• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What Amazes Me

Status
Not open for further replies.
No reasonable science fiction lover could say this film is complete garbage and isn't worth the time of day...​

Whyever not? I'm not saying that's what I think, but what about such an assertion would make the person unreasonable? If it's merely a matter of opinion to say that it's bad or good, why wouldn't in then be merely a matter of an opinion to say it's great or terrible?
 
I sat there and didn't think.
This has been misconstrued (twice now) as evidence that I sat through the film with drool coming out of mouth.​

I think that's a misrepresentation - you don't seriously believe that, surely! I think your comment was ill advised, but that you were "drooling?" No.

I sat there and didn't think... about things that were wrong with what I was seeing. I just sat there and watched it. I just sat there and enjoyed what I was seeing. I wasn't jotting down mental notes about what could've made it better or what didn't make sense to me.

Is that better?
Perhaps better for the point you were trying to make, but the point I was raising is that you use this in support of an interpersonal judgment of the film's merit.

While I didn't enjoy watching Blue Velvet or Blair Witch, I do feel obligated to grant their story-telling as great, innovative art, regardless of personal emotion.

The point being, if one feels no need to take reasonable care thinking about their opinions before sharing them, why would anyone give them serious consideration?
 
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.

That's a very reasonable viewpoint. I agree. :) One other thing...liking or not liking a movie is ALWAYS biased...whether you like it or not, you have an opinion which affects your enjoyment of the movie.
 
The point being, if one feels no need to take reasonable care thinking about their opinions before sharing them, why would anyone give them serious consideration?

One doesn't have to take "reasonable care" when sharing an opinion in order for it to be valid or considered. A burger can either be great or terrible without having to analyze it's ingredients or preparation methods. It just is and may result in someone else taking action based on that opinion (like having a burger of their own!).

However, it can be instructive or even entertaining to perform such analysis.

That's a very reasonable viewpoint. I agree. :) One other thing...liking or not liking a movie is ALWAYS biased...whether you like it or not, you have an opinion which affects your enjoyment of the movie.

On this, I totally agree :).


RT.
 
The point being, if one feels no need to take reasonable care thinking about their opinions before sharing them, why would anyone give them serious consideration?

By that statement I'm led to believe that had I been more focused on the things I didn't like about the film my opinion on it would somehow be more valid. I don't think that's the case. By even mentioning the fact that I didn't sit through the film with a laundry list of faults running through my head I was trying to make note in no uncertain terms that my belief was in fact adequately suspended.

Whyever not? I'm not saying that's what I think, but what about such an assertion would make the person unreasonable? If it's merely a matter of opinion to say that it's bad or good, why wouldn't in then be merely a matter of an opinion to say it's great or terrible?

It would be as unreasonable as the second half of what I said- that the film was flawless and couldn't have been made any better. If you enjoy Star Trek and like science fiction as a genre it seems unreasonable, to me anyway, that you could hate this film and find absolutely no redeeming qualities about it. It did, in fact, involve science and fiction and there were in fact elements of the Star Trek Universe involved in creating it. Dislike it? Have no intention of ever watching it again? Even hate it? Okay, sure, I can go along with that- but to cite it as horrible science fiction by comparison to other Treks, and to say that there's nothing good about it (something no one here has done I've noted) is unreasonable in my opinion.


-Withers-​
 
withers said:
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

Well, from someone who did not like this movie, I can pretty much tell you that I was not in the "justify dislike the minute it was announced". Far from it. Trek09 was the one film I had anticipated and followed more than any other film for two straight years. I liked that new talent was behind the picture (anyone but Berman basically) and Trek was going to be known agian. Good or bad, Trek was coming back some way.

Then I saw the movie. Three times even just to try to convince myself that there had to be something good in this film because it clicked with everyone else. But all I saw was this big "what we think Star Trek is and how we're going to make it cool again" attempt at a 40 year old franchise. I don't know. Maybe it's because I'm a Trek nerd that everything I watched pretty much reminded me of what I didn't enjoy about previous Treks. Non-stop action with shallow characters and a 24/7 convenient plot.

Maybe it's the idea that when I watch the original series that the characters I'm watching have this kind of history that a lot of the show's stories built on. It wasn't hard to get into the idea that Kirk got to where he was because he really thrived to get there, not because he was dared to. He was depicted as a romantic who loved literature, history and always tried to keep his status quo in check. Does NuKirk give the impression that he knows literature, history or anything at all that would reflect an explorer's personality? No, he's just some jerk who gets made Captain because.....he's Kirk.

The writers of this movie state again and again that Kirk is young and that there are no established events that they have to stick to in order to write a story about him. What they're pretty much saying is that they can put any stubborn, arrogant, unlikable character in the role as long as his name is Kirk and he ends up being Captain of the Enterprise. Since he's 'young', they can have him do all sorts of stuff that the classic Kirk wouldn't do. I guess that sort of logic can work, but what really annoys me is that they outright made him out to be a complete a**hole who does little to redeem himself to those he's openly insulted. At least TOS Kirk apologized every once in a while and felt bad about what he did. In here they don't think Kirk needs to show any compassion or good character. He's just Kirk.

I also don't like how they now label characters like Uhura as the "love interest" and Scotty as the "Comic Relief". I never saw Scotty as a comic relief character from the original series or the movies. He was just a nice guy who had the occasional funny moments just like every other crew member from the show. But here, everything he says and does always has to come with a laugh. That's not how I remembered Scotty.

There are many other areas in this film that I didn't like, but this is the stuff that sticks out for me the most. If you want your action movies like this, that's your taste. I don't want to tell anyone that they're wrong with their liking this movie, I just don't like it when they say I should like it. That's all. Now, the one and only thing that I will outright declare anyone wrong on is the idea that NuUhura is a much better character than the original Uhura. That is just wrong on so many levels.
 
It amazes me how offended someone who likes the movie can get (not referring to anyone in particular) when another person insults it. :shifty:
 
But at least your drool pours out perfectly centered. :guffaw:

And you've got the nerve to lecture me about trolling?

NuKirk is just your typical two-dimensional 200x's action hero.

The way I see it you can only have it one way. You can have the first ten films where they focused more on characters and less on action (which didn't work out 60% of the time at best) or you can have a film like Abrams' that focused as much on characters as an action film is able in this movie climate and still be called an action film.

You can't have the long, boring periods like the TNG movies had and still have commercial success. It just doesn't work that way. So the question becomes would you rather have Star Trek just... stop making new stuff or would you rather it made things that, ultimately aren't your cup of tea, but are at least acceptable? (Again, I think it's unreasonable to say the new movie has absolutely no redeeming qualities.)



-Withers-​
 
Maybe if it was a main character the audience could relate to in some way, it may have been better?

Well... I mean no one can really relate to Jack Bauer but everyone likes to watch him kick ass and take names season after season. I think they knew that extreme wasn't going to work which is why they went with the tragedy of the Kelvin story line. They couldn't spend half the movie showing what it was like growing up with that over your head (essentially failing to live up to your fathers example) so they took choice moments (or... one anyway.) If anything I thought they moved the character too quickly... in every aspect. It wasn't that he was so unrelatable, in my opinion, it's more that they didn't expound on just how relatable he was. But...even then, I wouldn't have liked a bunch of scenes about how hard being James Kirk was. That would equal the sagging middle of the TNG films if you ask me.


-Withers-​
 
It amazes me how offended someone who likes the movie can get (not referring to anyone in particular) when another person insults it. :shifty:

But it doesn't amaze you how petty the bashers can be toward people who like it?
Would it make you feel better if I said both sides should agree that it is just a movie? That's it's not God's gift to mankind, or a curse from Satan?
 
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.

Oh so true

I find irony in my impression that those who hate Trek in any form, have really missed the overall (evolved) philosophy of Trek.

Hypothesis: I submit that if you hate any particular Trek, you don't "get" Trek at all.

Ture, I liked all of the treks, they each had their own problems, but the shows overall were good.

Am I a idiot for loving NuTrek

Then I'm one too

I just hate that it's so personal. "You like/don't like exhibit A?" "No." Why?" "(Explains)." "Then you're a retarded moron the likes of which ought to be locked away if not just beheaded." I've seen the converse just as much (though not about this movie) that there's nothing wrong with certain elements of Trek or anything that is perceived as a flaw can be "explained away." There's no middle ground for conversation in some of the people I've run across and that begs the question of their motive for signing up on a forum at all in the first place.

True, some people just won't see other peoples side

there's absolutely nothing wrong with having a differing opinion sure there isn't.

No there is not

And we continue to wonder why we're subjected to things like Survivor, American Idol and Wife Swap?

And people wonder why other countries dislike us with that stuff on the air

It amazes me how offended someone who likes the movie can get (not referring to anyone in particular) when another person insults it. :shifty:

But it doesn't amaze you how petty the bashers can be toward people who like it?

Yes alot of people can be pretty petty about the littlest things
 
But at least your drool pours out perfectly centered. :guffaw:
And you've got the nerve to lecture me about trolling?
It may not have been a particularly helpful thing for him to have said there but I don't believe he has been lecturing you about trolling.

What I am seeing, however, is people on both sides of the argument trying to set themselves up as the injured or offended party and using that as an opportunity to get off some jabs of their own, both personal and general. I'd like to see less of that sort of drama, please. Keep it about the movie and not about each other.
 
Maybe if it was a main character the audience could relate to in some way, it may have been better?

You must not be in touch with the movie going majority. The new characters ARE what they audience can relate to. Not old stuffy Picard, or the older TOS cast. The 18-35 years olds (a target audience) are those rebel rule-breaking, get ahead however types. Maybe you can't relate to this Kirk and company, but maybe you're no longer in the target audience (I don't know, I didn't do research on you, your age, background)
 
I'm not a jock douchebag who's riding on my ex-father's reputation, I'm someone who has an interest in exploring the unknown.

You're right, maybe I'm no longer the target audience. :devil:
 
I wouldn't have liked a bunch of scenes about how hard being James Kirk was. That would equal the sagging middle of the TNG films if you ask me.
You can't have the long, boring periods like the TNG movies had and still have commercial success.

What about Star Trek The Motion Picture? That's the slowest movie of them all and it turned out to be a box office hit, and that was not a TNG movie.

And what about the Wrath of Khan? One of the film's central points was just what you were talking about. Kirk was going through hard times, copping with age, and coming to terms that he wasn't the Captain he once was. That sounds a lot like a "hard being Kirk" plot to me, and TWOK is regarded as the best Trek movie out there. How many action scenes did that film have? Two and a half.

Not to mention the fact that Khan had a lot of those 'boring talking' scenes here and there. But if you give your talking scenes substance that delves more into the characters rather than being exposition, you can get a lot more out of it than through a high paced action scene.
 
What about Star Trek The Motion Picture? That's the slowest movie of them all and it turned out to be a box office hit, and that was not a TNG movie.

But not a critical hit by any means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top