Star Trek XI (Abrams, 2009) - Part 2
12-02-08, 02:55 PM
#28
Suspended
I've seen the trailer and think it will be bad. For some reason, this is unacceptable and evilly close-minded of me.
I don't like this officially-sanctioned opinion crap.
You're such a martyr. 
12-02-08, 03:06 PM
#30
No, there are people who've said it looks like it will be good, and no one comes in here and gives them shit in post after post.
I've seen the trailer and think it will be bad. For some reason, this is unacceptable and evilly close-minded of me.
I don't like this officially-sanctioned opinion crap.
I've seen the trailer and think it will be bad. For some reason, this is unacceptable and evilly close-minded of me.
I don't like this officially-sanctioned opinion crap.
12-02-08, 03:10 PM
#32
Suspended
Read through the previous thread. The opinions expressed by the mod there in response to my posts appear to have been adopted as the official position one must take in order to appear open minded and to avoid being dogpiled on.
We can say positive and hopeful things based on the trailer, but saying anything negative is unwarranted, because we only have the trailer (and a shitload of leaked details) to base an opinion upon.
We can say positive and hopeful things based on the trailer, but saying anything negative is unwarranted, because we only have the trailer (and a shitload of leaked details) to base an opinion upon.
12-02-08, 03:16 PM
#34
Moderator
I think you're confusing comments from the moderator as a member of this forum as official moderation posts. Generally, if it ain't in italics they ain't speaking as a moderator.
12-02-08, 03:22 PM
#35
Suspended
If you'll go back and look, you'll see that the first time I used the term "officially sanctioned," I put it into scare quotes, as I wasn't using the term to literally mean that dissenting opinions would be punished through the moderation system, but that that dissenting opinions were being punished nonetheless, by ganging up on dissenters and subjecting them to ridicule.
Either way, the effect is turning these threads into positive-only threads.
12-02-08, 03:26 PM
#36
DVD Talk Hero
I've been paying attention to this conversation for, oh, exactly 3 minutes and 17 seconds now and I find it boring.
The movie is still 5 months away. You can have a sense of doom and gloom. You can have a sense of "open mindedness". You can be completely apathetic about the whole thing. All are valid positions.
There is no point trying to sway anyone any way. Conversation about the movie's merits (or lack thereof) at this point is trivial at best.
What is there to fight over for the moderators to give a shit one way or another? There's no reason for anyone to take it so personal.
The movie is still 5 months away. You can have a sense of doom and gloom. You can have a sense of "open mindedness". You can be completely apathetic about the whole thing. All are valid positions.
There is no point trying to sway anyone any way. Conversation about the movie's merits (or lack thereof) at this point is trivial at best.
What is there to fight over for the moderators to give a shit one way or another? There's no reason for anyone to take it so personal.
12-02-08, 03:54 PM
#37
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
I'm sorry, the nacelles thing is so myopic as to border on pedantry. I can understand (and sometimes appreciate) excessive attention to detail in films, but most of this obsessive hunt for accuracy should be reserved for historical pictures and never at the expense of story.
Considering Star Trek, by the admission of its own fans, hasn't had an exciting twitch on its flogged dead horse of a storyline in close to a decade, I think there are bigger overall concerns than the placement of the nacelles.
Considering Star Trek, by the admission of its own fans, hasn't had an exciting twitch on its flogged dead horse of a storyline in close to a decade, I think there are bigger overall concerns than the placement of the nacelles.
I'm not even talking about accuracy of the ship design. I just think it is a terrible design period.
12-02-08, 04:22 PM
#38
Moderator
Mod note: I am, AFAIK, the only active mod in Movie Talk. I just looked, and I made exactly one post in the previous Star Trek XI thread, and that was to announce that I was closing it for length. Anyone who thinks that there is some official position here to stifle negative comments about any movie is imagining it. Period.
12-02-08, 11:06 PM
#40
Banned by request
Mod note: I am, AFAIK, the only active mod in Movie Talk. I just looked, and I made exactly one post in the previous Star Trek XI thread, and that was to announce that I was closing it for length. Anyone who thinks that there is some official position here to stifle negative comments about any movie is imagining it. Period.
For future reference to anyone here who may not know, I moderate HD Talk and Video Game Talk and always make it clear when I am acting as a moderator.
For what it's worth, Ron, I think your concerns might be better addressed by starting a thread in Feedback. That, however, is my opinion as a general member of this forum, and not a comment as a moderator.
12-03-08, 07:45 AM
#42
Enormous Genitals
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a small cottage on a cul de sac in the lower pits of hell.
Posts: 37,234
Received 583 Likes
on
335 Posts
It's not the "I think this movie will suck" posts that got people angry, it's the "if you think this looks good you can't possibly be a true Star Trek fan" posts that got people angry.
Anyway, I'm still stoked for a new Trek film, especially with Abrams at the helm. Maybe it will be great, and maybe it will suck, but I'm going to go see it and then form my opionion.
Anyway, I'm still stoked for a new Trek film, especially with Abrams at the helm. Maybe it will be great, and maybe it will suck, but I'm going to go see it and then form my opionion.
12-04-08, 01:10 AM
#47
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will see this and it looks kind of cool. But it also looks like an action flick crossed with a WB teen soap.
I like that they're going with an outside director/screenwriter instead of the usual in-house suspects.. but I wish they'd stop trying to re-create Wrath of Khan (flashy charismatic villain, some vendetta against Kirk).. the shows were much more interesting and nuanced than that. When will Star Trek actually be sci-fi again rather than the tired Battleship/Die Hard on a Spaceship formula they've used for all but parts 1 and 4?
The films have never really lived up to the series in ideas and content.
I like that they're going with an outside director/screenwriter instead of the usual in-house suspects.. but I wish they'd stop trying to re-create Wrath of Khan (flashy charismatic villain, some vendetta against Kirk).. the shows were much more interesting and nuanced than that. When will Star Trek actually be sci-fi again rather than the tired Battleship/Die Hard on a Spaceship formula they've used for all but parts 1 and 4?
The films have never really lived up to the series in ideas and content.
12-04-08, 02:48 AM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Just South of Nowhere
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not confusing anything. I'm merely pointing out that those statements seem to have become the parameters within which this discussion is now allowed to take place. Anyone moving outside of those parameters is subjected to ridicule.
If you'll go back and look, you'll see that the first time I used the term "officially sanctioned," I put it into scare quotes, as I wasn't using the term to literally mean that dissenting opinions would be punished through the moderation system, but that that dissenting opinions were being punished nonetheless, by ganging up on dissenters and subjecting them to ridicule.
Either way, the effect is turning these threads into positive-only threads.
If you'll go back and look, you'll see that the first time I used the term "officially sanctioned," I put it into scare quotes, as I wasn't using the term to literally mean that dissenting opinions would be punished through the moderation system, but that that dissenting opinions were being punished nonetheless, by ganging up on dissenters and subjecting them to ridicule.
Either way, the effect is turning these threads into positive-only threads.
Forgive me Ron but I was of the understanding that posting ANYTHING on the DVDtalk forums left your liable for ridicule. This your first rodeo?
12-04-08, 03:08 PM
#49
Banned by request
I like that they're going with an outside director/screenwriter instead of the usual in-house suspects.. but I wish they'd stop trying to re-create Wrath of Khan (flashy charismatic villain, some vendetta against Kirk).. the shows were much more interesting and nuanced than that. When will Star Trek actually be sci-fi again rather than the tired Battleship/Die Hard on a Spaceship formula they've used for all but parts 1 and 4?
The films have never really lived up to the series in ideas and content.
The films have never really lived up to the series in ideas and content.