[Ford Prefect]

Well, maybe I should qualify; I think it's mature in that it manages an engagement with its time that I don't think the other movies do. I don't ever expect incredible sophistication from Star Trek, but making a simple, engrossing adventure film is a craft in and of itself. And this movie succeeded in getting me so completely into it that I didn't find myself getting snagged on the weaker structural points. Of course it does boil down in great part to personal preference, and all I know is that while this isn't the only Star Trek movie I've enjoyed, it's the only one I've absolutely loved.

[General Battuta]

I think I could've enjoyed it on that level if a) it wasn't so damn loud (more a fault of the theater than the movie) and b) the soundtrack had been something memorable instead of Wagnerian noise.

[karajorma]

The special effects pissed me off no end. It's a classic case of spending a large amount of money to end up with SFX that don't actually illustrate what's going on very well.

[General Battuta]

A few of the shots were gorgeous, and I really liked the general direction of the art style (including all the lens flare), but I wanted more swooping establishing shots and a bit less jumpy editing.

[Mefustae]

A few of the shots were gorgeous, and I really liked the general direction of the art style (including all the lens flare), but I wanted more swooping establishing shots and a bit less jumpy editing.

Arguably, that's where the movie had its greatest success. It doesn't slow down at all, it keeps the pace so fast and frenetic that you don't have time to notice the gaping plot & logic holes, and you never even begin to take stock of any flaws. They probably storyboarded it specifically to keep the audience on their toes and never let them actually think about what's going on. Because, if the audience started thinking, they'd get about as far as "supernova threatening to destroy the Galaxy" before calling bull****.

[General Battuta]

The scene that really killed it for me was when Spock looked up from the surface of Delta Vega to see Vulcan imploding.

There was no way Vulcan would be that size in the sky. And Delta Vega was some distance away at warp speed, correct? The light would have taken years to get there.

I couldn't respect the movie after that. I know it seems an odd thing to get hung up on, but...even Star Wars kept its planets a reasonable distance apart.

EDIT: found a quote on the topic from a writer.

According to writer Roberto Orci, the part of the mind meld sequence in which Prime Spock sees the destruction of Vulcan was meant to be "as impressionistic for a general audience." The idea was that Spock saw the planet's destruction through "a telescope or some other type of measuring device," but showing it that way on-screen "isn't very cinematic." However, Orci himself prefers to think of Delta Vega as being in close orbit of Vulcan

Lazy, lazy writing. I can see why they did it but I don't respect it.

[The E]

Arguably, that's where the movie had its greatest success. It doesn't slow down at all, it keeps the pace so fast and frenetic that you don't have time to notice the gaping plot & logic holes, and you never even begin to take stock of any flaws. They probably storyboarded it specifically to keep the audience on their toes and never let them actually think about what's going on. Because, if the audience started thinking, they'd get about as far as "supernova threatening to destroy the Galaxy" before calling bull****.

But an approach like this practically guarantees that once people had a few days to think about the film, their opinion will worsen dramatically. This will hurt the franchise in the long run, IMHO. It is possible to write a movie that is internally consistent and doesn't suffer from the fridge logic effect and at the same time is thrilling and exciting. In Star Trek's case, the writing staff got a little overexcited at times, and seemed to believe that following the rule of cool to the letter would be a good substitute for good writing.
In some ways, this reminded me of the second Mission Impossible, which was constructed to provide a scaffolding to stitch the action setpieces together. In this case, I'm fairly certain the writers had a checklist with things they wanted to show, and then constructed a plot around those things.

So, saying that the movie moved fast enough to cover those plotholes sounds a lot like you're damning it with faint praise.

According to writer Roberto Orci, the part of the mind meld sequence in which Prime Spock sees the destruction of Vulcan was meant to be "as impressionistic for a general audience." The idea was that Spock saw the planet's destruction through "a telescope or some other type of measuring device," but showing it that way on-screen "isn't very cinematic." However, Orci himself prefers to think of Delta Vega as being in close orbit of Vulcan

Lazy, lazy writing. I can see why they did it but I don't respect it.

Seriously? I mean, what is wrong with the old Tarkin approach? Why not have Spock on Nero's ship, watching it from Nero's side as Starfleet makes a futile attempt at saving the planet? (Personally, I would have put Spock into a lifepod with disabled comm systems and put that lifepod in orbit around the planet or something like that.)

[Mikes]

Seriously? I mean, what is wrong with the old Tarkin approach? Why not have Spock on Nero's ship, watching it from Nero's side as Starfleet makes a futile attempt at saving the planet? (Personally, I would have put Spock into a lifepod with disabled comm systems and put that lifepod in orbit around the planet or something like that.)

:snickers: but clearly that could not have been done because how would Spock have met Kirk then who had to be on an ice planet in order to fight the leftover CGI monster from Cloverfield. /falls out of the chair laughing LOL.

I have to agree and believe it's pretty obvious that the writers got entangled with a "checklist of cool scenes to show" way too much for their own good, ultimately throwing any semblance of plot consistency or coherency completely out of the window in the 2nd half of the movie. The question of "how do we tell this story best" propably never entered the equation as it seems likely that they didn't even have a story to tell in the first place... , but rather a list of random "mandatory", yet disconnected, scenes, which they somehow (rather unsuccessfully) tried force into some kind of generic plot, which over the course of the movie is constantly coming apart at a very basic level.

[S-99]

Arguably, that's where the movie had its greatest success. It doesn't slow down at all, it keeps the pace so fast and frenetic that you don't have time to notice the gaping plot & logic holes, and you never even begin to take stock of any flaws. They probably storyboarded it specifically to keep the audience on their toes and never let them actually think about what's going on. Because, if the audience started thinking, they'd get about as far as "supernova threatening to destroy the Galaxy" before calling bull****.

But an approach like this practically guarantees that once people had a few days to think about the film, their opinion will worsen dramatically. This will hurt the franchise in the long run, IMHO. It is possible to write a movie that is internally consistent and doesn't suffer from the fridge logic effect and at the same time is thrilling and exciting. In Star Trek's case, the writing staff got a little overexcited at times, and seemed to believe that following the rule of cool to the letter would be a good substitute for good writing.
In some ways, this reminded me of the second Mission Impossible, which was constructed to provide a scaffolding to stitch the action setpieces together. In this case, I'm fairly certain the writers had a checklist with things they wanted to show, and then constructed a plot around those things.

So, saying that the movie moved fast enough to cover those plotholes sounds a lot like you're damning it with faint praise.

According to writer Roberto Orci, the part of the mind meld sequence in which Prime Spock sees the destruction of Vulcan was meant to be "as impressionistic for a general audience." The idea was that Spock saw the planet's destruction through "a telescope or some other type of measuring device," but showing it that way on-screen "isn't very cinematic." However, Orci himself prefers to think of Delta Vega as being in close orbit of Vulcan

Lazy, lazy writing. I can see why they did it but I don't respect it.

Seriously? I mean, what is wrong with the old Tarkin approach? Why not have Spock on Nero's ship, watching it from Nero's side as Starfleet makes a futile attempt at saving the planet? (Personally, I would have put Spock into a lifepod with disabled comm systems and put that lifepod in orbit around the planet or something like that.)

fanboi

[Mefustae]

*Snip*

fanboi

What a cunning rebuttal, sir! I shall henceforth no longer lend my support to such frivolous and easily dashed claims. Certainly, you have shaken my very outlook on life. I tip my hat to you, sir.

[S-99]

Only FANBOIYE (the e) could explain away any plot hole, ****ty technobabble, bad acting, sfx, and visuals, as well as many other things.

[The E]

Only FANBOIYE (the e) could explain away any plot hole, ****ty technobabble, bad acting, sfx, and visuals, as well as many other things.

A fanboy....or a decent scriptwriter. Look, it's all about suspension of disbelief. The screenwriter has to make me believe that what I see on screen really could be happening. While I was in the cinema, it worked. But the more I think about it, the more egregious the plotholes become. Oh, and by the way, your comment desperately needs some elaboration.

[General Battuta]

Only FANBOIYE (the e) could explain away any plot hole, ****ty technobabble, bad acting, sfx, and visuals, as well as many other things.

But he was criticizing the plot holes/technobabble. Did you read his post?

[S-99]

I know, he had some praise in there too. It's the fact that he keeps going.

[Pred the Penguin]

A few of the shots were gorgeous, and I really liked the general direction of the art style (including all the lens flare), but I wanted more swooping establishing shots and a bit less jumpy editing.

Arguably, that's where the movie had its greatest success. It doesn't slow down at all, it keeps the pace so fast and frenetic that you don't have time to notice the gaping plot & logic holes, and you never even begin to take stock of any flaws. They probably storyboarded it specifically to keep the audience on their toes and never let them actually think about what's going on. Because, if the audience started thinking, they'd get about as far as "supernova threatening to destroy the Galaxy" before calling bull****.

lol.... I just remembered how stupid that was. XD

[The E]

I know, he had some praise in there too. It's the fact that he keeps going.

What do you mean? If you are referring to my older posts in this thread (at least I THINK they were in this one, too lazy to check right now), consider them a demonstration of the fridge logic effect I mentioned before. If you are referring to the latest ones, please point out the praise to me, because I have trouble seeing it.

It's not like my opinions are written in stone, you know. I do reserve the right to change them.

[Mikes]

But he was criticizing the plot holes/technobabble. Did you read his post?

My guess would be a confusion with all the multiquotes in that post hehe

[General Battuta]

I know, he had some praise in there too. It's the fact that he keeps going.

Keeps going on...what?

[NGTM-1R]

Only FANBOIYE (the e) could explain away any plot hole, ****ty technobabble, bad acting, sfx, and visuals, as well as many other things.

How intelligent you are!

Oh wait.

It's the reverse again. Sorry.

[Kie99]

Huge plotholes, no doubt about that, but the film was also hugely enjoyable, best I've seen since The Dark Knight.