What's keeping me out of the theatre....

[Brutal Strudel]

You know what, BillJ? You're all right.

 

[JustKate]

Some people - not saying this about anybody here since I don't know most of you at all - are funny and that's all there is to it. I mean, if they like something that a lot of other people like, they feel as though their opinion has been validated. But of course it's not: Just because something's popular or profitable, that doesn't mean it's good.

On the other hand, just because something's popular, that doesn't automatically make it bad, either. And yet there are people who enjoy liking something that not a lot of other people like (or disliking something that a lot of people like). It makes them feel as though they are more attuned to quality than everybody else. And of course, that's not necessarily so, either.

If you are good enough at this sort of thing, you can always feel as though you're in the right, if that's important to you.

 

[Neopeius]

But in the end, I still enjoyed this movie. I just have the eyes to see it for what it is and what it isn't and what it isn't is the Star Trek I fell in love with, the Star Trek that GR, for all his faults, insisted hew as closely to the rules of intelligent drama for grown-ups as a mass media space opera possibly could, the Star Trek that boasted some of the best writer if LitSF among its screenwriters as well as among its earliest novelists (Vonda McIntyre and Joe Haldeman spring to mind--Nebula-winners both, Hugo-winner too in the case of Haldeman) rather than the guys who gave us Optimus and now Spocktimus Prime. If saying so makes me an elitist then I consider elitist a compliment. And I consider it amusing that this movie's fans see the need to be so snide to anyone with a differing opinion or so much as a serious critique. Methinks we are not the ones in need of getting over ourselves.

Bravo. Author.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

^^^I'm blushing--no easy feat for a black man.

If you are good enough at this sort of thing, you can always feel as though you're in the right, if that's important to you.

Nicely said.

I once started a thread about Philip K. Dick, my all-time favorite writer in any genre. When someone posted that he did not like PKD, this is how I responded:

"PKD's often been singled out as a uniquely poor stylist. In a grad class I was taking on post-modern American lit, I asked the professor why a syllabus which included Vonnegut, Pynchon and Gibson (not to mention an excerpt from Stephenson's Snow Crash) did not also include Dick. She acknowledged his reputation but diplomatically referred to his style as 'idiosyncratic.'
Personally, I think his style veers from the sublime to the execrable. But I don't believe in averaging out artistic merit: to me, Phil is as good as his best novels and, as I said up-thread, I love over a dozen, rough patches and all. YMMV, of course.
Interesting, though: with very few exceptions, I find his short stories to be, well, awful.
As far as geek sins are concerned: I am no lover of Asimov and have only read one Heinlein (Starship Troopers, which I rather enjoyed--couldn't get past the first hundred pages of Stranger in a Strange Land)."

That's how I talk to people who don't like what I love. It's not as much fun as sneering, maybe, but it's how I'd like to be treated and so...

 

[BillJ]

You know what, BillJ? You're all right.

Thanks.

I would like for Warped9 to go a bit more in depth about why he disliked the film though (after seeing it). Or did I miss that part of the discussion?

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Did you see this?

Okay, I saw it.

Garbage. I didn’t like one single aspect of this thing. I didn’t like the production design. I didn’t like the costuming. I didn’t like the music. I didn’t like the story. I didn’t like the characterizations (or interpretations thereof). I really looked for something to like and I didn’t find a thing.

It was nothing but one over-the-top cliché after another and each of them grated on my nerves. Including clichés based on next to nothing—Kirk FINALLY makes it with a green alien chick. Whooee!

I also didn’t find it fun in the least. But I did find it incredibly stupid and dumb-as-shit. I’m an hour and half into the film before the remotest spark of interest hits me, but long before then I really couldn’t care less. There's no logic whatsoever to how things unfold or why things are done.

Kirk’s punk like characterization got on my nerves from the start and never did I see one iota of roguish appeal that William Shatner’s Kirk has in spades. And there is ZERO logic to support how Kirk ends up with command by the end of the film. In fact all the characters were clichés with zero nuance and subsequently zero depth and zero warmth. All the characters were played as caricatures as likely seen by the general audience, but they were all light years from the nuanced characters that TOS gave us from the very first episode. Even Bruce Green’s Pike lacked any of the appeal that I found in Jeffery Hunter’s portrayal of Pike—and Hunter only had one go at the role way back in 1965 and Greenwood is actually a good actor, just not here. They couldn’t even give us an interesting villain. Nimoy had more nuance in his five minutes than the entire rest of the film.

The only emotional quotient in this thing was the equivalent of an adolescent’s first orgasm jerking himself off to equally juvenile fantasies. And right alongside that was the equally total absence of any intelligence in the film. This was the equivalent of a glorified fanzine made live-action. Instead of going back to original source materiel and understanding all the things that made TOS work well when it was on its game they elected to pander to the lowest denominators. It’s okay to do the occasional nudge-and-wink shtick, but you can’t have nearly an entire film of that. Galaxy Quest was more entertaining and I didn’t think that was much. Instead of crafting a genuine Star Trek space adventure drama that resonated like TOS they cranked out something resembling what average John and Jane Q. Public thinks Trek is. True, this isn’t your father’s Star Trek, but rather his know-nothing punk son’s rip-off of it—all grungy flash and no substance. I’m actually surprised Chekov didn’t have a bolt or something pierced through his eyebrow.

And here’s an irony. While I detest every single continuity change made, even with it being a reboot, it could still all have been salvaged with smarter, more deft writing. But such was not to be. Christ, even STV - The Finial Frontier was better than this. Episodes like “Spock’s Brain” are pure rocket science compared to this. First season TNG was more engaging.

To cap it all off the excessive handycam work was not at all appreciated. I’m really getting annoyed with this style of filming. It gives me a headache.

This film looked more Farscape or new Battlestar Galactica than Star Trek with its grungy industrial and cheap looking production design. But then it goes right alongside the new U.S.S. Uglyprise.

But I am gratified that in fashioning such a fucked-up failure it’s really easy to divorce this thoroughly from the original series. However, it does fit neatly with ENT which was a failure of its own. And if I could I would console Shatner to be glad he had nothing to do with this turkey. Too bad Nimoy can no longer make that claim.

Suffice to say I’m glad I didn’t pay to see this in the theatre. And I sure as hell wouldn’t pay even two cents for the dvd. It’s also safe to say that I won’t be bothering with any subsequent films as long as they’re following Abrams’ approach to the subject matter. Abrams, like Manny Coto before, has been hyped as a saviour yet here he shows he’s just a purveyor of mediocrity.

Deep down I wanted to be proven wrong on some level. But this thing couldn’t even meet my lowest expectations. It was one cringe or disgusted groan inducing thing after another. After four decades of watching various films this one joins the ranks of utter disappointments right alongside the likes of Battlefield Earth, Starship Troopers, The Fifth Element, Superman Returns, Batman & Robin, Batman Forever, Insurrection, Nemesis and the recent remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still.

The cliché that things today are all flash and no substance is in truth usually overblown, but not here. This follows the true dumb action flick approach: cram it with stuff and run it all at breakneck speed to veil the fact that there's nothing of any sense happening.

No subtlety, Not a whit of intelligence. Not a hint of nuance. And not one measure of maturity.

Garbage.

Or this?

Set aside all the periphral elements I dislike. Look at the Kirk arc in this film since he's a central element of the story. This interpretation of Kirk has little to nothing but a smarmy, smartass attitude and no self-discipline. He later stows away aboard a ship where he has no standing and no position. After Pike acts outraged he then enlists the stowaway's help. Throughout the entire thing this Kirk never demonstrates any evidence of ability to command and lead and displays no substance to show why others should respect and follow him. And by the end of the story he gets command by an organization that apparently doesn't have very demanding standards.They give command to a hotshot neophyte who hasn't done anything of substance to show he's earned the prize of one of Starfleet's best ships within a very few span of years..

That's all up on the screen and none of it bears any resemblance to a believable scenario. The only reason this Kirk gets his captaincy is because that's where Abrams wanted the story to end up despite the fact that nothing in the preceeding two hours logically supports that conclusion. It's all nonsensical. And to make it all worse this portrayal of Kirk isn't likable. He's all swagger and smartass without one iota of roguish charm. He's I punk I wanted to kick from pretty much the onset. It isn't easy to cheer for a hero who shows little evidence of likability. It's made all the more worse by a portrayal that is essentially one dimensional with next to no nuance. Give us a different interpretation, yes, but give us something of substance. Instead of that approach why not show us a Kirk learning and earning his way? Show us someone developing the abilities and scars of leadership over the years--that's credible. Instead they portray an over-the-top caricarture of Kirk rather than a nuanced believable one.

Abrams has gone the route of an adolescent fantasy where the kid believes if he's macho and heroic enough he'll get to lay the girl, or in this case win command of the Enterprise.

This story is also about nothing but trying to force-fit two characters into a "destiny." Quinto's Spock has next to no range while Nimoy was adept at telegraphing so much through eyes and facial expression. But the whole point of this story is to get two cardboard cutouts together.

Now add back all the other things I disliked and you have a film that fails my definition of good Star Trek. Dismiss me as a regressive purist if you like, but you're making a TOS era film then I'm going to judge it by the show that established and defined that era. And even if you prefer a different series or film version of Trek you cannot deny that TOS is the genuine article.

But what really burns my ass is what happens when you elect to take a dissenting position. I'm not the only one, but anyone around here who is the minority positon of not accepting something TPTB proffer gets roasted and jeered for having an opposing viewpoint.

Everyone takes something different from a show based on their likes and dislikes. If your Trek doesn't take itself seriously than that's the Trek that'll make you happy. But if your Trek does strive for a good measure of credibility then that's what you'll look for. And the fact is TOS often made an effort to convey a sense of credibility in ideas, in chracterization and often in story.

This film doesn't make any such effort.

I'd say he's been pretty damned thorough.

 

[Dar70]

Good review Warped9. You pretty much hit everything I disliked about the film. Except for not liking Enterprise, I agreed with everything you said in that review. In fact I think Enterprise tried harder to stay true to Trek and canon. The few little complaints fans had of Enteprise seem silly now.(Ferengi, the ship etc.)Heck even Nememsis was better than this film IMO. Im surprised its garnering such great reviews. Not to say people shouldnt like it but it just feels overated to me.

 

[Admiral2]

Okay, I saw it.

Garbage. I didn’t like one single aspect of this thing. I didn’t like the production design. I didn’t like the costuming. I didn’t like the music. I didn’t like the story. I didn’t like the characterizations (or interpretations thereof). I really looked for something to like and I didn’t find a thing.

It was nothing but one over-the-top cliché after another and each of them grated on my nerves. Including clichés based on next to nothing—Kirk FINALLY makes it with a green alien chick. Whooee!

I also didn’t find it fun in the least. But I did find it incredibly stupid and dumb-as-shit. I’m an hour and half into the film before the remotest spark of interest hits me, but long before then I really couldn’t care less. There's no logic whatsoever to how things unfold or why things are done.

Kirk’s punk like characterization got on my nerves from the start and never did I see one iota of roguish appeal that William Shatner’s Kirk has in spades. And there is ZERO logic to support how Kirk ends up with command by the end of the film. In fact all the characters were clichés with zero nuance and subsequently zero depth and zero warmth. All the characters were played as caricatures as likely seen by the general audience, but they were all light years from the nuanced characters that TOS gave us from the very first episode. Even Bruce Green’s Pike lacked any of the appeal that I found in Jeffery Hunter’s portrayal of Pike—and Hunter only had one go at the role way back in 1965 and Greenwood is actually a good actor, just not here. They couldn’t even give us an interesting villain. Nimoy had more nuance in his five minutes than the entire rest of the film.

The only emotional quotient in this thing was the equivalent of an adolescent’s first orgasm jerking himself off to equally juvenile fantasies. And right alongside that was the equally total absence of any intelligence in the film. This was the equivalent of a glorified fanzine made live-action. Instead of going back to original source materiel and understanding all the things that made TOS work well when it was on its game they elected to pander to the lowest denominators. It’s okay to do the occasional nudge-and-wink shtick, but you can’t have nearly an entire film of that. Galaxy Quest was more entertaining and I didn’t think that was much. Instead of crafting a genuine Star Trek space adventure drama that resonated like TOS they cranked out something resembling what average John and Jane Q. Public thinks Trek is. True, this isn’t your father’s Star Trek, but rather his know-nothing punk son’s rip-off of it—all grungy flash and no substance. I’m actually surprised Chekov didn’t have a bolt or something pierced through his eyebrow.

And here’s an irony. While I detest every single continuity change made, even with it being a reboot, it could still all have been salvaged with smarter, more deft writing. But such was not to be. Christ, even STV - The Finial Frontier was better than this. Episodes like “Spock’s Brain” are pure rocket science compared to this. First season TNG was more engaging.

To cap it all off the excessive handycam work was not at all appreciated. I’m really getting annoyed with this style of filming. It gives me a headache.

This film looked more Farscape or new Battlestar Galactica than Star Trek with its grungy industrial and cheap looking production design. But then it goes right alongside the new U.S.S. Uglyprise.

But I am gratified that in fashioning such a fucked-up failure it’s really easy to divorce this thoroughly from the original series. However, it does fit neatly with ENT which was a failure of its own. And if I could I would console Shatner to be glad he had nothing to do with this turkey. Too bad Nimoy can no longer make that claim.

Suffice to say I’m glad I didn’t pay to see this in the theatre. And I sure as hell wouldn’t pay even two cents for the dvd. It’s also safe to say that I won’t be bothering with any subsequent films as long as they’re following Abrams’ approach to the subject matter. Abrams, like Manny Coto before, has been hyped as a saviour yet here he shows he’s just a purveyor of mediocrity.

Deep down I wanted to be proven wrong on some level. But this thing couldn’t even meet my lowest expectations. It was one cringe or disgusted groan inducing thing after another. After four decades of watching various films this one joins the ranks of utter disappointments right alongside the likes of Battlefield Earth, Starship Troopers, The Fifth Element, Superman Returns, Batman & Robin, Batman Forever, Insurrection, Nemesis and the recent remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still.

The cliché that things today are all flash and no substance is in truth usually overblown, but not here. This follows the true dumb action flick approach: cram it with stuff and run it all at breakneck speed to veil the fact that there's nothing of any sense happening.

No subtlety, Not a whit of intelligence. Not a hint of nuance. And not one measure of maturity.

Garbage.

Set aside all the periphral elements I dislike. Look at the Kirk arc in this film since he's a central element of the story. This interpretation of Kirk has little to nothing but a smarmy, smartass attitude and no self-discipline. He later stows away aboard a ship where he has no standing and no position. After Pike acts outraged he then enlists the stowaway's help. Throughout the entire thing this Kirk never demonstrates any evidence of ability to command and lead and displays no substance to show why others should respect and follow him. And by the end of the story he gets command by an organization that apparently doesn't have very demanding standards.They give command to a hotshot neophyte who hasn't done anything of substance to show he's earned the prize of one of Starfleet's best ships within a very few span of years..

That's all up on the screen and none of it bears any resemblance to a believable scenario. The only reason this Kirk gets his captaincy is because that's where Abrams wanted the story to end up despite the fact that nothing in the preceeding two hours logically supports that conclusion. It's all nonsensical. And to make it all worse this portrayal of Kirk isn't likable. He's all swagger and smartass without one iota of roguish charm. He's I punk I wanted to kick from pretty much the onset. It isn't easy to cheer for a hero who shows little evidence of likability. It's made all the more worse by a portrayal that is essentially one dimensional with next to no nuance. Give us a different interpretation, yes, but give us something of substance. Instead of that approach why not show us a Kirk learning and earning his way? Show us someone developing the abilities and scars of leadership over the years--that's credible. Instead they portray an over-the-top caricarture of Kirk rather than a nuanced believable one.

Abrams has gone the route of an adolescent fantasy where the kid believes if he's macho and heroic enough he'll get to lay the girl, or in this case win command of the Enterprise.

This story is also about nothing but trying to force-fit two characters into a "destiny." Quinto's Spock has next to no range while Nimoy was adept at telegraphing so much through eyes and facial expression. But the whole point of this story is to get two cardboard cutouts together.

Now add back all the other things I disliked and you have a film that fails my definition of good Star Trek. Dismiss me as a regressive purist if you like, but you're making a TOS era film then I'm going to judge it by the show that established and defined that era. And even if you prefer a different series or film version of Trek you cannot deny that TOS is the genuine article.

But what really burns my ass is what happens when you elect to take a dissenting position. I'm not the only one, but anyone around here who is the minority positon of not accepting something TPTB proffer gets roasted and jeered for having an opposing viewpoint.

Everyone takes something different from a show based on their likes and dislikes. If your Trek doesn't take itself seriously than that's the Trek that'll make you happy. But if your Trek does strive for a good measure of credibility then that's what you'll look for. And the fact is TOS often made an effort to convey a sense of credibility in ideas, in chracterization and often in story.

This film doesn't make any such effort.

Yayyyy! (Applause, applause, vociferous applause!)

 

[Kirk1980]

$144 million now and counting in 7 days, ahead of Wednesday grosses of: Wolverine, Iron Man, and Batman Begins.

Wow you guys are making a real impact by not seeing it...

RAMA

Yes, I'm sure the point of Warped9's thread (and all the others who aren't intrigued enough to go watch it) is to point out how they're hurting the profitability.

Nothing at all to do with why a film with the Star Trek name on it is keeping some (yes, an oh so insignificant minority that of course we can ignore) fans out of the theatre.

Definitely not at all about being critical.

 

[T'Bonz]

Don't discuss downloading the movie here.

 

[Vance]

$144 million now and counting in 7 days, ahead of Wednesday grosses of: Wolverine, Iron Man, and Batman Begins.

Wow you guys are making a real impact by not seeing it...

If the movie still doesn't appeal to my tastes enough to go see it in a theatre, why should the box office numbers impress me enough to see it anyway?

And, for that matter, why are you here to throw up a post like that? Isn't there an entire forum where you get to shit on all the other fans who disagree with you and get away with it? MUST you come into a thread that's obviously about people not sold on the movie?

 

[T'Bonz]

OK guys. Don't get personal. Have respect, even if you disagree with each other.

 

[trevanian]

OK guys. Don't get personal. Have respect, even if you disagree with each other.

Common courtesy is only a viable commodity when it is mutual, otherwise it becomes license to be exploited as a sucker.

There is nothing APPROACHING courtesy or balance 'over there' and these posters are just calling it like it is.

 

[BillJ]

Did you see this?

Okay, I saw it.

Garbage. I didn’t like one single aspect of this thing. I didn’t like the production design. I didn’t like the costuming. I didn’t like the music. I didn’t like the story. I didn’t like the characterizations (or interpretations thereof). I really looked for something to like and I didn’t find a thing.

It was nothing but one over-the-top cliché after another and each of them grated on my nerves. Including clichés based on next to nothing—Kirk FINALLY makes it with a green alien chick. Whooee!

I also didn’t find it fun in the least. But I did find it incredibly stupid and dumb-as-shit. I’m an hour and half into the film before the remotest spark of interest hits me, but long before then I really couldn’t care less. There's no logic whatsoever to how things unfold or why things are done.

Kirk’s punk like characterization got on my nerves from the start and never did I see one iota of roguish appeal that William Shatner’s Kirk has in spades. And there is ZERO logic to support how Kirk ends up with command by the end of the film. In fact all the characters were clichés with zero nuance and subsequently zero depth and zero warmth. All the characters were played as caricatures as likely seen by the general audience, but they were all light years from the nuanced characters that TOS gave us from the very first episode. Even Bruce Green’s Pike lacked any of the appeal that I found in Jeffery Hunter’s portrayal of Pike—and Hunter only had one go at the role way back in 1965 and Greenwood is actually a good actor, just not here. They couldn’t even give us an interesting villain. Nimoy had more nuance in his five minutes than the entire rest of the film.

The only emotional quotient in this thing was the equivalent of an adolescent’s first orgasm jerking himself off to equally juvenile fantasies. And right alongside that was the equally total absence of any intelligence in the film. This was the equivalent of a glorified fanzine made live-action. Instead of going back to original source materiel and understanding all the things that made TOS work well when it was on its game they elected to pander to the lowest denominators. It’s okay to do the occasional nudge-and-wink shtick, but you can’t have nearly an entire film of that. Galaxy Quest was more entertaining and I didn’t think that was much. Instead of crafting a genuine Star Trek space adventure drama that resonated like TOS they cranked out something resembling what average John and Jane Q. Public thinks Trek is. True, this isn’t your father’s Star Trek, but rather his know-nothing punk son’s rip-off of it—all grungy flash and no substance. I’m actually surprised Chekov didn’t have a bolt or something pierced through his eyebrow.

And here’s an irony. While I detest every single continuity change made, even with it being a reboot, it could still all have been salvaged with smarter, more deft writing. But such was not to be. Christ, even STV - The Finial Frontier was better than this. Episodes like “Spock’s Brain” are pure rocket science compared to this. First season TNG was more engaging.

To cap it all off the excessive handycam work was not at all appreciated. I’m really getting annoyed with this style of filming. It gives me a headache.

This film looked more Farscape or new Battlestar Galactica than Star Trek with its grungy industrial and cheap looking production design. But then it goes right alongside the new U.S.S. Uglyprise.

But I am gratified that in fashioning such a fucked-up failure it’s really easy to divorce this thoroughly from the original series. However, it does fit neatly with ENT which was a failure of its own. And if I could I would console Shatner to be glad he had nothing to do with this turkey. Too bad Nimoy can no longer make that claim.

Suffice to say I’m glad I didn’t pay to see this in the theatre. And I sure as hell wouldn’t pay even two cents for the dvd. It’s also safe to say that I won’t be bothering with any subsequent films as long as they’re following Abrams’ approach to the subject matter. Abrams, like Manny Coto before, has been hyped as a saviour yet here he shows he’s just a purveyor of mediocrity.

Deep down I wanted to be proven wrong on some level. But this thing couldn’t even meet my lowest expectations. It was one cringe or disgusted groan inducing thing after another. After four decades of watching various films this one joins the ranks of utter disappointments right alongside the likes of Battlefield Earth, Starship Troopers, The Fifth Element, Superman Returns, Batman & Robin, Batman Forever, Insurrection, Nemesis and the recent remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still.

The cliché that things today are all flash and no substance is in truth usually overblown, but not here. This follows the true dumb action flick approach: cram it with stuff and run it all at breakneck speed to veil the fact that there's nothing of any sense happening.

No subtlety, Not a whit of intelligence. Not a hint of nuance. And not one measure of maturity.

Garbage.

Or this?

Set aside all the periphral elements I dislike. Look at the Kirk arc in this film since he's a central element of the story. This interpretation of Kirk has little to nothing but a smarmy, smartass attitude and no self-discipline. He later stows away aboard a ship where he has no standing and no position. After Pike acts outraged he then enlists the stowaway's help. Throughout the entire thing this Kirk never demonstrates any evidence of ability to command and lead and displays no substance to show why others should respect and follow him. And by the end of the story he gets command by an organization that apparently doesn't have very demanding standards.They give command to a hotshot neophyte who hasn't done anything of substance to show he's earned the prize of one of Starfleet's best ships within a very few span of years..

That's all up on the screen and none of it bears any resemblance to a believable scenario. The only reason this Kirk gets his captaincy is because that's where Abrams wanted the story to end up despite the fact that nothing in the preceeding two hours logically supports that conclusion. It's all nonsensical. And to make it all worse this portrayal of Kirk isn't likable. He's all swagger and smartass without one iota of roguish charm. He's I punk I wanted to kick from pretty much the onset. It isn't easy to cheer for a hero who shows little evidence of likability. It's made all the more worse by a portrayal that is essentially one dimensional with next to no nuance. Give us a different interpretation, yes, but give us something of substance. Instead of that approach why not show us a Kirk learning and earning his way? Show us someone developing the abilities and scars of leadership over the years--that's credible. Instead they portray an over-the-top caricarture of Kirk rather than a nuanced believable one.

Abrams has gone the route of an adolescent fantasy where the kid believes if he's macho and heroic enough he'll get to lay the girl, or in this case win command of the Enterprise.

This story is also about nothing but trying to force-fit two characters into a "destiny." Quinto's Spock has next to no range while Nimoy was adept at telegraphing so much through eyes and facial expression. But the whole point of this story is to get two cardboard cutouts together.

Now add back all the other things I disliked and you have a film that fails my definition of good Star Trek. Dismiss me as a regressive purist if you like, but you're making a TOS era film then I'm going to judge it by the show that established and defined that era. And even if you prefer a different series or film version of Trek you cannot deny that TOS is the genuine article.

But what really burns my ass is what happens when you elect to take a dissenting position. I'm not the only one, but anyone around here who is the minority positon of not accepting something TPTB proffer gets roasted and jeered for having an opposing viewpoint.

Everyone takes something different from a show based on their likes and dislikes. If your Trek doesn't take itself seriously than that's the Trek that'll make you happy. But if your Trek does strive for a good measure of credibility then that's what you'll look for. And the fact is TOS often made an effort to convey a sense of credibility in ideas, in chracterization and often in story.

This film doesn't make any such effort.

I'd say he's been pretty damned thorough.

Tough crowd.

 

[trevanian]

One of my co-workers saw the movie in the last couple days. This is a very sharp guy, a published poet, he has admired Kurosawa and Jean Renoir for forever and has a film knowledge that in many ways makes mine seem superficial.

But he is somebody who only knows TREK generally. He watched TOS and TNG, a bit of the others, and has seen the movies once or twice.

This very sharp guy came out of this movie thinking that Vulcan had blown up in the original timeline as well.

Just how vague or impressionistic is this mind meld, that a major story point like that can be rendered less than clear to somebody who keeps his head in the game when watching movies?

He's the only person I've spoken with at any length about it so far. The other two people at work who saw it just said it had lots of action and was funny.

 

[Gepard]

There is nothing APPROACHING courtesy or balance 'over there' and these posters are just calling it like it is.

And yet, somehow, my negative review thread there (and the posters discussing therein why they didn't like the film) is chugging along just fine and polite.

 

[Mallory]

^ As it should be. And except for the occasional bump along the way the threads discussing the movie in this forum have as well.

 

[trevanian]

There is nothing APPROACHING courtesy or balance 'over there' and these posters are just calling it like it is.

And yet, somehow, my negative review thread there (and the posters discussing therein why they didn't like the film) is chugging along just fine and polite.

Exception that proves the unspoken rule? (or maybe you just don't draw the fire that some others do. I've been calling Bailey on his shill and snipe tendencies for most of this century.)

 

[T'Bonz]

OK guys. Don't get personal. Have respect, even if you disagree with each other.

Common courtesy is only a viable commodity when it is mutual, otherwise it becomes license to be exploited as a sucker.

There is nothing APPROACHING courtesy or balance 'over there' and these posters are just calling it like it is.

[Romulan mode] This is a NON-mutual declaration. You WILL be polite to each other or I will kick your asses. Got it? [/Romulan mode]

 

[trevanian]

OK guys. Don't get personal. Have respect, even if you disagree with each other.

Common courtesy is only a viable commodity when it is mutual, otherwise it becomes license to be exploited as a sucker.

There is nothing APPROACHING courtesy or balance 'over there' and these posters are just calling it like it is.

[Romulan mode] This is a NON-mutual declaration. You WILL be polite to each other or I will kick your asses. Got it? [/Romulan mode]

You're just making it easier to stay away from here for more and more of the time.

For mostly intelligent conversation (both sides welcome), try mi6forums.com for their trek thread (over 400 pages of posts at present.)