Facts and opinions are different things. You WERE born on a certain day at a certain local time. That is a fact, and is not subjective. Whether vanilla tastes better that chocolate is an opinion and is entirely subjective. Whether JJ-Trek is amazing or garbage is also an opinion and completely subjective. No matter how many words you write or video clips you post, your opinion will never be more "right" than someone who has the exact opposite opinion.
Having said that, while the taste of vanilla vs chocolate is subjective on an individual basis, actual market data could be used to show what the majority of people think taste better for a certain product, like ice cream. Likewise, while whether JJ-Trek is good or bad is subjective on an individual basis, the market and reviews show it is very highly rated by both critics and audiences. You don't have to like it or agree, but the general consensus is clear thus far.
How do you live with the cognitive dissonance that your statement that "a value judgment can't be right or wrong" is actually an opinion that other people have different views about?
Post edited by penemue#7777 on
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Oh sure, you can make all the judgements you want. But those judgements are still just your opinin, and someone else can make the exact opposite judgement:
For the record, I am going to see this simply because "it's Star Trek." It just may not be in the theater is all, unless other trailers entice me to go in and I get that good vibe. If I gave "Into Darkness" a chance (and not in the theater) I can give this one a chance.
I have no interest in ANY of JJ's Star Trek (and I'm being generous calling it that). I saw the first one, and was initially excited to see it, but was so thoroughly disappointed... even INSULTED by what they had excreted that I refuse to see any more of it.
It almost made me not go to see Star Wars.
It's not generous, it's accurate. It's on the title card and everything.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Oh sure, you can make all the judgements you want. But those judgements are still just your opinin, and someone else can make the exact opposite judgement
Well, yes, like I said... some people find shooting heroin to be pleasurable, others believe cannabis is inherently enlightening, some people find the taste of dirt good...
I've met people who ardently believe they are a more intelligent and "enlightened" person from consuming LSD several times a week for a year.
Not all viewpoints carry equal weight.
Now, a story has components. Plot and character development are the two primary components of a story. Maybe you disagree in which case I suppose you could count sitting on the street corner watching people walking by to be a "story." However, in the general language this word "story" refers to a specific medium which is frequently fictional told for entertainment and edification.
A story may have good plot or the plot may make no sense at all. In some cases, a wild and poorly constructed plot may be desirable - such as in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail. It ends anti-climatically intentionally because their story is designed to be absurd and silly. Character development may also be well explored or poor. Sometimes a story puts much more emphasis on plot than character development (e.g. Lord of the Rings) and sometimes a story puts more emphasis on character development than plot (e.g. Joyce's Ulysses).
Since these are objective components of a story, we can evaluate objectively how they are accomplished.
For the plot we can evaluate, for example, does the plot make sense within the internal framework of the story's reality? (are any fantasy elements reasonably consistent with prior art in the story's context? Or, if the plot is to be realistic, are there fantasy elements which detract from the realism of the plot?) Does one part of the plot logically follow another part of the plot? Does the plot expect its audience to take it seriously or take it as a farce? etc. There are many objective criteria one can examine to see if "plot" is well done.
For character development we can evaluate, for example, Is the character supposed to be taken seriously or is he supposed to be comedy or a foil? Is the character supposed to be a hero who is respected by the audience, a villain who must be despised by the audience, or is he supposed to be somewhere else in between - regarding how the audience is supposed to perceive him, is the author's implementation of this development effective in communicating these qualities? If the author intends a character to be a villain and yet the character gives to the poor, shows up to work on time every day, never breaks any laws, is always polite to everyone and loves his family and is willing to sacrifice anything for them - well - we can reasonably and objectively say the author has done a poor job of developing villainous characteristics in his character can't we?
Similarly, if an author intends a character to be a "hero," but the "hero" loads a bunch of torpedoes against the advice of his "friends," one of whom he fires and the other he calls a "robot" for objecting. If the "hero" intends to launch them at a foreign planet unprovoked without having approval from the highest levels of his government. And if it turns out if he had done this he would have mass killed a bunch of unarmed people who were in fact inside these torpedoes. And if it turns out if he had only followed the advice of his friends in the first place then tens of thousands of people wouldn't die when a starship crashes into San Francisco. Then the author hasn't done a good job of making the "hero" have heroic qualities has he?
Now we can evaluate if these character qualities make sense within the context of the plot. Does the organization the character work for professional or is it lackadaisical? Does it have standards for people it puts in charge of other people or does it just appoint any old person with or without qualification? Does it hold people accountable for making mistakes or breaking the rules or does it ignore them and sweep them under the rug? Has the author faithfully made a believable character that is believably a part of this organization? If the answer is no, or "loosly," then we can objectively say the story may be poorly written. If the answer is "yes" or "mostly" - then we can say the story may objectively meet the standard of being well written.
Of course, if you disagree that that which we call a "story" has at least "plot" and at least "character development" then I suppose you have a problem understanding the English language. However, because we mean "story" to refer to a particular thing, we can evaluate it objectively on the merits of how well it functions in maintaining and presenting the attributes of that thing can't we? If you say "everything's a story!" then you simply don't understand the language.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Oh sure, you can make all the judgements you want. But those judgements are still just your opinin, and someone else can make the exact opposite judgement: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
I laugh every time you post those RT links, as if it means anything. Popularity ≠ Quality.
No point trying to discuss anything with pen, folks - he confuses his opinions with reality, and spends his time arguing with strawmen rather than the person he's claiming to refute.
You cannot argue logically with someone who declines to use logic.
Pretty sure JJ would have to film a literal dumpster fire and play it back to the audio accompaniment of dueling accordions to make a worse movie than Star Trek V.... Now that was a movie to miss.
quoted for the GD truth. FF is so full of WTF moments that it's the only Star Trek movie I was embarrassed about when I came out the theater...slightly over the hill-Uhura doing the fan dance...Scotty hitting his head and falling down...the really crappy special EFX...the whole movie is played for laughs....in the wrong way. If you look at Voyage Home...which is also played for laughs...but the crew is put into funny situations. Scotty dealing with a 1980's computer is funny. Scotty hitting his head after saying he knows the ship like the back of his hand...was disappointing.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
@penemue#7777: cool story bro! And you aren't wrong. But you also aren't any more right than someone who loves the movie. You have definitely proven that you believe your own opinion, you just haven't proven anybody who likes the movie wrong, and you never will.
@gfreeman98: very true. Some movies make a lot of money, but get pretty mixed or low ratings. Example:
That movie has made over a billion dollars, and was extremely popular, but the ratings reflect the "quality". But you have only helped my point, because JJ-Trek has very high ratings:
No point trying to discuss anything with pen, folks - he confuses his opinions with reality, and spends his time arguing with strawmen rather than the person he's claiming to refute.
You cannot argue logically with someone who declines to use logic.
Anyway, back on topic... I'm probably going to see Beyond, I've liked "JJTrek" okay so far, even if it's not as good as some of the other movies.
And, as long as we're using random quotes from the internet to support our posts...
penemue#7777: cool story bro! And you aren't wrong. But you also aren't any more right than someone who loves the movie.
I'm not disputing about whether the movie is to be "liked." I hate Handel - despise - but I don't dispute he is a quality composer. I'm disputing the quality of it. Whether something is "liked" or not doesn't determine the quality of it. Like I said, some people really like heroin but I don't think that means that it is a quality substance to inject into your veins. Similarly, I like cigarettes - but they are enormously unhealthy.
Now, why precisely, is it in some way offensive to you for me to describe why something is a bad product and why they, as a consumer, should demand better from a company that $200 million dollars to produce an 80 page script (including the spaces between character lines)?
Furthermore the author has one hell of an attitude problem:
Stop blaming BR (Bad Robot) [for the idea to reset the timeline]. It was my idea so that you would not know what was gonna happen next. Nothing more or less. I Stand behind it. And it, again, is the reason why I make movies and you don’t. - Roberto Orci
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
The word you use makes no difference in this case. Good, bad, awesome, terrible, masterpiece, garbage, etc. In the end, it is still just your opinion. Which is completely fine. But you are still never going to prove yourself right or anyone else wrong on a subjective matter of taste.
@penemue#7777: cool story bro! And you aren't wrong. But you also aren't any more right than someone who loves the movie. You have definitely proven that you believe your own opinion, you just haven't proven anybody who likes the movie wrong, and you never will.
@gfreeman98: very true. Some movies make a lot of money, but get pretty mixed or low ratings. Example:
That movie has made over a billion dollars, and was extremely popular, but the ratings reflect the "quality". But you have only helped my point, because JJ-Trek has very high ratings:
That movie was very popular and made a lot of money, but received very low critical ratings. And it is just such examples which serve as a stark contrast against the JJ-movies ratings:
That movie was very popular and made a lot of money, but received very low critical ratings. And it is just such examples which serve as a stark contrast against the JJ-movies ratings
Yes, which makes me feel someone is just paying off these critics because the plot holes, bad characterizations, insanely cliched dialogue leaves little to be praised except the special effects and the best acting an objectively incompetent writer can receive. Thankfully, some of the big names, New Yorker, RogerEbert.com, and the New York Times gave it the lambasting reviews for lazy and stupid writing it deserved - it takes a lot to get these people to praise the original Star Trek films, but these guys actually were when contrasting them with Into Darkness. It's harder to buy good reviews from the bigwigs.
Maybe we can try this another way... why don't you tell me why it is good?
I have presented multiple cases, both in the objective construction of the story and the ideological and character deviation from the established media why I assert they were bad and all you have said was "well, others disagree so it's just your opinion."
For example, can you please tell me a moment where I was supposed to be inspired by the competence of our new Captain Kirk? To me it comes off as if the writers hate Captain Kirk and you shouldn't be writing a story about Captain Kirk if you hate him. Orci is a radical leftist and hates Bush - many of the fans of Trek are also not fans of Bush so I don't know why I should be happy that Orci wants to exhibit the worst qualities of Kirk so much because he's conflating Bush and Kirk in his peabrain one-tracked mind. Kirk was somewhat of a douche, but to compare him to a show I criticized earlier for repetitiveness and simplicity, he's a douche like Gibbs in NCIS is a douche, he's not a douche that is supposed to seem loathsome or incompetent.
Orci is trying to portray Kirk as a rogue, I guess, by having him spit on Spock and, essentially, fire Scotty over these Torpedoes (but he has no problem opening them when a sexy woman tells him to). Except, Kirk breaks the rules when he does for good reasons - here he is extremely adherent to hierarchy. It's a trick that's supposed to make you think of Kirk as a rogue by refusing to listen to his Crew, but is really him being absurdly slavish to Starfleet Admirals in a way that undercuts the Kirk we've liked from the previous series who will disobey the bureaucracy when he feels it's morally right rather than go out of his way to obey it to the detriment of his crew when it's wrong.
Anyway, these writers have contempt for their audience, evidenced in their movie and openly expressed in public:
"all J.J. wanted to do was make a film that people really enjoyed. So, to be subject to that level of sort of, like, crass f–king ire, I just say f–k you. Not you, but the people who said that" - Simon Pegg
I think the article above is akin to a child acting out against his parents. Makes it tough for some to listen, but since I am a loving parent, I read these comments without anger or resentment, no matter how misguided.
Having said that, two biggest Star Treks in a row with best reviews is hardly a description of ‘broken.’ And frankly, your tone and attidude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future. As I love to say, there is a reason why I get to write the movies, and you don’t. - Roberto Orci
That alone should be enough reason not to give them another cent, even if ST:ID was damned Godfather II.
I guess it's heroic when Kirk "dies" to save the crew by realigning the warp core so I guess they did give him some heroic quality. It would help a lot more if it weren't his incompetence that got them into the mess in the first place.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
That movie was very popular and made a lot of money, but received very low critical ratings. And it is just such examples which serve as a stark contrast against the JJ-movies ratings
Yes, which makes me feel someone is just paying off these critics
If that were true, then the HUGE companies behind the Transformers and Ninja Turtles brands would have simply done the same thing. But apparently that isn't the case, so do you have any other conspiracy theories?
Maybe we can try this another way... why don't you tell me why it is good?
After all this time, you still don't get it. I'm not saying the JJ-movies are "good". What I am saying is that whether they are "good" or "bad" is completely subjective. You obviously don't like them, and that is fine. But that is just your opinion, which means no more than any other random joe who might happen to love them. I know you think you are a special little snowflake, but you aren't any MORE special than every other special little snowflake out there.
Nagus,
What you're not getting is that RT ratings are just another measure of popularity. This is completely true for the audience score, and I'd say it's true for the "professional" critics as well. I put no stock in the "wisdom of the crowd". The number of people, critics or otherwise, that likes something has no bearing on whether or not I like it.
That said, let's think about the critic scores. A movie critic is going to evaluate a Star Trek film the same as any other film. IOW they are not evaluating it based on it's Trek-worthiness, which we are doing.
Take for example ST'09. I was looking forward to it, went in with an open mind, and saw it on opening night. And while there were a few things I liked and appreciated with some of the scenes and some of the acting, I did not care for what they did overall. So to me, as a Star Trek movie, it was a failure that I disliked. But as just a generic action movie, I'd say it was mildly entertaining. The critic scores you keep parading only care about that last part.
Again, what you like and what I like don't have to be the same. Entertainment preferences are entirely subjective as I think we all agree. However my point here is you constantly showing numbers of people that agree with you doesn't add any value.
Nagus,
What you're not getting is that RT ratings are just another measure of popularity.
The examples of Transformers and Ninja Turtles show pretty clearly that is not the case. Both of those movies were VERY popular and made a LOT of money, yet received very low scores. If ratings were just a measure of popularity as you say, then they would have very high ratings. But they don't, so, no.
Again, what you like and what I like don't have to be the same. Entertainment preferences are entirely subjective as I think we all agree.
Unfortunately we don't all agree. The OP thinks his taste and opinion about movies are factually "right", and that the people who disagree are wrong. My entire point this whole time has been that there is no "right" or "wrong" about subjective taste. Fortunately, it doesn't matter whether he accepts that or not, because it will remain true long after this thread is forgotten.
However my point here is you constantly showing numbers of people that agree with you doesn't add any value.
You misunderstand. I am not referencing RT because they "agree with me", but rather to show what the general consensus is on any given movie. That is simply a reference point against the OP who insists his personal opinion is fact, which is obviously not the case.
If that were true, then the HUGE companies behind the Transformers and Ninja Turtles brands would have simply done the same thing. But apparently that isn't the case, so do you have any other conspiracy theories?
I said I feel that way (not that it happened) because usually critics are good at telling when something is objectively bad. If Xavier in an X-Man reboot had been made into the world's biggest douche I would expect some major negative reviews from even people who didn't like X-Men at all.
What I am saying is that whether they are "good" or "bad" is completely subjective. You obviously don't like them, and that is fine.
And I gave you objective evidence that the writing was sloppy because you didn't like some of my subjective assertions about it - none of which you disputed. Maybe you don't believe there is objectively a difference between a writer who makes no sense and a writer who knows his craft which is simply a matter of your knowledge of the craft.
I know you think you are a special little snowflake, but you aren't any MORE special than every other special little snowflake out there.
No, you stated there's nothing at all objective that can be said about writing quality or a story - I, in fact, pointed to evidence that that is not in fact true. There's plenty of people who have preceded me in saying the new Star Trek is trash so there's nothing really "special snowflake" about my position. In fact I've not really talked about myself at all here. I only have laid out an argument as to why the writing is bad. You have not explicitly argued against any of the points - all you've said is "it's all relative man! There are no objective standards - my view is just as good as everyone else's - everyone view is equally subjective." Ironically these are the ideas that people who get called "special snowflake" on /pol/ or /r/TumblrInAction and such websites usually have.
I certainly never claimed to be special in any way. In fact I've hardly mentioned anything about myself other than to preface some sentences with "I" as in "I think..." All I've done is talk about why the new Star Treks are bad and to state that your idea that "everything is relative and there's no objective standard" is childish and stupid.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
All I've done is talk about why the new Star Treks are bad and to state that your idea that "everything is relative and there's no objective standard" is childish and stupid.
I never said there is no objective standard. What I said was the *individually*, each person's subjective taste is equally right. You are never, ever, going to prove that chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream, on an individual basis, because random joe behind you in line might love vanilla and hate chocolate. Likewise, you are never, ever, going to prove that the JJ-Trek movies are bad, on an individual basis, because random joe behind you in line at the theater may love them.
All of that said, the objective standard, which you obviously will not accept because you don't agree with it, is general consensus. And the general consensus about the JJ-Trek movies is highly positive. You don't have to like it, and you don't have to agree with it, but nothing you say at this point will change that consensus. This is not a math problem that you can work out and prove the answer. You aren't wrong in hating the JJ movies, their writing, or any other element you can name. But you aren't going to prove anyone else wrong either.
All of that said, the objective standard, which you obviously will not accept because you don't agree with it, is general consensus. And the general consensus about the JJ-Trek movies is highly positive. You don't have to like it, and you don't have to agree with it, but nothing you say at this point will change that consensus. This is not a math problem that you can work out and prove the answer. You aren't wrong in hating the JJ movies, their writing, or any other element you can name. But you aren't going to prove anyone else wrong either.
Yes, but I figure I can prove that melted ice cream with no sugar tastes worse than both chocolate and vanilla ice cream. Star Trek IV is a pretty mindless comedy and it's pretty damn good.
The general consensus is wrong about a lot of things on a regular basis so I'm not sure why you believe that's some sort of objective standard. The facts speak for themselves in the lazy, unprincipled, hackneyed writing full of major plot holes and a Kirk so douchebaggy that I feel like only George Takei could have written it. Although I hope even he wouldn't have Sulu willing to fire unknown payload of torpedoes at Qo'noS unprovoked on the word of one Admiral with zero confirmation from the President of the Federation or even a Senator or otherwise.
There's basically zero narrative weight given to the fact that these idiots on the Enterprise are nearly starting a war for no reason. Somehow I'm supposed to believe they're heroes regardless of their complete idiocy.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
The facts speak for themselves in the lazy, unprincipled, hackneyed writing full of major plot holes and a Kirk so douchebaggy that I feel like only George Takei could have written it.
And there is your problem. Your so called "facts" are all just your opinions. You call something "lazy", someone else does not. You call someone a 'douche bag', someone else disagrees. Even if you point to a definition of a word like "lazy" or "douche bag", it is still only your opinion that that definition applies to said thing, and someone else is equally right in disagreeing about the application. You have no "facts". You only have your personal subjective opinion about the quality of the movie, it's writing, acting, and everything else. And while you aren't wrong, you also aren't going to prove anyone else wrong. All you have proven in this thread is that you really really believe what you are saying. But you aren't proving anyone else wrong on this particular issue, and you never will.
You call something "lazy", someone else does not. You call someone a 'douche bag', someone else disagrees. Even if you point to a definition of a word like "lazy" or "douche bag", it is still only your opinion that that definition applies to said thing, and someone else is equally right in disagreeing about the application. You have no "facts".
No, lazy is if the plot doesn't make consistent sense as if it's never seen a reasonable editor or if you make your protagonist look like an idiot loser when he's supposed to be the hero of the story. There are objective reasons Kirk appears incompetent in these Star Treks. There are objective plot holes that imply a laziness of thinking - such as the Enterprise being the only Starship around Earth when Khan shows up with a big battle - apparently the only one in the fleet. Getting back to Earth should be the equivalent of "here comes the cavalry" but instead we just have a dual as if Kirk is the only guy in all of Starfleet. That's lazy. It's not subjectively lazy, it's objectively lazy. I'm curious what Admiral Marcus thinks he's going to fight a war with since apparently there's only two ships in Starfleet - The Enterprise and some evil looking dreadnought - and he apparently intended for the Enterprise to get destroyed.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
You call something "lazy", someone else does not. You call someone a 'douche bag', someone else disagrees. Even if you point to a definition of a word like "lazy" or "douche bag", it is still only your opinion that that definition applies to said thing, and someone else is equally right in disagreeing about the application. You have no "facts".
No, lazy is if the plot doesn't make consistent sense as if it's never seen a reasonable editor or if you make your protagonist look like an idiot loser when he's supposed to be the hero of the story.
That is a completely valid opinion. But that is all it is. No matter how many times you post, you are never going to magically transform your opinion into fact.
That is a completely valid opinion. But that is all it is. No matter how many times you post, you are never going to magically transform your opinion into fact.
I changed my sig for you - no matter how much you try, you'll never be able to unsee it.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
That is a completely valid opinion. But that is all it is. No matter how many times you post, you are never going to magically transform your opinion into fact.
I changed my sig for you - no matter how much you try, you'll never be able to unsee it.
It's not generous, it's accurate. It's on the title card and everything.
I think what the meant is that "Star Trek" in itself is some kind of quality seal. Which is ironic since when I really think about it and although I'm into it and geeking out so much about it, I think the actual majority of screentime which was Star Trek over all shows and movies I actually don't like very much. Without making some sort of accurate calculation here I think I generally 'like' (not looking at exceptions and singular points but just on average) 3 out of six shows (might be four, I have to rewatch TAS 'seriously') and maybe five out of twelve movies. So I think I actually just like the minority of canonical Star Trek there is, making the assumption that "Star Trek" equals "good" a dubious assumption, form my point of view and if we'd go into that territory. Now, does this make me a bad Targ?
Bottom line: It's all subjective, people should get over it. You can argue and reason your opinion and you can exchange about it but if people start bitching and throwing stuff like "objectively right and wrong" around they should take a time out. A long one.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Comments
Having said that, while the taste of vanilla vs chocolate is subjective on an individual basis, actual market data could be used to show what the majority of people think taste better for a certain product, like ice cream. Likewise, while whether JJ-Trek is good or bad is subjective on an individual basis, the market and reviews show it is very highly rated by both critics and audiences. You don't have to like it or agree, but the general consensus is clear thus far.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
That's just your opinion. Mature and educated people are both capable and willing to make value judgments.
Star Trek is all about making value judgements...
How do you live with the cognitive dissonance that your statement that "a value judgment can't be right or wrong" is actually an opinion that other people have different views about?
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
It's not generous, it's accurate. It's on the title card and everything.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Well, yes, like I said... some people find shooting heroin to be pleasurable, others believe cannabis is inherently enlightening, some people find the taste of dirt good...
I've met people who ardently believe they are a more intelligent and "enlightened" person from consuming LSD several times a week for a year.
Not all viewpoints carry equal weight.
Now, a story has components. Plot and character development are the two primary components of a story. Maybe you disagree in which case I suppose you could count sitting on the street corner watching people walking by to be a "story." However, in the general language this word "story" refers to a specific medium which is frequently fictional told for entertainment and edification.
A story may have good plot or the plot may make no sense at all. In some cases, a wild and poorly constructed plot may be desirable - such as in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail. It ends anti-climatically intentionally because their story is designed to be absurd and silly. Character development may also be well explored or poor. Sometimes a story puts much more emphasis on plot than character development (e.g. Lord of the Rings) and sometimes a story puts more emphasis on character development than plot (e.g. Joyce's Ulysses).
Since these are objective components of a story, we can evaluate objectively how they are accomplished.
For the plot we can evaluate, for example, does the plot make sense within the internal framework of the story's reality? (are any fantasy elements reasonably consistent with prior art in the story's context? Or, if the plot is to be realistic, are there fantasy elements which detract from the realism of the plot?) Does one part of the plot logically follow another part of the plot? Does the plot expect its audience to take it seriously or take it as a farce? etc. There are many objective criteria one can examine to see if "plot" is well done.
For character development we can evaluate, for example, Is the character supposed to be taken seriously or is he supposed to be comedy or a foil? Is the character supposed to be a hero who is respected by the audience, a villain who must be despised by the audience, or is he supposed to be somewhere else in between - regarding how the audience is supposed to perceive him, is the author's implementation of this development effective in communicating these qualities? If the author intends a character to be a villain and yet the character gives to the poor, shows up to work on time every day, never breaks any laws, is always polite to everyone and loves his family and is willing to sacrifice anything for them - well - we can reasonably and objectively say the author has done a poor job of developing villainous characteristics in his character can't we?
Similarly, if an author intends a character to be a "hero," but the "hero" loads a bunch of torpedoes against the advice of his "friends," one of whom he fires and the other he calls a "robot" for objecting. If the "hero" intends to launch them at a foreign planet unprovoked without having approval from the highest levels of his government. And if it turns out if he had done this he would have mass killed a bunch of unarmed people who were in fact inside these torpedoes. And if it turns out if he had only followed the advice of his friends in the first place then tens of thousands of people wouldn't die when a starship crashes into San Francisco. Then the author hasn't done a good job of making the "hero" have heroic qualities has he?
Now we can evaluate if these character qualities make sense within the context of the plot. Does the organization the character work for professional or is it lackadaisical? Does it have standards for people it puts in charge of other people or does it just appoint any old person with or without qualification? Does it hold people accountable for making mistakes or breaking the rules or does it ignore them and sweep them under the rug? Has the author faithfully made a believable character that is believably a part of this organization? If the answer is no, or "loosly," then we can objectively say the story may be poorly written. If the answer is "yes" or "mostly" - then we can say the story may objectively meet the standard of being well written.
Of course, if you disagree that that which we call a "story" has at least "plot" and at least "character development" then I suppose you have a problem understanding the English language. However, because we mean "story" to refer to a particular thing, we can evaluate it objectively on the merits of how well it functions in maintaining and presenting the attributes of that thing can't we? If you say "everything's a story!" then you simply don't understand the language.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Popularity ≠ Quality.
You cannot argue logically with someone who declines to use logic.
quoted for the GD truth. FF is so full of WTF moments that it's the only Star Trek movie I was embarrassed about when I came out the theater...slightly over the hill-Uhura doing the fan dance...Scotty hitting his head and falling down...the really crappy special EFX...the whole movie is played for laughs....in the wrong way. If you look at Voyage Home...which is also played for laughs...but the crew is put into funny situations. Scotty dealing with a 1980's computer is funny. Scotty hitting his head after saying he knows the ship like the back of his hand...was disappointing.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
@gfreeman98: very true. Some movies make a lot of money, but get pretty mixed or low ratings. Example:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_age_of_extinction/
That movie has made over a billion dollars, and was extremely popular, but the ratings reflect the "quality". But you have only helped my point, because JJ-Trek has very high ratings:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Anyway, back on topic... I'm probably going to see Beyond, I've liked "JJTrek" okay so far, even if it's not as good as some of the other movies.
And, as long as we're using random quotes from the internet to support our posts...
I'm not disputing about whether the movie is to be "liked." I hate Handel - despise - but I don't dispute he is a quality composer. I'm disputing the quality of it. Whether something is "liked" or not doesn't determine the quality of it. Like I said, some people really like heroin but I don't think that means that it is a quality substance to inject into your veins. Similarly, I like cigarettes - but they are enormously unhealthy.
Now, why precisely, is it in some way offensive to you for me to describe why something is a bad product and why they, as a consumer, should demand better from a company that $200 million dollars to produce an 80 page script (including the spaces between character lines)?
Furthermore the author has one hell of an attitude problem:
Stop blaming BR (Bad Robot) [for the idea to reset the timeline]. It was my idea so that you would not know what was gonna happen next. Nothing more or less. I Stand behind it. And it, again, is the reason why I make movies and you don’t. - Roberto Orci
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Here is another great example of popularity vs quality:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/teenage_mutant_ninja_turtles_2013/
That movie was very popular and made a lot of money, but received very low critical ratings. And it is just such examples which serve as a stark contrast against the JJ-movies ratings:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Yes, which makes me feel someone is just paying off these critics because the plot holes, bad characterizations, insanely cliched dialogue leaves little to be praised except the special effects and the best acting an objectively incompetent writer can receive. Thankfully, some of the big names, New Yorker, RogerEbert.com, and the New York Times gave it the lambasting reviews for lazy and stupid writing it deserved - it takes a lot to get these people to praise the original Star Trek films, but these guys actually were when contrasting them with Into Darkness. It's harder to buy good reviews from the bigwigs.
Maybe we can try this another way... why don't you tell me why it is good?
I have presented multiple cases, both in the objective construction of the story and the ideological and character deviation from the established media why I assert they were bad and all you have said was "well, others disagree so it's just your opinion."
For example, can you please tell me a moment where I was supposed to be inspired by the competence of our new Captain Kirk? To me it comes off as if the writers hate Captain Kirk and you shouldn't be writing a story about Captain Kirk if you hate him. Orci is a radical leftist and hates Bush - many of the fans of Trek are also not fans of Bush so I don't know why I should be happy that Orci wants to exhibit the worst qualities of Kirk so much because he's conflating Bush and Kirk in his peabrain one-tracked mind. Kirk was somewhat of a douche, but to compare him to a show I criticized earlier for repetitiveness and simplicity, he's a douche like Gibbs in NCIS is a douche, he's not a douche that is supposed to seem loathsome or incompetent.
Orci is trying to portray Kirk as a rogue, I guess, by having him spit on Spock and, essentially, fire Scotty over these Torpedoes (but he has no problem opening them when a sexy woman tells him to). Except, Kirk breaks the rules when he does for good reasons - here he is extremely adherent to hierarchy. It's a trick that's supposed to make you think of Kirk as a rogue by refusing to listen to his Crew, but is really him being absurdly slavish to Starfleet Admirals in a way that undercuts the Kirk we've liked from the previous series who will disobey the bureaucracy when he feels it's morally right rather than go out of his way to obey it to the detriment of his crew when it's wrong.
Anyway, these writers have contempt for their audience, evidenced in their movie and openly expressed in public:
"all J.J. wanted to do was make a film that people really enjoyed. So, to be subject to that level of sort of, like, crass f–king ire, I just say f–k you. Not you, but the people who said that" - Simon Pegg
I think the article above is akin to a child acting out against his parents. Makes it tough for some to listen, but since I am a loving parent, I read these comments without anger or resentment, no matter how misguided.
Having said that, two biggest Star Treks in a row with best reviews is hardly a description of ‘broken.’ And frankly, your tone and attidude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future. As I love to say, there is a reason why I get to write the movies, and you don’t. - Roberto Orci
That alone should be enough reason not to give them another cent, even if ST:ID was damned Godfather II.
I guess it's heroic when Kirk "dies" to save the crew by realigning the warp core so I guess they did give him some heroic quality. It would help a lot more if it weren't his incompetence that got them into the mess in the first place.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
If that were true, then the HUGE companies behind the Transformers and Ninja Turtles brands would have simply done the same thing. But apparently that isn't the case, so do you have any other conspiracy theories?
After all this time, you still don't get it. I'm not saying the JJ-movies are "good". What I am saying is that whether they are "good" or "bad" is completely subjective. You obviously don't like them, and that is fine. But that is just your opinion, which means no more than any other random joe who might happen to love them. I know you think you are a special little snowflake, but you aren't any MORE special than every other special little snowflake out there.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
What you're not getting is that RT ratings are just another measure of popularity. This is completely true for the audience score, and I'd say it's true for the "professional" critics as well. I put no stock in the "wisdom of the crowd". The number of people, critics or otherwise, that likes something has no bearing on whether or not I like it.
That said, let's think about the critic scores. A movie critic is going to evaluate a Star Trek film the same as any other film. IOW they are not evaluating it based on it's Trek-worthiness, which we are doing.
Take for example ST'09. I was looking forward to it, went in with an open mind, and saw it on opening night. And while there were a few things I liked and appreciated with some of the scenes and some of the acting, I did not care for what they did overall. So to me, as a Star Trek movie, it was a failure that I disliked. But as just a generic action movie, I'd say it was mildly entertaining. The critic scores you keep parading only care about that last part.
Again, what you like and what I like don't have to be the same. Entertainment preferences are entirely subjective as I think we all agree. However my point here is you constantly showing numbers of people that agree with you doesn't add any value.
The examples of Transformers and Ninja Turtles show pretty clearly that is not the case. Both of those movies were VERY popular and made a LOT of money, yet received very low scores. If ratings were just a measure of popularity as you say, then they would have very high ratings. But they don't, so, no.
Unfortunately we don't all agree. The OP thinks his taste and opinion about movies are factually "right", and that the people who disagree are wrong. My entire point this whole time has been that there is no "right" or "wrong" about subjective taste. Fortunately, it doesn't matter whether he accepts that or not, because it will remain true long after this thread is forgotten.
You misunderstand. I am not referencing RT because they "agree with me", but rather to show what the general consensus is on any given movie. That is simply a reference point against the OP who insists his personal opinion is fact, which is obviously not the case.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I said I feel that way (not that it happened) because usually critics are good at telling when something is objectively bad. If Xavier in an X-Man reboot had been made into the world's biggest douche I would expect some major negative reviews from even people who didn't like X-Men at all.
And I gave you objective evidence that the writing was sloppy because you didn't like some of my subjective assertions about it - none of which you disputed. Maybe you don't believe there is objectively a difference between a writer who makes no sense and a writer who knows his craft which is simply a matter of your knowledge of the craft.
No, you stated there's nothing at all objective that can be said about writing quality or a story - I, in fact, pointed to evidence that that is not in fact true. There's plenty of people who have preceded me in saying the new Star Trek is trash so there's nothing really "special snowflake" about my position. In fact I've not really talked about myself at all here. I only have laid out an argument as to why the writing is bad. You have not explicitly argued against any of the points - all you've said is "it's all relative man! There are no objective standards - my view is just as good as everyone else's - everyone view is equally subjective." Ironically these are the ideas that people who get called "special snowflake" on /pol/ or /r/TumblrInAction and such websites usually have.
I certainly never claimed to be special in any way. In fact I've hardly mentioned anything about myself other than to preface some sentences with "I" as in "I think..." All I've done is talk about why the new Star Treks are bad and to state that your idea that "everything is relative and there's no objective standard" is childish and stupid.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
I never said there is no objective standard. What I said was the *individually*, each person's subjective taste is equally right. You are never, ever, going to prove that chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream, on an individual basis, because random joe behind you in line might love vanilla and hate chocolate. Likewise, you are never, ever, going to prove that the JJ-Trek movies are bad, on an individual basis, because random joe behind you in line at the theater may love them.
All of that said, the objective standard, which you obviously will not accept because you don't agree with it, is general consensus. And the general consensus about the JJ-Trek movies is highly positive. You don't have to like it, and you don't have to agree with it, but nothing you say at this point will change that consensus. This is not a math problem that you can work out and prove the answer. You aren't wrong in hating the JJ movies, their writing, or any other element you can name. But you aren't going to prove anyone else wrong either.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Yes, but I figure I can prove that melted ice cream with no sugar tastes worse than both chocolate and vanilla ice cream. Star Trek IV is a pretty mindless comedy and it's pretty damn good.
The general consensus is wrong about a lot of things on a regular basis so I'm not sure why you believe that's some sort of objective standard. The facts speak for themselves in the lazy, unprincipled, hackneyed writing full of major plot holes and a Kirk so douchebaggy that I feel like only George Takei could have written it. Although I hope even he wouldn't have Sulu willing to fire unknown payload of torpedoes at Qo'noS unprovoked on the word of one Admiral with zero confirmation from the President of the Federation or even a Senator or otherwise.
There's basically zero narrative weight given to the fact that these idiots on the Enterprise are nearly starting a war for no reason. Somehow I'm supposed to believe they're heroes regardless of their complete idiocy.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
And there is your problem. Your so called "facts" are all just your opinions. You call something "lazy", someone else does not. You call someone a 'douche bag', someone else disagrees. Even if you point to a definition of a word like "lazy" or "douche bag", it is still only your opinion that that definition applies to said thing, and someone else is equally right in disagreeing about the application. You have no "facts". You only have your personal subjective opinion about the quality of the movie, it's writing, acting, and everything else. And while you aren't wrong, you also aren't going to prove anyone else wrong. All you have proven in this thread is that you really really believe what you are saying. But you aren't proving anyone else wrong on this particular issue, and you never will.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
No, lazy is if the plot doesn't make consistent sense as if it's never seen a reasonable editor or if you make your protagonist look like an idiot loser when he's supposed to be the hero of the story. There are objective reasons Kirk appears incompetent in these Star Treks. There are objective plot holes that imply a laziness of thinking - such as the Enterprise being the only Starship around Earth when Khan shows up with a big battle - apparently the only one in the fleet. Getting back to Earth should be the equivalent of "here comes the cavalry" but instead we just have a dual as if Kirk is the only guy in all of Starfleet. That's lazy. It's not subjectively lazy, it's objectively lazy. I'm curious what Admiral Marcus thinks he's going to fight a war with since apparently there's only two ships in Starfleet - The Enterprise and some evil looking dreadnought - and he apparently intended for the Enterprise to get destroyed.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
That is a completely valid opinion. But that is all it is. No matter how many times you post, you are never going to magically transform your opinion into fact.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I changed my sig for you - no matter how much you try, you'll never be able to unsee it.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
LOL nice
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I think what the meant is that "Star Trek" in itself is some kind of quality seal. Which is ironic since when I really think about it and although I'm into it and geeking out so much about it, I think the actual majority of screentime which was Star Trek over all shows and movies I actually don't like very much. Without making some sort of accurate calculation here I think I generally 'like' (not looking at exceptions and singular points but just on average) 3 out of six shows (might be four, I have to rewatch TAS 'seriously') and maybe five out of twelve movies. So I think I actually just like the minority of canonical Star Trek there is, making the assumption that "Star Trek" equals "good" a dubious assumption, form my point of view and if we'd go into that territory. Now, does this make me a bad Targ?
Bottom line: It's all subjective, people should get over it. You can argue and reason your opinion and you can exchange about it but if people start bitching and throwing stuff like "objectively right and wrong" around they should take a time out. A long one.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Join the Deltas today!