The more I see ST.09 the more impressed I am with it’s subtle complexity.

The problem is that people are comparing the role that ST.09 had to play with other movies which do not have the same responsibilities and, most importantly, which do not have the same purpose.

ST.09 was a LINK between past and future. It was designed to reboot the franchise without destroying the past or being necessarily committed to a particular future — it was not designed to be a stand alone movie independent of past and future incarnations, as Avatar had the advantage of being.

ST.09 had a wonderful story that was appropriate for its purpose.

Avatar and Trek 09 is apples and oranges.

ST.09 was an ENDING/ORIGIN story. That’s what it was about. It was a movie devised to fit in with and depend on most of the Star Trek that came before it so that even without the use of 3D glasses the universe we saw in ST.09 had an unseen depth that reached beyond the movie screen, and yet it was ingenious enough to function as a huge movie with fun, excitement, and tragedy to those who were just coming to the franchise and could not perceive those offscreen depths.

And as that sort of movie, it gets my vote for best ever of its kind.

Star Trek 09 was as brilliant an achievement as an arrow that has to wind its way around obstacle after obstacle to hit the bullseye — and then does!

To you I’m whatever you want me to be, sister. Don’t let my reality stop your imagination from giving me fangs dripping with blood.

“You really come off like an angry, bitter person. And you probably should stay away from sharp objects as you don’t seem very good with points.”

Lol. Actually, that’s how you strike me. And tending a bit towards the oversensitive and hysterical.

Forget that you apparently can’t tell the difference between bashing something and critical analysis of why I thought this or that didn’t work or where something could be improved, without which things do not get improved — the fact that you get set off so easily by a legitimate criticism tells me how much you have invested in Avatar and what it means to you. And that’s fine. To each his or her own. But why should that stop anyone from pointing out where it missed the target? I’ve pulled no punches and done the same thing with ST.09, which I love way more than Avatar.

I talk the same way I write and in real person to person communications — which I have a lot of, by the way — no one gets offended by the things I say because it’s not what I say but how I say it, which communicates the sorts of subtleties that are lost in this medium of exchange, and that tell people I’m not being an ass. C’ est la vie. If I changed how I expressed myself out of fear of how someone would take my words on a website, I’d be a phony. And I’d rather you call me all those other names than phony.

“You have a nice life hon.”

Aw come on now, that sounds final. Don’t go running off just because we had a vigorous disagreement.

I have to agree that ST09 was not simply all “Wow” factor. I’d say it was more like 80% “Wow” factor, and 20% “Yeah, Whatever” factor.

With just a sprinkling of pointless gimmick. For spice.

“it’s a swipe I’m going to keep taking, for the same reasons I like to push bone headed Star Trek fans who cry vengeance whenever canon is disturbed.”

What a petty hobby.

You really come off like an angry, bitter person. And you probably should stay away from sharp objects as you don’t seem very good with points. I’ve found much of my charity work helps keep me centered, balanced and fulfilled so I don’t feel the need to lash out like that, when there are so many other things I could be doing with my time. I found Habitat for Humanity especially fulfilling, in part because I get to hit things. ;-) But then you know all about that since you purport to know me so well. You have a nice life hon.

Crap! I gotta shell out more cash.

And each critic puts their pants one leg at a time, same as me. I looked at some of those reviews. I compared, for instance, Roger Ebert’s review of Star Trek (negative) to his review of Avatar (positive), and found him ridiculously inconsistent.

“You are the one who came onto this site bashing Avatar, labeling people as “Avatards” and “juvinile”, suggesting that audiences are responding to the “wow” factor and 3D more than anything else and boasting of your superiority because you didn’t fall for it.”

1. I don’t “boast” about my superiority, and I certainly don’t spend any time stupidly comparing myself to other people, but thanks for complimenting me. I’m sorry if for some reason you feel I should be saying the exact same things about the movie that you are, but I’d be a liar if I did, because that’s not the way I feel about it.

2. “Bashing”??? lol. I’ve said multiple times that I LIKED the movie! But apparently the only way what I’m saying makes any sense to you is to portray me as someone who did NOT like the movie. Where did I say that? I DID like it, but unlike you and so many others, I’m not hysterical over it. Do you worship Avatar? Is it heresy to you for someone to NOT be as affected by the film as you were/are? The term “Avatard” is not a swipe against the movie, but against SOME of its fans, and it’s a swipe I’m going to keep taking, for the same reasons I like to push bone headed Star Trek fans who cry vengeance whenever canon is disturbed.

“As I recall, Star Trek was all ‘Wow’ factor,”

Nope, and I’ve left more than enough breadcrumb trail on this site over the past year explicating that “nope” in much more detail.

“At least this one makes people look around and wonder why things can’t be better, a point you seem to have missed.”

No, that’s what it makes YOU do. I don’t need a freakin movie in 3D to make ME do that, sister. If you are in contact with and experiencing the world outside the theater or Hollywood’s Pantheon of Celebrity Gods, you don’t need a movie to tell you how screwed up things are.

And you have the nerve to talk about what the media turns into news? How do you know about Haiti? You are only talking about it because that’s what the news is showing you.

Do you think nothing worth your attention is happening when they do NOT report it? Sure, big tragedy in Haiti, and before that for decades poor little girls and boys in Nepal are being sold into slavery by their own parents because the families are so poor that it’s the only way for them to get money to feed the rest of the family. There are LOTS of places in the world where people desperately need help NOW.

Here you go, put your money where your mouth is. Donate to NYOF, which has a four star rating by Charity Navigator. Help make the world a slightly better place:

http://www.nyof.org/

So sell your polarized glasses if you must; put off another trip to see Avatar and donate the money to those poor children.

But, I’m not making this about my own personal preferences or just box office numbers. The professional critics have also given Avatar better reviews than Star Trek, Rotten Tomatoes summarizes the professional critics reviews a good two points higher. Star Trek has simply been outclassed on all fronts and critics and audiences alike have spoken. This article is about Star Trek failing to achieve any recognition in major awards shows after all.

You are the one who came onto this site bashing Avatar, labeling people as “Avatards” and “juvinile”, suggesting that audiences are responding to the “wow” factor and 3D more than anything else and boasting of your superiority because you didn’t fall for it. As I recall, Star Trek was all “Wow” factor, but that didn’t seem to propel it even to the half-billion mark. Guess Star Trek was lacking something else, which the critics and award groups all seem to have found as well?

All I stated is that your opinion is in the minority, as have most Star Trek fans been for 44 years. Nothing new there. Go ahead and enjoy Star Trek all you like, I certainly do, but really why do you feel the need to climb up onto a soapbox even on a Star Trek site and spoil others’ fun by belittling those who did enjoy Avatar? Most posts even on this site have been positive about Avatar, the negative ones have often never seen it. If you didn’t care for it, you can say so without denigrating others. I’ve not met a single person who was depressed after watching Avatar, nor heard of anyone who has. Only the media has blown this thing up out of proportion, in much the same way they took a small minority of Star Trek fans who were upset by the new movie and made that a national story. Guess what it sold news! Yet you seem to make this a pivotal argument against Avatar, having taken the “bait” so to speak. Why? How does it help Star Trek? By the way, I am much happier with a story about how people are depressed because our world has not lived up to the idealized civilization in Avatar, than any Star Trek had, which mostly focused on how it wasn’t just for nerds anymore. At least this one makes people look around and wonder why things can’t be better, a point you seem to have missed. Star Trek was supposed to teach us acceptance of other’s beliefs, but all I’ve seen since Avatar has begin sweeping the awards is biased hate and anger and hollow arguments.

We should all be thankful that we can sit around and debate these kinds of questions even on a day when we should all be thinking more about our brothers and sisters in Haiti, and why such tragedies continue to happen in a world that can actually afford to prevent most of them – which includes your South American Indian tribes. I’ll take Avatar’s message any day over whatever Star Trek was supposed to be about. Obvious or no, at least people are talking about it. Who’s really talking about Star Trek, if they can even figure out what it was about?