Critics Of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” Blast New Film

I think Maz Kanata didn't really convince as the new "yoda".

I think that part could be merged into Leia. She is strong with the force yet doesn't understand it. She could easily introduce Rey to the force and reckon her as a potential Jedi, offer her Luke's Saber and help her find Luke to start her training.
 
I think Maz Kanata didn't really convince as the new "yoda".

I think that part could be merged into Leia. She is strong with the force yet doesn't understand it. She could easily introduce Rey to the force and reckon her as a potential Jedi, offer her Luke's Saber and help her find Luke to start her training.

I don't think she is the new "Yoda" specifically. This movie seemed to divide or split certain roles we saw in the original trilogy. I think she may provide sage type wisdom as Yoda did, but Luke will provide training the way Yoda trained him.
 
Like Luke right? Or do you think that little hyperspace jump to Alderan was enough time for Obi-Wan to train Luke into a saber master able to go toe to toe with Darth Vader? Maz gives her just as much training as she needed when she told her that the force is there for her and she just had to feel it and let it guide her. Rey knew of the stories and feats of the Jedi and she was trying to emulate what she heard, especially when she mind tricks the stormtrooper, who just happened to be Daniel Craig. During the final saber duel, she does her best Qui-Gon impersonation and finds the force and lets it direct her, similar to Luke's training on the falcon when he put on the blast helmet.

Luke didn't go toe to toe with Vader 1 minute after first activating a saber for the first time. He was given an introduction in force sense training by Obi-Wan on the way to Alderan. For the rest of the movie he used a blaster. it was Obi-Wan who engaged Vader. Then some undetermined gap of time occurs before Empire. Where he could have self-trained to a point or at least got saber training (sans force) and then spends a vague period of time on Degobah to train with yoda. The he proceeds to engage Vader and lose badly. Then after some more undetermined period of time he's a Jedi in Jedi. Then he almost defeats Vader but essentially surrenders because he's starting to go to the Dark Side. So he actually lost twice.

I just came from the movie and that is the most glaring fault. Rey goes from never activating the saber ever before to minutes later defeating the Vader knock off who has had years of training. Cannot be undone.
 
Luke didn't go toe to toe with Vader 1 minute after first activating a saber for the first time. He was given an introduction in force sense training by Obi-Wan on the way to Alderan. For the rest of the movie he used a blaster. it was Obi-Wan who engaged Vader. Then some undetermined gap of time occurs before Empire. Where he could have self-trained to a point or at least got saber training (sans force) and then spends a vague period of time on Degobah to train with yoda. The he proceeds to engage Vader and lose badly. Then after some more undetermined period of time he's a Jedi in Jedi. Then he almost defeats Vader but essentially surrenders because he's starting to go to the Dark Side. So he actually lost twice.

I just came from the movie and that is the most glaring fault. Rey goes from never activating the saber ever before to minutes later defeating the Vader knock off who has had years of training. Cannot be undone.

There is roughly three years between The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Luke didn't lose twice though. Vader was down and didn't threaten him again. He tossed his saber away after refusing to kill Darth Vader. If anything he lost to the Emperor.
 
There is roughly three years between The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Luke didn't lose twice though. Vader was down and didn't threaten him again. He tossed his saber away after refusing to kill Darth Vader. If anything he lost to the Emperor.

He was on an emotional tear after Vader threatened to turn his sister, such an emonally fueled use of the force was the path to the dark side. Only then did he have the upper hand. The Emperor was gloating at Luke's emotional release because he knew what it meant. Then after chopping off Vader's cybernetic hand reminding of his own, he realized the path he was on. He surrendered (dropping his saber on board an enemy ship means surrender they shouldn't have to spell out everything) rather than become like his father.
 
I basically look at is as:

Were you entertained:

[ ] Yes?
[ ] No?

Anything beyond that is simply an exercise in dicksizing.

For one that's just your opinion on what makes a good movie. Two, not everyone is entertained by the same type of things that you are. Three. some people don't just look to movies for mindless entertainment. Some people like to actually watch something thought provoking and intelligent because it helps them "enjoy" the experience rather than just "watch" it. Pure watching is the field of entertainment. Actually thinking about what you're watching is the field of semi-interactive enjoyment. All you're doing is trying to bundle all of the things that comprise a person's possible opinion of the movie into one bundle at that point: the word "entertainment". That doesn't do anyone any favors.

I'm kind of on the middle ground out of that criteria. I can selectively turn off my mind and critical thinking for certain films. Generally as long as the movie just sticks to doing mindless entertainment well, I'll let it go. I do the same thing for moe or comedy-focused anime. After all they aren't going to have deep plots. Thing is, I couldn't even do that for this SW. I wasn't even trying. The flaws of the whole package were so glaring I couldn't even turn off my mind. Again this isn't even coming from an SW fanatic of any sort. The cliche/trope-ridden mess was just hard for me to watch at every level.
 
From what I gather going around to different forums if you really like the new SW TFA movie and find it good/quality you are immediately jumped on by the hard core fan boys as being in denial, have no idea what you are talking about or one of the masses of sheeple...blah, blah something about McDonald's hamburgers. That about sum it up? Oh yeah, and they put you on ignore because FU...LOL
 
He was on an emotional tear after Vader threatened to turn his sister, such an emonally fueled use of the force was the path to the dark side. Only then did he have the upper hand. The Emperor was gloating at Luke's emotional release because he knew what it meant. Then after chopping off Vader's cybernetic hand reminding of his own, he realized the path he was on. He surrendered (dropping his saber on board an enemy ship means surrender they shouldn't have to spell out everything) rather than become like his father.

Yes, I know all of this.

From what I gather going around to different forums if you really like the new SW TFA movie and find it good/quality you are immediately jumped on by the hard core fan boys as being in denial, have no idea what you are talking about or one of the masses of sheeple...blah, blah something about McDonald's hamburgers. That about sum it up? Oh yeah, and they put you on ignore because FU...LOL

Sounds like people who want to hate the film because it's cool to do so. I could pick apart virtually any film if I felt like it. I suspect, I wouldn't like very many films if I over analyzed them.
 
Seriously? Voyager was the best thing that ever happened to Star Trek. Deep Space 9 was just a soap opera with idiot characters taking turns falling in love. They couldn't come up with many good episode stories, so they just recycled the "oh I want to fall in love too and finally do" theme. Also, the Bajoran messiah person was a sociopath who was annoying and believed in their stupid religion.

Sorry, but Deep Space 9 was probably the lamest Star Trek ever created.

Also, I don't know what you have against the warp 10 episode. It was OK in my opinion. Not the best episode ever but certainly not the worst.

Biggest piece of nonsense I've heard. The story arc of the dominion war from season 3 to 7 was the best star trek there ever was. It showed that people in the st universe were real people, who made real (and sometimes hard) decisions. In The Pale Moonlight, anyone?

Voyager? Seven seasons of boring protagonists and antagonists. Species 8472? No thanks.
 
Seriously? Voyager was the best thing that ever happened to Star Trek. Deep Space 9 was just a soap opera with idiot characters taking turns falling in love. They couldn't come up with many good episode stories, so they just recycled the "oh I want to fall in love too and finally do" theme. Also, the Bajoran messiah person was a sociopath who was annoying and believed in their stupid religion.

Sorry, but Deep Space 9 was probably the lamest Star Trek ever created.

Also, I don't know what you have against the warp 10 episode. It was OK in my opinion. Not the best episode ever but certainly not the worst.

Did you even watch Deep Space 9 or are you basing your entire opinion off of a handful of episodes?
 
Biggest piece of nonsense I've heard. The story arc of the dominion war from season 3 to 7 was the best star trek there ever was. It showed that people in the st universe were real people, who made real (and sometimes hard) decisions. In The Pale Moonlight, anyone?

Voyager? Seven seasons of boring protagonists and antagonists. Species 8472? No thanks.

Don't forget how they kept running into the same people, over and over. One wonders if Paris even knew how to navigate the ship since they kept running into the same alien races year after year after year.

A completely botched show. Here you have a great concept : Starfleet without Starfleet, stuck far away from home with terrorists and rebels as part of the crew. And what do they do? They turn it into the equivalent of a boring car ride with Harry Kim as the annoying kid asking are we there yet. Almost no conflict between Starfleet and Maquis whatsoever; no real struggle for survival (Janeway not getting her coffee does not count as struggling for survival), the ship magically gets repaired to factory fresh condition after every episode (despite not having access to a spacedock) and Chakotay seems to be able to crash an unlimited number of shuttles without having to worry about replacing them.

If you want to see how Voyager should have been done, look at Battlestar Galactica. Ron Moore is on record as saying that is how he would have done Voyager if he were in charge (instead, he was pretty much cashiered out after only two episodes after joining once DS9 ended because of conflicts with Braga).
 
Biggest piece of nonsense I've heard. The story arc of the dominion war from season 3 to 7 was the best star trek there ever was. It showed that people in the st universe were real people, who made real (and sometimes hard) decisions. In The Pale Moonlight, anyone?

Voyager? Seven seasons of boring protagonists and antagonists. Species 8472? No thanks.

Exactly.

Did you even watch Deep Space 9 or are you basing your entire opinion off of a handful of episodes?

As much of a fan of the show as I am, it wasn't without its issues. The filler episodes were complete trash and they did the mirror universe stuff too often. Still, I'll match DS9 with any Star Trek series that's been done so far. I think when you tally the good and the bad, it will come out on top.

Don't forget how they kept running into the same people, over and over. One wonders if Paris even knew how to navigate the ship since they kept running into the same alien races year after year after year.

A completely botched show. Here you have a great concept : Starfleet without Starfleet, stuck far away from home with terrorists and rebels as part of the crew. And what do they do? They turn it into the equivalent of a boring car ride with Harry Kim as the annoying kid asking are we there yet. Almost no conflict between Starfleet and Maquis whatsoever; no real struggle for survival (Janeway not getting her coffee does not count as struggling for survival), the ship magically gets repaired to factory fresh condition after every episode (despite not having access to a spacedock) and Chakotay seems to be able to crash an unlimited number of shuttles without having to worry about replacing them.

If you want to see how Voyager should have been done, look at Battlestar Galactica. Ron Moore is on record as saying that is how he would have done Voyager if he were in charge (instead, he was pretty much cashiered out after only two episodes after joining once DS9 ended because of conflicts with Braga).

I agreed with you until you mentioned Battlestar Galactica. While there are some good things to be taken from it, the show was a mess. The visuals weren't great. The ship sets were good but anything that took place on planets was just bad. All the characters had the same exact character flaws and I got sick and tired of everyone trying to fuck everyone else over. Then they recycled the "someone's a cylon" bit over and over again. I watched through Season 2 and I couldn't tolerate anymore bullshit for Season 3. The first and second seasons also had horrific fucking pacing.
 
For one that's just your opinion on what makes a good movie

Really Lebowski?

Thats_just_your_opinion.jpg


:eek: :eek: :eek:

Whoa. Guess I was told!

So you're saying that you can go to a movie, not be entertained in any way, shape or form, but it's still, somehow, a decent movie?

You'll pardon my utter lack of credulity on this'un.


Two, not everyone is entertained by the same type of things that you are.

Please point out where I said they had to be...

Three. some people don't just look to movies for mindless entertainment. Some people like to actually watch something thought provoking and intelligent because it helps them "enjoy" the experience rather than just "watch" it. Pure watching is the field of entertainment. Actually thinking about what you're watching is the field of semi-interactive enjoyment.

Basically nothing you said in this section, in any way, shape, or form, contradicts what I said.

All you're doing is trying to bundle all of the things that comprise a person's possible opinion of the movie into one bundle at that point: the word "entertainment". That doesn't do anyone any favors.

Again, were you entertained. Another way of saying "did you enjoy your movie-going experience". At no point did I EVER say said entertainment had to be "mindless".
 
I think Maz Kanata didn't really convince as the new "yoda".

I think that part could be merged into Leia. She is strong with the force yet doesn't understand it. She could easily introduce Rey to the force and reckon her as a potential Jedi, offer her Luke's Saber and help her find Luke to start her training.

This is the one plot critique I agree with, but I suspect that they had to limit Carrie Fisher's screen time because of her personal issues.

Maz's character was fine. She's never described as Yoda 2.0 in the movie. I just wish she had done more to justify being a separate character.
 
[..]

I agreed with you until you mentioned Battlestar Galactica. While there are some good things to be taken from it, the show was a mess. The visuals weren't great. The ship sets were good but anything that took place on planets was just bad. All the characters had the same exact character flaws and I got sick and tired of everyone trying to fuck everyone else over. Then they recycled the "someone's a cylon" bit over and over again. I watched through Season 2 and I couldn't tolerate anymore bullshit for Season 3. The first and second seasons also had horrific fucking pacing.

I had to think for a while until I remembered that they did a new Battlestar Galactica series after the (cancelled) 1980s one. I lasted until the beginning of season 3 with that one before the religious nonsense and other fluff got to me. I hear the series got even worse after that :)
 
I had to think for a while until I remembered that they did a new Battlestar Galactica series after the (cancelled) 1980s one. I lasted until the beginning of season 3 with that one before the religious nonsense and other fluff got to me. I hear the series got even worse after that :)

You quit when I did. Seems we have similar taste in sci-fi. :cool:
 
I don't think she is the new "Yoda" specifically. This movie seemed to divide or split certain roles we saw in the original trilogy. I think she may provide sage type wisdom as Yoda did, but Luke will provide training the way Yoda trained him.

Hence the "Yoda" in quotes...

Its clear Maz is no Jedi, but knows about the force. That same principle could have made it into Leia's character and make it richer. That wisdom and knowledge of the force would have made Leia more believable as a General and it could also contribute to Kylo's dark side.

As it stands Maz doesn't add anything to the story. That could change in EP VIII though.
 
Hence the "Yoda" in quotes...

Its clear Maz is no Jedi, but knows about the force. That same principle could have made it into Leia's character and make it richer. That wisdom and knowledge of the force would have made Leia more believable as a General and it could also contribute to Kylo's dark side.

As it stands Maz doesn't add anything to the story. That could change in EP VIII though.

I disagree. While Maz isn't specifically necessary, I understand why they wouldn't have rolled her dialogue or purpose into Leia's character. The latter may not have done anything with the Force at all. In the EU she basically never made training with the Force a priority. She was too caught up in politics and matters of state. While the EU may be dead as we knew it, this film did draw inspiration from it. Primarily though I think Leia was kept apart from Han Solo for the bulk of the film in order to make their reunion a bigger deal. The scene with Maz was telling Han to go home was something to build tension toward that moment. A different character was needed to give that sage wisdom to Rey as it wasn't time for Han to face her just yet.
 
I watched the move for what it was and tried not to be critical, but thinking about it later it was so baffling to me. Having read some of the Star Wars novels and generally being interested in the Star Wars universe in general, this really seemed like nothing beyond throwing as much re-hashed episode IV at the audience as possible to say "hey, we aren't George Lucas!! Look at us!!".

For example, The Empire (as you can see in the other movies) was a vast thing with thousands of ships that controlled everything in the galaxy, but here we are expected to believe that they have all just offed themselves? The rebel alliance had a large enough fleet in episode VI to cause the death star II's fleet some issues, but here we have to believe that the New Republic has only a handful of ships that maybe all happened to be blown up in one system, and all they had left was one squadrons worth of painted-up X-wings? Why is there even a "resistance" to begin with? Isn't that the republics job, to go and stop bad guys that could build a base the size of a planet? We can see in the prequels, as bad as they were, the Old Republic has enough capital ships to cover the entire sky of a planet in one single battle, and you would assume a new galaxy-wide republic would build a few things in the 40 years or whatever that have passed since Return of the Jedi (they must have if the only remnants of the Empire is a couple of crashed star destroyers).

So many things just didn't make sense at all to me, I could type a small novel about it (much like the three prequels).
 
Luke didn't go toe to toe with Vader 1 minute after first activating a saber for the first time. He was given an introduction in force sense training by Obi-Wan on the way to Alderan. For the rest of the movie he used a blaster. it was Obi-Wan who engaged Vader. Then some undetermined gap of time occurs before Empire. Where he could have self-trained to a point or at least got saber training (sans force) and then spends a vague period of time on Degobah to train with yoda. The he proceeds to engage Vader and lose badly. Then after some more undetermined period of time he's a Jedi in Jedi. Then he almost defeats Vader but essentially surrenders because he's starting to go to the Dark Side. So he actually lost twice.

I just came from the movie and that is the most glaring fault. Rey goes from never activating the saber ever before to minutes later defeating the Vader knock off who has had years of training. Cannot be undone.

Vader had over 40 years of training with the Saber. In the comics, books, and games he routinely went up against dozens of assassin droids at one time for practice.

Luke had nothing more than a cursory introduction to the Saber by Obi-Wan and again a few days or weeks with Yoda. Any of Luke's training cane through the force. So yes while Vader kicked his ass in episode V, Luke did manage to strike Vader and and put him on the defensive for a bit. So that feat alone was pretty impressive with the limited training he had. In episode VI Luke managed to keep Vader at bay and was going toe to toe with him.

So Rey having zero training but direct contact with the force against a wounded and emotionally confused apprentice is 100% believable.
 
I watched the move for what it was and tried not to be critical, but thinking about it later it was so baffling to me. Having read some of the Star Wars novels and generally being interested in the Star Wars universe in general, this really seemed like nothing beyond throwing as much re-hashed episode IV at the audience as possible to say "hey, we aren't George Lucas!! Look at us!!".

For example, The Empire (as you can see in the other movies) was a vast thing with thousands of ships that controlled everything in the galaxy, but here we are expected to believe that they have all just offed themselves? The rebel alliance had a large enough fleet in episode VI to cause the death star II's fleet some issues, but here we have to believe that the New Republic has only a handful of ships that maybe all happened to be blown up in one system, and all they had left was one squadrons worth of painted-up X-wings? Why is there even a "resistance" to begin with? Isn't that the republics job, to go and stop bad guys that could build a base the size of a planet? We can see in the prequels, as bad as they were, the Old Republic has enough capital ships to cover the entire sky of a planet in one single battle, and you would assume a new galaxy-wide republic would build a few things in the 40 years or whatever that have passed since Return of the Jedi (they must have if the only remnants of the Empire is a couple of crashed star destroyers).

So many things just didn't make sense at all to me, I could type a small novel about it (much like the three prequels).

I'd go through some of this thread. Several of your points are addressed.
 
I disagree. While Maz isn't specifically necessary, I understand why they wouldn't have rolled her dialogue or purpose into Leia's character. The latter may not have done anything with the Force at all. In the EU she basically never made training with the Force a priority. She was too caught up in politics and matters of state. While the EU may be dead as we knew it, this film did draw inspiration from it. Primarily though I think Leia was kept apart from Han Solo for the bulk of the film in order to make their reunion a bigger deal. The scene with Maz was telling Han to go home was something to build tension toward that moment. A different character was needed to give that sage wisdom to Rey as it wasn't time for Han to face her just yet.

FA is no EU. So Leia could indeed go to a different path. By having Maz Kanata you actually have 2 weak characters instead of a strong one. And Solo didn't need Maz to go see Leia, there's no tension there.

And really what wisdom did Maz gave Rey, that Leia couldn't have?

Maybe EP VIII will develop both characters, I wouldn't bet on it.
 
Biggest piece of nonsense I've heard. The story arc of the dominion war from season 3 to 7 was the best star trek there ever was. It showed that people in the st universe were real people, who made real (and sometimes hard) decisions. In The Pale Moonlight, anyone?

Voyager? Seven seasons of boring protagonists and antagonists. Species 8472? No thanks.

Boring? I was never bored with a single episode of Voyager. I watched all of DS9, and so many episodes in it were boring. The love nonsense kept dragging out, and it wasn't very creative or intelligent at all.

Voyager had a lot of recurring antagonists because they flew through different sections of space. They didn't need to invent something new all the time. Jesus, they had to deal with the Borg, Kazan, species 8472, and more. What more did you want? Someone new every show? Yes, their ship was repaired at the beginning of every episode just like every other Star Trek. However, there was the YEAR OF HELL they went through where they were constantly under attack, and this was not the case.

In general, they were able to repair the ship by finding resources and making the crew work on it. Did you not see the episodes where they showed crewmen walking on the outside of the ship repairing it? Also, they'd dock at space stations and other planets along the way. Pretty sure they had plenty of opportunities to repair the ship. Also, several days for Voyager probably passed between episodes. The producers are not going to dedicate an entire episode showing the repair process for the ship. That would be boring to viewers.

Voyager was well done. Each episode had a story to tell, and oftentimes, each episode examined moral issues spending time on each point of view. For example, when Nelix and Tuvok were mixed in a teleporter accident to create Tuvix, they had a tough choice to make. Should they destroy one life to restore the previous two, or should they benefit from the mixture of Tuvok and Nelix? Ultimately, the captain decided like she normally did, but most of the time, she took the correct action in my opinion.

I'm guessing you're probably not interested in examining how humans in general think. The show played with several different morals and ethics, examined sociopaths, and showed just how powerful and necessary emotions can be when channeled correctly. Maybe it was just too over your head. I don't know. I really enjoyed it and found it to be quite the intelligent show. I wish they'd make more.

By the way, the new Enterprise was really good too. Granted, the first two seasons had their bad moments, but I wish it had continued. DS9 is probably the worst Star Trek.

My list from best to worst goes like this:

Star Trek Voyager (watched the entire thing several times and each time loved it!)
New Enterprise
Next Generation
Original Series (so corny in this day and age... seriously, it was just Kirk playing women and tricking them into doing anything, as if women are that stupid... that or a random gas cloud entity)
DS9 (watched the entire thing once... don't need to ever again)
 
I watched the move for what it was and tried not to be critical, but thinking about it later it was so baffling to me. Having read some of the Star Wars novels and generally being interested in the Star Wars universe in general, this really seemed like nothing beyond throwing as much re-hashed episode IV at the audience as possible to say "hey, we aren't George Lucas!! Look at us!!".

For example, The Empire (as you can see in the other movies) was a vast thing with thousands of ships that controlled everything in the galaxy, but here we are expected to believe that they have all just offed themselves? The rebel alliance had a large enough fleet in episode VI to cause the death star II's fleet some issues, but here we have to believe that the New Republic has only a handful of ships that maybe all happened to be blown up in one system, and all they had left was one squadrons worth of painted-up X-wings? Why is there even a "resistance" to begin with? Isn't that the republics job, to go and stop bad guys that could build a base the size of a planet? We can see in the prequels, as bad as they were, the Old Republic has enough capital ships to cover the entire sky of a planet in one single battle, and you would assume a new galaxy-wide republic would build a few things in the 40 years or whatever that have passed since Return of the Jedi (they must have if the only remnants of the Empire is a couple of crashed star destroyers).

So many things just didn't make sense at all to me, I could type a small novel about it (much like the three prequels).

Read Aftermath. It sucks so hard, literally the worst SW book I've ever read, but it is now official canon and explains every single one of your detractions.
 
Luke didn't go toe to toe with Vader 1 minute after first activating a saber for the first time. He was given an introduction in force sense training by Obi-Wan on the way to Alderan. For the rest of the movie he used a blaster.

...

I just came from the movie and that is the most glaring fault. Rey goes from never activating the saber ever before to minutes later defeating the Vader knock off who has had years of training. Cannot be undone.

Luke had experience with blaster rifles, Rey had melee experience with her staff.

Kylo was seriously injured and in the middle of an mental breakdown. Rey fought like a Jedi when she finally gave in to the force: detached, calm, defensive. I thought it was a really strong point in the movie.
 
FA is no EU. So Leia could indeed go to a different path. By having Maz Kanata you actually have 2 weak characters instead of a strong one. And Solo didn't need Maz to go see Leia, there's no tension there.

And really what wisdom did Maz gave Rey, that Leia couldn't have?

Maybe EP VIII will develop both characters, I wouldn't bet on it.

Maz established the dialog with Han about Leia, and he stated "She doesn't want to see me." indicating that there was a problem there. We knew something was up, as they didn't seem like they were together. I think this dialog indicates that there was some larger falling out. Whether or not that dialog or scene was effective is debatable.
 
I'd go through some of this thread. Several of your points are addressed.

No, I don't think they were. They really can't be because we were given no information to go on in the movie which is part of the problem. I enjoyed watching it but it just doesn't make sense in the context of the Star Wars universe we already know, so I guess putting it in some kind of AU bubble would fit it.
 
Maz established the dialog with Han about Leia, and he stated "She doesn't want to see me." indicating that there was a problem there. We knew something was up, as they didn't seem like they were together. I think this dialog indicates that there was some larger falling out. Whether or not that dialog or scene was effective is debatable.

Really? you need maz to tell Han to go to Leia? Even chewbacca could've done that.
 
Boring? I was never bored with a single episode of Voyager. I watched all of DS9, and so many episodes in it were boring. The love nonsense kept dragging out, and it wasn't very creative or intelligent at all.

There were boring elements of DS9. There were stupid filler episodes like the Vic Fontane oriented ones that I could barely get through. I think when DS9 was up, it's the best of the Star Trek's hands down. It's bad episodes are rather dull. I'd still place many of them above Voyager or Enterprise's worst offerings though. Dull is better than being absolute shit.

Voyager had a lot of recurring antagonists because they flew through different sections of space. They didn't need to invent something new all the time. Jesus, they had to deal with the Borg, Kazan, species 8472, and more. What more did you want? Someone new every show? Yes, their ship was repaired at the beginning of every episode just like every other Star Trek. However, there was the YEAR OF HELL they went through where they were constantly under attack, and this was not the case.

Voyager took time to cut through the territories of other species. I never had a problem with reoccurring aliens or threats for the most part. Eventually they got past those territories and you never saw those species again. That's as it should be. As for inventing new crap, your dead wrong. Many of the episodes climaxes involved modifying or reconfiguring something on the ship in a technobabble way to solve the problem at hand. It copied the Next Generation on that. DS9 did that as well, although it stopped that often times when the Dominion War started.

Species 8472 and fluidic space was retarded. The Kazon were of no real threat. They were pretty annoying as well. The Borg were overused and after awhile they just weren't threatening anymore. The ship never bore the scars of their journey for very long. Much of the time the ship was repaired too cleanly, or too neatly. Yes there were some reasons for it, but I think this is an aspect of the show that could have been handled batter. Sure they had plot lines revolving around getting supplies and survival, but they weren't as good as they could have been. The Year of Hell doesn't count because as usual, messing with the time line erased that completely. It was an enjoyable story despite that. I'll give you that as a strong point. Unfortunately it was wrapped up neatly. The only reason anyone on the ship remembered it was due to the fractured time continuum on the ship in a later episode in which parts of the ship existed in different time zones. That's when they learned about the year of hell as it was literally retconned from their lives.

In general, they were able to repair the ship by finding resources and making the crew work on it. Did you not see the episodes where they showed crewmen walking on the outside of the ship repairing it? Also, they'd dock at space stations and other planets along the way. Pretty sure they had plenty of opportunities to repair the ship. Also, several days for Voyager probably passed between episodes. The producers are not going to dedicate an entire episode showing the repair process for the ship. That would be boring to viewers.

Again this could have been handled much better. There are a few good examples, but these tasks never had the focus or carried the weight they should have.

Voyager was well done. Each episode had a story to tell, and oftentimes, each episode examined moral issues spending time on each point of view. For example, when Nelix and Tuvok were mixed in a teleporter accident to create Tuvix, they had a tough choice to make. Should they destroy one life to restore the previous two, or should they benefit from the mixture of Tuvok and Nelix? Ultimately, the captain decided like she normally did, but most of the time, she took the correct action in my opinion.

No it wasn't well done. The writing was horribly inconsistent from one episode to the next. Characters often acted in contradictory ways which made them seem schizophrenic at times. Janeway was the absolute worst for this. Her behavior was inconsistent at best. She lacked the professionalism that other Star Trek Captains had. In virtually every episode she would call the staff in to the conference room to discuss something and then promptly say fuck you, I'll do what I want. She came across as a know it all who couldn't stand being challenged and didn't really need anyone else outside of turning screws or repairing the ship. You know, tasks she couldn't be bothered with. The Tuvix episode you speak so highly of was an example of more shit science from the writers. The idea that a transporter accident could create a viable and healthy life form out of mixing two incompatible biological species broke suspension of disbelief to say the least.

I do like the moral question posed in that episode and the faults with it were not on Tim Russ who did a good job with what he had.

I'm guessing you're probably not interested in examining how humans in general think. The show played with several different morals and ethics, examined sociopaths, and showed just how powerful and necessary emotions can be when channeled correctly. Maybe it was just too over your head. I don't know. I really enjoyed it and found it to be quite the intelligent show. I wish they'd make more.

You must not have paid attention to the other shows that did the same things and often did them better. DS9's "In the Pale Moonlight" was by far and away the very best episode in Star Trek when it comes to exploring questions of ethics. Characters like Garak and O'Brien were far and away handled better than anything in Voyager. As I said, few of the characters in Voyager showed any real growth and when they did it was often done too fast. We didn't get to see enough life changing moments to justify The Doctor's change into being so human. A few episodes explored the character well, and I would be remiss in not recognizing that, but on the whole the character evolved more quickly than it should have. 7 of 9 was cast with Jeri Ryan for sex appeal first and foremost. That seemed obvious. Past that I thought the character had a lot of potential that wasn't fully realized. She was too well adjusted given her experiences and lack of humanity. She gained hers back too quickly.

I will say Tom Paris was generally well done. Not only on the part of the actor's work, but in the way he was written. That's the character that showed the best progression, growth and change while being believable.

By the way, the new Enterprise was really good too. Granted, the first two seasons had their bad moments, but I wish it had continued. DS9 is probably the worst Star Trek.

Once again, Enterprise suffered from many of the same problems Voyager did. Primarily the show based itself around a story involving time travel. Time travel was already worn out as a plot device by Voyager and TNG before it. Relying on it again showed a clear lack of creativity. A further flaw that it shared with Voyager was that It's characters were even less interesting and showed even less progression or development over the course of the series. While I liked Scott Bakula, I felt that his character was essentially the same as when he started. The few times they tried to explore the character, I never felt like it went any where. T'Pol once again was primarily used to bring sex appeal to the show. She evolved too fast and became more human than Spock in a fraction of the time. I didn't care for that. Tripp was easily the best character on the show and without him T'Pol would never have been interesting beyond looking good in spandex or half naked. The rest of them could literally have been played by anyone and it wouldn't have mattered. They all lacked depth or substance.

By the way, Tim Russ (Tuvok) is the best Vulcan actor ever.

You must be trolling. He's better than Jolene Blalock as an actor but he's no Leonard Nimoy, Mark Lenard or Zachery Quinto.
 
Really? you need maz to tell Han to go to Leia? Even chewbacca could've done that.

Need isn't the right word. She was largely there to bridge giving the lightsaber to Rey / Finn and to allow Han to fulfill his Obi-Wan style role in this movie. After all that scene started out as basically being the Episode IV cantina scene all over again.
 
Really Lebowski?

Thats_just_your_opinion.jpg


:eek: :eek: :eek:

Whoa. Guess I was told!

So you're saying that you can go to a movie, not be entertained in any way, shape or form, but it's still, somehow, a decent movie?

It's about utterly different types of entertainment. For instance, I once frequented an IRC channel dedicated to music where an individual frequently listened to songs regardless of whether they were enjoyable to simply listen to or not. This was confounding for me because I always just chose my music on whatever pleased my palette and wondered why I would ever listen to anything that might be distinctly harsh. It has been a while but I He said that he really dived into it and tried to experience what the author of the music was expressing. Even if it wasn't pleasant to his ears, and even if it wasn't enjoyable to listen to. It could hardly qualify as common entertainment because he has to force himself to listen. Yet he still enjoyed doing that. I believe movies can be much the same. You might not necessarily be entertained by something, but be able to understand and recognize its value.

Please point out where I said they had to be...



Basically nothing you said in this section, in any way, shape, or form, contradicts what I said.



Again, were you entertained. Another way of saying "did you enjoy your movie-going experience". At no point did I EVER say said entertainment had to be "mindless".

... Again, all you're doing is trying to roll everything into one term: entertainment. All I'm trying to get through to you is that there are different aspects to watching a movie beyond entertainment; aspects that are distinctly different...

Let me put this way: if you're just rolling everything into one term, let me go back to your original quote:
Anything beyond that is simply an exercise in dicksizing.

What is the "Anything beyond that", exactly, then? You just said entertainment did not have to be mindless, which means we are free to roll critical thinking about the minutia of the plot into the term, or well, anything we want. Bearing that in mind, what exactly was your original point? You were trying to limit the criteria for a movie being a good one to "entertainment value", but now if your "entertainment value" term is essentially all-encompassing, what were you actually trying to say? It sounds to me like it's boiled down to "nothing", because now people are free to criticize their "entertainment value" on whatever bounds they want. Without limiting factors, you have no point. With limiting factors, your point is indefensible.
 
Many of the episodes climaxes involved modifying or reconfiguring something on the ship in a technobabble way to solve the problem at hand.

And, what's wrong with that? When you're that far away from home, you better adapt or die. Just because you can't fathom it or understand it, that doesn't mean it's bad!

No it wasn't well done. The writing was horribly inconsistent from one episode to the next. Characters often acted in contradictory ways which made them seem schizophrenic at times. Janeway was the absolute worst for this. Her behavior was inconsistent at best. She lacked the professionalism that other Star Trek Captains had. In virtually every episode she would call the staff in to the conference room to discuss something and then promptly say fuck you, I'll do what I want.

Yes, like everyone else, Janeway is a human being. She made some bad decisions, but at least she usually always stuck with them and saw them through. She usually wasn't wrong either, and she did listen to feedback even if she didn't always act on it. She was a pretty professional captain in my opinion. How was she not professional? Even at times when Chakotay challenged her, she usually listened or at least reflected upon it.

Most of the other characters weren't inconsistent? Who was inconsistent? And come on now, wasn't this moment for the doctor the best thing ever?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQo0fBzMO8Y

The doctor was used in a way to challenge what we consider to be living beings and what rights are associated with that definition. Janeway was a strong leader. Tuvok was a great tactical officer and Vulcan always relying on his logic and mind-melding abilities to solve problems. Paris was unpredictable at times and quick to act, which is why his character is fun. He would break the rules often because of what he believed in. Harry Kim was the inexperienced but talented officer. His acting wasn't the greatest, but it certainly wasn't bad, and the episode when all the ladies are after him (to kill him) was pretty fun. Chakotay was the spiritual guy who helped maintain the peace. B'Elanna Torres had a fun temper and was a great engineer. Even Kess wasn't that annoying. She had interesting telepathic abilities. Seska was a fun antagonist too. I think it was a great mix of cast and characters.

The characters in DS9 are mostly forgettable. Didn't they kill Dax? I can't remember... The Bajorans were all annoying. They should have been conquered by the Cardassians and remained conquered. That would have been fine with me. Their noses look retarded and their religion is hardly scientific since that's what you're so against in Voyager...

The idea that a transporter accident could create a viable and healthy life form out of mixing two incompatible biological species broke suspension of disbelief to say the least.

Just because you can't fathom it doesn't mean it's impossible. A lot of inexplicable things happen in life and not everything can be explained scientifically. It's the story that counts. That seems pretty creative to me, and the idea did create an interesting plot.

Once again, Enterprise suffered from many of the same problems Voyager did. Primarily the show based itself around a story involving time travel. Time travel was already worn out as a plot device by Voyager and TNG before it.

What's wrong with time travel? Each time travel episode in Voyager did something different. That's totally cool and OK with me. Once again, just because you can't fathom it doesn't mean it's impossible.

You must be trolling. He's better than Jolene Blalock as an actor but he's no Leonard Nimoy, Mark Lenard or Zachery Quinto.

Nope, not trolling. He makes a great Vulcan.
 
Gosh those point-by-point plot debates are gonna go so far...

Also in my last post:
It has been a while but I He
... I thought I edited the "It has been a while but" part out. Can't edit it now...
 
Star Wars thread, Star Trek discussion.

I think that's proof enough the movie and franchise are just hollowed out shells of what they once were. Did you guys get your limited edition BB-8 socks yet?
 
And, what's wrong with that? When you're that far away from home, you better adapt or die. Just because you can't fathom it or understand it, that doesn't mean it's bad!

I understood and fathomed everything that was going on just fine. I just felt that the formula had once again been done already way too many times. Someone not liking something isn't necessarily a matter of failing to understand it. Your assumption that it is comes across as condescending.

Yes, like everyone else, Janeway is a human being. She made some bad decisions, but at least she usually always stuck with them and saw them through. She usually wasn't wrong either, and she did listen to feedback even if she didn't always act on it. She was a pretty professional captain in my opinion. How was she not professional? Even at times when Chakotay challenged her, she usually listened or at least reflected upon it.

We'll have to agree to disagree. She wasn't professional because she seemed to always act based on her emotions. This is probably one of those perception things. You interpret the character one way, and I another.

Most of the other characters weren't inconsistent? Who was inconsistent? And come on now, wasn't this moment for the doctor the best thing ever?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQo0fBzMO8Y

7 of 9 and the Doctor both were inconsistently portrayed. Often times they seemed further along in their development, (too far in my opinion) and they would suddenly do stories where they were set back suddenly. Janeway's attitude was inconsistently portrayed. Harry Kim was one of the worst. Late in the show it seems like they forgot that he had 7 years of experience under his belt and could and should grow some. So randomly he got an episode dedicated to that. It was a good effort, but that should have been tackled before then.

The doctor was used in a way to challenge what we consider to be living beings and what rights are associated with that definition. Janeway was a strong leader. Tuvok was a great tactical officer and Vulcan always relying on his logic and mind-melding abilities to solve problems. Paris was unpredictable at times and quick to act, which is why his character is fun. He would break the rules often because of what he believed in. Harry Kim was the inexperienced but talented officer. His acting wasn't the greatest, but it certainly wasn't bad, and the episode when all the ladies are after him (to kill him) was pretty fun. Chakotay was the spiritual guy who helped maintain the peace. B'Elanna Torres had a fun temper and was a great engineer. Even Kess wasn't that annoying. She had interesting telepathic abilities. Seska was a fun antagonist too. I think it was a great mix of cast and characters.

On paper, I'd agree. But the quality of the episodes just weren't on par with previous series'. By the time the show ended though, most of the characters could still be described the same way. Paris was the only one who seemed to grow in a way that didn't feel forced.

The characters in DS9 are mostly forgettable. Didn't they kill Dax? I can't remember... The Bajorans were all annoying. They should have been conquered by the Cardassians and remained conquered. That would have been fine with me. Their noses look retarded and their religion is hardly scientific since that's what you're so against in Voyager..

Really? You want to go there. Fine. Nelix followed the same old trope of comic relief aliens. Every science fiction show has one and he's the most annoying and least interesting one I can think of. Dax was killed yes, and I thought there were some interesting stories as a result of the Dax Symbiote's transition to another host. Maybe you just couldn't fathom the intricacies of that. Your point about religion is no point at all. Religon never has been and never will be based on science. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is how Voyager threw out established science in the Star Trek universe and didn't provide a convincing reason for it. It breaks suspension of disbelief when a show establishes rules for itself, then discards them without a plausible explanation. The episode "Threshold" is the one I'm thinking of primarily. I've already covered why that was shit.

O'Brien was easily one of the best characters in Star Trek. He's the most relatable as he's basically a blue collar guy that the universe likes to shit on. He had to cope with real problems and grew and changed as a result of it. Worf, Sisko, and even Dr. Bashir all changed and grew through the course of the show. Even characters that were originally ancillary such as Nog had more development in them than any of Voyager's main cast. Garack was one particular stand out.

Just because you can't fathom it doesn't mean it's impossible. A lot of inexplicable things happen in life and not everything can be explained scientifically. It's the story that counts. That seems pretty creative to me, and the idea did create an interesting plot.

I can fathom it, the show isn't as high brow as you might think it is.

What's wrong with time travel? Each time travel episode in Voyager did something different. That's totally cool and OK with me. Once again, just because you can't fathom it doesn't mean it's impossible.

What's wrong with it? The fact that Voyager has an egregious amount of time travel episodes. Star Trek often does it badly as the time travel episodes are always wrapped up neatly with everything being returned to normal without lasting consequences .The Year of Hell arc is a prime example of that. The episode where they time travel and end up back at Earth with no explanation for how the distance was covered was another. You may think it was creative, but I've seen time travel handled better in just about every show that's ever done it. Time travel should be complex, and have consequences.

And I can fathom it just fine. Again a lack of comprehension isn't the only reason not to like something.


Nope, not trolling. He makes a great Vulcan.

Okay then. He's literally the bottom of the barrel but whatever.
 
Back
Top