461

I also like truck and tractor pulls. And rooting for grubs.

But seriously, have you considered, for a moment, stepping back and examining why the people who liked it liked it, without projecting onto them a speculative package of contemptible qualities that fall outside the realm of the film itself? Because as others have said, this film is being enjoyed by at least some folks who don’t like, say, Armageddon. And other people have noted many of the flaws you’ve noted (with less venom), and then communicated why they liked the movie anyway. Are you just choosing to ignore that? Do you think they’re lying?

462

Grubs? Blu-Ray? Sign me up!

463

Forum posters love them some Star Trek!

C’mon man, I’ve seen forums where every damn sig is larger than that text quote. I can’t imagine you’re going to get much traction calling out QT3ers as internet dolts, but you may accidentally chip your monocle while doing so.

464

As they used to say on GEnie, inspired by a TOS episode, even: DNFTEC!

As for plot holes, gaps, and other questions brought up in the past 12 pages, Orci and Kurtzman actually opened themselves up to questions from the TrekMovie.com fanatics. Interesting stuff there. Summary at the top, but if you’re bored, it’s more fun to skip that and read the whole question stream:
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/22/orci-and-kurtzman-reveal-star-trek-details-in-trekmovie-fan-qa/

465

Ugh. It’s just painful how stupid some of the questions are.

466

I don’t think Star Trek is the greatest Star Trek film that could ever be put to celluloid / digital, but it’s a hell of a good step in the right direction from the uninspiring drivel we’ve had to put up with in recent years on the big and small screens. It also realises that Star Trek, if it is ever going to survive as a franchise, needs to address mainstream needs and be commercially successful*. Frankly I’m glad they blew up Vulcan - it’s exactly the kind of attitude they needed.

*I do not think that “commercially successful” means treating your audience like idiots, incidentally.

467

Dude we get it you dont like it LET IT GO MAN!!! So much anger for 1 movie lol its kinda of sad.

468

On the one hand, you may have a point. On the other hand, the post immediately above this one.

Another reason to disdain “Star Trek”-- confusion from this point forward over whether people are referring to the entire body of work, or this particular movie.

469

You’ve posted reasons? All I’ve read from you so far are fairly nonspecific blanket criticisms for both the film and anyone who professes to like it.

“Flaws.” I think you mean “editing/cinemetography decisions.”

It’s really not, I’m sorry. There wasn’t anything remotely confusing about the action sequences. In fact:

…you just said so yourself!

Oh, I see. It’s like this:

Kirk hiding from Nero in Saturn’s rings: STOOPID

Kirk hiding from Khan in a nebula: TACTICAL INTRIGUE

Seriously man, for all the trash you’re talking about people who liked this film…you just suck.

I already defended it, your hands clapped over your ears and your eyes squinted shut notwithstanding.

Seriously, you can’t follow the action sequences and you can’t make out faces. When was the last time you had an appointment with your optometrist?

For one, those weren’t the only humorous moments in the film, far from it. Two, the other Trek films can barely prompt a chuckle in their better parts.

Twice in both instances = repetitive. OK, sure.

Again, twice = “so many.”

What are you even talking about here? Kirk had already taken prerequisite testing for the Academy and was off the charts (as Pike implied) and was invited to join as a result. He was recruited. Scotty (and Bones) made chief by attrition and Spock…was assigned? And was arguably the most capable science officer in all of Star Fleet.

Hahahahaha, oh you. Something interesting and new finally happens and you cry about it.

He could have been made First Officer out of the Academy, that’s how it works. Yeah it was quick, but it hardly destroyed the film.

Nobody is suprised about anything but that it was a lot better than most people were fearing it might be. Also, really, your issues with things blowing up in action films is a “you” problem. I think maybe you should consider the possibility that it is essentially impossible for anyone to make a Trek film that you would like.

470

I can buy that sort of career advancement in The Hudsucker Proxy, but in a supposedly serious film, not so much.

Wait this is a star trek film, not Godfather right? Serious film?
Summer blockbuster= Amusement park ride. It is the rare one that surpasses this, not the norm. If you go in expecting awesome serious film with anything released between may and sept- boy you are in for a shit ton of disappointment in your life. For every T2 or Aliens, there is a 1000 fun but mindless geek films.

471

ucdom: Why, when Titan orbits in the same plane as Saturn’s rings, do we see the rings at a high angle when the Enterprise emerges from the top of Titan’s ludicrously thick atmospheric haze (PORCOOOOOOOOOO!!) ? And don’t give me that artistic license shenanigans - hire a science consultant or don’t.

Zylon is ucdom?

472

Hold on, are you suggesting that T2 and Aliens rise above mindless geek films?

473

Yes, I meant both those things. That’s why I said them. Did you just read the odd-numbered sentences? Lens flare is a flaw. Unsteady camera work is a flaw. These things look bad, which is why the film industry has done everything in its power to eliminate them. The fact that Abrams included them on purpose doesn’t magically make it look good. I realize this sort of camera work is in vogue right now, but frankly, I hate it. BSG pushed this gimmick about as far as I could tolerate, and even it looks like a model of restraint compared to Star Trek’s manic gyrations.

It’s really not, I’m sorry. There wasn’t anything remotely confusing about the action sequences. In fact:

…you just said so yourself!

The fact that one could tell what was broadly happening in the battle sequences can quite happily coexist with the fact that they were choppily edited.

Hahahahaha, oh you. Something interesting and new finally happens and you cry about it.

Any hack writer can walk into an established franchise and say “Hey! Let’s kill off __________!”. You may find that sort of thing interesting. I find it lazy. And before anyone trots out Spock’s death in Wrath of Khan, I remind you that killing off Spock was what it took to get Nimoy to appear in the film.

I think maybe you should consider the possibility that it is essentially impossible for anyone to make a Trek film that you would like.

Except that I did like Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, and First Contact. Even Search for Spock and The Motion Picture had their moments. So there goes that theory.

Listen, howler monkeys. I’m fully aware that very much of what I’ve pointed out is nitpicking. Every movie can be nitpicked to some degree. But nitpicks add up, and Star Trek has so very many little and not-so-little flaws and irritants (culminating with a principle villain whose actions don’t make any sense) that they added up to me not particularly caring for it.

474

DO NOT FEED THE ENERGY CREATURE.

It thrives off the hate of others.

475

Question? For us that love the film are we supposed to read your posts and hate it? I dont get this stuff in discussions of games either. Trying like hell to get people to not like something you dont like. Ton of stuff I hate, but to each his own. Im sure there are movies you love that I cant stand, but I could give a rats butt! :)

476

So what should someone do on a discussion forum if they hated something? Just stay quiet and let the fans gush over it for pages on end?

477

It’s Zylon, it’s what he does. He is very consistently negative about…well, nearly everything. I suppose it may be that he’s more likely to post about something he dislikes than likes and that may distort the way he gets perceived, but his hate-on for Star trek is both predictable and comforting.

Also, someone should tell ex-astris-scienta.org that it’s the 21st century and if you can’t afford people hot-linking to your images, get off the damn Internet. /zylon

478

Trek was much steadier than a lot of shaky cam movies. I’d say it was more traditionally shot than the Bourne movies, for example.

Thing is, while many people hate the expressive “professional handheld” look, most people adapted to and accepted it as a valid choice for filmmakers. I expect that throughout film history people have reacted against developments in style, from talkies to steadicam to computer animation. Those people eventually either adapt to the change in artistic language or get left behind by mainstream film.

479

This is just retarded. The film industry has done everything in its power to eliminate unintentional unsteady camera work, so that directors who want a steady shot can get one. That doesn’t mean intentional unsteady work is a flaw, it’s just a choice – one that might not be your cup of tea, one that you might disagree with, but still just an artistic choice. It might be a bad choice, depending on the circumstances, but it isn’t a fuckup in the way you seem to be implying.

The movie industry has done everything in its power to be sure that directors can capture moving images in vivid color, too – does that mean the washed-out look of Saving Private Ryan or the choice of black and white for Raging Bull and Schindler’s List represent flaws?

480

Discussion is one thing but just to put something down for the sake of dumping on it is another. Whats wrong with fans gushing over something?