That's how it was for me anyway.)

I think the same thing has happened to JJ's Star Trek only rather than deciding it wasn't fun to watch after seeing it the decision was made based upon what everybody knew the day it was announced. "It isn't the original cast and stuff won't look the same. Based on that I don't like the movie. Now I'm going to watch it to find out why."

Arguments like "it didn't make sense that..." and "the use of (insert plot device) was lazy writing" are all rationalizations for a hatred of something that, in the end, was good sci-fi. Was it the trek we knew? No. It's different. Does that make it bad? Of course it doesn't.

It had action. It had acting. It had a great musical score. It had faces I didn't mind looking at and above all it was about the Enterprise and her crew. Stuff looked cool and the movie moved along at a pace that didn't bore me. I sat there and didn't think. I wasn't looking for flaws that would justify my prejudgment. I just sat and enjoyed. Was it perfect? C'mon, of course it wasn't perfect. It was Star Trek so naturally there were things about it that could have been better (like Nero). If you had never seen a minute of Star Trek in your life, however, you can't possibly tell me this movie would be harder to watch than, say, Star Trek Nemesis. It wasn't a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination. It also wasn't blasphemous, unwatchable garbage either. It was good for what it was especially considering the source material.

It just amazes how willing so many true and loyal fans watched the movie for the sole purpose of jotting down flaws they could point to justify the dislike they had for it the minute the movie was announced and I thought, as this is my first day, that is what I would write my first thread about.


-Withers-​

 

[startrekrcks]

Well said I am 8 months fan after NuTrek and I love TOS and NuTrek why?

 

[The Wormhole]

or just flat out didn't make any sense (Defiant Bridge Crew).​

What didn't make sense about the Defiant's bridge crew?

 

[Cyke101]

or just flat out didn't make any sense (Defiant Bridge Crew).​

What didn't make sense about the Defiant's bridge crew?

I'm going out on a limb here but I'm assuming he means things like how Kira can command it and typically non-ship personnel like Odo or Garak can man key stations on a whim. Or anyone can work any station and just seem to be good at it like Dax or Bashir, rather than actual specialized stations like Data at Ops or Paris at Helm.

At least, that's what I gather from Withers' post. I could be wrong.

 

[The Borg Queen]

Arguments like "it didn't make sense that..." and "the use of (insert plot device) was lazy writing" are all rationalizations for a hatred of something that, in the end, was good sci-fi. Was it the trek we knew? No. It's different. Does that make it bad? Of course it doesn't.

Sorry, but you don't get to justify bad writing by claiming it's bias.

For example, things like plot holes and internal inconsistency are objective flaws and not something you can ignore by claiming it's "rationalizations for a hatred of something".

 

[Withers]

I'm going out on a limb here but I'm assuming he means things like how Kira can command it and typically non-ship personnel like Odo or Garak can man key stations on a whim. Or anyone can work any station and just seem to be good at it like Dax or Bashir, rather than actual specialized stations like Data at Ops or Paris at Helm.

At least, that's what I gather from Withers' post. I could be wrong.

That's exactly what I meant (in addition to other things.) I'm a "Niner" so before you nail me to the cross I've heard the arguments/justifications for each one of those examples and I still don't buy it. But, that's not why I decided to write this thread, (though I may write that one now) so I'll leave it alone for now.

Sorry, but you don't get to justify bad writing by claiming it's bias.

Yes I do. It goes like this; simplified, you (in the universal sense not you personally) will let "plot holes" and "internal consistence" slide if you like what you're watching. If you don't like what you're watching you'll use those same things as justification for why you don't like whatever it is.

In the case of 09 Trek a lot of people seemed determined not to like it. When you have that mindset any piece of the Star Trek franchise will give you plenty of reasons to say "That doesn't make sense with..." or "That's bad writing because..." (By the way- "Bad writing?" What, you wanted more Nemesis and Enterprise gold nuggets?)

I realize I'm not going to convince anybody of anything. I am just genuinely surprised, in an era when even decent sci-fi is kind of hard to come by, so many Trek fans are just out for blood when it comes to a movie that allowed the STU to come out of its mothers basement. (I am the biggest Star Trek nerd I know. I get to say things like that.)


-Withers-​

 

[The Borg Queen]

Sorry, but you don't get to justify bad writing by claiming it's bias.

Yes I do. It goes like this; simplified, you (in the universal sense not you personally) will let "plot holes" and "internal consistence" slide if you like what you're watching. If you don't like what you're watching you'll use those same things as justification for why you don't like whatever it is.

Yes, what I meant is that recognising plot holes isn't the same as forgiving them.

Bad writing is still bad writing, whether you ignore it or not it still ruins the consistency of the story.

 

[Withers]

Well, I mean... I think that the "writing was so bad it ruined the consistence of the story" is a pretty dubious claim. It obviously wasn't perfectly consistent (I, in fact, just made that point in a thread not far from this one) but that those inconsistencies ruined the movie is just going too far. I recognize them and I forgive them because I like Star Trek. The more of it there is that I can live with and enjoy... the more I can live with and enjoy.

Are there movies/episodes where the writing was so bad it couldn't be just recognized and then forgiven? Yes. That'd be a few of the TOS movies, most of the early seasons of pretty much every incarnation, 80 percent of Star Trek Voyager, most of DS9's "bottle shows," and of course there are examples in Enterprise.

Take "Threshold." That was sci-fi writing so bad the episode is practically unwatchable. It deserves that kind of criticism. I've taken note of plenty of things about the new Trek movie that weren't exactly "up to snuff" but none of those things were so overwhelming that I thought the movie was "ruined" by them.


-Withers-​

 

[RookieBatman]

I almost agree with you, except for the following point. It's the same one that The Borg Queen brought up...

Arguments like "it didn't make sense that..." and "the use of (insert plot device) was lazy writing" are all rationalizations for a hatred of something that, in the end, was good sci-fi.​

I completely agree that people who go in to a movie intending (or expecting, for a more attitude-neutral term) to like it will generally be much more forgiving then people who go in expecting to hate it. But there have been movies I've gone into expecting to hate and ended up loving, and vice-versa. A good movie come overcome expectations.

Now, your assertions that in the end, it was good sci-fi, is just as subjective as my hypothetical assertion that it was loaded with plot-holes. You can't simply state that it was good sci-fi and expect that to prove bias on the part of people who didn't like it.

Again, you're right that expecting to like a movie will change the way a person watches it and forgives it mistakes. I enjoyed X-Men 3, Spider-Man 3 and both Fantastic Four movies, because I went in with that mindset. So what you're describing is very true in that sense.

But the fact that expecting to like a movie makes them more able to forgive some elements of poor writing, internal inconsistencies, poor characterizations, etc., doesn't change the fact that those things were in the movie in the first place. The movie was neither all good nor all bad, and you did say as much in your post. I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because people expecting to hate the movie causes them to magnify its errors, doesn't make them wrong.

There is simply no right or wrong in a subjective judgment of artistic value. It's all completely personal. Which is why I say, if you liked it, hey, good for you, I didn't, but I'm glad somebody benefited from it. But I don't think criticisms of the movie are invalid just because there was some bias involved, because as far as I'm concerned, there always is, on both sides.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Why do so many people excuse the flaws of Deep Space Nine yet so few people excuse the flaws of Voyager?

Because DS9 also had many great things about it, while VOY...not so much.

Arguments like "it didn't make sense that..." and "the use of (insert plot device) was lazy writing" are all rationalizations for a hatred of something that, in the end, was good sci-fi.

Depends on what you're talking about. All of Trek has had logical inconsistencies that we can legitimately get on its case about. The real question is, is bad writing/stupid characterization/pointless plots all it delivers, because that's when fans get grumpy.

 

[Withers]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because people expecting to hate the movie causes them to magnify its errors, doesn't make them wrong.

You go into a movie expecting/intending to hate it and come out of it talking about the plot holes and pointless aspects of the plot and I can't help but ascribe that to the fact you just wanted not to like it- Especially in the case of Star Trek, where as you said, those things exist in absolutely every incarnation.

The real question is, is bad writing/stupid characterization/pointless plots all it delivers, because that's when fans get grumpy.

Nail on the head. Were those things present? Absolutely. Absolutely they were there. Was that all 09 had? No. I think the overwhelmingly positive reaction to it is all the evidence anyone should need of that. Bad writing, poor characterization and a poor plot were all that Nemesis delivered and we all know how that did. So I agree. I couldn't agree more.

I have to, as a fan of 09 Trek, recognize it wasn't perfect and I do. So why is it that the fans who wanted to hate in the first place don't have to concede that bias exists? It wasn't The Undiscovered Country but it certainly wasn't Star Trek V either. It wasn't Best of Both Worlds or The Trouble with Tribbles but it wasn't Threshold either. When I say it was good sci-fi I mean in the sense that it was a great "popcorn flick."


-Withers-​

 

[Ihlecreations]

I love this thread as I am a HUGE voyager basher. DS9 had the advantage of a, how do I put this, a likeable crew. As well as a story that went somewhere. It was not with out some major flaws tho, one of them being anytime, imho, the bajor religious stuff was brought into play, which is why the series finally 1st half rocked and the second half sucked. Voyager quickly became the 7of9 show, that freaking Borg was the answer to everything that went wrong on the ship. And every episode she would gain a little humanity only to have it stripped away by the next episode where she would gain a little humainty only to have it stripped away....you see where I am going. I know I will get a lot of heat for this but I would say Enterprise was a better show than Voyager.

I do agree that we will over look plot holes and a little bad writing if we like what we are watching. The Star Wars saga is a perfect example, the original trilogy is full of bad writing and a few plot holes but as a whole we enjoy watching it. The prequel trilogy just got off on the wrong foot with bad writing from the get go and no real story, until Revenge of the Sith but by then it was too late. And we wont even mention the plot holes that reside in those 3 films. Wrath of Khan is another example of a few plot holes that we over look and even make up backstories to give a reason to them.

 

[EEE]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because people expecting to hate the movie causes them to magnify its errors, doesn't make them wrong.

Not per se' on the technical specifics, but to take specifics out of context and blow them up out of proportion is wrong (and yet the world is surrounded by this effect daily).

In the case of the movie, I went in with an open mind (and lack of sleep caused by a terrible cold) and found the movie to be "fun." That "fun" allowed me to overlook the ending of the movie (only one thing really bothered me as an original airing-intermittantly-hard-core-TOS-fan).

But back to the overall theme. It's simple and obvious human nature.

Usually...

It didn't apply to my original viewing of TNG. I tried very, very hard to like it when it aired. I gave up just before the end of the 2nd season.

But the approach did affect my enjoyment of DS9. I hated the pilot when it aired. I went into it with a "To Boldly Sit? What the hell is that? That's NOT Star Trek!" attitude. Years later, after ending up with DVD's for all the Treks, I watched DS9 almost last (I saved VERY last for TNG, see above *grin*), and found a more open mind allowed me to see it was the most loyal to the spirit of TOS, out of the whole bunch. It became my second favorite Star Trek.

Of course, in the overall theme of the thread, one must allow for some bashing and/or nitpicking for no other reason than mental masturbation and some for forum trolling. Then there is the "saving face" aspect to wanting to hate something. Many may find something not as bad as expected, but find they've painted themselves into a hate corner with others. They will continue bashing to save face (ultimately convincing themselves they were right to hate it in the first place).

 

[Kelso]

I'm amazed that Star Trek fans can be so bothered by what other people like/dislike.

I liked the movie and someone else didn't. Who cares? I've spent most of my life liking things that no one else likes and disliking things that are really popular.

 

[Withers]

Not per se' on the technical specifics, but to take specifics out of context and blow them up out of proportion is wrong

Exactly. I can't say that there weren't some problems with the film because, even from just a Trek point of view, there were. It is equally unfair to declare that the problems that existed ruined the film/made it unwatchable because they didn't.

That "fun" allowed me to overlook the ending of the movie (only one thing really bothered me as an original airing-intermittantly-hard-core-TOS-fan).

Exactly. I called it good sci-fi for this reason. The "fun" factor made it okay (and if you're referring to the "not gonna accept our help then be destroyed" moment I'm with ya. I let it slide, meaning I didn't declare the movie ruined after it, but it still stuck out in my head.)

Many may find something not as bad as expected, but find they've painted themselves into a hate corner with others. They will continue bashing to save face (ultimately convincing themselves they were right to hate it in the first place).

Rather than admit that the movie wasn't unwatchable or that it wasn't ruined by some of inconsistencies, what you've described is the avenue a lot of people who are 'out for blood' when it comes to this film seem to be taking. That's what amazes me.


-Withers-

Edit

I'm amazed that Star Trek fans can be so bothered by what other people like/dislike. I liked the movie and someone else didn't. Who cares?

That's a really great philosophy to have (and congratulations on being such a rebel)... unless you sign up on a discussion forum that is about Star Trek and have any intention of saying anything.
​

 

[Therin of Andor]

people who are 'out for blood' when it comes to this film seem to be taking. That's what amazes me.

"People" were "out for blood" over TAS, TMP, ST II, ST III, ST IV, TNG, ST V, ST VI, DS9, VOY, ENT and TOS CGI, too.

I see no difference in fandom with JJ.

 

[Withers]

Oh, absolutely, there's no difference at all whatsoever. One might even say, with every new incarnation, another generation is inducted into the fandom because of the backlash it will inevitably incur. It's sort of a "Trek-hazing" that takes place.

This is a first, however, in that this is neither a new series nor is it a movie based on a series. It is "stand alone," as it were, and is all (meaning this line of Trek) we're likely to get outside of novels and video games any time soon.


-Withers-​

 

[EEE]

That "fun" allowed me to overlook the ending of the movie (only one thing really bothered me as an original airing-intermittantly-hard-core-TOS-fan).

Exactly. I called it good sci-fi for this reason. The "fun" factor made it okay (and if you're referring to the "not gonna accept our help then be destroyed" moment I'm with ya. I let it slide, meaning I didn't declare the movie ruined after it, but it still stuck out in my head.)
​

Actually I was referring to the single point that an altered timeline couldn't explain away for me... Nimoy's Spock would've at least searched for a way to correct the whole timeline the movie was based in/on. He's done it before (or was he just flat out jealous of Edith Keeler? *grin*). (wouldn't it be funny if they already filmed a Spock's timeline restoration and stored it way for when this version runs it's course? LOL)

But as I said, the move was "fun" and probably more importantly, it was a torch passing. We all knew it. I felt it. And I was okay with it. I've had 44 years of Trek fun, adventure, companionship, and imagination prodding. I think it's great that younger generations (and those young at heart) can get something for themselves from the concept. More power to them!

...he says as he laughs at the hard-core bashers and sits and throws in an unadulterated original series Star Trek DVD. *grin*
​

 

[RookieBatman]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because people expecting to hate the movie causes them to magnify its errors, doesn't make them wrong.

You go into a movie expecting/intending to hate it and come out of it talking about the plot holes and pointless aspects of the plot and I can't help but ascribe that to the fact you just wanted not to like it- Especially in the case of Star Trek, where as you said, those things exist in absolutely every incarnation.

Well, the problem with your assertion is that you're considering expecting and wanting to be the same thing. And they're absolutely not. I know this firsthand. The fact is, I very much wanted to like STXI. I can't prove that, you'll just have to take my word for it, but the fact is, I realized a while ago (around the time Spider-Man 3 came out) that I gain nothing if I dislike a movie. Essentially, you're entertained if you do like the movie, and you feel like you wasted your money if you didn't. So, why would I not want to like the movie? (Well, there are reasons, but they're all somewhat petty, IMHO.) Anyway, like I said, I can't ultimately prove that I wanted to like it when I went in, but I know that I did.​

Now, I didn't expect to like it, because I had seen the trailer and had come to the realization that it probably wasn't going to be to my tastes. But the fact is, I was seeing it with a good friend, and it was actually the first Star Trek movie I'd ever seen in the theater! So I was pretty excited--even though I knew I would still be a little disappointed about some of the changes, I figured it would still be fun--and I thought the Kelvin scene was fantastic. I was transfixed. So, as the logo blazed across the screen and the credits rolled, I really began to expect that I might actually really like this movie.​

But as the movie continued, I saw more and more things I didn't like. (I won't bother listing them here, because I'm sure you've heard them all before.) Even though, by that point, I both wanted and expected to like the movie, the movie changed my mind.​

Now, why did it change my mind and not yours? Well, because you and I (and everyone else) each having different touchpoints, things we like and dislike, things that upset us or excite us. So, one person might love Dead Poet's Society because they find it inspirational, and another might think it's a terrible movie because they want a happy ending. Neither person had any intentions about whether they would like or dislike the movie, they just have different factors that affect them.​

So, basically, I'm saying that one person can think it's a great movie, and another can think it's terrible, and they can both be right. Everyone just has different things that make up a great or terrible movie for them.​

 

[Nerys Myk]

That "fun" allowed me to overlook the ending of the movie (only one thing really bothered me as an original airing-intermittantly-hard-core-TOS-fan).

Exactly. I called it good sci-fi for this reason. The "fun" factor made it okay (and if you're referring to the "not gonna accept our help then be destroyed" moment I'm with ya. I let it slide, meaning I didn't declare the movie ruined after it, but it still stuck out in my head.)
​

Actually I was referring to the single point that an altered timeline couldn't explain away for me... Nimoy's Spock would've at least searched for a way to correct the whole timeline the movie was based in/on. He's done it before (or was he just flat out jealous of Edith Keeler? *grin*). (wouldn't it be funny if they already filmed a Spock's timeline restoration and stored it way for when this version runs it's course? LOL)

But as I said, the move was "fun" and probably more importantly, it was a torch passing. We all knew it. I felt it. And I was okay with it. I've had 44 years of Trek fun, adventure, companionship, and imagination prodding. I think it's great that younger generations (and those young at heart) can get something for themselves from the concept. More power to them!

...he says as he laughs at the hard-core bashers and sits and throws in an unadulterated original series Star Trek DVD. *grin*
​

But could he? The point of change is when the Narada arrives in the 23rd Century. He cant stop that because it "starts" in a different universe. He would have to travel to that universe and he can't do that. His other choice would be divert the Kelvin so it doesn't meet the Narada. But that could also change things. Or assemble a fleet to meet the Narada, again that could also change things.