RAR wrote:Someone who's first Exposure to Star Trek is JJ abrams isn't a Star Trek fan they are a fan of a specific movie that has at best a casual one night stand with Star Trek it's certainly in no long term relationship with it.
And the point I'm making is that there is things in movies that can be accepted as a Conceit if the conceit makes sense even ordinary movies play with our sense of time a real treat like how James Bond seems to teleport from location to location rather than get a plane.
And less time passes than often seems possible for him to have to have travelled.
The point I'm making is if you don't either have a pre-established explanation or it's something over lookable - then it can stand out a flaw or at least a distraction.
Like many people are distracted by the Dark Knight Rises and how Batman escapes the Bomb or how he got back to Gotham so quick - both have legit explanations but neither are offered and so both bug some people a lot - The Force Awakens has more than one of those sort of things.
And Replicators make at least as much sense as Energy shields do. You just take the idea that Matter and energy are interchangable and run with it. So you can't say they have no explanation at all.
But Spock seeing something from what may "Potentially" (at least) be another Star System is just pure B.S. - again if it's one of Vulcan's sister planets - then it's a stretch as it would need to be very very close to appear like that - but a whole other planet being seen from another planet in another star system is beyond silly - it's actually insulting - it's like watching someone shoot the same gun for 10 minutes and never reload it. it's suggesting you the viewer are a moron.
So the complaint isn't that there is no explanation it's that non is offered at all. as I said If the effect was seen in advance of the beam as a side effect of the corridor the beam is pursuiting in it's path of Destruction - so that it would be like looking at a natural telescope getting a preview of what is comming at you faster than the speed of light.
It might be pushing it Science wise but it's enough of an explanation for me to except it. a director's visual affectation though isn't as easy a sell for me as soon as I noticed it - I can't now un-notice it. but like Prime Spock seeing Vulcan implode It snot something you might even think about on the 1st viewing - then you think... hang on a minute - where is he standing again ?
Then there is the issues that you have to choose to over look like - why does the Enterprise take hits 'through' it's shields when they are still up.
The answer to that has "Consequences" for the physics of the whole show.
There is some curious points you can point out about Star Wars though like how well do the X-wings deflector Shields even work - when the ships blow up really pretty like when they get any hits at all - except when Artoo got skimmed - which should he have when Lukes shields were not depleted.
An explanation of why that was might have been nice. - such as the trench is to tight or he forgot to even his shields out to behind him when ordered too. The X-wings seem to take hits but the shots fired at them never seem to vanish, bend or splash on the shields - and notice this isn't the case either in the Prequels - every shot that hits either does damage or hits the hull with no effect. (like when people fire hand guns at space ships in Episode 2 & 5)
. Yet Jedi Starfighters supposedly have no shields and yet Jango singularly fails to hit Obiwan in any way at all. I think not using the shields properly actually harms the tension it could build up if used properly - I suppose it comes up a little on the cartoons - but they seem to mostly gloss over it there too.
Many people complain about the Naboo ship fleeing the planet via the Trade federation Blockade and rightly so - that whole scene makes at best only partial sense.
Perhaps the shields thing Bugged the makers of Independence Day as they sure made a point of bringing it up a lot as an essential aspect. - and Independence day isn't what most people think of as a smart movie.
I'm not saying physics can't be hand waved but you notice when it happens to much it can take people out of the Movie - another example of how that can be is Sam bouncing about on a chain attached to Starscreams face - and how he falls from impossible heights repeatedly with no injury - when dropping more than 11 feet can risk a broken ankle in the real world having someone fall 50 feet is a bit off putting to be frank.
That is I would point out one of many reasons why people don't like the later Die Hard Movies as much as the earlier ones - the invisible rubber ball hero vs the one who looks pretty darn bashed up by his adventures.
I talk about these movies slot, with a lot of people. This is literally the first time I've heard of these complaints. Its a movie, and you've missed the entire point. If you feel insulted, that's on you. Enjoy it and let it go, or don't watch it, but don't act like the movie is somehow trying to insult your intelligence.
Okay, enough soapboxing from me. I'm almost done pooping, and its time to get back to Christmas.