Yeah, that must be it…it can’t be that most people really like the movie, including both the critics and the moviegoers. I must have some weird connection to it…
It’s probably your peculiar defensiveness that he’s picking up on. Like you said, most of us like the movie, and I’ve probably got three dozen posts defending plot elements of the movie scattered in the half dozen threads on it, but you’re coming off a bit emotionally compromised and petulant in this thread.
He’s obviously unfit to captainthis thread. His emotions have made him unfit for that particular duty.
I apologize that my attempt at humor comes off flat.
What’s the significance of the name Olson?
It’s the fact that the name WASN’T Scott.
If you say so. I am impressed with your ability to read someone’s emotional mood from a few words on a message board. But by all means, let’s make this about me rather than the topic.
The funniest example of this was in Galaxy Quest when Sam Rockwell’s character freaked out and ranted about how he was doomed to die since his character in the old TV series wasn’t important enough to have a last name.
Thanks. It is rather impressive, isn’t it?
You say some variant of that a lot. Humor really is a difficult concept for you, isn’t it? 
…I forgot how fun it was to needle you.
Indeed. :dubious:
And that’s a bad thing?
My fan credits:
Love TOS, love TNG more, DS9 is good but not great, couldn’t get into Voyager or Enterprise. Movie-wise, Wrath of Khan is my favorite, followed by Generations, First Contact and Voyage Home.
That said, I absolutely loved it!
Y’know, I never truly understood the phrase “We had to destroy it in order to save it” until I saw this movie. The reboot of the story was absolutely necessary to take the franchise to the next level, and Abrams totally nailed it! The interaction between the characters was as good as it’s ever been, and that was always my favorite aspect of Trek. The only character I didn’t absolutely love was Chekov, who was a bit too much of a caricature compared to the others. My favorite? Karl Urban as McCoy. I swear, I could hear DeForest Kelley’s voice every time he spoke. And McCoy’s backstory (the divorce) was wonderful. In fact, all the main characters’ backstories were great, and provided a much-needed explanation into their personalities.
OK, maybe Kirk moved up through the ranks a bit too fast–like TOS wasn’t chock full of improbabilities? It’s a movie and it’s fun–no more need be said.
I will be seeing this again this week–and more than likely next week as well. You wanna know why? Because, as much as I’ve liked most of the other Trek films, this was the first time…let me repeat that, first time… since TWOK that I actually had fun watching a Trek film!
Why? Is his existence actually denied in the movie? (The character was meant to be in the film at one time, according to online sources.)
Nope.
No, you’re not the only one.
This movie sucked. It violated canon bigtime. Violated, hell - it raped canon with a sandpaper rubber.
You feel that vibration under your feet? That’s old Gene rotating in his grave. And he’s up to about 200 rpm by now. I’m surprised that genuine Trekkers are charging the director’s house with torches and pitchforks.
Can you give examples of canon raping?
Mostly orneryness.
Though I’m not a continuity purist–like I said upthread, I’d have been fine with them not even paying lip service to the six tv series and ten previous movies–I am of the opinion that if it’s not shownon screen, it doesn’t count.
Besides, I was obliged to see the movie a second time (I’d promised my nephew I would take him weeks ago), so I had to do something to keep from gouging out my own eyes, and there were just so many cleavage shots of Zoe Saldana to look forward to.
Roddenberry made some good TV episodes but his movies were absolute shit. I know everyone disagrees with me but of the first ten movies I thought one was good and nine were bad, with some being just a little bad (First Contact) and some really, really bad, including, by the way, the usually well regarded Undiscovered Country, which I thought was a pile of dung. The one movie Roddenberry was deliberately pushed out of making creative decisions for - The Wrath of Khan - was the one really good movie made up to this point.
Gene Roddenberry is to be credited for coming up with a great idea but he’s not a bloody saint, and “canon” means squat. I’m looking forward to seeing where this series goes, even if this movie had some problems with the script.
One of the reasons this Star Trek movie will likely be the most commercially successful of the lot is that it’s fresh and exciting and doesn’t feel like something Gene Roddenberry did or that was put together by nad-slapping Trekkies more interested in “canon” than fun. It wasn’t perfect, but it had a lot of things going for it.
Amen and hear, hear on all points.
Good. By the end, Roddenberry was a charicature of himself. Anything that would have pleased him would have sucked.
Canon raping sounds like something a Nikon would do.
No, he was a sick old man who created Star Trek.
Please, that’s too insulting to a great talent.