I am often surprised at how different other people’s opinions are from mine.
11 days ago, I was beside myself with glee when I found that “Star Trek” (2009) was on TV! I have seen it in the theater, and I was quite impressed with the movie. And I was happy that I got the opportunity to see it again. It being in cable means I will have many more of the same opportunity in the future. Yay!
I took the time to look it up on IMDb.com to find out three things. First, how the movie did in the box office. Second, its full cast and crew, and third, what other people thought about it.
I was pretty surprised at some of the user reviews. It was pretty normal that big fans of Star Trek would compare the movie with the original TV series. Although many felt the movie was able to maintain the integrity of the original Star Trek, some others found dozens of faults with it.
One particular user was very critical with the storyline. In the user’s opinion, the storyline did not make sense. If the Romulans had seen their planet destroyed by a supernova, and by a freak luck they were sent back 154 years back in the past, why didn’t they go to their planet and warn the leaders about the impending future catastrophy? It didn’t make sense that instead of doing that, as soon as they realized they were in the past, they went after the one individual they thought responsible for the loss of their planet?
The user lists at least 10 other things he found to be at odds with common sense about the movie. I will not list all of them here. Suffice it to say that his criticism made me think about the credibility of the story.
Last Saturday, Star Trek was on again. I watched it again, and I realized that many of the insensible things were actually misunderstandings and misinterpretations. There were good reasons why the movie makers made the storyline as such.
Which reminds me when I first saw “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull” (2008). My reaction to the movie was almost as negative as a cat’s reaction to water. I could think of a string of words that I could use to make other people think that the movie was as bad as I thought it was.
But the movie is now the 35th highest grossing movie of all time, making $786,636,033 (which is, by the way, a number that “E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial” (1982) took years to achieve). Put that number against the $6 that I paid for my movie ticket (yes, here in Indonesia it costs just a little over the price of a Big Mac Value Meal in Manhattan to see a movie in a comfortable theatre with plush seats), and it’s like I’m facing over 100 million people who think otherwise.
I fretted about the fact that “Indy 4” featured alien technology as central theme of the movie, and the fact that the scene where the alien ship broke out of its hiding place and flew back to its star system was a copy of a similar scene in “The X-Files” (1998). My best friend gently broke it to me that long before the movie was made, many had suggested in the Indana Jones fan sites that encounter with aliens should be the theme of the next Indiana Jones adventure.
When I saw the movie again, I found it to be not as bad as I thought, and I tended to agree with the 100 million plus people.
There will always be people whose opinions are different from ours. We just need to be more careful in expressing ours, lest our opinion carries too much weight that makes it difficult to make an admission when we realize that we are wrong.