Wow, Teague....you have all the answers.

I love how Martial ARTS can't be art.

I think both sides of this argument need to spend some more time deliberating with themselves of the concept of art versus intrinsic value.  For many, art is value.  I take the stance that since value is subjective to begin with, then therefore the definition of art is subjective.  If its subjective, then video games are art.  So is the Mona Lisa, so is the Jonas Brothers 3D, so was Jake Shears form the Scissor Sisters wrapping himself in a trash bag on stage and reinacting an abortion taking place from the fetus' point of view.  I strongly prefer some to others, but I recognize that all are art.

I dunno...this whole deliberate thing is a hang up for me.  I believe a lot of great art is accidental.  To me its the end result that matters, not the intention.  Vasquez Rocks is a work of art to me, and that is in no way deliberate.

Real Genius is a favorite of mine, as is Big Trouble

I've said it before and Ill say it now.  I want a "Noir Month" and Chinatown needs to be a part of this.

My broader point is that Star Trek fandom by and large tends to have rose colored glasses when it comes to its own logic. 

Trey is largely right about Battlefield comissions.  They are far more common than one would think.  Keep in mind, Kirk was promoted to acting Commander by Cpt. Pike himself, BECAUSE he was the only one who figured out the signal.  The same Cpt Pike who pulled his record and saw a near genius IQ in Kirk, and after Kirk fulfilled his goal to finish SF Academy in 3 years, vs 4.

Looking at the weight of ALL of these things, I too, if I were in Pike's position, place an exceptionally talented graduate as the #2 in charge while Im away, under the leadership of an even more intelligent and seasoned Officer (Spock, in this case)

Point being, they're are plenty of logic gaps to rightly criticize, (the black hole thing is laughable to me) but that is the least of my issues.

How is it that the religion thread is more civil and even tempered than the Star Trek thread?

......

Actually, it's not that surprising.  Never mind.

*slowly raises hand*

I seem to recall a certain 17 year old in TNG get promoted from the rank of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to ACTING ENSIGN, and have a semi permanent bridge position solely on the fact that his Dad was dead. 

In my opinion, there's a precedent for Starfleet hasty promotions, so this did not bother me at all.

Preacher was a huge influence on my writing, and I own the entire run.  Trey, I was one of the people who have recommended not only Preacher, but anything Garth Ennis writes.

Kyle, I never said I wasn't into westerns, I said I wasn't into SPAGHETTI westerns, and there is a difference.  I love me some Peckinpah, though.  I want my Cowboys caked in blood, whisky, and Tuberulosis, which is how Peckinpah made them.

I understand Brian's logic...to a point.  I am in no way going to engage anyone on the science of original Trek to JJ Trek because its pointless and I frankly don't give a shit.  More broadly, I would just say, look at the name.

Star TREK.  The emphasis was always on the TREK to me, not the Star.  At the end of the day what worked for me about TOS and TNG was the characters as they both TREK through space and TREK on their own path in life.  I feel JJ got that very well with the primary three characters of Kirk, Spock and Bones.  Yes, TOS tackled a lot of bold social issues and brought science to the forefront of a weekly television show.  That's awesome.  But it's not the reason I loved Trek before and its not thereason I love it now.  I love the characters, I love their journeys.  I love the sense of exploration and adventure. 

Were there a few clunky plot devices?  Sure.  But like a lot of movies, I'm willing to move beyond that if the film as a whole works for me, and this one does.  I would go on to say that JJ understands whats great about Trek better than anyone since Ronald Moore, and certainly better than it had been handled in the last 10 years or so.