The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Canon-fans: Why have you been abandoned?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:05 AM
Bright Eyes's Avatar
Bright Eyes Bright Eyes is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 262
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoore View Post
"Straw man" again? How many posts has that term been used in since the "logical fallacies" thing? Good grief, can we latch onto something different next week?

Tin man, maybe?

Though that may have some people chaffing at the bit. But what the hay! So long as we don't cause anyone to stubble on the road.
__________________
_________________________________
If you are too open minded your brains will fall out.





Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:23 AM
TAReber TAReber is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoore View Post
"Straw man" again? How many posts has that term been used in since the "logical fallacies" thing? Good grief, can we latch onto something different next week?
Informal fallacies
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-04-2008, 05:30 AM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAReber View Post
It very well could be a strawman fallacy, You have taken an event and irrelevant data to twist an argument in support of a weak conclusion.
I'd love to see you explain how profit figures are "irrelevant" to a movie studio's decision-making at the corporate level. As whatsername in Voyage Home said, "I wouldn't miss it for all the tea in China".
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-04-2008, 06:02 AM
mmoore's Avatar
mmoore mmoore is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: OKUSA
Posts: 1,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bright Eyes View Post
Tin man, maybe?

Though that may have some people chaffing at the bit. But what the hay! So long as we don't cause anyone to stubble on the road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAReber View Post
Informal fallacies
Don't avoid the point. It's been like "Word of the Day" toilet paper around here. Unlatch and move on.
__________________
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-04-2008, 06:10 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAReber View Post
I do believe it were the The next generation movies that were different from what is normally considered star trek. Because of the drastic changes in this movie, I do believe we have every right to question it due to past experiences with change.

It very well could be a strawman fallacy, You have taken an event and irrelevant data to twist an argument in support of a weak conclusion.
No matter whether you like them or not, they are still Star Trek. You know, there is other Star Trek besides TOS and the six movies ...
Anyway, what matters to studios is box office performance and the rate of return on their invested money, so the only error might be that rate of returns might better represent the studio's opinion about the performance of their movies instead of the simple surplus.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-04-2008, 10:36 AM
WildGunsTomcat's Avatar
WildGunsTomcat WildGunsTomcat is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
The way I see it, Nemesis justified all the criticism it got, and what was directed at the trailer, sadly, was predominantly true.



Oh, I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I'll say it anyway:

Maybe this time it should be.

I hope Abrams didn't helm something as lackadaisical, apathetic and half-assed as Nemesis. But if it turns out he did... let it end.
Star Trek will never die though Saint.

There will always be a fan base DEMANDING that a movie be made or a TV series.

There will always be a market....fan fiction....books...games.

Star Trek is part of the culture. There's no way it will just go away.

It may lay dead for a while though.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-04-2008, 11:02 AM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
Dude...I don't know why he didn't get that...
Its not canon that's the problem...
It's bad writing.

I can't believe you made a thread for this strawman. C'mon. We all know
this.


And Omegaman...You're wrong too. Not every movie other than those are poorly concieved....what's with the sweeping generalizations and blistering hyperboly on this thread
I'm only speaking about the Trek Movies, not any other movie and we are both right in own own way. That's the power of individualism!
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-04-2008, 01:22 PM
TAReber TAReber is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTJG Iferal View Post
I'd love to see you explain how profit figures are "irrelevant" to a movie studio's decision-making at the corporate level. As whatsername in Voyage Home said, "I wouldn't miss it for all the tea in China".
Claiming that the post was only about why paramount did not care to make other movies, which was a good argument, is not true.

A lot of non-sense was posted afterwards which came off as a second conclusion that "canonites" are not as loyal as they think they are. That being a second conclusion with some irrelevant reasons why.

I would say a seven million dollar profit on nemesis was quite good, Star Trek fans really pulled through on that one, because we know some Harry fricken Potter fans didn't contribute to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
No matter whether you like them or not, they are still Star Trek. You know, there is other Star Trek besides TOS and the six movies ...
Anyway, what matters to studios is box office performance and the rate of return on their invested money, so the only error might be that rate of returns might better represent the studio's opinion about the performance of their movies instead of the simple surplus.
I never stated that it was not Star Trek, I just said it was different as in a changed star Trek from, what would inevitably be the original star trek movies. Take the mystery of V'ger in the first movie vs nemesis, or insurrection. A completely different type of plot made a completely different type of movie. I would rather see a movie where the plot requires reason rather then big photon torpedoes and kung fu followed by a huge explosion at the end.

Although I did like first contact.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-05-2008, 10:33 AM
Chucky D's Avatar
Chucky D Chucky D is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: in hiding from the Men in Black
Posts: 498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaman View Post
lets face it, all of the Star Trek movies with the exception of The Voyage Home (which I rate a 7 out of 10) were mediocre, poorly conceived, poorly written and poorly executed.

Who should we blame for that?

I'd say, the people who lacked vision and those who said, "Sorry, we don't have the budget to do that!" and those who thought they could triple their investment for every dollar they could save!
I didn't think TWOK was poorly conceived or executed. It had an exciting plot with a strong tie-in to TOS. We also saw some of the best acting and character development by Shatner and Nimoy in their respective roles. Yes the film was limited by a smaller budget (than TMP) and by the film-making technology available in 1982. However, there were still some eye-catching effects for the day - like the space battles between the Reliant and the Enterprise. For example, before TWOK had we ever seen an actual explosion on the bridge from a direct torpedo hit?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-05-2008, 10:41 AM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radoskal View Post
Personally I can tell you where I was in December of 02, at least for a few hours. In my College town theater, which by the way is for some reason an hour outside of the college town, SEEING NEMESIS...oh and did I also mention I bought the DVD of Nemesis? just to have all 10 trek movies. Yeah, I'm sure I'm not the only one. So if you ask me if I personally feel justified in my position, you sure bet I do. That 7 million had to come from somewhere, and part of it came out of my pocket. I regretted it afterwards. They should have given the director's job to Frakes, like he wanted, and stuck with the original script.
Frakes directed Insurrection.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:30 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.