If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Entertainment Weekly)   JJ Abrams passes on Star Wars, says he will only ruin one science fiction franchise at a time   (insidemovies.ew.com) divider line 162
    More: Followup, J.J. Abrams, Star Wars, Empire Magazine, Michael Arndt, minutiae, Matthew Vaughn, Star Trek, Showtime  
•       •       •

2214 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 27 Dec 2012 at 11:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-27 10:48:59 AM  
But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.
 
2012-12-27 11:10:16 AM  

LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.


THIS!  If anybody ruined Star Trek it was Rick Berman and whoever the other guy was who took over Trek after Roddenberry died.
 
2012-12-27 11:17:13 AM  

LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.


good film? meh, it was fun but I refuse to call any film with Tyler Perry in it good

I felt it was an enjoyable action flick but failed to use any of the Star Trek moral quandaries, it just ran over itself

That being said Star Wars in the movies themselves was a space opera and not too scifi-y so it actually would be better helmed by JJ "Lens Flair" Abrams
 
2012-12-27 11:34:51 AM  
Congrats on the new green First National Bastard!
 
2012-12-27 11:36:57 AM  
Why would he need to take on Star Wars? He's already trying to turn Star Trek  into Star Wars. Hell, he had R2-D2 in the last movie, for crying out loud.
 
2012-12-27 11:40:14 AM  
Oh I can see I am going to have alot of fun in this thread...


angrymacface: Why would he need to take on Star Wars? He's already trying to turn Star Trek  into Star Wars. Hell, he had R2-D2 in the last movie, for crying out loud.


l.yimg.com

Easter eggs are exactly that. Only easter eggs.

Youtube version
 
2012-12-27 11:41:55 AM  

LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.


I don't know how anyone can like Star Wars over Star Trek, and I say that as someone who was eleven and a huge fan when the Episode IV: A New Hope came out. The new Trek reboot was fun, good-looking, full of action and had a great cast. I just hope - for the love of all that's holy - they aren't gonna use existing movies and episodes as the basis for every new Trek movie from hereon out.
 
2012-12-27 11:42:18 AM  

bluorangefyre: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

THIS!  If anybody ruined Star Trek it was Rick Berman and whoever the other guy was who took over Trek after Roddenberry died.


I must respectfully disagree. Berman and Co. turned it from the scattershot "where are we going today, kids?" to the serial story lines and arcs. Having a story to tell is far better than a collection of vignettes.
 
2012-12-27 11:43:10 AM  
These new star wars movies are going to be awesomely bad. I can't wait for Johnny Depp to be the new Han.
 
2012-12-27 11:45:14 AM  
JJ Abrams and I have something in common. I'll be passing on this too.
 
2012-12-27 11:48:21 AM  
I liked the new Star Trek, but that's a funny headline.

Can't think of any excuse to hide a starship under the ocean, though. The more I think about it, the dumber it seems...
 
2012-12-27 11:52:07 AM  

the_innkeeper: bluorangefyre: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

THIS!  If anybody ruined Star Trek it was Rick Berman and whoever the other guy was who took over Trek after Roddenberry died.

I must respectfully disagree. Berman and Co. turned it from the scattershot "where are we going today, kids?" to the serial story lines and arcs. Having a story to tell is far better than a collection of vignettes.


Sure, but he did so really badly. Berman and Braga didn't screw up star wars by trying to do the wrong thing (often their ideas were pretty good, in fact) the problem was, neither of them have any goddamn talent, so they executed those ideas poorly.
 
2012-12-27 11:54:40 AM  

Gunther: Berman and Braga didn't screw up star wars


Oh goddammit. I'm clearly still too hungover to be on Fark. That should obviously be Star Trek.
 
2012-12-27 11:56:46 AM  
his sort of makes sense, if he's a huge fan he'd be loath to do anything that could ruin it for him, like say adding a comic relief character such as Jar Jar Binks

Where as not being a fan of trek allows him to screw around and up it's already messy universe by pulling the time travel reboot, and the macguffin red goo
 
2012-12-27 11:59:44 AM  

bluorangefyre: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

THIS!  If anybody ruined Star Trek it was Rick Berman and whoever the other guy was who took over Trek after Roddenberry died.



Brannon Braga. To add insult to injury for millions of Trekkers, he was also banging Jeri Ryan for a while.
 
2012-12-27 12:02:38 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: I liked the new Star Trek, but that's a funny headline.

Can't think of any excuse to hide a starship under the ocean, though. The more I think about it, the dumber it seems...


The trailer shows a ship crashing into the water. Why are people NOT assuming that's the ship being towed/taken OUT of it in some way?
 
2012-12-27 12:03:17 PM  

zedster: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

good film? meh, it was fun but I refuse to call any film with Tyler Perry in it good

I felt it was an enjoyable action flick but failed to use any of the Star Trek moral quandaries, it just ran over itself

That being said Star Wars in the movies themselves was a space opera and not too scifi-y so it actually would be better helmed by JJ "Lens Flair" Abrams


WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 
2012-12-27 12:11:46 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Rev. Skarekroe: I liked the new Star Trek, but that's a funny headline.

Can't think of any excuse to hide a starship under the ocean, though. The more I think about it, the dumber it seems...

The trailer shows a ship crashing into the water. Why are people NOT assuming that's the ship being towed/taken OUT of it in some way?


Because in the preview before The Hobbit they clearly showed the Enterprise was hiding in the ocean of a pre-warp society. Now, why did they not beam down or use shuttlecraft had not been addressed.
 
2012-12-27 12:13:13 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Rev. Skarekroe: I liked the new Star Trek, but that's a funny headline.

Can't think of any excuse to hide a starship under the ocean, though. The more I think about it, the dumber it seems...

The trailer shows a ship crashing into the water. Why are people NOT assuming that's the ship being towed/taken OUT of it in some way?


***SPOILERS***

It's right in the first ten minutes that they showed before The Hobbit's opening weekend IMAX showings. They're on a planet that's going to experience a cataclysmic event and they're trying to avoid being seen by the primitive natives while preventing the event. They're forced to keep the Enterprise nearby without violating the Prime Directive and thus are hiding it under an ocean, which Scotty really, really, really doesn't approve of. Guess who violates the Prime Directive anyway when he sees something shiny?
 
2012-12-27 12:14:16 PM  

Big Beef Burrito: zedster: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

good film? meh, it was fun but I refuse to call any film with Tyler Perry in it good

I felt it was an enjoyable action flick but failed to use any of the Star Trek moral quandaries, it just ran over itself

That being said Star Wars in the movies themselves was a space opera and not too scifi-y so it actually would be better helmed by JJ "Lens Flair" Abrams

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


TO BE THE LENS, YOU HAVE TO BEAT THE LENS!
 
2012-12-27 12:15:54 PM  

Big Beef Burrito: zedster: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

good film? meh, it was fun but I refuse to call any film with Tyler Perry in it good

I felt it was an enjoyable action flick but failed to use any of the Star Trek moral quandaries, it just ran over itself

That being said Star Wars in the movies themselves was a space opera and not too scifi-y so it actually would be better helmed by JJ "Lens Flair" Abrams

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


this is what happens when I do too many things at once
 
2012-12-27 12:15:56 PM  

LlamaGirl: Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-27 12:16:56 PM  

Richard_The_Clown: Jim from Saint Paul: Rev. Skarekroe: I liked the new Star Trek, but that's a funny headline.

Can't think of any excuse to hide a starship under the ocean, though. The more I think about it, the dumber it seems...

The trailer shows a ship crashing into the water. Why are people NOT assuming that's the ship being towed/taken OUT of it in some way?

Because in the preview before The Hobbit they clearly showed the Enterprise was hiding in the ocean of a pre-warp society. Now, why did they not beam down or use shuttlecraft had not been addressed.


Dammit...

But that bolded part was explained. ***SPOILERS AGAIN*** The volcanic activity was unexpectedly farking with the transporters and (if I remember right) they only wanted to risk having one shuttle flying around and that one had Sulu and Uhura dropping Spock into the volcano.
 
2012-12-27 12:19:53 PM  

Kyro: LlamaGirl: Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.

[i.imgur.com image 474x379]


You too fight nice. Also, Episode I is an affront to God himself.
 
2012-12-27 12:20:04 PM  

LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.


This Face Left Blank: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.

I don't know how anyone can like Star Wars over Star Trek, and I say that as someone who was eleven and a huge fan when the Episode IV: A New Hope came out. The new Trek reboot was fun, good-looking, full of action and had a great cast. I just hope - for the love of all that's holy - they aren't gonna use existing movies and episodes as the basis for every new Trek movie from hereon out.


I take it we're not allowed to enjoy both?

Berman and Braga ruined the TV franchise the way someone else upthread mentioned. They had good ideas but piss poor execution. It's like they couldn't say no to a stupid storyline or plot element or something.
 
2012-12-27 12:24:08 PM  
I've only watched clips of the original Star Trek, but it looks cheesier than Adam West Batman.
 
2012-12-27 12:34:14 PM  
NERD FIGHT!!!


On a related note: X-Wing vs Defiant
 
2012-12-27 12:36:25 PM  

browntimmy: I've only watched clips of the original Star Trek, but it looks cheesier than Adam West Batman.


There were a few real issues of the first Abrams star trek:
- abandoning a troublesome crew member on an ice planet?!?
- the coincidence of finding Spock there
- the long range transport to a ship moving away at warp (and was already very far way)
- filling the flagship of the fleet with cadets and then putting one in charge
- giving Scotty an Ewok sidekick

Even with all those annoying flaws, it was still an entertaining movie. So my hope is, now that the origin story is out of the way, they can do #2 even better.
 
2012-12-27 12:36:28 PM  

Dingleberry Dickwad: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.

This Face Left Blank: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.

I don't know how anyone can like Star Wars over Star Trek, and I say that as someone who was eleven and a huge fan when the Episode IV: A New Hope came out. The new Trek reboot was fun, good-looking, full of action and had a great cast. I just hope - for the love of all that's holy - they aren't gonna use existing movies and episodes as the basis for every new Trek movie from hereon out.

I take it we're not allowed to enjoy both?

Berman and Braga ruined the TV franchise the way someone else upthread mentioned. They had good ideas but piss poor execution. It's like they couldn't say no to a stupid storyline or plot element or something.


Agreed.

While the movies are fun, they don't really exude "Star Trek" to me. Then again, I probably would only feel that Star Trek feeling with another TV series.

I'm all for Abrams moving forward with it.
 
2012-12-27 12:38:38 PM  

texdent: NERD FIGHT!!!

On a related note: X-Wing vs Defiant


Don't you think a single man fighter vs. a small but bleeding edge warship is a miss match right from the start??
 
2012-12-27 12:39:35 PM  

LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.


I love you.
 
2012-12-27 12:40:14 PM  

Farking Canuck: texdent: NERD FIGHT!!!

On a related note: X-Wing vs Defiant

Don't you think a single man fighter vs. a small but bleeding edge warship is a miss match right from the start??


Not if a Jedi is doing the piloting.
 
2012-12-27 12:44:37 PM  
Didn't need to read tfa.  It's tainted, he knows it and wants nothing to do with it.  Can't say I blame him.
 
2012-12-27 12:44:38 PM  

LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.


No, it wasn't. It was a generic space flick, entertaining for one watch through, maybe two, and then relegated to the B-movie schlock pile with the other space movies with ships that look like buildings and breweries inside. The only trappings related to anything Star Trek are purely superficial; the names, the uniforms and the ship design, but the central philosophies of the show and the heart was completely absent. It's as though someone with zero familiarity with the franchise were given the job to create a ST film and read only the IMDB synposis, looked at a handful of pictures and commenced filming without a clue.

"Oh, there was a hot green chick in the original? Throw one in there for Kirk to bone as fan service. Boobs fill seats...Give that doctor guy a catch phrase else no one will know who he's supposed to be...Wait a second, wasn't there a picture of Sulu fencing shirtless circulating around about the time George got married? Well, give him a sword, dammit! No, not that one; he's asian fercrissakes, so make it a katana. Tarantino uses katanas with asians and rakes in the bucks, so will we but make it all fold out and lens-flarey shiat 'cause this is the future and the future's too bright to see what the hell's going on anyways...No, don't do phasers like that, make it all pew-pew-pew like Star Wars. People get distracted easily by bright, colored lights and will think this film good if we have enough in there...Moral quandry? What's this BS? Get rid of it, the only quandary Pine will have is how to bang Zoe and Quinto...What? This "Kirk" guy is supposed to be captain? Screw it, we'll do that in the last scene. Who cares if it doesn't make any sense? I'm Abrams, biatch! People buy my crap and it never makes any sense!"

Ok generic space action movie, complete failure as a Star Trek movie. Shatner must feel vindicated by no longer being the worst ST director, at least he had a clue that there's supposed to be something deeper to the movie than the director fellating himself on the screen with lots of flashy colored lights and nothing of substance.

I knew the movie failed the moment Spock and Kirk were beamed out at the last moment and rather than feeling the sense of elation the movie was trying to build up, I felt a major let down. Something's wrong with the movie when the viewer is hoping the two main characters will just hurry up and die.
 
2012-12-27 12:45:58 PM  

imashark: While the movies are fun, they don't really exude "Star Trek" to me. Then again, I probably would only feel that Star Trek feeling with another TV series.


I kind of agree on that one. I enjoyed the movie, and while the character names are the same it just doesn't seem quite like Trek to me, although Urban did a pretty good McCoy. Even though Scotty was somewhat comical in the originals, I think they over did it with Pegg, especially with his stupid little mascot. Uhura is ok, I just wish they would have picked a little bit thicker of a woman like the original, because goddamn was Nichelle Nichols hot back in the day. I do like that they're playing Spock a touch more human (personality wise) than TOS since it plays better with the whole half human bit that we didn't know throughout most of TOS.
 
2012-12-27 12:46:28 PM  

Jizz Master Zero: Richard_The_Clown: Jim from Saint Paul: Rev. Skarekroe: I liked the new Star Trek, but that's a funny headline.

Can't think of any excuse to hide a starship under the ocean, though. The more I think about it, the dumber it seems...

The trailer shows a ship crashing into the water. Why are people NOT assuming that's the ship being towed/taken OUT of it in some way?

Because in the preview before The Hobbit they clearly showed the Enterprise was hiding in the ocean of a pre-warp society. Now, why did they not beam down or use shuttlecraft had not been addressed.

Dammit...

But that bolded part was explained. ***SPOILERS AGAIN*** The volcanic activity was unexpectedly farking with the transporters and (if I remember right) they only wanted to risk having one shuttle flying around and that one had Sulu and Uhura dropping Spock into the volcano.


Richard_The_Clown: Jim from Saint Paul: Rev. Skarekroe: I liked the new Star Trek, but that's a funny headline.

Can't think of any excuse to hide a starship under the ocean, though. The more I think about it, the dumber it seems...

The trailer shows a ship crashing into the water. Why are people NOT assuming that's the ship being towed/taken OUT of it in some way?

Because in the preview before The Hobbit they clearly showed the Enterprise was hiding in the ocean of a pre-warp society. Now, why did they not beam down or use shuttlecraft had not been addressed.


I was unaware. This was the same argument people had BEFORE the 10 minutes of footage and I hadn't heard anything about the footage.

I too, wonder why God needs a starship they are in the water.
 
2012-12-27 12:47:39 PM  

Jizz Master Zero: But that bolded part was explained. ***SPOILERS AGAIN*** The volcanic activity was unexpectedly farking with the transporters and (if I remember right) they only wanted to risk having one shuttle flying around and that one had Sulu and Uhura dropping Spock into the volcano.


But flying an enormous starship into the village's nearby ocean somehow went unnoticed by the natives.
 
2012-12-27 12:51:07 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Jizz Master Zero: But that bolded part was explained. ***SPOILERS AGAIN*** The volcanic activity was unexpectedly farking with the transporters and (if I remember right) they only wanted to risk having one shuttle flying around and that one had Sulu and Uhura dropping Spock into the volcano.

But flying an enormous starship into the village's nearby ocean somehow went unnoticed by the natives.


Maybe they did it at night, used illegal cloaking technology, sedated all the surrounding natives?
 
2012-12-27 12:55:42 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: No, it wasn't. Incoherent babbling about shiat no one cares about...


Are you done now? It's called an opinion, man.

You should see a doctor for the PTSD that film inflicted upon your fragile little soul.
 
2012-12-27 12:59:16 PM  
I'm a huge Star Trek fan...
The latest Star Trek movie wasn't a Star Trek movie. It was Hollywood garbage for the wal-mart masses of idiot Americans. That can be said (sort of) for the TNG films as well - but it wasn't nearly as blatant as the latest one which only served to extract as much money as possible from as many of the brain-dead, wal-mart shopping masses. If you watched the latest Star Trek and you call it a "good movie" then you are part of the problem. The movie was farking ridiculously stupid.
Come to think of it movies all farking suck these days.
Get off my lawn.
 
2012-12-27 01:00:16 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Jizz Master Zero: But that bolded part was explained. ***SPOILERS AGAIN*** The volcanic activity was unexpectedly farking with the transporters and (if I remember right) they only wanted to risk having one shuttle flying around and that one had Sulu and Uhura dropping Spock into the volcano.

But flying an enormous starship into the village's nearby ocean somehow went unnoticed by the natives.


Apparently they weren't seen going in. Nothing says they have to pull up next to the cliff and just dive right in there. Probably dropped in the water far away and pulled up next to land. Likely were going to try to get out the same way until Kirk snuck into the village and got all grabby with their artifacts. The whole plan kind of went to shiat at that point.
 
2012-12-27 01:04:10 PM  
Troll headline is trolly. 94% on RT last time I checked.

//I hope Star Trek Into Darkness has so much lens flare you have a seizure, subby.
 
2012-12-27 01:05:16 PM  

Minus 1 Charisma: I'm a huge Star Trek fan...
The latest Star Trek movie wasn't a Star Trek movie. It was Hollywood garbage for the wal-mart masses of idiot Americans. That can be said (sort of) for the TNG films as well - but it wasn't nearly as blatant as the latest one which only served to extract as much money as possible from as many of the brain-dead, wal-mart shopping masses. If you watched the latest Star Trek and you call it a "good movie" then you are part of the problem. The movie was farking ridiculously stupid.
Come to think of it movies all farking suck these days.
Get off my lawn.


I'm proud to be "part of the problem" if it keeps pissing off curmudgeoney asshats like yourself.

PEOPLE LIKE DIFFERENT THINGS! OH MY GOD! The horror!!!


You're dumb and cranky. Blah!
 
2012-12-27 01:05:31 PM  
Wait, we're hating Abrams' Star Trek now?! Does nobody forward these memos to me? I just got done making 1000 "Set your phasers to Lens Flare" shirts with "Abrams is God" on the back. Goddamnit...
 
2012-12-27 01:06:04 PM  

the_innkeeper: bluorangefyre: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

THIS!  If anybody ruined Star Trek it was Rick Berman and whoever the other guy was who took over Trek after Roddenberry died.

I must respectfully disagree. Berman and Co. turned it from the scattershot "where are we going today, kids?" to the serial story lines and arcs. Having a story to tell is far better than a collection of vignettes.


That's a funny way of saying 'Ira Steven Behr and Michael Pillar crafted Deep Space Nine into a serial show because Babylon 5 had raised the stakes'

If Berman had his way, DS9 would have stayed episodic, the same way TNG was. And the way Voyager and (mor the most part) Enterprise were.
 
2012-12-27 01:06:19 PM  
I enjoyed the JJ Abrams Trek movie. Sure, it wasn't as Trek as it could have been, going for mainstream appeal, but seeing as its primary job was to make money, appealing to an audience beyond Trekkers was kind of important. Especially after the last two cinematic Trek abortions.*

I'm a Trek fan, in fact I'm planning on going through every episode of every Trek series (including TAS) now that hey're on NetFlix. I'm up to TOS' 'the Galileo Seven' so far. Have to say, McCoy is rapidly becoming my favorite character, and for years it had been Spock. also, Nichelle Nichols looked damned hot in the 60s.

Best Trek movies are Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, First Contact and Voyage Home, in that order.

Star wars fan also. Don't overly mind the special editions. I am a heretic in that I think Episode IV is better than V, and I think Episode III is better than VI. Mostly because Ian McDiarmid has such a blast playing Palpatine.


* I assme Nemesis was an abortion by reputation, I have yet to see it.
 
2012-12-27 01:08:25 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Jizz Master Zero: But that bolded part was explained. ***SPOILERS AGAIN*** The volcanic activity was unexpectedly farking with the transporters and (if I remember right) they only wanted to risk having one shuttle flying around and that one had Sulu and Uhura dropping Spock into the volcano.

But flying an enormous starship into the village's nearby ocean somehow went unnoticed by the natives.


Underwater, eh? "How many atmospheres of pressure can the ship withstand?... Well, it was built for space travel, so anywhere between zero and one."

LlamaGirl: Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: No, it wasn't. Incoherent babbling about shiat no one cares about...

Are you done now? It's called an opinion, man.

You should see a doctor for the PTSD that film inflicted upon your fragile little soul.


Indeed it is an opinion: mine is as valid as yours.

Life's not fair in that way, is it?

Cue "stopnotlikingwhatIlike.jpg"
 
2012-12-27 01:08:51 PM  

mooseyfate: Wait, we're hating Abrams' Star Trek now?! Does nobody forward these memos to me? I just got done making 1000 "Set your phasers to Lens Flare" shirts with "Abrams is God" on the back. Goddamnit...


If it's something the general population enjoys, Farkers have to hate it. If you don't agree with them you can go right to hell because you are WRONG!!!
 
2012-12-27 01:10:18 PM  

LucklessWonder: I enjoyed the JJ Abrams Trek movie. Sure, it wasn't as Trek as it could have been, going for mainstream appeal, but seeing as its primary job was to make money, appealing to an audience beyond Trekkers was kind of important. Especially after the last two cinematic Trek abortions.*

I'm a Trek fan, in fact I'm planning on going through every episode of every Trek series (including TAS) now that hey're on NetFlix. I'm up to TOS' 'the Galileo Seven' so far. Have to say, McCoy is rapidly becoming my favorite character, and for years it had been Spock. also, Nichelle Nichols looked damned hot in the 60s.

Best Trek movies are Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, First Contact and Voyage Home, in that order.

Star wars fan also. Don't overly mind the special editions. I am a heretic in that I think Episode IV is better than V, and I think Episode III is better than VI. Mostly because Ian McDiarmid has such a blast playing Palpatine.


* I assme Nemesis was an abortion by reputation, I have yet to see it.


Granted I was severely jetlagged at the time, but I fell asleep in the theater watching Nemesis. I had never done that before (or since) and certainly never thought I would do it at a Star Trek film. But it was utter dog crap.
 
2012-12-27 01:11:59 PM  

LlamaGirl: mooseyfate: Wait, we're hating Abrams' Star Trek now?! Does nobody forward these memos to me? I just got done making 1000 "Set your phasers to Lens Flare" shirts with "Abrams is God" on the back. Goddamnit...

If it's something the general population enjoys, Farkers have to hate it. If you don't agree with them you can go right to hell because you are WRONG!!!


I wonder how many ALTs Armond White has.

api.ning.com

//This is the face of utter assholery
 
2012-12-27 01:12:24 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: Underwater, eh? "How many atmospheres of pressure can the ship withstand?... Well, it was built for space travel, so anywhere between zero and one."


Right ... let's design a hull that cannot handle any compression what-so-ever. It is not like it will be involved in combat or anything ... maybe we can use thin foil like the moon landers!!
 
2012-12-27 01:14:35 PM  

coeyagi: I wonder how many ALTs Armond White has.

[api.ning.com image 300x279]

//This is the face of utter assholery


I really want to know what the hell happened to that man in his youth.
 
2012-12-27 01:16:30 PM  

bluorangefyre: If anybody ruined Star Trek it was Rick Berman and whoever the other guy was who took over Trek after Roddenberry died.


Berman killing Star Trek did not give Abrams the right to sell the corpse into prostitution.

The issue I had with the Star Trek reboot wasn't the movie itself; it's that it was the wrong movie.  If you're going to make some generic space action flick full of usual dudebro movie pick-n'-mix characters, don't use the label of a show that made TV history for its progressive morality plays.  It's like turning Casablanca into porn.  There's nothing WRONG with porn, some of it's good even, but they change the titles from stuff like "Saving Private Ryan" to "Saving Ryan's Privates" because the porn industry has more dignity.

If Abrams used the title "Space Adventure" or something like that and merely changed the names and designs no one would've ever made a fuss about it because no one would've realized it was really supposed to be Star Trek.
 
2012-12-27 01:16:41 PM  

zedster: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

good film? meh, it was fun but I refuse to call any film with Tyler Perry in it good

I felt it was an enjoyable action flick but failed to use any of the Star Trek moral quandaries, it just ran over itself

That being said Star Wars in the movies themselves was a space opera and not too scifi-y so it actually would be better helmed by JJ "Lens Flair" Abrams


Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.

No, it wasn't. It was a generic space flick, entertaining for one watch through, maybe two, and then relegated to the B-movie schlock pile with the other space movies with ships that look like buildings and breweries inside. The only trappings related to anything Star Trek are purely superficial; the names, the uniforms and the ship design, but the central philosophies of the show and the heart was completely absent. It's as though someone with zero familiarity with the franchise were given the job to create a ST film and read only the IMDB synposis, looked at a handful of pictures and commenced filming without a clue.

"Oh, there was a hot green chick in the original? Throw one in there for Kirk to bone as fan service. Boobs fill seats...Give that doctor guy a catch phrase else no one will know who he's supposed to be...Wait a second, wasn't there a picture of Sulu fencing shirtless circulating around about the time George got married? Well, give him a sword, dammit! No, not that one; he's asian fercrissakes, so make it a katana. Tarantino uses katanas with asians and rakes in the bucks, so will we but make it all fold out and lens-flarey shiat 'cause this is the future and the future's too bright to see what the hell's going on anyways...No, don't do phasers like that, make it all pew-pew-pew like Star Wars. People get distracted easily by bright, colored lights and will think this film good if we have enough in there...Moral quandry? What's this BS? Get rid of it, the only quandary Pine will have is how to bang Zoe and Quinto...What? This "Kirk" guy is supposed to be captain? Screw it, we'll do that in the last scene. Who cares if it doesn't make any sense? I'm Abrams, biatch! People buy my crap and it never makes any sense!"

Ok generic space action movie, complete failure as a Star Trek movie. Shatner must feel vindicated by no longer being the worst ST director, at least he had ...


Dingleberry Dickwad: imashark: While the movies are fun, they don't really exude "Star Trek" to me. Then again, I probably would only feel that Star Trek feeling with another TV series.

I kind of agree on that one. I enjoyed the movie, and while the character names are the same it just doesn't seem quite like Trek to me, although Urban did a pretty good McCoy. Even though Scotty was somewhat comical in the originals, I think they over did it with Pegg, especially with his stupid little mascot. Uhura is ok, I just wish they would have picked a little bit thicker of a woman like the original, because goddamn was Nichelle Nichols hot back in the day. I do like that they're playing Spock a touch more human (personality wise) than TOS since it plays better with the whole half human bit that we didn't know throughout most of TOS.


mooseyfate: Wait, we're hating Abrams' Star Trek now?! Does nobody forward these memos to me? I just got done making 1000 "Set your phasers to Lens Flare" shirts with "Abrams is God" on the back. Goddamnit...


Still relevant to everyone one of these threads.
 
2012-12-27 01:17:05 PM  
bestforfilm.com Or scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com

Saved from the lens flare.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2012-12-27 01:17:06 PM  
The green chick was hot.  Old and new.
 
2012-12-27 01:18:48 PM  

mooseyfate: Wait, we're hating Abrams' Star Trek now?! Does nobody forward these memos to me? I just got done making 1000 "Set your phasers to Lens Flare" shirts with "Abrams is God" on the back. Goddamnit...


Are you kidding? People on Fark were hating it before it was even released! Then of course there were the numerous butthurt posts about the movie on any Trek thread immediately after the movie came out.
 
2012-12-27 01:19:47 PM  

LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.


Not that good. There were plot holes big enough to drive a truck through and while I'll admit it was a fun movie, I don't consider it to be cannon.
 
2012-12-27 01:20:18 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.

No, it wasn't. It was a generic space flick, entertaining for one watch through, maybe two, and then relegated to the B-movie schlock pile with the other space movies with ships that look like buildings and breweries inside. The only trappings related to anything Star Trek are purely superficial; the names, the uniforms and the ship design, but the central philosophies of the show and the heart was completely absent. It's as though someone with zero familiarity with the franchise were given the job to create a ST film and read only the IMDB synposis, looked at a handful of pictures and commenced filming without a clue.

"Oh, there was a hot green chick in the original? Throw one in there for Kirk to bone as fan service. Boobs fill seats...Give that doctor guy a catch phrase else no one will know who he's supposed to be...Wait a second, wasn't there a picture of Sulu fencing shirtless circulating around about the time George got married? Well, give him a sword, dammit! No, not that one; he's asian fercrissakes, so make it a katana. Tarantino uses katanas with asians and rakes in the bucks, so will we but make it all fold out and lens-flarey shiat 'cause this is the future and the future's too bright to see what the hell's going on anyways...No, don't do phasers like that, make it all pew-pew-pew like Star Wars. People get distracted easily by bright, colored lights and will think this film good if we have enough in there...Moral quandry? What's this BS? Get rid of it, the only quandary Pine will have is how to bang Zoe and Quinto...What? This "Kirk" guy is supposed to be captain? Screw it, we'll do that in the last scene. Who cares if it doesn't make any sense? I'm Abrams, biatch! People buy my crap and it never makes any sense!"

Ok generic space action movie, complete failure as a Star Trek movie. Shatner must feel vindicated by no longer being the worst ST director, at least he had ...


So you're saying that you didn't think it made any sense that Kirk, a novice crew member that had recently been left to die on an ice planet due to mutiny, could become Captain just by inciting a fist fight with the current Captain, and that the crew wouldn't just automatically follow him?

You know nothing about how the navy works, sir. That's EXACTLY what happens.

(It was another case of a crappy plot we were supposed to believe because we KNEW the characters were all buddies and pals, it was just that THEY didn't know it! Johnny Lens Flare wanted to use the names and history of the franchise as a crutch, then uses it to prop up idiotic plot holes. Spock, his unarmed and unescorted ship filled with enough red matter to destroy the entire galaxy. My suspension of disbelief, puking in the theatre bathroom after being expected to swallow that tripe.)
 
2012-12-27 01:21:11 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Still relevant to everyone one of these threads.


meh, you missed the chance to use the Red Letter Media review

/anyone want some pizza rolls?
 
2012-12-27 01:23:56 PM  
I enjoy being a casual fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars.  The Abrams Star Trek for me was one of the best Star Trek movies ever---right up there with Wrath of Khan and First Contact
 
2012-12-27 01:26:10 PM  

jj325: I enjoy being a casual fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars.  The Abrams Star Trek for me was one of the best Star Trek movies ever---right up there with Wrath of Khan and First Contact


I completely agree. I really enjoyed the heck out of the new Star Trek. But I guess we're a minority now around these here parts so you might want to put on a helmet or something before people start throwing rocks.
 
2012-12-27 01:30:26 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.

No, it wasn't. It was a generic space flick, entertaining for one watch through, maybe two, and then relegated to the B-movie schlock pile with the other space movies with ships that look like buildings and breweries inside. The only trappings related to anything Star Trek are purely superficial; the names, the uniforms and the ship design, but the central philosophies of the show and the heart was completely absent. It's as though someone with zero familiarity with the franchise were given the job to create a ST film and read only the IMDB synposis, looked at a handful of pictures and commenced filming without a clue.

"Oh, there was a hot green chick in the original? Throw one in there for Kirk to bone as fan service. Boobs fill seats...Give that doctor guy a catch phrase else no one will know who he's supposed to be...Wait a second, wasn't there a picture of Sulu fencing shirtless circulating around about the time George got married? Well, give him a sword, dammit! No, not that one; he's asian fercrissakes, so make it a katana. Tarantino uses katanas with asians and rakes in the bucks, so will we but make it all fold out and lens-flarey shiat 'cause this is the future and the future's too bright to see what the hell's going on anyways...No, don't do phasers like that, make it all pew-pew-pew like Star Wars. People get distracted easily by bright, colored lights and will think this film good if we have enough in there...Moral quandry? What's this BS? Get rid of it, the only quandary Pine will have is how to bang Zoe and Quinto...What? This "Kirk" guy is supposed to be captain? Screw it, we'll do that in the last scene. Who cares if it doesn't make any sense? I'm Abrams, biatch! People buy my crap and it never makes any sense!"

Ok generic space action movie, complete failure as a Star Trek movie. Shatner must feel vindicated by no longer being the worst ST director, at least he had ...


I'm with you. I really think they should have killed new Kirk and Spock in the first movie to hammer home that this is not the old Trek universe, but something new and altogether different.
 
2012-12-27 01:30:46 PM  

Dingleberry Dickwad: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.

This Face Left Blank: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.

I don't know how anyone can like Star Wars over Star Trek, and I say that as someone who was eleven and a huge fan when the Episode IV: A New Hope came out. The new Trek reboot was fun, good-looking, full of action and had a great cast. I just hope - for the love of all that's holy - they aren't gonna use existing movies and episodes as the basis for every new Trek movie from hereon out.

I take it we're not allowed to enjoy both?

Berman and Braga ruined the TV franchise the way someone else upthread mentioned. They had good ideas but piss poor execution. It's like they couldn't say no to a stupid storyline or plot element or something.


Yeah, Berman & Braga ruined things. Yeah, OF COURSE you're allowed to like what you want. It's just that, with Star Wars, there was so much promise and Lucas farked it up. Trek's basic premise was never ruined by B/B, just the particular episodes they worked on. Some would argue Lucas hurt the very foundations of Star Wars, with the Midi-chlorians, etc. Who knows, though? Maybe getting Star Wars away from Lucas is the best thing that could have happened, and instead of a hastily-slapped-together money grab, we'll see a resurgence of the series. We can hope, anyway.

Maybe Star Wars can come back strong. It's just that there are only six movies in Star Wars, and there was a fair amount of suck in 4 of them. farkin' Ewoks? Jar-Jar? Han didn't shoot first? Darth Vader is a emo wuss? Maybe the Star Wars series isn't ruined, but Lucas farked up a large portion of the series to date, so it needs a strong comeback.
 
2012-12-27 01:31:09 PM  

LlamaGirl: jj325: I enjoy being a casual fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars.  The Abrams Star Trek for me was one of the best Star Trek movies ever---right up there with Wrath of Khan and First Contact

I completely agree. I really enjoyed the heck out of the new Star Trek. But I guess we're a minority now around these here parts so you might want to put on a helmet or something before people start throwing rocks.


I think it was enjoyable, just would have been the same film outside of the ST universe. Galaxy Quest had more of the ST esthetic to it then the new film
 
2012-12-27 01:31:56 PM  

LlamaGirl: I'm proud to be "part of the problem" if it keeps pissing off curmudgeoney asshats like yourself.

PEOPLE LIKE DIFFERENT THINGS! OH MY GOD! The horror!!!


I simply cannot accept the garbage that qualifies as cinema now. I wish I could be like you and not have that problem, but I guess I'm just too goddamned intelligent - it's a blessing and a curse.
I'm encouraging people to have higher standards. If they did we would have better "art" in film instead of constantly being offered the cinematic equivalent of Taylor Swift's new single. I don't want all the available music to be Taylor Swift any more than I want all the available movies to be like the new "Star Trek". For people who can "see through" the action sequences to the shallow worthless p.o.s. that movies like that one are it can be quite frustrating. Avatar and Dark Knight Rises are also fine examples of this. They are embarrassing to watch...but like rats to the feeder bar people just throw money at them and so shiat films just never stop.
Until one day...
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-27 01:33:38 PM  

zedster: LlamaGirl: jj325: I enjoy being a casual fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars.  The Abrams Star Trek for me was one of the best Star Trek movies ever---right up there with Wrath of Khan and First Contact

I completely agree. I really enjoyed the heck out of the new Star Trek. But I guess we're a minority now around these here parts so you might want to put on a helmet or something before people start throwing rocks.

I think it was enjoyable, just would have been the same film outside of the ST universe. Galaxy Quest had more of the ST esthetic to it then the new film


Galaxy Quest was more fun AND had more heart than Space Adventure: Who's Paying the Electric Bills? could ever hope to.
 
2012-12-27 01:35:23 PM  

zedster: Jim from Saint Paul: Still relevant to everyone one of these threads.

meh, you missed the chance to use the Red Letter Media review

/anyone want some pizza rolls?


I was saving that for if this conversation ever gets back to Rick Berman.

/TV show Picard, we'll call him "Larry"
 
2012-12-27 01:36:13 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: zedster: Jim from Saint Paul: Still relevant to everyone one of these threads.

meh, you missed the chance to use the Red Letter Media review

/anyone want some pizza rolls?

I was saving that for if this conversation ever gets back to Rick Berman.

/TV show Picard, we'll call him "Larry"


WHATS WRONG WITH YOUR FACE?
 
2012-12-27 01:38:30 PM  

born_yesterday: Galaxy Quest was more fun AND had more heart than Space Adventure: Who's Paying the Electric Bills? could ever hope to.


Newsflash: The existence of other great movies does not make this movie bad.

I am sorry they did not consult with you on how you would have made the movies ... I know it really hurts. But the great reviews combined with the extreme amounts of profit suggest that they are probably happy with their decision.
 
2012-12-27 01:40:26 PM  
My biggest complaint with the new Star Trek movies is the casting of Simon Pegg as Scotty. I love Simon Pegg, but he's just not right for that role, and Scotty was more than just the comic relief on the original show. Pegg plays him as far too broad. Karl Urban is great as McCoy, as is Quinto as Spock, Chris Pine as young Kirk is merely okay, but I'm not sure who would have been better. And yes, the Red Matter plot doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and nor does Nero without reading the official prequel comic, and i shouldn't have to do that to enjoy a movie. It was fun though, and I enjoyed seeing the Enterprise on the big screen again. I enjoyed the Into Darkness preview before the Hobbit as well, and not just because I think Benedict Cumberbatch is basically the most awesome man alive not named Bruce Campbell. His villain seemed interesting, and not just a Khan/Gary Mitchell redux.

I'm just sad that between Cumberbatch in Trek and doing mocap for Smaug, as well as Martin freeman being Bilbo, the chances of getting more new episodes of Sherlock are slim. I guess I could watch the Lucy Liu thing on CBS, but why would I want to?
 
2012-12-27 01:40:32 PM  

Minus 1 Charisma: I simply cannot accept the garbage that qualifies as cinema now. I wish I could be like you and not have that problem, but I guess I'm just too goddamned intelligent - it's a blessing and a curse.


So what you're saying is that I'm not intelligent because I enjoy different movies? Fascinating.

You sir, are a terrible person and I kind of hope you get a paper cut from one of your smart people books and it gets so infected that your hand falls off!
 
2012-12-27 01:40:39 PM  

Minus 1 Charisma: LlamaGirl: I'm proud to be "part of the problem" if it keeps pissing off curmudgeoney asshats like yourself.

PEOPLE LIKE DIFFERENT THINGS! OH MY GOD! The horror!!!

I simply cannot accept the garbage that qualifies as cinema now. I wish I could be like you and not have that problem, but I guess I'm just too goddamned intelligent - it's a blessing and a curse.
I'm encouraging people to have higher standards. If they did we would have better "art" in film instead of constantly being offered the cinematic equivalent of Taylor Swift's new single. I don't want all the available music to be Taylor Swift any more than I want all the available movies to be like the new "Star Trek". For people who can "see through" the action sequences to the shallow worthless p.o.s. that movies like that one are it can be quite frustrating. Avatar and Dark Knight Rises are also fine examples of this. They are embarrassing to watch...but like rats to the feeder bar people just throw money at them and so shiat films just never stop.
Until one day...
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x215]


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-27 01:42:04 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: [upload.wikimedia.org image 250x141]


This is why I like you so much.
 
2012-12-27 01:44:10 PM  

Minus 1 Charisma: LlamaGirl: I'm proud to be "part of the problem" if it keeps pissing off curmudgeoney asshats like yourself.

PEOPLE LIKE DIFFERENT THINGS! OH MY GOD! The horror!!!

I simply cannot accept the garbage that qualifies as cinema now. I wish I could be like you and not have that problem, but I guess I'm just too goddamned intelligent - it's a blessing and a curse.
I'm encouraging people to have higher standards. If they did we would have better "art" in film instead of constantly being offered the cinematic equivalent of Taylor Swift's new single. I don't want all the available music to be Taylor Swift any more than I want all the available movies to be like the new "Star Trek". For people who can "see through" the action sequences to the shallow worthless p.o.s. that movies like that one are it can be quite frustrating. Avatar and Dark Knight Rises are also fine examples of this. They are embarrassing to watch...but like rats to the feeder bar people just throw money at them and so shiat films just never stop.
Until one day...


I think we found at least one of Armond White's alts.
 
2012-12-27 01:46:32 PM  
Honestly, Prometheus was more Star Trek than '09 Star Trek.
 
2012-12-27 01:47:37 PM  

LucklessWonder: I'm just sad that between Cumberbatch in Trek and doing mocap for Smaug, as well as Martin freeman being Bilbo, the chances of getting more new episodes of Sherlock are slim.


I believe I read 2014, which is a long wait.
 
2012-12-27 01:48:18 PM  

Minus 1 Charisma: LlamaGirl: I'm proud to be "part of the problem" if it keeps pissing off curmudgeoney asshats like yourself.

PEOPLE LIKE DIFFERENT THINGS! OH MY GOD! The horror!!!

I simply cannot accept the garbage that qualifies as cinema now. I wish I could be like you and not have that problem, but I guess I'm just too goddamned intelligent - it's a blessing and a curse.
I'm encouraging people to have higher standards. If they did we would have better "art" in film instead of constantly being offered the cinematic equivalent of Taylor Swift's new single. I don't want all the available music to be Taylor Swift any more than I want all the available movies to be like the new "Star Trek". For people who can "see through" the action sequences to the shallow worthless p.o.s. that movies like that one are it can be quite frustrating. Avatar and Dark Knight Rises are also fine examples of this. They are embarrassing to watch...but like rats to the feeder bar people just throw money at them and so shiat films just never stop.
Until one day...
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x215]


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-12-27 01:52:00 PM  

zedster: Jim from Saint Paul: zedster: Jim from Saint Paul: Still relevant to everyone one of these threads.

meh, you missed the chance to use the Red Letter Media review

/anyone want some pizza rolls?

I was saving that for if this conversation ever gets back to Rick Berman.

/TV show Picard, we'll call him "Larry"

WHATS WRONG WITH YOUR FACE?


FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE
 
2012-12-27 01:54:34 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: zedster: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

good film? meh, it was fun but I refuse to call any film with Tyler Perry in it good

I felt it was an enjoyable action flick but failed to use any of the Star Trek moral quandaries, it just ran over itself

That being said Star Wars in the movies themselves was a space opera and not too scifi-y so it actually would be better helmed by JJ "Lens Flair" Abrams

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.

No, it wasn't. It was a generic space flick, entertaining for one watch through, maybe two, and then relegated to the B-movie schlock pile with the other space movies with ships that look like buildings and breweries inside. The only trappings related to anything Star Trek are purely superficial; the names, the uniforms and the ship design, but the central philosophies of the show and the heart was completely absent. It's as though someone with zero familiarity with the franchise were given the job to create a ST film and read only the IMDB synposis, looked at a handful of pictures and commenced filming without a clue.

"Oh, there was a hot green chick in the original? Throw one in there for Kirk to bone as fan service. Boobs fill seats...Give that doctor guy a catch phrase else no one will know who he's supposed to be...Wait a second, wasn't there a picture of Sulu fencing shirtless circulating around about the time George got married? Well, give him a sword, dammit! No, not that one; he's asian fercrissakes, so make it a katana. Tarantino uses katanas with asians and rakes in the bucks, so will we but make it all fold out and lens-flarey shiat 'cause this is the future and the future's too bright to see what the hell's going on anyways...No, don't do phasers like that, make it all pew-pew-pew like Star Wars. People get distracted easily by bright, colored lights and will think this film good if we have enough in there...Moral quandry? What's this BS? Get rid of it, the only quandary Pine will have is how to bang Zoe and Quinto...What? This "Kirk" guy is supposed to be captain? Screw it, we'll do that in the last scene. Who cares if it doesn't make any sense? I'm Abrams, biatch! People buy my crap and it never makes any sense!"

Ok generic space action movie, complete failure as a Star Trek movie. Shatner must feel vindicated by no longer being the worst ST director, at least he had ...

Dingleberry Dickwad: imashark: While the movies are fun, they don't really exude "Star Trek" to me. Then again, I probably would only feel that Star Trek feeling with another TV series.

I kind of agree on that one. I enjoyed the movie, and while the character names are the same it just doesn't seem quite like Trek to me, although Urban did a pretty good McCoy. Even though Scotty was somewhat comical in the originals, I think they over did it with Pegg, especially with his stupid little mascot. Uhura is ok, I just wish they would have picked a little bit thicker of a woman like the original, because goddamn was Nichelle Nichols hot back in the day. I do like that they're playing Spock a touch more human (personality wise) than TOS since it plays better with the whole half human bit that we didn't know throughout most of TOS.

mooseyfate: Wait, we're hating Abrams' Star Trek now?! Does nobody forward these memos to me? I just got done making 1000 "Set your phasers to Lens Flare" shirts with "Abrams is God" on the back. Goddamnit...

Still relevant to everyone one of these threads.


Damn. You beat me to it.

/I love The Onion.
 
2012-12-27 01:56:05 PM  

Jizz Master Zero: Jim from Saint Paul: Rev. Skarekroe: I liked the new Star Trek, but that's a funny headline.

Can't think of any excuse to hide a starship under the ocean, though. The more I think about it, the dumber it seems...

The trailer shows a ship crashing into the water. Why are people NOT assuming that's the ship being towed/taken OUT of it in some way?

***SPOILERS***

It's right in the first ten minutes that they showed before The Hobbit's opening weekend IMAX showings. They're on a planet that's going to experience a cataclysmic event and they're trying to avoid being seen by the primitive natives while preventing the event. They're forced to keep the Enterprise nearby without violating the Prime Directive and thus are hiding it under an ocean, which Scotty really, really, really doesn't approve of. Guess who violates the Prime Directive anyway when he sees something shiny?


Except the trailer clearly shows a bunch of skyscrapers and other buildings in the foreground as the ship crashes into the water, so obviously this is not on the "primitive pre-warp all of our foliage is red" planet.
 
2012-12-27 01:56:31 PM  

You Are All Sheep: Honestly, Prometheus was more Star Trek than '09 Star Trek.


Just saw that movie.

Couldn't disagree more.

/both were good for what they were
//original Alien is still better then Prometheus
 
2012-12-27 02:06:07 PM  

LlamaGirl: mooseyfate: Wait, we're hating Abrams' Star Trek now?! Does nobody forward these memos to me? I just got done making 1000 "Set your phasers to Lens Flare" shirts with "Abrams is God" on the back. Goddamnit...

If it's something the general population enjoys, Farkers have to hate it. If you don't agree with them you can go right to hell because you are WRONG!!!


Farkers are the largest gathering of hipsters the internet has ever seen....

...yet they rage against their brethren because they hated it first.
 
2012-12-27 02:09:07 PM  

puckrock2000: Jizz Master Zero: Jim from Saint Paul: Rev. Skarekroe: I liked the new Star Trek, but that's a funny headline.

Can't think of any excuse to hide a starship under the ocean, though. The more I think about it, the dumber it seems...

The trailer shows a ship crashing into the water. Why are people NOT assuming that's the ship being towed/taken OUT of it in some way?

***SPOILERS***

It's right in the first ten minutes that they showed before The Hobbit's opening weekend IMAX showings. They're on a planet that's going to experience a cataclysmic event and they're trying to avoid being seen by the primitive natives while preventing the event. They're forced to keep the Enterprise nearby without violating the Prime Directive and thus are hiding it under an ocean, which Scotty really, really, really doesn't approve of. Guess who violates the Prime Directive anyway when he sees something shiny?

Except the trailer clearly shows a bunch of skyscrapers and other buildings in the foreground as the ship crashes into the water, so obviously this is not on the "primitive pre-warp all of our foliage is red" planet.


Argument: Abrams' Star Trek eliminated the hard moral choices the show was beloved for.

Answer: Abrams obviously working the morality plot device into the movie.

Argument: Well that's retarded.

/answer: no one will ever be happy with anything
 
2012-12-27 02:09:30 PM  

Minus 1 Charisma: I'm a huge Star Trek fan...
The latest Star Trek movie wasn't a Star Trek movie. It was Hollywood garbage for the wal-mart masses of idiot Americans. That can be said (sort of) for the TNG films as well - but it wasn't nearly as blatant as the latest one which only served to extract as much money as possible from as many of the brain-dead, wal-mart shopping masses. If you watched the latest Star Trek and you call it a "good movie" then you are part of the problem. The movie was farking ridiculously stupid.
Come to think of it movies all farking suck these days.
Get off my lawn.


You know if you had mentioned wal-mart one more time in that post they would have given you a $25 gift card.
 
2012-12-27 02:15:09 PM  

puckrock2000: Jizz Master Zero: Jim from Saint Paul: Rev. Skarekroe: I liked the new Star Trek, but that's a funny headline.

Can't think of any excuse to hide a starship under the ocean, though. The more I think about it, the dumber it seems...

The trailer shows a ship crashing into the water. Why are people NOT assuming that's the ship being towed/taken OUT of it in some way?

***SPOILERS***

It's right in the first ten minutes that they showed before The Hobbit's opening weekend IMAX showings. They're on a planet that's going to experience a cataclysmic event and they're trying to avoid being seen by the primitive natives while preventing the event. They're forced to keep the Enterprise nearby without violating the Prime Directive and thus are hiding it under an ocean, which Scotty really, really, really doesn't approve of. Guess who violates the Prime Directive anyway when he sees something shiny?

Except the trailer clearly shows a bunch of skyscrapers and other buildings in the foreground as the ship crashes into the water, so obviously this is not on the "primitive pre-warp all of our foliage is red" planet.


My mistake for the misquote, since I was responding to the Weeners and clicked the wrong one. I assumed people would be able to figure out who I was responding to from the context.
 
2012-12-27 02:18:28 PM  
Wow, didn't think the filter would go all Wieners on that phrase too. Hm... I was responding to the initial arrangement of words. How about that?
 
2012-12-27 02:18:47 PM  

LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.


I'm sorry, but while the dialogue, pacing, effects and characters were fine (I don't have a problem with mindless action, catch phrases and iconic scenes/references), the story was just poo. They essentially took the plot of TNG's Yesterday's Enterprise and Nemesis and skingrafted them together.

The problem is it was just a dumb story. Where the fark did the red matter come from? Why does Spock have so much of it? Why would Nero blame him for their sun going supernova? How was that his farking fault? How the hell did Kirk land within walking distance of Spock's cave on an entire farking planet -- what are the odds of that contrivance? Why make a rookie cadet fresh out of the Academy and not even assigned to the god damn ship Captain? ....he shouldn't have even been a junior grade lieutenant with that crap.

It goes on and on. Everything was great about the movie and I really want to like it, but it gets worse than repeated viewings because the plot holes are worse than Spock's Brain.
 
2012-12-27 02:21:27 PM  
I think my biggest problem with the new trek was officers brawling on the bridge while everyone stands around until things become almost lethal

over all the movie stunk

The only joy being Scotty's line about *given' 'er all she's got* or whatever
 
2012-12-27 02:21:43 PM  
Plot holes = read the comic miniseries before watching the movie. It is all explained.

(and would've added about two hours to the movie if it were to be filmed)
 
2012-12-27 02:24:17 PM  

LlamaGirl: jj325: I enjoy being a casual fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars.  The Abrams Star Trek for me was one of the best Star Trek movies ever---right up there with Wrath of Khan and First Contact

I completely agree. I really enjoyed the heck out of the new Star Trek. But I guess we're a minority now around these here parts so you might want to put on a helmet or something before people start throwing rocks.


I'm with you guys. And I'll say it - I found every single Star Wars to be entertaining. Good movies? Nope. But entertaining, which was the point.

/The Hobbit can fark off and die, though.
 
2012-12-27 02:24:50 PM  
Fark - basically we're the 6% from Rotten Tomatoes who didn't like the movie.™
 
2012-12-27 02:27:29 PM  

LL316: LlamaGirl: jj325: I enjoy being a casual fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars.  The Abrams Star Trek for me was one of the best Star Trek movies ever---right up there with Wrath of Khan and First Contact

I completely agree. I really enjoyed the heck out of the new Star Trek. But I guess we're a minority now around these here parts so you might want to put on a helmet or something before people start throwing rocks.

I'm with you guys. And I'll say it - I found every single Star Wars to be entertaining. Good movies? Nope. But entertaining, which was the point.

/The Hobbit can fark off and die, though.


duck....
 
2012-12-27 02:29:20 PM  
A young man grows up without a father, but hearing of his legacy. He's troubled, he feels trapped at his home, and that he's meant for bigger things, but just can't get away.

A wise older man comes along, who knew his father and convinces him to start working towards his destiny. The young man does so. But before he can finish his training, he's thrown into a circumstance where he's really not ready, but he's going to have to try to overcome anyway. The villain arrives and uses his super weapon and the heroes are unable to stop him. Using his quick wits and natural abilities the young man over comes his adversity and returns to help his new friends as they prepare go make a stand against the villain and his super weapon. The villain moves into position and at the last possible moment, the young man stops the villain and his super weapon. He's realizing his destiny, perhaps a bit later than is normal, but he is becoming his own man and is living up to his father's legacy.

Yeah, JJ turned Star Trek into Star Wars.
 
2012-12-27 02:33:41 PM  

You Are All Sheep: Honestly, Prometheus was more Star Trek than '09 Star Trek.


Prometheus convinced me never to watch anything written by that hack Lindelhoff ever again.

He can't write characters, he doesn't understand motive or plot, and his MO is to constantly introduce irrelevant plot points that oughta go off like Chekov's Gun later but never do, leaving you wondering what happened to them or why they were even introduced in the first place. And his response is always "Well, this [movie/tv show/episode] is not so much about answers as it is about asking question."

No. It's about having a solid, steady resolution to the central conflict with no major loose ends hanging (except for a few miscellaneous ones that can be fleshed out in a sequel). "Keeping the audience guessing" is not synonymous with "Leaving the audience wanting more". It's tantamount to dangling keys in front of a raccoon. Done sparingly and well, it can make or break a story. Done all the time, it's a farking cocktease and it's disrespectful to your audience and the nature of storytelling.

I'm not biting your lure anymore, Lindelhoff. fark off.
 
2012-12-27 02:36:59 PM  

Farking Canuck: browntimmy: I've only watched clips of the original Star Trek, but it looks cheesier than Adam West Batman.

There were a few real issues of the first Abrams star trek:
- abandoning a troublesome crew member on an ice planet?!?
- the coincidence of finding Spock there
- the long range transport to a ship moving away at warp (and was already very far way)
- filling the flagship of the fleet with cadets and then putting one in charge
- giving Scotty an Ewok sidekick

Even with all those annoying flaws, it was still an entertaining movie. So my hope is, now that the origin story is out of the way, they can do #2 even better.



Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good. Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible. No, it wasn't. It was a generic space flick, entertaining for one watch through, maybe two, and then relegated to the B-movie schlock pile with the other space movies with ships that look like buildings and breweries inside. The only trappings related to anything Star Trek are purely superficial; the names, the uniforms and the ship design, but the central philosophies of the show and the heart was completely absent. It's as though someone with zero familiarity with the franchise were given the job to create a ST film and read only the IMDB synposis, looked at a handful of pictures and commenced filming without a clue. "Oh, there was a hot green chick in the original? Throw one in there for Kirk to bone as fan service. Boobs fill seats...Give that doctor guy a catch phrase else no one will know who he's supposed to be...Wait a second, wasn't there a picture of Sulu fencing shirtless circulating around about the time George got married? Well, give him a sword, dammit! No, not that one; he's asian fercrissakes, so make it a katana. Tarantino uses katanas with asians and rakes in the bucks, so will we but make it all fold out and lens-flarey shiat 'cause this is the future and the future's too bright to see what the hell's going on anyways...No, don't do phasers like that, make it all pew-pew-pew like Star Wars. People get distracted easily by bright, colored lights and will think this film good if we have enough in there...Moral quandry? What's this BS? Get rid of it, the only quandary Pine will have is how to bang Zoe and Quinto...What? This "Kirk" guy is supposed to be captain? Screw it, we'll do that in the last scene. Who cares if it doesn't make any sense? I'm Abrams, biatch! People buy my crap and it never makes any sense!" Ok generic space action movie, complete failure as a Star Trek movie. Shatner must feel vindicated by no longer being the worst ST director, at least he had ...


QFT, J, & TAW.

Seriously, Star Trek Lensflare was nothing but a naked cash grab. Capitalize on characters who have crossed over into mainstream culture ("Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here."), put together a story with just enough nods to the source material to make it look like they know it, pick beautiful people and make it very action-oriented. Then deliberately belittle the original series to have a built in defense against arguments that "This isn't Star Trek." before the movie even comes out, and voila.

Star Trek 2009.
 
2012-12-27 02:38:59 PM  

WTF Indeed: These new star wars movies are going to be awesomely bad. I can't wait for Johnny Depp to be the new Han.


Yeah, those Marvel movies that Disney did were TERRIBLE, plus, the last three Star Wars movies were so amazing, right?
 
2012-12-27 02:40:06 PM  

Ishkur: You Are All Sheep: Honestly, Prometheus was more Star Trek than '09 Star Trek.

Prometheus convinced me never to watch anything written by that hack Lindelhoff ever again.

He can't write characters, he doesn't understand motive or plot, and his MO is to constantly introduce irrelevant plot points that oughta go off like Chekov's Gun later but never do, leaving you wondering what happened to them or why they were even introduced in the first place. And his response is always "Well, this [movie/tv show/episode] is not so much about answers as it is about asking question."

No. It's about having a solid, steady resolution to the central conflict with no major loose ends hanging (except for a few miscellaneous ones that can be fleshed out in a sequel). "Keeping the audience guessing" is not synonymous with "Leaving the audience wanting more". It's tantamount to dangling keys in front of a raccoon. Done sparingly and well, it can make or break a story. Done all the time, it's a farking cocktease and it's disrespectful to your audience and the nature of storytelling.

I'm not biting your lure anymore, Lindelhoff. fark off.


Lindelhoff appeared on an episode of Talking Dead. I was terrified that they were going to make that worthless, talentless hack a writer for the show. Had he been writing the second season of the Walking Dead, it would have been the same, except they never would have found Sophia. And there would have been unexplained noises/lights in the sky at night. Or we would have been introduced to a group of new characters at the end of the season that HAD ALL OF THE ANSWERS...but never appeared in the third. Or any of the other talentless crap he calls writing.
 
2012-12-27 02:40:37 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Rev. Skarekroe: I liked the new Star Trek, but that's a funny headline.

Can't think of any excuse to hide a starship under the ocean, though. The more I think about it, the dumber it seems...

The trailer shows a ship crashing into the water. Why are people NOT assuming that's the ship being towed/taken OUT of it in some way?


People are criticizing screenshots of a 30 second trailer? OY
 
2012-12-27 02:42:52 PM  

coeyagi: Fark - basically we're the 6% from Rotten Tomatoes who didn't like the movie.™


The internet: your favorite thing sucks

//movie was awesome
//every time i watch it
 
2012-12-27 02:47:55 PM  

LL316: /The Hobbit can fark off and die, though.


YOU TAKE THAT BACK!
 
2012-12-27 03:06:52 PM  

LlamaGirl: LL316: /The Hobbit can fark off and die, though.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!


The Hobbit is very weird. On the one hand they were clearly reaching for material, on the other they still decided to make it almost three hours long. They played the dwarves for mostly comedic effect but still tried to make their journey as serious as LOTR. Hopefully the next two movies end up being more cohesive.
 
2012-12-27 03:07:39 PM  
www.fact.co.uk

This is the only Star Trek Movie that is like the original series. While most would consider it ok, to good, even more consider it boring and some not worth a rewatch.

Gene Roddenberry's version of ST is what we in the Star Trek Community, generally piss on. All you have to do is look to Star Wars to see the same thing. Best movie of the series? Empire Strikes Back... the one he had the LEAST amount of control over and did the LEAST amount of editing.

2009 get's biatchslapped on the internet by Trekkies who ADORE Wrath of Kahn. And this hypocrisy is totally amusing.
 
2012-12-27 03:10:00 PM  

WTF Indeed: These new star wars movies are going to be awesomely bad. I can't wait for Johnny Depp to be the new Han.


You must be joking.

I was watching Episode III in the theater my wife. We could see the build-up...we could see Anakin's path was going to converge ...unpleasantly... with the jedilings. As one, we both stood up and walked out. Enough was enough.

I LOVED the original trilogy. I've still got my boxes of Star Wars toys from the 70's. All my life, I was dying to see that fight between Obi-Wan and Anakin that created Vader... but Lucas, in three long, slow, merciless acts killed my joy for his creation. I just didn't care to see how his story ended. I can't see how anyone could do WORSE.

Yeah, yeah, CSB.
 
2012-12-27 03:10:21 PM  
Yes well we always have Joss Whedon.
 
2012-12-27 03:12:20 PM  

odinsposse: LlamaGirl: LL316: /The Hobbit can fark off and die, though.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

The Hobbit is very weird. On the one hand they were clearly reaching for material, on the other they still decided to make it almost three hours long. They played the dwarves for mostly comedic effect but still tried to make their journey as serious as LOTR. Hopefully the next two movies end up being more cohesive.


Here's the problem with The Hobbit:

The movie was almost unadulterated fan service. Not for people who love the original books, but for people who love ALL of Tolkien's legendarium: Unfinished Tales, History of Middle-Earth, LOTR Appendices, The Silmarillion, etc.... I, for one, loved it. But I am a Tolkien geek. The movie was made for people like me (during the scene where Gandalf couldn't recall the name of the other two wizards, I was the only one in the theatre who called out "Alatar and Pallando!").

Tolkien fans will love the additional material but because they know it so well it doesn't feel like a departure in narrative nor does it bog things down in unnecessary distractions or detours -- everything is essential to them.

For people unfamiliar with Tolkien, however, the dense amount of backstory and motive might be a little daunting and will affect their ability to enjoy the story properly.

What I recommend is that you go see it with a Tolkien geek so he can answer any questions you might have but he probably would not have be able to shut up for several hours once you get him going.
 
2012-12-27 03:13:17 PM  

odinsposse: LlamaGirl: LL316: /The Hobbit can fark off and die, though.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

The Hobbit is very weird. On the one hand they were clearly reaching for material, on the other they still decided to make it almost three hours long. They played the dwarves for mostly comedic effect but still tried to make their journey as serious as LOTR. Hopefully the next two movies end up being more cohesive.


I loved it! It felt like someone took one of my groups' D&D sessions and made it a movie. A+++, will watch again!
 
2012-12-27 03:18:23 PM  
Thats a shame I would have liked to see Luke drinking a Shlusho
 
2012-12-27 03:22:18 PM  

spidermann: Plot holes = read the comic miniseries before watching the movie. It is all explained.


kunochan.com

Why do I need to read a comic to understand a movie's plot?

RevRaven: Yeah, JJ turned Star Trek into Star Wars.


... Complete with the gratuitous destruction of a peaceful planet. My head just exploded.

Techhell: Seriously, Star Trek Lensflare was nothing but a naked cash grab. Capitalize on characters who have crossed over into mainstream culture ("Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here."), put together a story with just enough nods to the source material to make it look like they know it, pick beautiful people and make it very action-oriented. Then deliberately belittle the original series to have a built in defense against arguments that "This isn't Star Trek." before the movie even comes out, and voila.


I don't think they deliberately set out to do it. I think Abrams' is just friggin' lazy.

"Nevermind that Jim Kirk had to have been naturally driven to become Starfleet's youngest captain and Spock already had issues being half-human we need instant wangst and motivation. Let's whack their parents."

Jim from Saint Paul: This is the only Star Trek Movie that is like the original series. While most would consider it ok, to good, even more consider it boring and some not worth a rewatch.


Balance Of Terror, The Gaileo Seven, City On The Edge Of Forever, and The Doomsday Machine beg to differ, and those are just the episodes I can rattle off-hand that had more action and/or drama than The Motionless Picture.
 
2012-12-27 03:31:11 PM  
I read the Tolkien books in the  early 1980s, when I was 11 or 12, and while they were great as a kid, I tried to pick them up later as an adult, and just find them meh, which is why I never saw the movies, and that also my childhood imagination was great than Hollywoods attempt to cash in on franchise that hits the new psuedo nerd demographic.  This coming from a guy who went to comic cons when it was mostly uggos, tubbos, and fat chicks, before they hired hookers to be booth babes, or your mildly slutter girl next door was walking around dressed like Princess Leia...

Star Wards, the original three were great movies as a kid, fantasy with spaceships and aliens, really all it was a great pirate adventure.  With most of it certainly lifted liberally from Frank Herberts Dune.

The original Star Trek was amusing schock, a bit of pulp with a few ideas that were considered ground breaking(1 black girl, albeit a telephone operator) a womanizer, a scottish drunk, and a cold hearted know it all.  It was better than Lost in Space but not by much.

There is no one in the Star Trek Universe as cool as Han Solo.
 
2012-12-27 03:36:26 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: The Motionless Picture


Heh ... that's pure awesome.

/might have to steal it
 
2012-12-27 03:39:01 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: I liked the new Star Trek, but that's a funny headline.

Can't think of any excuse to hide a starship under the ocean, though. The more I think about it, the dumber it seems...


Futurama answered this:

images2.wikia.nocookie.net

It is to test suppositories. Duh!
 
2012-12-27 03:44:27 PM  
If a starship is on the run an ocean can be a good place to hide, and a starships sealed enviroment is perfect for an underwater hideway.

Much easier to hide it there than on land.
 
2012-12-27 03:44:36 PM  

theflatline: There is no one in the Star Trek Universe as cool as Han Solo.


3.bp.blogspot.com

"Han who?"

upload.wikimedia.org

"Beats me."
 
2012-12-27 03:47:08 PM  

texdent: NERD FIGHT!!!

On a related note: X-Wing vs Defiant


Defiant de-cloaks and blows up the X-Wing.

Now I have a better fight, Shuttle craft vs Death Star.
 
2012-12-27 03:47:48 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face:
Jim from Saint Paul: This is the only Star Trek Movie that is like the original series. While most would consider it ok, to good, even more consider it boring and some not worth a rewatch.

Balance Of Terror, The Gaileo Seven, City On The Edge Of Forever, and The Doomsday Machine beg to differ, and those are just the episodes I can rattle off-hand that had more action and/or drama than The Motionless Picture.


Balance of Terror = No Gene.

TG7 = No Gene.

CoteoF = No Gene.

TDM = No Gene.

Which proves my point. When Gene and his "vision" aren't involved, the shows are generally more interesting and involve more action.

TheMotionPicture fit the tone that Gene was looking for in the original series. He produced the thing and it shows.
 
2012-12-27 03:48:02 PM  

jj325: I enjoy being a casual fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars.  The Abrams Star Trek for me was one of the best Star Trek movies ever---right up there with Wrath of Khan and First Contact


Same here. ( although I didn't think First Contact was that good, I'd replace it with Star Trek VI, personally)
 
2012-12-27 03:52:46 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: theflatline: There is no one in the Star Trek Universe as cool as Han Solo.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 664x494]

"Han who?"

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x305]

"Beats me."


Do either of them have a wookie?  And can either of them run their starship with only 1 crew member and fix it themselves?
 
2012-12-27 03:53:46 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Balance of Terror = No Gene.

TG7 = No Gene.

CoteoF = No Gene.

TDM = No Gene.

Which proves my point. When Gene and his "vision" aren't involved, the shows are generally more interesting and involve more action.

TheMotionPicture fit the tone that Gene was looking for in the original series. He produced the thing and it shows.


Gene's vision wasn't the problem. Star Trek's nearly fifty years old and its concept is still as viable now as it was back in '66. He was great with concept. Its when he took the reins with production, that's where you get dreck like The Cage, TMP, and Encounter At Farpoint.
 
2012-12-27 03:56:50 PM  

theflatline: Do either of them have a wookie?  And can either of them run their starship with only 1 crew member and fix it themselves?


Oh, you're looking for a nerd fight. Nevermind.

Kirk's genes are spread across half the quadrant and Sisko is the boogeyman Cardassians tell their children about at night. That defines 'cool' to me.
 
2012-12-27 03:57:32 PM  

theflatline: If a starship is on the run an ocean can be a good place to hide, and a starships sealed enviroment is perfect for an underwater hideway.

Much easier to hide it there than on land.


Leela: Professor, how many atmospheres of pressure can the ship handle?
Professor: Well since is was designed for space travel I'd say somewhere between one and zero.
 
2012-12-27 04:06:20 PM  

theflatline:
There is no one in the Star Trek Universe as cool as Han Solo.


There is no one in the Star Wars Universe as hot as Seven of Nine.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-27 04:08:09 PM  
I have to admit. I liked all six Star Wars movies. I liked the new Star Trek. I liked the hobbit. Undiscovered Country and First Contact are the two best Star Trek movies.

I don't know what everyone is complaining about
 
2012-12-27 04:10:01 PM  

Jizz Master Zero: Apparently they weren't seen going in. Nothing says they have to pull up next to the cliff and just dive right in there. Probably dropped in the water far away and pulled up next to land. Likely were going to try to get out the same way until Kirk snuck into the village and got all grabby with their artifacts. The whole plan kind of went to shiat at that point.


I got the impression that WAS the plan.

Grab the artifact, get the entire tribe to chase you.... out of the eruption zone.
 
2012-12-27 04:10:07 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Jim from Saint Paul: Balance of Terror = No Gene.

TG7 = No Gene.

CoteoF = No Gene.

TDM = No Gene.

Which proves my point. When Gene and his "vision" aren't involved, the shows are generally more interesting and involve more action.

TheMotionPicture fit the tone that Gene was looking for in the original series. He produced the thing and it shows.

Gene's vision wasn't the problem. Star Trek's nearly fifty years old and its concept is still as viable now as it was back in '66. He was great with concept. Its when he took the reins with production, that's where you get dreck like The Cage, TMP, and Encounter At Farpoint.


Are we debating the same side at this point?
 
2012-12-27 04:11:25 PM  

This Face Left Blank: I don't know how anyone can like Star Wars over Star Trek, and I say that as someone who was eleven and a huge fan when the Episode IV: A New Hope came out.


Because Star Wars was FAR more inventive than Star Trek. In Trek, every alien looks like a person in an alien suit, and all of the quandaries are basically the same as you see in any other TV show. Star Wars was better, more imagination involved.

Then he had to go and start farking with shiat.

And THEN he had to go and make the prequels.

Star Trek is now better than what Lucas' McMovie =Franchise has turned into...
 
2012-12-27 04:11:38 PM  

StrikitRich: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Not that good. There were plot holes big enough to drive a truck through and while I'll admit it was a fun movie, I don't consider it to be cannon.


You don't get to decide what is and what is not artillery.
 
2012-12-27 04:14:30 PM  

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: I have to admit. I liked all six Star Wars movies. I liked the new Star Trek. I liked the hobbit. Undiscovered Country and First Contact are the two best Star Trek movies.


ct.fra.bz
 
2012-12-27 04:14:34 PM  
www.raybendici.com

/oblig
 
2012-12-27 04:18:52 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: theflatline: There is no one in the Star Trek Universe as cool as Han Solo.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 664x494]

"Han who?"

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x305]

"Beats me."


I love you.
 
2012-12-27 04:20:17 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Are we debating the same side at this point?


I think so.
 
2012-12-27 04:24:01 PM  

Ishkur: during the scene where Gandalf couldn't recall the name of the other two wizards, I was the only one in the theatre who called out "Alatar and Pallando!


www.mastersinit.org
 
2012-12-27 04:27:29 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Jim from Saint Paul: Are we debating the same side at this point?

I think so.


So we disagree on 2009, yet we both think the best episodes of ST:TOS are the more actiony ones that don't involves Nazis/Gangsters/whatever-leftover-sets-and-wardrobes-were-available-fr om-other-shows-at-the-time?
 
2012-12-27 04:47:40 PM  

born_yesterday: zedster: LlamaGirl: jj325: I enjoy being a casual fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars.  The Abrams Star Trek for me was one of the best Star Trek movies ever---right up there with Wrath of Khan and First Contact

I completely agree. I really enjoyed the heck out of the new Star Trek. But I guess we're a minority now around these here parts so you might want to put on a helmet or something before people start throwing rocks.

I think it was enjoyable, just would have been the same film outside of the ST universe. Galaxy Quest had more of the ST esthetic to it then the new film

Galaxy Quest was more fun AND had more heart than Space Adventure: Who's Paying the Electric Bills? could ever hope to.


Unfortunately for me it involved Tim Allen.  And i can't stand Tim Allen
 
2012-12-27 04:57:17 PM  

LL316: LlamaGirl: jj325: I enjoy being a casual fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars.  The Abrams Star Trek for me was one of the best Star Trek movies ever---right up there with Wrath of Khan and First Contact

I completely agree. I really enjoyed the heck out of the new Star Trek. But I guess we're a minority now around these here parts so you might want to put on a helmet or something before people start throwing rocks.

I'm with you guys. And I'll say it - I found every single Star Wars to be entertaining. Good movies? Nope. But entertaining, which was the point.

/The Hobbit can fark off and die, though.


RevRaven: A young man grows up without a father, but hearing of his legacy. He's troubled, he feels trapped at his home, and that he's meant for bigger things, but just can't get away.

A wise older man comes along, who knew his father and convinces him to start working towards his destiny. The young man does so. But before he can finish his training, he's thrown into a circumstance where he's really not ready, but he's going to have to try to overcome anyway. The villain arrives and uses his super weapon and the heroes are unable to stop him. Using his quick wits and natural abilities the young man over comes his adversity and returns to help his new friends as they prepare go make a stand against the villain and his super weapon. The villain moves into position and at the last possible moment, the young man stops the villain and his super weapon. He's realizing his destiny, perhaps a bit later than is normal, but he is becoming his own man and is living up to his father's legacy.

Yeah, JJ turned Star Trek into Star Wars.


I thought you were describing Harry Potter
 
2012-12-27 05:16:35 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Why do I need to read a comic to understand a movie's plot?


because 21st century. that's why.
 
2012-12-27 05:42:47 PM  

jj325: LL316: LlamaGirl: jj325: I enjoy being a casual fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars.  The Abrams Star Trek for me was one of the best Star Trek movies ever---right up there with Wrath of Khan and First Contact

I completely agree. I really enjoyed the heck out of the new Star Trek. But I guess we're a minority now around these here parts so you might want to put on a helmet or something before people start throwing rocks.

I'm with you guys. And I'll say it - I found every single Star Wars to be entertaining. Good movies? Nope. But entertaining, which was the point.

/The Hobbit can fark off and die, though.

RevRaven: A young man grows up without a father, but hearing of his legacy. He's troubled, he feels trapped at his home, and that he's meant for bigger things, but just can't get away.

A wise older man comes along, who knew his father and convinces him to start working towards his destiny. The young man does so. But before he can finish his training, he's thrown into a circumstance where he's really not ready, but he's going to have to try to overcome anyway. The villain arrives and uses his super weapon and the heroes are unable to stop him. Using his quick wits and natural abilities the young man over comes his adversity and returns to help his new friends as they prepare go make a stand against the villain and his super weapon. The villain moves into position and at the last possible moment, the young man stops the villain and his super weapon. He's realizing his destiny, perhaps a bit later than is normal, but he is becoming his own man and is living up to his father's legacy.

Yeah, JJ turned Star Trek into Star Wars.

I thought you were describing Harry Potter


I thought he was riffing on Joseph Campbell's concept of the monomyth/hero's journey.
 
2012-12-27 06:16:11 PM  
While 7 of 9 is hot, she is a dime a dozen blond hot. The kind nerds hunger for from the sidelines.

Carrie Fisher young had the girl next door with a bad streak sexiness too her.

Not to mention Natalie Portman is hot as well.

thisrecording.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-27 06:25:57 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Easter eggs are exactly that. Only easter eggs.


A farm boy that dreams of adventure in space is taken under the wing of a wise old mentor that knew the farm boy's father. The farmboy then goes on to take on defeat a vessel capable of destroying planets.

Am I talking about Star Wars or Star Trek?
 
2012-12-27 06:28:41 PM  

Kaybeck: Jim from Saint Paul: Easter eggs are exactly that. Only easter eggs.

A farm boy that dreams of adventure in space is taken under the wing of a wise old mentor that knew the farm boy's father. The farmboy then goes on to take on defeat a vessel capable of destroying planets.

Am I talking about Star Wars or Star Trek?


Yes.
 
2012-12-27 07:10:59 PM  
Hmm... So who should play Jaina Solo? Discuss.
 
2012-12-27 07:23:24 PM  
Star Trek was always "Nerds in Space". Kirk was what every nerd wished he could be; intelligent and talented, but also a killer with the ladies.

Oh yeah, and he commanded a freaking starship.

Then Abrams came along and tuned it into "Frat Boys in Space". That's why so many nerds are pissed off and why that oft-posted Onion video is so accurate. And I'm saying this as a nerd myself. I didn't mind the plot holes so much (red matter wasn't too much worse than the Genesis Device or anything else) but I just couldn't stand the characters. I couldn't relate to them at all. The whole thing just felt like bad fan fiction to me.

On the other hand, I loved the hell out of Battleship. It was basically the same story--young hothead wasting his talents is about to be kicked out of the service when disaster happens and he has to rise to the challenge and save the day--but with Battleship it wasn't shiatting all over previously established characters that nerds had grown to love. Plus, the main character in Battleship has an actual character arc and learns some humility, and as such is far more likeable and sympathetic.

He also isn't made a captain of the flagship of the fleet at the end of the movie.

Now the voiceover in one of the recent trailers suggest that they're going to deal with that (Kirk learning humility) so I'm still somewhat looking forward to the new movie, but I still can't help but feel that disappointment that Star Trek is no longer really for nerds like me. It's just the same as Transformers now.

And no, I'm not going to criticize anyone else for enjoying it. I think it's great that people have different tastes, and my opinions only apply to me. But that said, I definitely am glad Abrams won't be having anything to do with Star Wars.
 
2012-12-27 08:19:20 PM  
An honest list of best-ever Star Trek episodes would probably have more Rick Berman credits than Roddenberry. Roddenberry (with Bob Justman) was really TNG's showrunner for only the first season. When it really hit its stride in the 3rd season it was Berman in charge. He gets a lot of shiat and not enough credit.
 
2012-12-27 08:55:23 PM  

Ishkur: odinsposse: LlamaGirl: LL316: /The Hobbit can fark off and die, though.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

The Hobbit is very weird. On the one hand they were clearly reaching for material, on the other they still decided to make it almost three hours long. They played the dwarves for mostly comedic effect but still tried to make their journey as serious as LOTR. Hopefully the next two movies end up being more cohesive.

Here's the problem with The Hobbit:

The movie was almost unadulterated fan service. Not for people who love the original books, but for people who love ALL of Tolkien's legendarium: Unfinished Tales, History of Middle-Earth, LOTR Appendices, The Silmarillion, etc.... I, for one, loved it. But I am a Tolkien geek. The movie was made for people like me (during the scene where Gandalf couldn't recall the name of the other two wizards, I was the only one in the theatre who called out "Alatar and Pallando!").

Tolkien fans will love the additional material but because they know it so well it doesn't feel like a departure in narrative nor does it bog things down in unnecessary distractions or detours -- everything is essential to them.

For people unfamiliar with Tolkien, however, the dense amount of backstory and motive might be a little daunting and will affect their ability to enjoy the story properly.

What I recommend is that you go see it with a Tolkien geek so he can answer any questions you might have but he probably would not have be able to shut up for several hours once you get him going.


I haven't seen it yet, but remember interviews and rumors from before and during production
Isn't the new trilogy supposed to provide bridging material to LotR?
It may even be based on books that were released after Silmarillion (which was the last book I read in that 'verse, and that was loooog ago when it was first released)
It seems to me that there was a book released about Saurons re-emergence...

Anyway all the complaints that I've read about other than the new FPS HD thingy are about how the hobbit's been streached to encompase a trilogy and there isn't enough book to cover 3 movies

but I don't believe that's the case

It's also about Saurons rise in mirkwood and return to mordor
 
2012-12-27 10:24:32 PM  

bluorangefyre: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

THIS!  If anybody ruined Star Trek it was Rick Berman and whoever the other guy was who took over Trek after Roddenberry died.


DING DING DING we have a winnar!
 
2012-12-27 10:33:07 PM  

Starhawk: Jizz Master Zero: Apparently they weren't seen going in. Nothing says they have to pull up next to the cliff and just dive right in there. Probably dropped in the water far away and pulled up next to land. Likely were going to try to get out the same way until Kirk snuck into the village and got all grabby with their artifacts. The whole plan kind of went to shiat at that point.

I got the impression that WAS the plan.

Grab the artifact, get the entire tribe to chase you.... out of the eruption zone.


Damn. Never even considered that. It makes way more sense now. Much better than, "Hey, Kirk, no violatee Prime Directive." "But... stuff!"
 
2012-12-27 11:15:19 PM  

RevRaven: A young man grows up without a father, but hearing of his legacy. He's troubled, he feels trapped at his home, and that he's meant for bigger things, but just can't get away.

A wise older man comes along, who knew his father and convinces him to start working towards his destiny. The young man does so. But before he can finish his training, he's thrown into a circumstance where he's really not ready, but he's going to have to try to overcome anyway. The villain arrives and uses his super weapon and the heroes are unable to stop him. Using his quick wits and natural abilities the young man over comes his adversity and returns to help his new friends as they prepare go make a stand against the villain and his super weapon. The villain moves into position and at the last possible moment, the young man stops the villain and his super weapon. He's realizing his destiny, perhaps a bit later than is normal, but he is becoming his own man and is living up to his father's legacy.

Yeah, JJ turned Star Trek into Star Wars.


And that's why I loved it. It was a better Star Wars movies than Episode I. (And a better Star Trek movie than Insurrection and Nemesis)

Besides, it could have been worse. Do you remember when Gene Roddenberry turned Star Trek into 2001: A Space Odyssey?
 
2012-12-28 12:26:10 AM  

Farking Canuck: But the great reviews combined with the extreme amounts of profit suggest that they are probably happy with their decision.


?

I think everyone thinks ST:09 made a lot more money than it really did. Considering that the studio gets about half of the box office total, you have to double your budget, plus factor in advertising and print costs and it gets much close to 3x budget to break even (not counting video and tv releases). There are three numbers to consider the profitability of a film. Budget, domestic gross and worldwide (including domestic). Those numbers were 140, 257, and 385. It probably squeaked into the black, but not by a ton.
 
2012-12-28 12:53:01 AM  

mjbok: I think everyone thinks ST:09 made a lot more money than it really did. Considering that the studio gets about half of the box office total, you have to double your budget, plus factor in advertising and print costs and it gets much close to 3x budget to break even (not counting video and tv releases). There are three numbers to consider the profitability of a film. Budget, domestic gross and worldwide (including domestic). Those numbers were 140, 257, and 385. It probably squeaked into the black, but not by a ton.


And DVD/BluRay sales are gravy ... giant buckets of gold plated gravy.

Box-office is the old school way of looking at things. Modern movies keep paying long after they are out of the theaters.
 
2012-12-28 01:13:11 AM  

jj325: LL316: LlamaGirl: jj325: I enjoy being a casual fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars.  The Abrams Star Trek for me was one of the best Star Trek movies ever---right up there with Wrath of Khan and First Contact

I completely agree. I really enjoyed the heck out of the new Star Trek. But I guess we're a minority now around these here parts so you might want to put on a helmet or something before people start throwing rocks.

I'm with you guys. And I'll say it - I found every single Star Wars to be entertaining. Good movies? Nope. But entertaining, which was the point.

/The Hobbit can fark off and die, though.

RevRaven: A young man grows up without a father, but hearing of his legacy. He's troubled, he feels trapped at his home, and that he's meant for bigger things, but just can't get away.

A wise older man comes along, who knew his father and convinces him to start working towards his destiny. The young man does so. But before he can finish his training, he's thrown into a circumstance where he's really not ready, but he's going to have to try to overcome anyway. The villain arrives and uses his super weapon and the heroes are unable to stop him. Using his quick wits and natural abilities the young man over comes his adversity and returns to help his new friends as they prepare go make a stand against the villain and his super weapon. The villain moves into position and at the last possible moment, the young man stops the villain and his super weapon. He's realizing his destiny, perhaps a bit later than is normal, but he is becoming his own man and is living up to his father's legacy.

Yeah, JJ turned Star Trek into Star Wars.

I thought you were describing Harry Potter


Wait, are you actually describing Lord of the Rings?
 
2012-12-28 01:48:44 AM  

odinsposse: LlamaGirl: LL316: /The Hobbit can fark off and die, though.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

The Hobbit is very weird. On the one hand they were clearly reaching for material, on the other they still decided to make it almost three hours long. They played the dwarves for mostly comedic effect but still tried to make their journey as serious as LOTR. Hopefully the next two movies end up being more cohesive.


I think that the Hobbit trilogy is off putting to some, because of how much material Jackson is using. He is just not using the Hobbit book as source material, he is using other works of Tolkien in the world. So he basically trying to tell a bunch of stories together into this trilogy.
 
2012-12-28 03:22:45 AM  

This Face Left Blank: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.

I don't know how anyone can like Star Wars over Star Trek, and I say that as someone who was eleven and a huge fan when the Episode IV: A New Hope came out. The new Trek reboot was fun, good-looking, full of action and had a great cast. I just hope - for the love of all that's holy - they aren't gonna use existing movies and episodes as the basis for every new Trek movie from hereon out.


I was twenty.

www.swtorstrategies.com
Beats the shiat out of both conventional Star Wars and Star Trek.
 
2012-12-28 12:12:45 PM  

Jedekai: This Face Left Blank: LlamaGirl: But Star Trek was good.

Besides, Star Wars is terrible. Just terrible.

I don't know how anyone can like Star Wars over Star Trek, and I say that as someone who was eleven and a huge fan when the Episode IV: A New Hope came out. The new Trek reboot was fun, good-looking, full of action and had a great cast. I just hope - for the love of all that's holy - they aren't gonna use existing movies and episodes as the basis for every new Trek movie from hereon out.

I was twenty.


Beats the shiat out of both conventional Star Wars and Star Trek.


Making the wookie (Stendarr or whatever his name was) murder Mission Vao with his claws was one of the evilest things I've ever done in a video game until a man named Eulogy Jones sent me on a mission to a place called Little Lamplight. I still feel bad about what I did there.

/I'm going on an adventure!
 
2012-12-28 06:17:13 PM  
I think it's quite interesting that all the people who embrace RedLetterMedia's review of the Star Wars prequels as being the gospel truth that backs up their hatred for George Lucas are all willing to ignore RedLetterMedia's review of Abrams' Star Trek, which essentially says it's a good movie and explains why Trek needed the change.

So he's only right when he agrees with you. Got it.
 
2012-12-28 09:20:11 PM  

ZeroCorpse: I think it's quite interesting that all the people who embrace RedLetterMedia's review of the Star Wars prequels as being the gospel truth that backs up their hatred for George Lucas are all willing to ignore RedLetterMedia's review of Abrams' Star Trek, which essentially says it's a good movie and explains why Trek needed the change.

So he's only right when he agrees with you. Got it.


You, of all Farkers, should know this by now.
 
2012-12-28 11:28:48 PM  

ZeroCorpse: ISo he's only right when he agrees with you. Got it.


I actually agree with both of those reviews, but I'm not sure why liking one and disliking the other would be hypocritical.

Just because you like a reviewer, it doesn't mean you have to agree with EVERYTHING they say. I like Ebert, but I think he was wrong to give The Raid such a negative review, for example.
 
2012-12-29 12:19:14 PM  
The only good thing about ST09 was Karl Urban's spot-on impression of DeForest Kelley. For the rest of the cast, we had frat-boy/idiot Kirk, angry/horny Spock, slutty Uhura, buffoon Scotty, and Sulu & Chekov were just weird. Especially Chekov.

I won't be seeing this new one. Abrams just doesn't know what he's doing. It's embarrassing.
 
2012-12-29 05:40:35 PM  

Rocket To Russia: I won't be seeing this new one. Abrams just doesn't know what he's doing. It's embarrassing.


Worldwide Box Office: $385,680,446
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 95%
IMDB Score: 8.0/10
Academy Award: Makeup
Academy Nomination Award: Visual Effects
Academy Nomination Award: Sound
Academy Nomination Award: Sound Editing

I think there are a lot of directors that wish they could embarrass themselves this badly.
 
2012-12-29 09:53:05 PM  

Farking Canuck: Rocket To Russia: I won't be seeing this new one. Abrams just doesn't know what he's doing. It's embarrassing.

Worldwide Box Office: $385,680,446
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 95%
IMDB Score: 8.0/10
Academy Award: Makeup
Academy Nomination Award: Visual Effects
Academy Nomination Award: Sound
Academy Nomination Award: Sound Editing

I think there are a lot of directors that wish they could embarrass themselves this badly.


Worldwide box office of 385 million for a special effects driven, high budget picture is not very impressive. Hell, Battleship did 300 million. For reference the Transformers did 711, 836, and 1123, Rise of the Planet of the Apes did 468 and the first two Narnias did 745 and 419. Finally, The Golden Compass (widely seen as a flop) did 372 worldwide.
 
2012-12-29 10:16:06 PM  

mjbok: Worldwide box office of 385 million for a special effects driven, high budget picture is not very impressive.


RtR was saying it is "embarrassing".

I also listed the Academy Award/Nominations and high critic scores.

All adds up to "Not Embarrassing"!
 
2012-12-29 11:37:19 PM  

Farking Canuck: I also listed the Academy Award/Nominations and high critic scores.

All adds up to "Not Embarrassing"!


The critic scores are valid towards your point. The Oscar nominations, not so much. Once again see Transformers.
 
2012-12-30 09:18:58 AM  

Farking Canuck: mjbok: Worldwide box office of 385 million for a special effects driven, high budget picture is not very impressive.

RtR was saying it is "embarrassing".

I also listed the Academy Award/Nominations and high critic scores.

All adds up to "Not Embarrassing"!


Wellllll, I meant that Abrams' handling of the characters of Star Trek is embarrassing.
 
Displayed 162 of 162 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report