Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   JJ Abrams says he will "honor, but not revere" the past Star Wars films. Translation: lots of lensflares, the dropping of canon he finds to be too complicated, and terrible casting choices. But hey, it starts production next year   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 269
    More: Fail, J.J. Abrams, Star Wars, Episode VII, Michael Arndt, experimental film, Bad Robot, 2013 and beyond in film, George Lucas  
•       •       •

2063 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 09 Jun 2013 at 1:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-09 08:59:12 AM  
Go on, subby, I'll call you. What's your problem, exactly, with the casting choices?
 
2013-06-09 08:59:49 AM  
Oh, and again, what canon has been violated? Be specific.
 
2013-06-09 09:00:26 AM  
Oh are you just another butthurt Trekkie talking out their ass.
 
2013-06-09 09:06:29 AM  
Translation: Subby will be first in line in 2015.
 
2013-06-09 09:17:54 AM  

Confabulat: Translation: Subby will be first in line in 2015.


Nice try, JJ
 
2013-06-09 09:18:34 AM  

Confabulat: Go on, subby, I'll call you. What's your problem, exactly, with the casting choices?


Subby is Lucas.
 
2013-06-09 09:40:25 AM  
Butthurt, in this thread I see.
 
2013-06-09 09:47:58 AM  
If he means "pretend the prequels never happened, and actually respect the continuity established in the original trilogy", I'm with him all the way.

What would be really interesting, though, would be to pick up Yoda's cryptic "No, there is another!" comment. Yes, I know what it was intended to mean at the time, but it was never really played out in the movies, so it could make for a good story. (And please remember that for 90%+ of the movie-going public, the existing movies are the whole of the story. The neither know nor care what is "established canon" in any other medium.)
 
2013-06-09 10:04:00 AM  
To be completely honest, anything that wasn't in the movies should be excised from the canon.

No need to complicate matters with hundreds of sh*tty novels, comic books and early 80's television specials.
 
2013-06-09 10:08:22 AM  

czetie: If he means "pretend the prequels never happened, and actually respect the continuity established in the original trilogy", I'm with him all the way.

What would be really interesting, though, would be to pick up Yoda's cryptic "No, there is another!" comment. Yes, I know what it was intended to mean at the time, but it was never really played out in the movies, so it could make for a good story. (And please remember that for 90%+ of the movie-going public, the existing movies are the whole of the story. The neither know nor care what is "established canon" in any other medium.)


What? It was never played out in terms of Leia becoming a Jedi, but it was central to both Luke's inner conflict with his own anger, and to resolving the love triangle with Han.
 
2013-06-09 10:29:38 AM  
I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.
 
2013-06-09 01:06:55 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.


If he could have invented a darkness flare he would have used it.
 
2013-06-09 01:14:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.


I didn't get it at first, but then I went back and watched Star Trek again

/Every. Freaking. Scene.
//it becomes just clutter after a while
 
2013-06-09 01:19:34 PM  
He won't assrape whatever "legacy" Star Wars had any worse than its creator did with that dogshiat "prequel trilogy"

/no, I will not call "Star Wars" "Episode IV: A New Hope"
 
2013-06-09 01:20:32 PM  
Say good bye another favorite franchise.

 Thanks a lot douchebag!
 
2013-06-09 01:20:49 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.

I didn't get it at first, but then I went back and watched Star Trek again

/Every. Freaking. Scene.
//it becomes just clutter after a while


I wear glasses so I see lens flare all day.

So there.  You.
 
2013-06-09 01:21:00 PM  

jake_lex: He won't assrape whatever "legacy" Star Wars had any worse than its creator did with that dogshiat "prequel trilogy"

/no, I will not call "Star Wars" "Episode IV: A New Hope"


Look at it this way: if Abrams does to Star Wars what he did to Star Trek, then the prequels may never have ever happened!  They could be erased from existence, aside from their life in the memory of Old Threepio.
 
2013-06-09 01:23:07 PM  
i expect nothing less than the most ridiculously awesome star wars movie ever made.  it will be loud, flashy, exciting, fun, and will revitalize a series that has done nothing but shiat on itself for years.

/the new trek movies are AWESOME.  fark the haters.

//41 year old life long trek and SW fan.

///one request - NO farkING YODA.  he died in Return of the Ewok.  Let him be dead.
 
2013-06-09 01:27:07 PM  
The only good Star Wars movie was (and will continue to be) The Empire Strikes Back.

There, I said it.
 
2013-06-09 01:27:32 PM  

Shostie: To be completely honest, anything that wasn't in the movies should be excised from the canon.

No need to complicate matters with hundreds of sh*tty novels, comic books and early 80's television specials.


Canon is only what's in the movies according to Lucas
 
2013-06-09 01:28:45 PM  

Macinfarker: MaudlinMutantMollusk: cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.

I didn't get it at first, but then I went back and watched Star Trek again

/Every. Freaking. Scene.
//it becomes just clutter after a while

I wear glasses so I see lens flare all day.

So there.  You.


Yeah, so do I

/that movie caused lens flare in my lens flare
 
2013-06-09 01:31:13 PM  
As I said in another thread, the new Star Trek movies are technically sound.  They're well-made, well-acted, action-packed movies that offer enough throwbacks and easter eggs to keep fans happy while making the franchise accessible to a new generation.  The problem is that they have so far failed to elicit the same sense of wonder that the best Trek accomplishes.  Whether you're talking about "The City on the Edge of Forever", "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Visitor" or "The Wrath of Khan", Trek at its best forces you out of your comfort zone and allows you to view humanity's role in the wider universe.  So far, the Abrams Trek has failed to achieve that, focusing instead on the action aspects.  It's as if they have a spreadsheet that describes all of the data that defines Trek but they haven't yet figured out how to properly visualize the data.  I suspect the same thing will happen with Star Wars.

And no, I won't be seeing the new Star Wars movies.  After Disney bought the rights and announced their plans, it was pretty obvious that Star Wars as I understood it growing up in the 70's and 80's was gone forever.  I'm content to let it go and let the new generation play with it.
 
2013-06-09 01:31:51 PM  
If he brings his lens flare machine to Ep 7, lightsaber fights are going to melt peoples pupils and burn their retinas right out of their skulls.
 
2013-06-09 01:32:32 PM  

Confabulat: Oh are you just another butthurt Trekkie talking out their ass.


I lol'd. Good one
 
2013-06-09 01:32:59 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.

I didn't get it at first, but then I went back and watched Star Trek again

/Every. Freaking. Scene.
//it becomes just clutter after a while


Not to mention it means that the lights on that ship's bridge would've been bright enough to cause eye fatigue, if it were a real spaceship.

frepnog: i expect nothing less than the most ridiculously awesome star wars movie ever made.  it will be loud, flashy, exciting, fun, and will revitalize a series that has done nothing but shiat on itself for years.

/the new trek movies are AWESOME.  fark the haters.

//41 year old life long trek and SW fan.

///one request - NO farkING YODA.  he died in Return of the Ewok.  Let him be dead.


The new trek movies are retarded action trash with characters drawn directly from teenage TV like 90210. Especially the latest one. It makes no damn sense(and includes a scene were Spock calls Spock to ask how ST2LWOK ended). By contrast, most of the old Trek movies were slightly higher budget 2 hour episodes and were mostly trash (except 2, 6, and FC), but at least didn't have the same level of senseless bullshiat in them that the new films aspire to.
 
2013-06-09 01:33:22 PM  
I like the new Star Trek, so I'm looking forward to his take on Star Wars.
 
2013-06-09 01:33:44 PM  

Confabulat: Go on, subby, I'll call you. What's your problem, exactly, with the casting choices?


Confabulat: Oh, and again, what canon has been violated? Be specific.


Confabulat: Oh are you just another butthurt Trekkie talking out their ass.


Confabulat: Translation: Subby will be first in line in 2015.


You could have at least let someone reply before wasting all the arguments.

/No dog in the Star Wars fight. Will laugh when Star Wars fans get a(nother) pile of crap and go ballistic.
 
2013-06-09 01:33:46 PM  

James F. Campbell: The only good Star Wars movie was (and will continue to be) The Empire Strikes Back.


Also -- Empire was the least worked over of all the originals by Lucas's reissued "improvements."

Coincidence? I think not.

/JJ Abrams can't do any worse than the prequels. Lucas set a pretty low bar for Star Wars movies.
 
2013-06-09 01:34:04 PM  
There's no way he can screw it up as badly as Lucas did.
 
2013-06-09 01:34:19 PM  
The parts which will REALLY REALLY REALLY confuse the fans are:
acting
human dialog
no farktard jar jar binks
actual acting abilities
directing by a real director

more attention to the story than getting the pretty pictures

the pretty pictures will follow
 
2013-06-09 01:35:19 PM  

Mentat: The problem is that they have so far failed to elicit the same sense of wonder that the best Trek accomplishes.


Good point, another thing I've wondered is how long can they keep the current crew together before someone decides they are being typecast or not being paid enough or just want to do other things. Surprising they've kept this crew intact as long as they have.
/the only constant is change
 
2013-06-09 01:35:39 PM  
He will simply remake the original trilogy
 
2013-06-09 01:35:45 PM  

Tax Boy: Also -- Empire was the least worked over of all the originals by Lucas's reissued "improvements."

Coincidence? I think not.


It's also the one he had the least directorial influence over while it was being filmed.
 
2013-06-09 01:36:07 PM  
Nothing, NOTHING JJ could possibly do could be any worse than the abysmal train wreck that the prequels were.

I love the new Trek movies and the new Star Wars film will be a blast I'm sure (as long as they keep George Lucas far far away from it).
 
2013-06-09 01:37:04 PM  

JonBuck: I like the new Star Trek, so I'm looking forward to his take on Star Wars.


In a way, you've already seen JJ do Star Wars because his two Star Trek films could be ANY film set in space.  All they have to do is dub in the character names and use a little CGI to turn Bones into Chewbacca.
 
2013-06-09 01:37:16 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.

I didn't get it at first, but then I went back and watched Star Trek again

/Every. Freaking. Scene.
//it becomes just clutter after a while


You know, it is a cool callback to the days when it was unavoidable, but only, you know, once or twice in the film.  Not every damn shot.
 
2013-06-09 01:37:44 PM  

EnviroDude: Butthurt, in this thread I see.


subby?
 
2013-06-09 01:38:18 PM  
I simply fail to understand how, having watched both the Star Wars "prequels" and the rebooted Star Trek movies, anyone, and I mean anyone, could try to get off assuming that this upcoming Star Wars movie could possibly be anything less than the 4th best movie in the franchise to date.  And at this point, are we asking for anything significantly more than that? Seriously.
 
2013-06-09 01:40:05 PM  
I like Abrams.  I'm enjoying the new Trek movies, and I've enjoyed his other movies.  The reason I don't want him on Star Wars is because he's already doing Star Trek, and I want the two franchises to feel distinctly different.  Now, Super 8 showed that he can do a slower paced film - I feel like that movie is a perfect balance of action sequences and smaller moments that build character and tension.  But Super 8 is a small scale story.  I feel like the bigger the scope of the world Abrams is working in, the more action packed he feels it needs to be.  I'm afraid that the new Star Wars is going to rush from action sequence to action sequence like the new Trek does, and the franchises are going to feel like clones.

/Looking his IMDB page, I see Abrams has been announced as the producer for both a Half-Life project and a Portal project.  Anyone have more info on those?
 
2013-06-09 01:42:44 PM  
To all who are (or will be) butthurt, please suck it.


/Just a movie
//I will be second in line, great hope I have!
///I actually saw episode one 13 times in the theater, pathetic I know. It wasn't very good
////I'd rank the movies like this: 5, 4, 3, 6, 1, 2 ( 6 and 3 can be interchangeable)
//I hated Whiney anakin in ep2
//how many slashies are too many?
 
2013-06-09 01:44:38 PM  
Was it "A New Hope" or "Wrath of Khan" that had Jar Jar Binks in it? I really liked him, hope JJ incorporates him somehow.
 
2013-06-09 01:46:22 PM  

VvonderJesus: Was it "A New Hope" or "Wrath of Khan" that had Jar Jar Binks in it? I really liked him, hope JJ incorporates him somehow.


Wasn't he the editor of the Daily Planet in Spider-Man?
 
2013-06-09 01:46:37 PM  

VvonderJesus: Was it "A New Hope" or "Wrath of Khan" that had Jar Jar Binks in it? I really liked him, hope JJ incorporates him somehow.


No, no, the tauntaun was in Into Darkness.
 
2013-06-09 01:48:06 PM  
Episode 7 will suck. Hard.
You will BEG for the return of Jar Jar Binks.
 
2013-06-09 01:48:46 PM  
Welp, looks like its time to burn my EU comic collection.
 
2013-06-09 01:49:24 PM  
Nothing Abrams does can be any worse than what Lucas did when he made the prequels.

I'll be cautiously optimistic unless I hear of evidence that he's doing the Thrawn trilogy.  At which point, I may squeal like a school girl.
 
2013-06-09 01:50:04 PM  

Mentat: The problem is that they have so far failed to elicit the same sense of wonder that the best Trek accomplishes. Whether you're talking about "The City on the Edge of Forever", "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Visitor" or "The Wrath of Khan", Trek at its best forces you out of your comfort zone and allows you to view humanity's role in the wider universe.


1) Why are you comparing a T.V. series to a movie
2) If only 1 movie out of 5 makes you think, you could say that Old Trek is still in a majority of "Only Treekies like this movie."
3) Either accept it is a new timeline, or stop caring so much.

The majority of...(Farkers/Trekkies/People/people out of my ass) seem to enjoy DS9. That doesn't mean people won't hate it, but they can go hipster themselves with their comparisons of how Call of Duty/Transformers was popular too. They can go eff themselves, because they don't know how Pop-culture works. DS9's theme was war/action/conflict. It also had the benefit of having personal relationships/theological questions because it was a TV SERIES, but the main premise after season 1.5 was ACTION WAR DEATH.

DS9 is my proof that Trek can be successful if it is actiony. The Old Trek movies were a mediocre blend of Sci-fi action and theological questioning that blended terribly, and got lucky, maybe in one movie. Why? Because 2 hours is a really hard time to make people care about someone. Only some directors and writers can do it.
 
2013-06-09 01:52:12 PM  
As long as there are no farking little kids in it and no Jar-Jar, I think we're good to go.

At least JJ has the sense to keep his alien sidekick characters quiet. Scotty's oyster faced buddy never says a word, is only in about 2 minutes worth of footage per movie and is good for 1-2 laughs per film. Lucas would have given him an over the top Eye-talian accent and 300 lines of dialogue (wooden and horrible dialogue obviously).
 
2013-06-09 01:52:16 PM  

Kurmudgeon: Mentat: The problem is that they have so far failed to elicit the same sense of wonder that the best Trek accomplishes.

Good point, another thing I've wondered is how long can they keep the current crew together before someone decides they are being typecast or not being paid enough or just want to do other things. Surprising they've kept this crew intact as long as they have.
/the only constant is change


since most of the main actors were already established as good to great actors in their own right, I doubt being "typecast" will be a problem.
 
2013-06-09 01:55:01 PM  

Soulcatcher: As long as there are no farking little kids in it and no Jar-Jar, I think we're good to go.


I'm in the opposite camp.  I want an all-child cast, ala Bugsy Malone, and JEDI WARRIOR Jar Jar Binks to be the main protagonist.  To each his own.
 
2013-06-09 01:55:36 PM  

AppleOptionEsc: Mentat: The problem is that they have so far failed to elicit the same sense of wonder that the best Trek accomplishes. Whether you're talking about "The City on the Edge of Forever", "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Visitor" or "The Wrath of Khan", Trek at its best forces you out of your comfort zone and allows you to view humanity's role in the wider universe.

1) Why are you comparing a T.V. series to a movie
2) If only 1 movie out of 5 makes you think, you could say that Old Trek is still in a majority of "Only Treekies like this movie."
3) Either accept it is a new timeline, or stop caring so much.

The majority of...(Farkers/Trekkies/People/people out of my ass) seem to enjoy DS9. That doesn't mean people won't hate it, but they can go hipster themselves with their comparisons of how Call of Duty/Transformers was popular too. They can go eff themselves, because they don't know how Pop-culture works. DS9's theme was war/action/conflict. It also had the benefit of having personal relationships/theological questions because it was a TV SERIES, but the main premise after season 1.5 was ACTION WAR DEATH.

DS9 is my proof that Trek can be successful if it is actiony. The Old Trek movies were a mediocre blend of Sci-fi action and theological questioning that blended terribly, and got lucky, maybe in one movie. Why? Because 2 hours is a really hard time to make people care about someone. Only some directors and writers can do it.


1)  You're taken a relatively tame comment far too seriously.  Calm down and realize you're raging over a sci-fi franchise.
2)  One of the episodes I mentioned was from DS9 and it was largely free of action scenes.
3)  You completely missed the point of my post.
4)  You're argument is the equivalent of Abrams Trek: full of action and effects but lacking depth
5)  You completely missed the point of DS9
 
2013-06-09 01:58:14 PM  

Into the blue again: To all who are (or will be) butthurt, please suck it.


So, you're butthurt about people being butthurt?

/We have to go derper.
 
2013-06-09 01:58:36 PM  

Bslim: Say good bye another favorite franchise.


Why did you say goodbye to the old Star Trek?

Did his new movies somehow erase the previous series and films for you?

Wow, you must deem him mighty important, huh?
 
2013-06-09 01:59:11 PM  

frepnog: ///one request - NO farkING YODA. he died in Return of the Ewok. Let him be dead.


Too late  Force Ghosts are canon.

Obiwan re-appeared in Empire Strikes Back even though he died back in A New Hope as one example.
 
2013-06-09 01:59:28 PM  

quizzical: I like Abrams.  I'm enjoying the new Trek movies, and I've enjoyed his other movies.  The reason I don't want him on Star Wars is because he's already doing Star Trek, and I want the two franchises to feel distinctly different.  Now, Super 8 showed that he can do a slower paced film - I feel like that movie is a perfect balance of action sequences and smaller moments that build character and tension.  But Super 8 is a small scale story.  I feel like the bigger the scope of the world Abrams is working in, the more action packed he feels it needs to be.  I'm afraid that the new Star Wars is going to rush from action sequence to action sequence like the new Trek does, and the franchises are going to feel like clones.

/Looking his IMDB page, I see Abrams has been announced as the producer for both a Half-Life project and a Portal project.  Anyone have more info on those?


more info?  "hopeless" and "doomed" come to mind.

/video games make terrible film fodder.
//even Half-Life's story is seriously just old-hat alien invasion crap, and I LOVE me some Half-Life.
 
2013-06-09 02:00:25 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Into the blue again: To all who are (or will be) butthurt, please suck it.

So, you're butthurt about people being butthurt?

/We have to go derper.


userserve-ak.last.fm

I heard you like butthurt in your butthurt so I put some herp in your derp so you can derp while you herp.
 
2013-06-09 02:01:20 PM  

VvonderJesus: Was it "A New Hope" or "Wrath of Khan" that had Jar Jar Binks in it? I really liked him, hope JJ incorporates him somehow.


I'd love to see JJ take someone from Jar Jar's race and make them a bad-ass bounty hunter.

Just to make all the fan-boys hate themselves for loving him.
 
2013-06-09 02:02:48 PM  
Bad casting choices? Yeah, Benedict Cumberbatch can't approach the emotional range of Ricardo Montalban.
 
2013-06-09 02:03:15 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.

I didn't get it at first, but then I went back and watched Star Trek again

/Every. Freaking. Scene.
//it becomes just clutter after a while


It's like Baysplosions.  Hey let's put explosions in every scene.  But but, this is a shower scene... Baysplosion!
 
2013-06-09 02:05:54 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: frepnog: ///one request - NO farkING YODA. he died in Return of the Ewok. Let him be dead.

Too late  Force Ghosts are canon.

Obiwan re-appeared in Empire Strikes Back even though he died back in A New Hope as one example.


do you REALLY want to see Hayden show up as Ghost Anakin?

/fark the ghosts.  leave them in the graveyard.  canon they may be, but they are a cheat and JJ should not need them.  If any ghosts ARE used, I say let it be an appearance from a ghostly aged Luke Skywalker explaining how the other ghosts have "moved on".  Let the only ghost shown be an "old Spock" type fan service thing.  We really don't need a CGI ghost Yoda.

//yes, I vote to keep the old cast the fark away from JJ Star Wars IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
 
2013-06-09 02:06:54 PM  
Anyone who goes to see a bit of lightweight, pop-corn entertainment -- originally based on a pastiche of Flash Gordon / Buck Rodgers serials and a slice of The Hidden Fortress -- and comes out whinging about what is and isn't "canon" is a dick.

Especially while simultaneously defending schlocky genre fiction about clones called Luuke Skywalker and Mara Jade (nice porn name, Mara!)
 
2013-06-09 02:07:38 PM  

gwowen: Bad casting choices? Yeah, Benedict Cumberbatch can't approach the emotional range of Ricardo Montalban.


well, he certainly couldn't chew the scenery like Ol Corinthian Leather.

/Cumberbatch was GREAT.
 
2013-06-09 02:07:42 PM  

gwowen: Bad casting choices? Yeah, Benedict Cumberbatch can't approach the emotional range of Ricardo Montalban.


Actually, it's weird.  On one hand, I found the new Khan to be quite sinister and hard to empathize.  I thought Cumberbatch did a good job, if that was what he was going after.  Montalban's Khan was someone that I can empathize with and the way that he talked to Kirk was more like a respectful rivalry as oppose to Cumberbatch's high and mighty superiority complex.
 
2013-06-09 02:07:46 PM  
We all know that about 20% of the hardcore Star Wars fans are already practicing their table flipping skills for when the new movie actually comes out.

The butthurt and tears of nerdrage will be a thing of legend.

I can't wait.

=]
 
2013-06-09 02:07:47 PM  

Mentat: AppleOptionEsc: Mentat: The problem is that they have so far failed to elicit the same sense of wonder that the best Trek accomplishes. Whether you're talking about "The City on the Edge of Forever", "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Visitor" or "The Wrath of Khan", Trek at its best forces you out of your comfort zone and allows you to view humanity's role in the wider universe.

1) Why are you comparing a T.V. series to a movie
2) If only 1 movie out of 5 makes you think, you could say that Old Trek is still in a majority of "Only Treekies like this movie."
3) Either accept it is a new timeline, or stop caring so much.

The majority of...(Farkers/Trekkies/People/people out of my ass) seem to enjoy DS9. That doesn't mean people won't hate it, but they can go hipster themselves with their comparisons of how Call of Duty/Transformers was popular too. They can go eff themselves, because they don't know how Pop-culture works. DS9's theme was war/action/conflict. It also had the benefit of having personal relationships/theological questions because it was a TV SERIES, but the main premise after season 1.5 was ACTION WAR DEATH.

DS9 is my proof that Trek can be successful if it is actiony. The Old Trek movies were a mediocre blend of Sci-fi action and theological questioning that blended terribly, and got lucky, maybe in one movie. Why? Because 2 hours is a really hard time to make people care about someone. Only some directors and writers can do it.

1)  You're taken a relatively tame comment far too seriously.  Calm down and realize you're raging over a sci-fi franchise.
2)  One of the episodes I mentioned was from DS9 and it was largely free of action scenes.
3)  You completely missed the point of my post.
4)  You're argument is the equivalent of Abrams Trek: full of action and effects but lacking depth
5)  You completely missed the point of DS9


1) Rants are only rants if I was full of insults. I only insulted hipsters. No one likes a hipster
2) OK, you compared DS9. It is still not a good idea to compare TV to a movie. Movies have to draw in cash, unless you release your film at Sundance. A T.V. series has to run for 9 months. Episodes don't exist in a vacuum.
3) I don't think I did
4) Yeah. I never claimed he was the greatest director ever. I was trying (badly) to convey that most of the Trek movies have a mediocre story at best.
5) Nope. My point was Trek can be actiony. I don't think I hallucinated the war of the Dominion. If I enjoy watching DS9 on netflix, I don't think I missed the point at all. I just don't feel like summerizing 7 seasons in one sentence, because DS9 has no one point.
 
2013-06-09 02:08:13 PM  
Canon, shmanon. That shiat's for nerds. Just make an entertaining story, and go ahead and throw in a gratuitous bra and panty scene if the spirit moves you, I won't complain.

/and in my opinion lens flare isn't even 1/100th as annoying as those stupid 1990s cinematography cliches like 'bullet time' or that 360° pan thing everyone did.
 
2013-06-09 02:09:09 PM  
Is this the film where Shia LaBeouf is going to play C-3PO?
 
2013-06-09 02:10:59 PM  

PsyLord: gwowen: Bad casting choices? Yeah, Benedict Cumberbatch can't approach the emotional range of Ricardo Montalban.

Actually, it's weird.  On one hand, I found the new Khan to be quite sinister and hard to empathize.  I thought Cumberbatch did a good job, if that was what he was going after.  Montalban's Khan was someone that I can empathize with and the way that he talked to Kirk was more like a respectful rivalry as oppose to Cumberbatch's high and mighty superiority complex.


I see what you mean.  But you can't fault Cumberbatch's delivery of the role as written.  His "I surrender" is the scariest surrender I've ever seen.
 
2013-06-09 02:11:49 PM  

Soulcatcher: As long as there are no farking little kids in it and no Jar-Jar, I think we're good to go.


Jar Jar will be involved. What do you think "JJ" stands for?
 
2013-06-09 02:11:55 PM  

Walter Paisley: Is this the film where Shia LaBeouf is going to play C-3PO?


Okay, well, that's pretty funny.  Jaden Smith will be the Jedi son of Han Solo and Princess Leia.  Demi Lovato will play his love interest, which will help them shoehorn a pop song onto the soundtrack.
 
2013-06-09 02:12:22 PM  

gwowen: Bad casting choices? Yeah, Benedict Cumberbatch can't approach the emotional range of Ricardo Montalban.


I know, right?

Freaking Ricardo "Fantasy Island" Montalban and they all act like he was the second coming of Laurence Olivier. Montalban was a farking ham sandwich of an actor and anyone who says differently is an idiot.

Cumberbatch is a better actor in his sleep than Mr "Corinthian Leather" ever was.

/Deal
 
2013-06-09 02:12:28 PM  

Walter Paisley: Is this the film where Shia LaBeouf is going to play C-3PO?


After seeing This Is The End, I think Channing Tatum would make a good slave Princess Leia, if they decide to redo the Jabba scene.
 
2013-06-09 02:12:39 PM  
Abrams should rein himself in a bit and pretend he's doing work-for-hire like Richard Marquand and Irvin Kershner on their Star Wars films, or like Tobe Hooper on Poltergeist.  A Star Wars film director is not the guy with ultimate creative control but more akin to someone brought in to direct episodes of a TV series. We want a Star Wars film made by someone who gets Star Wars and can make more of it, not "a J.J. Abrams film" based on Star Wars.
 
2013-06-09 02:12:40 PM  

PsyLord: Montalban's Khan was someone that I can empathize with and the way that he talked to Kirk was more like a respectful rivalry as oppose to Cumberbatch's high and mighty superiority complex.


remember - in Wrath of Khan, Khan was quite aged and very much insane.  Cumberbatch's Khan was freshly woken and just "better than you all".
 
2013-06-09 02:12:46 PM  
When is he going to do Cloverfield 2?
 
2013-06-09 02:14:19 PM  

AppleOptionEsc: Mentat: The problem is that they have so far failed to elicit the same sense of wonder that the best Trek accomplishes. Whether you're talking about "The City on the Edge of Forever", "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Visitor" or "The Wrath of Khan", Trek at its best forces you out of your comfort zone and allows you to view humanity's role in the wider universe.

1) Why are you comparing a T.V. series to a movie
2) If only 1 movie out of 5 makes you think, you could say that Old Trek is still in a majority of "Only Treekies like this movie."
3) Either accept it is a new timeline, or stop caring so much.

The majority of...(Farkers/Trekkies/People/people out of my ass) seem to enjoy DS9. That doesn't mean people won't hate it, but they can go hipster themselves with their comparisons of how Call of Duty/Transformers was popular too. They can go eff themselves, because they don't know how Pop-culture works. DS9's theme was war/action/conflict. It also had the benefit of having personal relationships/theological questions because it was a TV SERIES, but the main premise after season 1.5 was ACTION WAR DEATH.

DS9 is my proof that Trek can be successful if it is actiony. The Old Trek movies were a mediocre blend of Sci-fi action and theological questioning that blended terribly, and got lucky, maybe in one movie. Why? Because 2 hours is a really hard time to make people care about someone. Only some directors and writers can do it.


See: Capt. Borodin (Sam Neill's character) in Hunt for Red October.  Ancillary character, not germane to the overall plot, but you feel bad when he dies, because he just seemed like a dude who wanted to have a nice simple life after all this chaos was over.  In fact if I remember correctly in the book, he dies "offscreen" and as a complete afterthought.
 
2013-06-09 02:15:00 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.



I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but once it's pointed out, you can't unnotice how frequently it's used. I didn't really mind until he used it in a farking pitch-black scene in Super 8; I can only assume he was doing that to fark with us.

as an aside to the Nolan Batman movies: I think they're good, but nowhere near as intelligent or deep as its fans really like to think it is. I also think the defenders of the last film were only doing so out of brand loyalty as it was a pretty boring movie with some very obvious flaws.

Shostie: To be completely honest, anything that wasn't in the movies should be excised from the canon.

No need to complicate matters with hundreds of sh*tty novels, comic books and early 80's television specials.


this. I've never really understood why a story told outside of the original medium is somehow canon.
 
2013-06-09 02:15:54 PM  

Nem Wan: We want a Star Wars film made by someone who gets Star Wars and can make more of it, not "a J.J. Abrams film" based on Star Wars.


No one wants more Lucas type Star Wars.  We have seen what kind of crap he gives us.
 
2013-06-09 02:17:05 PM  
The only canon that is important to me:

www.televisionwithoutpity.com
 
2013-06-09 02:17:07 PM  

Soulcatcher: gwowen: Bad casting choices? Yeah, Benedict Cumberbatch can't approach the emotional range of Ricardo Montalban.

I know, right?

Freaking Ricardo "Fantasy Island" Montalban and they all act like he was the second coming of Laurence Olivier. Montalban was a farking ham sandwich of an actor and anyone who says differently is an idiot.

Cumberbatch is a better actor in his sleep than Mr "Corinthian Leather" ever was.

/Deal


Awwwwww look how precious you are. I don't think he's gonna let you ride his cock though. You can take it down a notch.
 
2013-06-09 02:17:41 PM  
The worst thing that could possibly happen to the series has already happened. I don't know why fans can't grasp this. The series is already ruined. McG and Michael Bay could have done a better job than Lucas.
 
2013-06-09 02:18:04 PM  

born_yesterday: I'm in the opposite camp. I want an all-child cast, ala Bugsy Malone, and JEDI WARRIOR Jar Jar Binks to be the main protagonist. To each his own.


Deal. The movie will also feature off-screen narration by the trade federation guys from Phantom Menace, who will be required to say "ah-so" at least once per scene. I'll let Mr. Abrams know.
 
2013-06-09 02:18:20 PM  

Confabulat: Go on, subby, I'll call you. What's your problem, exactly, with the casting choices?


I am shocked that this isn't a FNB Weeners. He's usually posts any J.J. Abrams article he can find just to start this fight again.
 
2013-06-09 02:20:19 PM  

Nem Wan: Abrams should rein himself in a bit and pretend he's doing work-for-hire like Richard Marquand and Irvin Kershner on their Star Wars films, or like Tobe Hooper on Poltergeist.  A Star Wars film director is not the guy with ultimate creative control but more akin to someone brought in to direct episodes of a TV series. We want a Star Wars film made by someone who gets Star Wars and can make more of it, not "a J.J. Abrams film" based on Star Wars.


Yeah, cause the guy who gets SW the most is the guy who created it and look at the pile of steaming shiat that he gave us in the prequels.

I think after seeing 'that', one would hope that they'd pick someone who had ZERO CLUE when it comes to SW and maybe they'd make a good movie by accident.
 
2013-06-09 02:20:31 PM  

Shostie: To be completely honest, anything that wasn't in the movies should be excised from the canon.

No need to complicate matters with hundreds of sh*tty novels, comic books and early 80's television specials.


Not even the Holiday Special??
 
2013-06-09 02:21:00 PM  

ongbok: When is he going to do Cloverfield 2?


you shut your whore mouth.

/liked Cloverfield ok, but no sequel is needed unless it explores nuking New York and the consequences of that action.

//apparently not much when a video camera could survive a nuke
 
2013-06-09 02:21:10 PM  

frepnog: PsyLord: Montalban's Khan was someone that I can empathize with and the way that he talked to Kirk was more like a respectful rivalry as oppose to Cumberbatch's high and mighty superiority complex.

remember - in Wrath of Khan, Khan was quite aged and very much insane.  Cumberbatch's Khan was freshly woken and just "better than you all".


"quite aged"?

Khan in TOS was about 30. STII was around 15 years later.

Now, granted, life on Ceti Alpha V was harsh, but he was still only around 50, and being genetically enhanced, probably in better shape and with a longer life expectancy than most humans in Kirk's era.
 
2013-06-09 02:23:29 PM  
I watched an interview with JJ Abrams on Jon Stewart. He actually understands the core concepts and themes of Star Trek and Star Wars.

He's just pretty Ann..erm bland at making movies
 
2013-06-09 02:24:32 PM  

Bslim: Soulcatcher: gwowen: Bad casting choices? Yeah, Benedict Cumberbatch can't approach the emotional range of Ricardo Montalban.

I know, right?

Freaking Ricardo "Fantasy Island" Montalban and they all act like he was the second coming of Laurence Olivier. Montalban was a farking ham sandwich of an actor and anyone who says differently is an idiot.

Cumberbatch is a better actor in his sleep than Mr "Corinthian Leather" ever was.

/Deal

Awwwwww look how precious you are. I don't think he's gonna let you ride his cock though. You can take it down a notch.


Wrath of Khan is a goofy movie. The costumes are ridiculous. Khan's marooned followers know how to effectively pilot a spaceship.. in  a battle? Kirk's son is cheesy. And there's a last minute excuse contrived for Spock to die so he can get out of the series forever. He saved them all. Of course he did. Now they can all appear in Star Trek 3.
 
2013-06-09 02:25:23 PM  

Bslim: Soulcatcher: gwowen: Bad casting choices? Yeah, Benedict Cumberbatch can't approach the emotional range of Ricardo Montalban.

I know, right?

Freaking Ricardo "Fantasy Island" Montalban and they all act like he was the second coming of Laurence Olivier. Montalban was a farking ham sandwich of an actor and anyone who says differently is an idiot.

Cumberbatch is a better actor in his sleep than Mr "Corinthian Leather" ever was.

/Deal

Awwwwww look how precious you are. I don't think he's gonna let you ride his cock though. You can take it down a notch.


O_o

That 's kind of a creepy conclusion to jump to.

Only very rarely do I judge someone's acting ability by how much I want to ride their cock.

/sarcasm
//It's in the dictionary, or should I say Dicktionary
 
2013-06-09 02:25:44 PM  
I was under the impression that George Lucas had accepted as 'canon' a whole slew of plot details about the future series? Leia and solo get married, have boy/girl twins, Luke re-founds the Jedi temple...
 
2013-06-09 02:26:15 PM  

moothemagiccow: Bslim: Soulcatcher: gwowen: Bad casting choices? Yeah, Benedict Cumberbatch can't approach the emotional range of Ricardo Montalban.

I know, right?

Freaking Ricardo "Fantasy Island" Montalban and they all act like he was the second coming of Laurence Olivier. Montalban was a farking ham sandwich of an actor and anyone who says differently is an idiot.

Cumberbatch is a better actor in his sleep than Mr "Corinthian Leather" ever was.

/Deal

Awwwwww look how precious you are. I don't think he's gonna let you ride his cock though. You can take it down a notch.

Wrath of Khan is a goofy movie. The costumes are ridiculous. Khan's marooned followers know how to effectively pilot a spaceship.. in  a battle? Kirk's son is cheesy. And there's a last minute excuse contrived for Spock to die so he can get out of the series forever. He saved them all. Of course he did. Now they can all appear in Star Trek 3.


WoK was good for what it was.  Cheesy action flick, with hammy actors chewing the scenery.

It wasn't Masterpiece Theater.
 
2013-06-09 02:27:36 PM  

quizzical: I like Abrams.  I'm enjoying the new Trek movies, and I've enjoyed his other movies.  The reason I don't want him on Star Wars is because he's already doing Star Trek, and I want the two franchises to feel distinctly different.  Now, Super 8 showed that he can do a slower paced film - I feel like that movie is a perfect balance of action sequences and smaller moments that build character and tension.  But Super 8 is a small scale story.  I feel like the bigger the scope of the world Abrams is working in, the more action packed he feels it needs to be.  I'm afraid that the new Star Wars is going to rush from action sequence to action sequence like the new Trek does, and the franchises are going to feel like clones.

/Looking his IMDB page, I see Abrams has been announced as the producer for both a Half-Life project and a Portal project.  Anyone have more info on those?


The original Star Wars films pretty well moved from action sequence to action sequence. JJ should be making Star Wars, except he will have to drop some of the lens flare, SW is grimy and earthy.

If anything now that the new ST universe has been established hand that off to a director who will bring back more Sci-Fi to the series. Kinda ridiculous to not want him to do Star Wars because he's making ST more like SW
 
2013-06-09 02:29:15 PM  
I don't really understand the hate for JJ Abrams. I'm not saying his work doesn't warrant criticism, I'm not saying he's at the level of Spielberg or Brad Bird, but he makes reasonably good films.

And anyone saying he just made a generic action movie should go and watch Plinkett's review of First Contact. If anything, Abrams retained the personalities of those characters better than anyone on the big screen.
 
2013-06-09 02:29:28 PM  
If he eliminates Episodes I-III (The story of how the big bad menace was a whiny biatch) then I have no problems.
 
2013-06-09 02:32:29 PM  
My friend interns at Bad Robot and says the plan is for Luke to have turned to the dark side since ROTJ and is basically the new Vader. His son and han/leia's daughter are the main antagonists. Yoda/obi wan and Vader (an older actor, not Hayden c) will be featured as jedi-ghosts throughout and will be in on the action, not just observer/advice-givers. Oh, and that blue elephant that played piano in ROTJ? His son is the new Chewbacca/jar jar.
 
2013-06-09 02:33:05 PM  

farkeruk: I don't really understand the hate for JJ Abrams. I'm not saying his work doesn't warrant criticism, I'm not saying he's at the level of Spielberg or Brad Bird, but he makes reasonably good films.

And anyone saying he just made a generic action movie should go and watch Plinkett's review of First Contact. If anything, Abrams retained the personalities of those characters better than anyone on the big screen.


It is just to be contrary. His movies are popular so there are some people that will say that he is horrible to prove to other people that they are edgier, smarter and more cultured than the sheeple that like his movies. It's a mental disease.
 
2013-06-09 02:33:24 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: frepnog: PsyLord: Montalban's Khan was someone that I can empathize with and the way that he talked to Kirk was more like a respectful rivalry as oppose to Cumberbatch's high and mighty superiority complex.

remember - in Wrath of Khan, Khan was quite aged and very much insane.  Cumberbatch's Khan was freshly woken and just "better than you all".

"quite aged"?

Khan in TOS was about 30. STII was around 15 years later.

Now, granted, life on Ceti Alpha V was harsh, but he was still only around 50, and being genetically enhanced, probably in better shape and with a longer life expectancy than most humans in Kirk's era.


Look at pictures of George Bush Jr before he became president and then look at some after he left office.  That sucker aged like 15 years in the 4 years he was in office.  Hell,  Obama looks like he has put on about 20 years.

Now let's say you are a person that considers yourself superior to everyone.  Imagine you get stranded on a planet that suddenly turns to wasteland and you get to watch a good portion of your family including your beloved wife die due to starvation, exposure and crazy ass brain bugs.  Imagine that party takes 15 actual years.

Yeah....  Khan may have supposed to have been physically around 50ish but that sucker aged around 100 years and went nuttier than squirrel shiat.
 
2013-06-09 02:34:31 PM  

ongbok: farkeruk: I don't really understand the hate for JJ Abrams. I'm not saying his work doesn't warrant criticism, I'm not saying he's at the level of Spielberg or Brad Bird, but he makes reasonably good films.

And anyone saying he just made a generic action movie should go and watch Plinkett's review of First Contact. If anything, Abrams retained the personalities of those characters better than anyone on the big screen.

It is just to be contrary. His movies are popular so there are some people that will say that he is horrible to prove to other people that they are edgier, smarter and more cultured than the sheeple that like his movies. It's a mental disease.


Does everyone who dislikes something you like have to be doing it for hipster cred, or can people just not like something?
 
2013-06-09 02:34:48 PM  
Oops, I meant "protagonists"
 
2013-06-09 02:36:17 PM  

Saber: My friend interns at Bad Robot and says the plan is for Luke to have turned to the dark side since ROTJ and is basically the new Vader. His son and han/leia's daughter are the main antagonists. Yoda/obi wan and Vader (an older actor, not Hayden c) will be featured as jedi-ghosts throughout and will be in on the action, not just observer/advice-givers. Oh, and that blue elephant that played piano in ROTJ? His son is the new Chewbacca/jar jar.


0_o
 
2013-06-09 02:36:21 PM  

frepnog: FirstNationalBastard: frepnog: PsyLord: Montalban's Khan was someone that I can empathize with and the way that he talked to Kirk was more like a respectful rivalry as oppose to Cumberbatch's high and mighty superiority complex.

remember - in Wrath of Khan, Khan was quite aged and very much insane.  Cumberbatch's Khan was freshly woken and just "better than you all".

"quite aged"?

Khan in TOS was about 30. STII was around 15 years later.

Now, granted, life on Ceti Alpha V was harsh, but he was still only around 50, and being genetically enhanced, probably in better shape and with a longer life expectancy than most humans in Kirk's era.

Look at pictures of George Bush Jr before he became president and then look at some after he left office.  That sucker aged like 15 years in the 4 years he was in office.  Hell,  Obama looks like he has put on about 20 years.

Now let's say you are a person that considers yourself superior to everyone.  Imagine you get stranded on a planet that suddenly turns to wasteland and you get to watch a good portion of your family including your beloved wife die due to starvation, exposure and crazy ass brain bugs.  Imagine that party takes 15 actual years.

Yeah....  Khan may have supposed to have been physically around 50ish but that sucker aged around 100 years and went nuttier than squirrel shiat.


Oh, no, Batshiat insane I agree with. But physically, he was still in better shape than probably everyone on the Enterprise (except Spock).
 
2013-06-09 02:36:48 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: ongbok: farkeruk: I don't really understand the hate for JJ Abrams. I'm not saying his work doesn't warrant criticism, I'm not saying he's at the level of Spielberg or Brad Bird, but he makes reasonably good films.

And anyone saying he just made a generic action movie should go and watch Plinkett's review of First Contact. If anything, Abrams retained the personalities of those characters better than anyone on the big screen.

It is just to be contrary. His movies are popular so there are some people that will say that he is horrible to prove to other people that they are edgier, smarter and more cultured than the sheeple that like his movies. It's a mental disease.

Does everyone who dislikes something you like have to be doing it for hipster cred, or can people just not like something?


I was doing it for the hipster cred.

/Please like me
 
2013-06-09 02:37:32 PM  
"I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere."

Mr. Abrams, please honor that.
 
2013-06-09 02:38:26 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: as an aside to the Nolan Batman movies: I think they're good, but nowhere near as intelligent or deep as its fans really like to think it is. I also think the defenders of the last film were only doing so out of brand loyalty as it was a pretty boring movie with some very obvious flaws.


I like the first two to a certain degree, but that third one was a disaster. It seems to take itself too seriously while being a silly action movie. Anne Hathaway's portrayal of Catwoman was also terrible. All she did was act grumpy in every scene and she came across more like someone upset at having to wait a few hours at the DMV rather than a person trying to escape from a difficult past.
 
2013-06-09 02:39:12 PM  

Wadded Beef: "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere."

Mr. Abrams, please honor that.


I think all the fanbois know where the sand REALLY gets...
 
2013-06-09 02:39:21 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Does everyone who dislikes something you like have to be doing it for hipster cred, or can people just not like something?


when you are hating on something that is practically universally acclaimed, yep, you are generally just being contrary if you say you don't like it.  Even more so if you say crap like "the original movies are so much better".  Because as much as a Trek fan as I have always been - the movies pretty much all sucked and HARD (yes, even WoK, which I have called "the shiniest turd in the turd collection") before JJ rebooted the universe.
 
2013-06-09 02:42:14 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Oh, no, Batshiat insane I agree with. But physically, he was still in better shape than probably everyone on the Enterprise (except Spock).


never said he wasn't still one tough hombre.  just that you can see crazy age on him.  that 15 years on Ceti Alpha I Forget aged him terribly.  hand to hand I expect he could have still beat Kirk like a rag-doll.
 
2013-06-09 02:43:47 PM  
Methinks Abrams has limited say-so on production.  Kennedy is still the EP, Abrams is just the sergeant to tell the actors where to stand.  Abrams is now biatching because he has to relocate his family to London for a year.  You're working on the meh-most anticipated film in almost the history of cinema and you're not biting the pillow as Disney tells you what to do?

Disney should hire another director if he's gonna be like Anakin.
 
2013-06-09 02:45:24 PM  
Star Wars does need more of this...

www.thecrosbypress.com
 
2013-06-09 02:45:42 PM  
Actually, watch these and tell me if they aren't just as much fun - if not more - than Abrams' Trek movies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6uGz1jykck">http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=S6uGz1jykck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=dKHDHI4W1UY&feature=endscreen">h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=dKHDHI4W1UY&feature=endscreen
 
2013-06-09 02:47:21 PM  
With Disney and JJ in charge, we'll never get anything like this again:
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-09 02:51:27 PM  

AtlanticCoast63: Actually, watch these and tell me if they aren't just as much fun - if not more - than Abrams' Trek movies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6uGz1jykck">http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=S6uGz1jykck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=dKHDHI4W1UY&feature=endscreen">h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=dKHDHI4W1UY&feature=endscreen


eww.  Man....  it's LEGO or NOTHING.
 
2013-06-09 02:51:28 PM  

Cheater71: With Disney and JJ in charge, we'll never get anything like this again:
[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x400]


You're right.  Animatronic puppets probably won't be used.
 
2013-06-09 02:51:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.


i.imgur.com
Why is there even lens flare in this scene?!?!  I don't even know what is causing the flare.
 
2013-06-09 02:54:12 PM  

taliesinwi: See: Capt. Borodin (Sam Neill's character) in Hunt for Red October.  Ancillary character, not germane to the overall plot, but you feel bad when he dies, because he just seemed like a dude who wanted to have a nice simple life after all this chaos was over.  In fact if I remember correctly in the book, he dies "offscreen" and as a complete afterthought.


i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-09 02:54:13 PM  

Infernalist: Nothing Abrams does can be any worse than what Lucas did when he made the prequels.


This.  I'm not a fan of Abrams so I'll criticize his works as they stand all day, but the one thing I won't do is lynch the guy.  Prior to Abrams, Star Trek wasn't "dead" so much as reduced to some really sad wish fulfillment on the inside (resulting in some of the most ludicrous scenes like Picard driving a damn buggy when the Enterprise has shuttlecraft and transporter technology).  The fans never left; they just had nothing to go to.  Star Wars is coming off. . . the prequels.

I don't buy that he's bringing any franchise "back to life" in the sense that he's doing anything positive, but he's hardly the deathblow or even the worst offender.  Plus considering how much he turned Star Trek into an action movie, if anything the development should be encouraging for Star Wars because that's never been anything but.

ongbok: His movies are popular so there are some people that will say that he is horrible to prove to other people that they are edgier, smarter and more cultured than the sheeple that like his movies. It's a mental disease.


Nah, in Fark it's the opposite -- there will be valid criticism mixed with the whining, but we can't have that because Fark is where 13-year-olds try to convince others they're grown-ups.  So the "hipster" label is aggressively deployed as an ad hominem designed to set the tone where if anyone has anything negative to say about anything, all the merits of the argument are dismissed in favor of snarky "waah waaah how dare you like what I don't like" responses.  It's done early, consistently and relentlessly to prevent any discussion and convince everyone that the thread is nothing more than a hipster vs. troll shoutfest.  This thread's been very mild, but I think that's because the outlook here is more optimistic.  The attempts at trolling the Star Trek threads were downright passionate.  I don't think I've seen such a collective, dedicated and single-minded effort outside the Politics tab to upset a group of people that couldn't matter less.

I actually consider it a sign of validation that I bother to criticize someone; Abrams is at least competent enough to warrant a discussion of his flaws.  But some people don't like that; they'd rather shut down discourse altogether than actually discuss anything.

I've never accepted that popularity is a sign of quality anyway.  50 Shades of Grey was a bestseller, FFS.
 
2013-06-09 02:56:09 PM  

PsyLord: Why is there even lens flare in this scene?!?!  I don't even know what is causing the flare


There was lens flare in Super 8 when the characters are underground. In a dark cave.

Clearly, JJ Abrams needs to get better cameras for his movies.
 
2013-06-09 02:56:49 PM  
Go ahead.  Tell me how JJ Abrams will make a movie worse than the prequels.  I'll wait.
 
2013-06-09 03:01:36 PM  

NutWrench: Episode 7 will suck. Hard.
You will BEG for the return of Jar Jar Binks.


I dunno, man. I had strep throat fairly recently and it was really painful. BUT, it went away after some antibiotics! I'm pretty sure I'm not going to beg for the return of strep throat again.
 
2013-06-09 03:02:27 PM  

dragonchild: I've never accepted that popularity is a sign of quality anyway. 50 Shades of Grey was a bestseller, FFS.


getting tons of people people to buy your crap, while most normal people and critics KNOW and SAY it's crap is quite a talent.

getting people to like your stuff while most people and critics are saying it is pretty good, well that's something different altogether.
 
2013-06-09 03:03:26 PM  

PsyLord: cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.

[i.imgur.com image 801x345]
Why is there even lens flare in this scene?!?!  I don't even know what is causing the flare.




There is a guy next to the lens with a flashlight.

Up next...
0.tqn.com
 
2013-06-09 03:03:46 PM  

frepnog: FirstNationalBastard: Does everyone who dislikes something you like have to be doing it for hipster cred, or can people just not like something?

when you are hating on something that is practically universally acclaimed, yep, you are generally just being contrary if you say you don't like it.  Even more so if you say crap like "the original movies are so much better".  Because as much as a Trek fan as I have always been - the movies pretty much all sucked and HARD (yes, even WoK, which I have called "the shiniest turd in the turd collection") before JJ rebooted the universe.


But wait, that's exactly what YOU were doing when WoK was universally acclaimed.
 
2013-06-09 03:04:37 PM  

frepnog: //yes, I vote to keep the old cast the fark away from JJ Star Wars IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.


Meh, I wouldn't mind a cameo appearance from one or two of them, for continuity's sake.
 
2013-06-09 03:05:26 PM  
Jar Jar Abrams made Star Trek palpable to the booger-eating moron demographic. Star Wars is already there.
 
2013-06-09 03:06:55 PM  

Bslim: Say good bye another favorite franchise.

 Thanks a lot douchebag!


We already did with the prequels. JJ can only improve that franchise now. And honestly, while I liked both of the new Star Treks (liked the second one better than the first, actually), I think JJ is better suited to making a new Star Wars than new Star Trek.
 
2013-06-09 03:08:30 PM  

Bslim: frepnog: FirstNationalBastard: Does everyone who dislikes something you like have to be doing it for hipster cred, or can people just not like something?

when you are hating on something that is practically universally acclaimed, yep, you are generally just being contrary if you say you don't like it.  Even more so if you say crap like "the original movies are so much better".  Because as much as a Trek fan as I have always been - the movies pretty much all sucked and HARD (yes, even WoK, which I have called "the shiniest turd in the turd collection") before JJ rebooted the universe.

But wait, that's exactly what YOU were doing when WoK was universally acclaimed.


actually I was a kid at the time and thought Wrath of Khan was awesome.  I still think it is a good film, and I watch it regularly, I just don't delude myself into thinking it is as great as my child's mind thought because when you scrutinize the film, it really falls apart.
 
2013-06-09 03:11:57 PM  

Confabulat: Go on, subby, I'll call you. What's your problem, exactly, with the casting choices?


Confabulat: Oh, and again, what canon has been violated? Be specific.


Confabulat: Oh are you just another butthurt Trekkie talking out their ass.


Confabulat: Translation: Subby will be first in line in 2015.


Holy crap. That is some weapons-grade mad right there. I love Star Wars, dude but if you are getting this worked up over a movie I worry about your health. Ulcers are no fun.
 
2013-06-09 03:16:03 PM  
Seriously, we'll never see something like this in the new movies:

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-09 03:16:19 PM  

Shostie: To be completely honest, anything that wasn't in the movies should be excised from the canon.

No need to complicate matters with hundreds of sh*tty novels, comic books and early 80's television specials.


I dont know about that. Forget the name of the mini series but they had a comic book story line that was perfect for a sequal.

after re establishing the jedi order and even getting leia and han to begin training as jedi luke becomes disillusioned and turns to the dark side himself.

havent read them in years but I remember it being a pretty cool story line.
 
2013-06-09 03:17:19 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: ongbok: farkeruk: I don't really understand the hate for JJ Abrams. I'm not saying his work doesn't warrant criticism, I'm not saying he's at the level of Spielberg or Brad Bird, but he makes reasonably good films.

And anyone saying he just made a generic action movie should go and watch Plinkett's review of First Contact. If anything, Abrams retained the personalities of those characters better than anyone on the big screen.

It is just to be contrary. His movies are popular so there are some people that will say that he is horrible to prove to other people that they are edgier, smarter and more cultured than the sheeple that like his movies. It's a mental disease.

Does everyone who dislikes something you like have to be doing it for hipster cred, or can people just not like something?


It's fine either way, but people don't give intelligent criticism. Instead we get derp soundbites like "lensflares" and  "ran the wrong way" because on the internet, the fastest and easiest way to communicate ideas globally, the largest resource of information to date, we just read the headlines and vote up or down.
 
2013-06-09 03:20:17 PM  

Hoban Washburne: Tell me how JJ Abrams will make a movie worse than the prequels.


Actually, let's have a little fun with this, and I don't mean going after the obvious like "no Natalie Portman's midriff" or "no Plinkett reviews".

Honestly, the idea that Abrams will make a movie worse than The Phantom Menace is. . . unfathomable.  But just to have a discussion for the sake of discussion, I think it'll be fun to speculate how he'll piss off the fans anyway.

#1) He will contradict inconsequential canon.  He's already shown in the Star Trek reboots to not really "honor" canon so much as take the window dressing from it and slather it on his own work.  Basically, he doesn't honor the essence of canon so much as the ingredients.  This is particularly perilous because so much of Star Wars canon is cosmetic.  For example, it's established in Empire Strikes Back that machines can talk but typically do so through a protocol droid (Han has Chewie plug C3PO into the Falcon's hyperdrive to ask it what's wrong with it, and all X-wings are deployed with droids on board).  It's never an actual plot point (it only justifies keeping C3PO and R2D2 around), but Abrams here might actually introduce a Millenium Falcon with a talking computer, because frankly needing a droid just for on-board diagnostics doesn't make a lick of sense.  It won't be a huge or meaningful change, but the fans might go apeshiat and say he ruined Star Wars forever.
#2) He will "honor" canon that was never meant to be seen again.  I mean he might bring back gungans or ewoks and try to do something interesting with them.  Regardless of the effort, it would be opening old wounds among the fanbase.
#3) He'll create a douchebag protagonist.  (OK, Anakin was a douche but that was portrayed as a bad thing.)   Hey, it worked in Star Trek, so why not?  Except that Star Wars has always been preachy (albeit laughably hypocritical at times) about being humble because arrogance leads to the Dark Side, but nowaday's moviegoers do love their protagonists to be assholes so this will probably sell better than some second coming of Luke Skywalker.  In fact, the film's main tension could be how Luke's conservative ways are outdated and need to be proven wrong by his upstart son.  Movie might end with Luke apologizing for being so hard-headed.  That'll go over swimmingly with the old-school crowd.

Of course, none of these might happen.  I'm just having fun thinking of ways that Abrams might actually try to make a profitable movie but in ways that will get neckbeards screaming for his death.
 
2013-06-09 03:20:33 PM  
Dear Subby,

I first saw Star Wars at a Drive Inn in 1977.
My first Halloween costume I can remember was a yellow turtleneck with a plate glued to the stomach, some wires added and a spray painted gold Spider-Man mask so that I could go as C3P0.
The first toys I can ever remember my dad helping me buy were Star Wars figures.
I have spent countless hours working on SEVERAL Star Wars costumes for the 501st, including an Imperial Officer, a Sandtrooper (td9993) and an Imperial Spy (snoot nose) all from the original Star Wars episode 4 movie.
I have spent more hours than that WEARING those costumes to charity events, sometimes sweating off as much as 6 pounds in a day.
I have also wore them to premieres and Star Wars events including being on stage with Weird Al.
I have spent over $1,000 on these costumes and accessories.
I have NO problem trusting JJ to film a movie and am more positive then ever that it will be good for the Star Wars franchise.


So, please tell me how YOU, you basement dwelling movie critic, has MORE invested in the Star Wars franchise than I do and why you think you deserve any respect for your stereotypical, nerd infested, whiny biatch of an attitude.

Yours,
Z DJ

/Let's face it. There are fan films out there better than I-III, so suck it up.
 
2013-06-09 03:20:49 PM  

frepnog: Bslim: frepnog: FirstNationalBastard: Does everyone who dislikes something you like have to be doing it for hipster cred, or can people just not like something?

when you are hating on something that is practically universally acclaimed, yep, you are generally just being contrary if you say you don't like it.  Even more so if you say crap like "the original movies are so much better".  Because as much as a Trek fan as I have always been - the movies pretty much all sucked and HARD (yes, even WoK, which I have called "the shiniest turd in the turd collection") before JJ rebooted the universe.

But wait, that's exactly what YOU were doing when WoK was universally acclaimed.

actually I was a kid at the time and thought Wrath of Khan was awesome.  I still think it is a good film, and I watch it regularly, I just don't delude myself into thinking it is as great as my child's mind thought because when you scrutinize the film, it really falls apart.


Don't get me wrong. I love the original WoK. I also really loved the latest Trek movie. What pisses me off are the people that say that you can't love or appreciate both. It's like they believe that anyone who loves the new film is stabbing the original film in the back. Ridiculous. It's like saying that if you love Marinara sauce you CAN'T love Alfredo sauce too. Because that would be UNPOSSIBLE!!1!!11!11!!!!

/Tards
//Even if JJ's new Star Wars film is nothing but some guy having diarrhea onto a glass table top filmed from below, it will be more entertaining than the prequels, so don't get your Spiderman briefs in a bunch.
 
2013-06-09 03:23:37 PM  

macadamnut: There's no way he can screw it up as badly as Lucas did.


THIS!!!
Watto: Wats-a you a mean-a I'm a sterotyp-a?
Jar-Jar: Meesa don' know?
 
2013-06-09 03:24:05 PM  

dragonchild: Hoban Washburne: Tell me how JJ Abrams will make a movie worse than the prequels.

Actually, let's have a little fun with this, and I don't mean going after the obvious like "no Natalie Portman's midriff" or "no Plinkett reviews".

Honestly, the idea that Abrams will make a movie worse than The Phantom Menace is. . . unfathomable.  But just to have a discussion for the sake of discussion, I think it'll be fun to speculate how he'll piss off the fans anyway.

#1) He will contradict inconsequential canon.  He's already shown in the Star Trek reboots to not really "honor" canon so much as take the window dressing from it and slather it on his own work.  Basically, he doesn't honor the essence of canon so much as the ingredients.  This is particularly perilous because so much of Star Wars canon is cosmetic.  For example, it's established in Empire Strikes Back that machines can talk but typically do so through a protocol droid (Han has Chewie plug C3PO into the Falcon's hyperdrive to ask it what's wrong with it, and all X-wings are deployed with droids on board).  It's never an actual plot point (it only justifies keeping C3PO and R2D2 around), but Abrams here might actually introduce a Millenium Falcon with a talking computer, because frankly needing a droid just for on-board diagnostics doesn't make a lick of sense.  It won't be a huge or meaningful change, but the fans might go apeshiat and say he ruined Star Wars forever.
#2) He will "honor" canon that was never meant to be seen again.  I mean he might bring back gungans or ewoks and try to do something interesting with them.  Regardless of the effort, it would be opening old wounds among the fanbase.
#3) He'll create a douchebag protagonist.  (OK, Anakin was a douche but that was portrayed as a bad thing.)   Hey, it worked in Star Trek, so why not?  Except that Star Wars has always been preachy (albeit laughably hypocritical at times) about being humble because arrogance leads to the Dark Side, but nowaday's movieg ...


I love you.
 
2013-06-09 03:29:55 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Shostie: To be completely honest, anything that wasn't in the movies should be excised from the canon.

No need to complicate matters with hundreds of sh*tty novels, comic books and early 80's television specials.

I dont know about that. Forget the name of the mini series but they had a comic book story line that was perfect for a sequal.

after re establishing the jedi order and even getting leia and han to begin training as jedi luke becomes disillusioned and turns to the dark side himself.

havent read them in years but I remember it being a pretty cool story line.


Dark Empire. And it would make for a good sequel storyline. I think the Thrawn books, by Timothy Zahn, would do pretty well too.
 
2013-06-09 03:30:56 PM  

dragonchild: Basically, he doesn't honor the essence of canon so much as the ingredients. This is particularly perilous because so much of Star Wars canon is cosmetic.


Screwed up the point I was making there.  My point is that he'll freely pick & choose what he wants to "honor" without much thought as to why something was embraced as canon in the first place.  The perfect example is having Spock yell "KHAAAN" instead of Kirk in Into Darkness -- what he thinks is homage has a million things wrong with it to people who invested emotions in the underlying setup.  And since from the get-go it's known he won't honor everything (and honestly he really shouldn't because that's too restrictive), I'm waiting for him to drop a detail he considers inconsequential that the fanbase considers sacred.  As bad as the prequels were, Lucas has an advantage here because as the creator, he is the source of canon.  Also, for all their flaws, the prequels were remarkably consistent in a variety of ways (just none of the ways that matter).  Abrams will be far more reckless without the authority.  So I predict the coming clash with the neckbeards will be inevitable.
 
2013-06-09 03:35:16 PM  
I'm excited for when they shoot the Millennium Falcon scenes at a cement factory and when they shake the camera so much that you can't tell what the hell is going on.
 
2013-06-09 03:36:48 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: PsyLord: Why is there even lens flare in this scene?!?!  I don't even know what is causing the flare.

There is a guy next to the lens with a flashlight.


Actually they used very powerful spotlights that were placed barely out of frame pointing directly into the camera. This caused a lot of difficulty as you had to make sure no actors had to pass across the beams during their scenes and you had to make sure there wasn't any smoke/fog/dust in the beams that would make them visible.

J.J. went to a lot of effort for those lens flares. I'm sure he really appreciates how much effort you guys put in discussing them.
 
2013-06-09 03:37:48 PM  

Mentat: As I said in another thread, the new Star Trek movies are technically sound.  They're well-made, well-acted, action-packed movies that offer enough throwbacks and easter eggs to keep fans happy while making the franchise accessible to a new generation.


There's no mystery to it, they're just not very well written.

The second one in particular suffers from not even really having an actual plot, just a not-particularly-convincing simulacrum of one. Here, I'll give an example; it is not possible to describe Khan's motivation or his plan to achieve them in a way that makes any kind of sense. He's a super-genius, but his plan to rescue his frozen buddies from the admiral is to... blow up a random secret base, shoot at the admiral with a space helicopter in a way that's fairly unlikely to kill the admiral but will make Khan a notorious criminal no matter if he succeeds or not, then run away to a Klingon planet and hide there indefinitely. Nothing he does is in service to his stated motivation.

There's a half dozen other major reasons why the plot is incoherent and probably dozens of other minor plot holes (why did McCoy randomly inject a dead tribble with Khan's blood? It wasn't because he thought it had magical resurrection properties; he was shocked to discover that. Does he just keep a box of dead tribbles on board so he can inject them with strange blood for no reason?), because the script is just a succession of action scenes and character beats held together with spackle. The Transformers movies had less contempt for their audience.
 
2013-06-09 03:40:08 PM  

dragonchild: dragonchild: Basically, he doesn't honor the essence of canon so much as the ingredients. This is particularly perilous because so much of Star Wars canon is cosmetic.

Screwed up the point I was making there.  My point is that he'll freely pick & choose what he wants to "honor" without much thought as to why something was embraced as canon in the first place.  The perfect example is having Spock yell "KHAAAN" instead of Kirk in Into Darkness -- what he thinks is homage has a million things wrong with it to people who invested emotions in the underlying setup.  And since from the get-go it's known he won't honor everything (and honestly he really shouldn't because that's too restrictive), I'm waiting for him to drop a detail he considers inconsequential that the fanbase considers sacred.  As bad as the prequels were, Lucas has an advantage here because as the creator, he is the source of canon.  Also, for all their flaws, the prequels were remarkably consistent in a variety of ways (just none of the ways that matter).  Abrams will be far more reckless without the authority.  So I predict the coming clash with the neckbeards will be inevitable.


J.J. was never a Star Trek fan as a kid but he was a Star Wars fan. So there is a good chance that your argument about J.J. missing emotional queues in SW because he did in ST is groundless as he likely has the same emotional connections as the fans this time.
 
2013-06-09 03:41:47 PM  

gimmegimme: I'm excited for when they shoot the Millennium Falcon scenes at a cement factory and when they shake the camera so much that you can't tell what the hell is going on.


Why's everyone so upset about the photography? Star Wars has a distinctive look already (that Lucas farked up with too much CGI so the prequels and special editions look like a PS2 version of who framed roger rabbit).

These aren't remakes, they're sequels. Interest never really waned in Star Wars, so why would they change anything drastically? Also, has anyone seen anything Abrams directed, other than Star Trek?
 
2013-06-09 03:47:13 PM  

Gunther: He's a super-genius, but his plan to rescue his frozen buddies from the admiral is to... blow up a random secret base, shoot at the admiral with a space helicopter in a way that's fairly unlikely to kill the admiral but will make Khan a notorious criminal no matter if he succeeds or not, then run away to a Klingon planet and hide there indefinitely.


watch the film again, as you weren't paying attention.  Khan's plan to rescue his people was to put them in the torpedoes.  He was discovered and his people were taken, and he escaped.  He assumed that at that point Robocop would just destroy the torpedoes (and his people), so he was taking his revenge upon Robocop.  He just wanted a way to know where Robocop was, and blowing up the "data archive" was one sure way since Starfleet protocol insisted that after such an attack, all the Starfleet brass would meet in that specific place.  He wasn't really trying to kill anyone but Robocop.
 
2013-06-09 03:48:17 PM  

frepnog: Gunther: He's a super-genius, but his plan to rescue his frozen buddies from the admiral is to... blow up a random secret base, shoot at the admiral with a space helicopter in a way that's fairly unlikely to kill the admiral but will make Khan a notorious criminal no matter if he succeeds or not, then run away to a Klingon planet and hide there indefinitely.

watch the film again, as you weren't paying attention.  Khan's plan to rescue his people was to put them in the torpedoes.  He was discovered and his people were taken, and he escaped.  He assumed that at that point Robocop would just destroy the torpedoes (and his people), so he was taking his revenge upon Robocop.  He just wanted a way to know where Robocop was, and blowing up the "data archive" was one sure way since Starfleet protocol insisted that after such an attack, all the Starfleet brass would meet in that specific place.  He wasn't really trying to kill anyone but Robocop.


Maybe we were hoping for a Star Trek movie that didn't require us to bring a pen and notebook into the theater.
 
2013-06-09 03:48:46 PM  
I saw both Star Trek 2009 and Star Trek Into Darkness, and I didn't hate them.  J.J. Abrams did manage to take the dying Star Trek franchise and bring new life into it and I think he has succeeded.  One thing he has managed to do is not alienate the entire old fan base while bringing in new fans.  Yeah, I can nitpick both movies, but honestly, I can nitpick just about every episode and movie that bares the title 'Star Trek'.  The biggest mistake with Star Trek Into Darkness is it's budget.  Star Trek is a popular franchise, but it's not one where you can sink close to $200 million into a movie and expect to see a return.

As for Abrams doing Star Wars, I actually have a bit of faith in this.  The Disney bit doesn't matter to me because of the Marvel movies.  Disney owns Marvel and I enjoy those movies to the point that I actually see this as a pro, not a con.  Other pros is that when the Star Wars prequels came out, they were almost kids movies.  As an adult, it's hard to me to see Episode One as the same type of movie as Episodes four and five.  Episode One looks like it should be on Netflix, in the children's section next to 'Caravan of Courage' and 'Flight of the Navigator'.  Abrams won't make that mistake.  I also don't see Abrams making the Lucas mistake of ignoring the E.U., I would expect to see a movie that includes some references to the E.U. while making a movie that is in new territory, meaning I wouldn't expect to see anything about the Vong, but we could see or hear a reference to it some where.

The con is that Disney is wanting an annual Star Wars movie, and that could very well saturate what many fans feel to be an exhausted franchise.  Going back to Star Trek for a moment, since the cancellation of 'Star Trek: Enterprise', aside from two movies and an MMO, Star Trek has been allowed to rest.  There will be a day when it will return to television, but I don't expect that to happen within the next five years.  Star Wars, however, hasn't had that chance to rest since 2005.  It's had a badly received Clone Wars movie, a popular clone wars tv show and making an annual Star Wars movie could kill the franchise, especially if the non-episode movies are nothing more than attempts and producing more and more Star Wars toys (after all, Disney bought the toy companies that makes the Star Wars toys...).  But given the size of the Star Wars universe and how the movies haven't done a good job of exploring it, more non-episode movies could be a good thing.
 
2013-06-09 03:49:08 PM  

Arachnophobe: teenage mutant ninja rapist: Shostie: To be completely honest, anything that wasn't in the movies should be excised from the canon.

No need to complicate matters with hundreds of sh*tty novels, comic books and early 80's television specials.

I dont know about that. Forget the name of the mini series but they had a comic book story line that was perfect for a sequal.

after re establishing the jedi order and even getting leia and han to begin training as jedi luke becomes disillusioned and turns to the dark side himself.

havent read them in years but I remember it being a pretty cool story line.

Dark Empire. And it would make for a good sequel storyline. I think the Thrawn books, by Timothy Zahn, would do pretty well too.


Thank you, Ive been going nuts trying to remember the name of it since I Boobiesed.
 
2013-06-09 03:53:20 PM  
What could he do to Star Wars that Episodes 1-3 fail to do?

In terms of trashing the franchise, anyway.
 
2013-06-09 03:53:39 PM  

Gunther: Mentat: As I said in another thread, the new Star Trek movies are technically sound.  They're well-made, well-acted, action-packed movies that offer enough throwbacks and easter eggs to keep fans happy while making the franchise accessible to a new generation.

There's no mystery to it, they're just not very well written.

The second one in particular suffers from not even really having an actual plot, just a not-particularly-convincing simulacrum of one. Here, I'll give an example; it is not possible to describe Khan's motivation or his plan to achieve them in a way that makes any kind of sense. He's a super-genius, but his plan to rescue his frozen buddies from the admiral is to... blow up a random secret base, shoot at the admiral with a space helicopter in a way that's fairly unlikely to kill the admiral but will make Khan a notorious criminal no matter if he succeeds or not, then run away to a Klingon planet and hide there indefinitely. Nothing he does is in service to his stated motivation.

There's a half dozen other major reasons why the plot is incoherent and probably dozens of other minor plot holes (why did McCoy randomly inject a dead tribble with Khan's blood? It wasn't because he thought it had magical resurrection properties; he was shocked to discover that. Does he just keep a box of dead tribbles on board so he can inject them with strange blood for no reason?), because the script is just a succession of action scenes and character beats held together with spackle. The Transformers movies had less contempt for their audience.


Thats taking it to far. The transformers triology was basically one giant prolonged dump on the faces of anybody who enjoyed the cartoons as a child.
 
2013-06-09 03:54:16 PM  

Gunther: Mentat: As I said in another thread, the new Star Trek movies are technically sound.  They're well-made, well-acted, action-packed movies that offer enough throwbacks and easter eggs to keep fans happy while making the franchise accessible to a new generation.

There's no mystery to it, they're just not very well written.

The second one in particular suffers from not even really having an actual plot, just a not-particularly-convincing simulacrum of one. Here, I'll give an example; it is not possible to describe Khan's motivation or his plan to achieve them in a way that makes any kind of sense. He's a super-genius, but his plan to rescue his frozen buddies from the admiral is to... blow up a random secret base, shoot at the admiral with a space helicopter in a way that's fairly unlikely to kill the admiral but will make Khan a notorious criminal no matter if he succeeds or not, then run away to a Klingon planet and hide there indefinitely. Nothing he does is in service to his stated motivation.

There's a half dozen other major reasons why the plot is incoherent and probably dozens of other minor plot holes (why did McCoy randomly inject a dead tribble with Khan's blood? It wasn't because he thought it had magical resurrection properties; he was shocked to discover that. Does he just keep a box of dead tribbles on board so he can inject them with strange blood for no reason?), because the script is just a succession of action scenes and character beats held together with spackle. The Transformers movies had less contempt for their audience.


While I do not claim that the plot was great, your complaints are pretty sad.

- Khan's long term plan was never revealed simply because it was abandoned when he discovered his crew was on the Enterprise. He could have been planning on launching endless attacks from the relative safety of the Klingon home world until the Marcus gave him his crew back. We'll never know nor do we need to.

- McCoy's Tribble experiment was an obvious a dues ex machina setup so they could revive Kirk after killing him. That it was done with a Tribble was simply a nod to fans. That said, as McCoy explained while he did it, it is common to expose cells to substances under study ... in this case Tribble cells to Khan's blood. I would have preferred if it was done in a lab setting with the discovery done with a quick microscope scene but J.J. went the simpler way. A bit lame but hardly a "plot hole".
 
2013-06-09 04:04:14 PM  

Gunther: Mentat: As I said in another thread, the new Star Trek movies are technically sound.  They're well-made, well-acted, action-packed movies that offer enough throwbacks and easter eggs to keep fans happy while making the franchise accessible to a new generation.

There's no mystery to it, they're just not very well written.

The second one in particular suffers from not even really having an actual plot, just a not-particularly-convincing simulacrum of one. Here, I'll give an example; it is not possible to describe Khan's motivation or his plan to achieve them in a way that makes any kind of sense. He's a super-genius, but his plan to rescue his frozen buddies from the admiral is to... blow up a random secret base, shoot at the admiral with a space helicopter in a way that's fairly unlikely to kill the admiral but will make Khan a notorious criminal no matter if he succeeds or not, then run away to a Klingon planet and hide there indefinitely. Nothing he does is in service to his stated motivation.

There's a half dozen other major reasons why the plot is incoherent and probably dozens of other minor plot holes (why did McCoy randomly inject a dead tribble with Khan's blood? It wasn't because he thought it had magical resurrection properties; he was shocked to discover that. Does he just keep a box of dead tribbles on board so he can inject them with strange blood for no reason?), because the script is just a succession of action scenes and character beats held together with spackle. The Transformers movies had less contempt for their audience.


God knows the original Trek movies NEVER had any plot holes.
 
2013-06-09 04:06:27 PM  

frepnog: He assumed that at that point Robocop would just destroy the torpedoes


The admiral didn't know Khan's people were in the torpedoes or he presumably wouldn't have given them to Kirk.

frepnog: he was taking his revenge upon Robocop .

So there's this super-powered super-genius who is so smart he can construct ships way better than anything Starfleet has with scientific knowledge 200 years out of date... and he immediately gives up on saving his people  in favor of this utterly retarded nonsensical revenge plan ("hey, I'll lure him into the open, shoot haphazardly at him, then run away to a Klingon planet for no reason other than to give the Admiral an excuse for the war he wants!"), that makes sense to you?

Also, speaking of the Admiral's war-boner, how the fark does "I'm worried we are unprepared for a war, therefore I'll provoke a war that we are unprepared for. It's OK though, I have one slightly tougher than average ship!" make any kind of sense as a plan?

Oh, then despite his plan to start a war (by having Kirk provoke the Klingons then crippling the Enterprise in Klingon space so they find and blow it up) actually working, he for no reason abandons it to come blow up Kirk himself. Why? because nothing in the plot makes any goddamn sense.

gimmegimme: Maybe we were hoping for a Star Trek movie that didn't require us to bring a pen and notebook into the theater.


Oh fark off. A movie doesn't have to be insultingly stupid to be fun.
 
2013-06-09 04:17:46 PM  

Farking Canuck: - Khan's long term plan was never revealed simply because it was abandoned when he discovered his crew was on the Enterprise. He could have been planning on launching endless attacks from the relative safety of the Klingon home world until the Marcus gave him his crew back. We'll never know nor do we need to.


He was one guy hiding out on his own, on a hostile planet. The enemy he thought was going to attacking him (the admiral) planned to freaking torpedo him from space. What was his master plan, exactly?

Farking Canuck: McCoy's Tribble experiment was an obvious a dues ex machina setup so they could revive Kirk after killing him


Deus Ex Machinas are generally considered terrible writing.

Farking Canuck: That said, as McCoy explained while he did it, it is common to expose cells to substances under study


It really, really isn't. Imagine if you were watching CSI and they found a mysterious substance at a crime scene which they decided to test by injecting it into a dead rat. Then they ignored the rat until it spontaneously came back to life, meaning that the substance could also cure humans who had died from radiation exposure, which was handy as it let them save the life of their boss. And nobody bothered mentioning the ramifications of the fact that they'd just CONQUERED DEATH ITSELF and the episode ended with them hiding the mysterious substance away in a freezer.
 
2013-06-09 04:19:57 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare.


It's because he adds it afterwards in post, to cover up his shiatty camera work.
 
2013-06-09 04:22:04 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Into the blue again: To all who are (or will be) butthurt, please suck it.

So, you're butthurt about people being butthurt?

i191.photobucket.com
/Now THAT was funny.
 
2013-06-09 04:22:38 PM  

ShadowKamui: Shostie: To be completely honest, anything that wasn't in the movies should be excised from the canon.

No need to complicate matters with hundreds of sh*tty novels, comic books and early 80's television specials.

Canon is only what's in the movies according to Lucas


Quote him saying this and I'll find quotes of him giving his blessing to book series and games.
 
2013-06-09 04:26:13 PM  
Doesn't it take more than a year to produce a summer movie?  So it's gonna be rushed and suck regardless of the writing
 
2013-06-09 04:29:55 PM  

Champion of the Sun: Doesn't it take more than a year to produce a summer movie?  So it's gonna be rushed and suck regardless of the writing


Though I admit my sense of time is questionable at be st, last I checked, 2015 is 2 years from now....
 
2013-06-09 04:31:37 PM  
I'd be ok with dropping the canon that is ep 1-3.

It's pop sci-fi fantasy.

Go back to ep 4. Digitally edit in a TARDIS in the background of Tatooine for about 2-3 seconds and declare that from here on is a different timeline.

It may not be the best way, but we would all be complicit in the coverup and generations from now Jar Jar will be for gotten...
 
2013-06-09 04:32:13 PM  
forgotten.

Long day...
 
2013-06-09 04:33:11 PM  

James F. Campbell: The only good Star Wars movie was (and will continue to be) The Empire Strikes Back.

There, I said it.

 
2013-06-09 04:33:13 PM  

frepnog: Khan in TOS was about 30. STII was around 15 years later.

Now, granted, life on Ceti Alpha V was harsh, but he was still only around 50, and being genetically enhanced, probably in better shape and with a longer life expectancy than most humans in Kirk's era.

Look at pictures of George Bush Jr before he became president and then look at some after he left office. That sucker aged like 15 years in the 4 years he was in office.


latimesblogs.latimes.com
Not really seeing that.  More like W gave up  on the Grecian Formula after using it 2002-2003

/Not sure if serious: W leaving office after 4 years.  You're not counting vacations and brush clearing?
 
2013-06-09 04:36:57 PM  

Andric: Champion of the Sun: Doesn't it take more than a year to produce a summer movie?  So it's gonna be rushed and suck regardless of the writing

Though I admit my sense of time is questionable at be st, last I checked, 2015 is 2 years from now....


The headline and all other news indicates that production starts next year, so roughly one year from May 2015.
 
2013-06-09 04:40:11 PM  

Soulcatcher: frepnog: Bslim: frepnog: FirstNationalBastard: Does everyone who dislikes something you like have to be doing it for hipster cred, or can people just not like something?

when you are hating on something that is practically universally acclaimed, yep, you are generally just being contrary if you say you don't like it.  Even more so if you say crap like "the original movies are so much better".  Because as much as a Trek fan as I have always been - the movies pretty much all sucked and HARD (yes, even WoK, which I have called "the shiniest turd in the turd collection") before JJ rebooted the universe.

But wait, that's exactly what YOU were doing when WoK was universally acclaimed.

actually I was a kid at the time and thought Wrath of Khan was awesome.  I still think it is a good film, and I watch it regularly, I just don't delude myself into thinking it is as great as my child's mind thought because when you scrutinize the film, it really falls apart.

Don't get me wrong. I love the original WoK. I also really loved the latest Trek movie. What pisses me off are the people that say that you can't love or appreciate both. It's like they believe that anyone who loves the new film is stabbing the original film in the back. Ridiculous. It's like saying that if you love Marinara sauce you CAN'T love Alfredo sauce too. Because that would be UNPOSSIBLE!!1!!11!11!!!!

/Tards
//Even if JJ's new Star Wars film is nothing but some guy having diarrhea onto a glass table top filmed from below, it will be more entertaining than the prequels, so don't get your Spiderman briefs in a bunch.


^ THIS!
 
2013-06-09 04:47:08 PM  

Gunther: He was one guy hiding out on his own, on a hostile planet. The enemy he thought was going to attacking him (the admiral) planned to freaking torpedo him from space. What was his master plan, exactly?


He did not expect to be tracked there ... if Scotty had not discovered the long range transport Marcus would still have been searching Earth. Even Marcus they extended the search past Earth they would never extend it to searching the Klingon home world. If Scotty hadn't been able to track the transport this would have been the perfect hiding spot ... but Khan had no way of knowing that the inventor of this technology would happen to be examining the wreckage of his attack ship.

Gunther: Deus Ex Machinas are generally considered terrible writing.


Fair enough ... but we were discussing plot holes. This was simply a technique used to allow J.J. to introduce a dramatic death scene and then reverse it ... cheezey but not a plot hole.

Gunther:  Imagine if you were watching CSI and they found a mysterious substance at a crime scene which they decided to test by injecting it into a dead rat.


When the Vegas CSI team become space explorers I will find this comparison more relevant. McCoy was not trying to solve a murder ... he was investigating a curiosity.

Gunther: And nobody bothered mentioning the ramifications of the fact that they'd just CONQUERED DEATH ITSELF


Actually we conquered death long ago. The problem is reviving a person when the cause of death is still present. So what they conquered was cell degradation due to radiation damage. It is silly to expect J.J. to have extended this movie to explore the ramifications of this discovery ... especially since the source is taking blood from a prisoner. Maybe the plot of the next movie will just be all about court cases deciding the legality and morality of keeping Khan alive to endlessly milk him for medical cures. Won't that be fun?

I have never said the plot of this action movie should be winning any awards ... but the nit-picky over analysis is just sad. It's not like it is in the same league as that abortion called Prometheus.
 
2013-06-09 04:58:35 PM  

Champion of the Sun: Andric: Champion of the Sun: Doesn't it take more than a year to produce a summer movie?  So it's gonna be rushed and suck regardless of the writing

Though I admit my sense of time is questionable at be st, last I checked, 2015 is 2 years from now....

The headline and all other news indicates that production starts next year, so roughly one year from May 2015.


I guarantee preproduction has already started.
 
2013-06-09 04:58:39 PM  
As if every Star wars flick after Empire wasn't garbage...
 
2013-06-09 05:02:00 PM  

Farking Canuck: He did not expect to be tracked there


For a supergenius, he's kind of a dumbass.

Farking Canuck: McCoy was not trying to solve a murder ... he was investigating a curiosity.


By injecting blood into random dead animals for no reason.

Farking Canuck: So what they conquered was cell degradation due to radiation damage


So that tribble had just happened to die of radiation poisoning then? Wow, convenient.

Farking Canuck: the nit-picky over analysis is just sad


That's the thing, though; I've picked on a couple of problems, one major (the antagonist's actions make no sense), one minor (Jesus tribble), but the movie has dozens of fairly major plot holes. I came up with a bunch I hadn't thought of before off the top of my head about how nothing the admiral does makes sense  in this post - we could be here all damn day while I list off problems. It's easy to tear this film apart because it's really badly put together.

It really is on the same level as Prometheus, which shouldn't really be surprising as they were written by the same dude.
 
2013-06-09 05:03:50 PM  

Farking Canuck: Gunther: He was one guy hiding out on his own, on a hostile planet. The enemy he thought was going to attacking him (the admiral) planned to freaking torpedo him from space. What was his master plan, exactly?

He did not expect to be tracked there ... if Scotty had not discovered the long range transport Marcus would still have been searching Earth. Even Marcus they extended the search past Earth they would never extend it to searching the Klingon home world. If Scotty hadn't been able to track the transport this would have been the perfect hiding spot ... but Khan had no way of knowing that the inventor of this technology would happen to be examining the wreckage of his attack ship.

Gunther: Deus Ex Machinas are generally considered terrible writing.

Fair enough ... but we were discussing plot holes. This was simply a technique used to allow J.J. to introduce a dramatic death scene and then reverse it ... cheezey but not a plot hole.

Gunther:  Imagine if you were watching CSI and they found a mysterious substance at a crime scene which they decided to test by injecting it into a dead rat.

When the Vegas CSI team become space explorers I will find this comparison more relevant. McCoy was not trying to solve a murder ... he was investigating a curiosity.

Gunther: And nobody bothered mentioning the ramifications of the fact that they'd just CONQUERED DEATH ITSELF

Actually we conquered death long ago. The problem is reviving a person when the cause of death is still present. So what they conquered was cell degradation due to radiation damage. It is silly to expect J.J. to have extended this movie to explore the ramifications of this discovery ... especially since the source is taking blood from a prisoner. Maybe the plot of the next movie will just be all about court cases deciding the legality and morality of keeping Khan alive to endlessly milk him for medical cures. Won't that be fun?

I have never said the plot of this action movie should be winning any award ...


Seriously. We can only hope that the new JJ Star Wars movies have hours and hours of committees discussing trade negotiations and senatorial filibustering because that is the benchmark we are accustomed to and the stuff that dreams are made of. Maybe we will be lucky enough to get to watch someone scrape wookie shiat off their shoes.

/You farking tit
 
2013-06-09 05:05:32 PM  

Gunther: Farking Canuck: He did not expect to be tracked there

For a supergenius, he's kind of a dumbass.

Farking Canuck: McCoy was not trying to solve a murder ... he was investigating a curiosity.

By injecting blood into random dead animals for no reason.

Farking Canuck: So what they conquered was cell degradation due to radiation damage

So that tribble had just happened to die of radiation poisoning then? Wow, convenient.

Farking Canuck: the nit-picky over analysis is just sad

That's the thing, though; I've picked on a couple of problems, one major (the antagonist's actions make no sense), one minor (Jesus tribble), but the movie has dozens of fairly major plot holes. I came up with a bunch I hadn't thought of before off the top of my head about how nothing the admiral does makes sense  in this post - we could be here all damn day while I list off problems. It's easy to tear this film apart because it's really badly put together.

It really is on the same level as Prometheus, which shouldn't really be surprising as they were written by the same dude.


Yes, that's the thing. It is a stupid soap opera in space on par with old ST movies. I decided that there's no need to put old ST in a pedestal anymore. Watch those movies again. There were just as terrible or worse when it comes to plot holes.
 
2013-06-09 05:07:23 PM  

Digitalstrange:  Kinda ridiculous to not want him to do Star Wars because he's making ST more like SW


More that I don't want the same guy doing both.  Abrams should commit to one or the other, and let a different voice tell the other story.   I just don't all my sci-fi to look and feel the same, which is likely to happen when the same person controls both stories.
 
2013-06-09 05:15:25 PM  

Gunther: Farking Canuck: He did not expect to be tracked there

For a supergenius, he's kind of a dumbass.


See this is where you are just being belligerent. The movie made it quite clear that the Star Fleet crash investigation team missed the detail of the long range transport (in fact I think the tech is secret so it was pretty much guaranteed that they would miss it). Why is he a dumb-ass for properly predicting what would happen?

What he failed to predict, as I already mentioned, is that the inventor of the technology would also be unofficially ordered to do a second investigation of the wreckage. As I said before, if Kirk had not gone against procedures and ordered Scotty to do an unauthorized 2nd investigation of the crashed vehicle, Khan would have had the best place in the galaxy to hide from Star Fleet. Seems like a pretty good plan ... foiled by the hero of the story doing something unexpected.

But you'll never admit this ... you've invested too much in ranting against this movie.

/funny thing is I wasn't even a fan of the 2009 ST movie ... had some stuff I liked but overall failed for me
 
2013-06-09 05:15:39 PM  

Soulcatcher: Seriously. We can only hope that the new JJ Star Wars movies have hours and hours of committees discussing trade negotiations and senatorial filibustering because that is the benchmark we are accustomed to and the stuff that dreams are made of. Maybe we will be lucky enough to get to watch someone scrape wookie shiat off their shoes.


Saying I don't want nonsensical shiat doesn't automatically mean I want boring shiat. You can make something exciting and fast-paced without also making it farking stupid. Iron Man 3 was a fun, fast-paced action filled movie and I didn't walk out of that feeling like the writer held me in contempt.

jrodr018:  Watch those movies again. There were just as terrible or worse when it comes to plot holes.


Man, I watched WoK a couple weeks ago. It's still a damn solid movie, as is 3, 4, 6 and 8. The rest suck, but that doesn't somehow excuse the new one from also sucking.
 
2013-06-09 05:17:38 PM  
After JJ's 2nd Trek, I'm not very hopeful for either future Trek or Star Wars.
It was a non-stop roller coaster.  That's ok for mindless action flicks, but Star Trek and Star Wars both dealt with bigger ideas.  It was about the story and the people and less about "get the bad guy!"

I blame Michael Bay.  But in lots of explosions and flash a bit of skin and audiences will love it.  No drama.  No tension.  Just a 2 hour caffeine rush.  Yeah, it can be fun, but not very fulfilling.  I expect that from a Michael Bay or Arnold Schwarzenegger film.  I guess I expected too much.
 
2013-06-09 05:19:40 PM  

Gunther: Man, I watched WoK a couple weeks ago. It's still a damn solid movie, as is 3, 4, 6 and 8. The rest suck, but that doesn't somehow excuse the new one from also sucking.


It's a solid movie.  So is Into Darkness, though.
 
2013-06-09 05:20:49 PM  

Farking Canuck: See this is where you are just being belligerent. The movie made it quite clear that the Star Fleet crash investigation team missed the detail of the long range transport (in fact I think the tech is secret so it was pretty much guaranteed that they would miss it). Why is he a dumb-ass for properly predicting what would happen?


Wow, secret tech. It's not like there's some Admiral who wants to track him down who might have access to that.

Farking Canuck: But you'll never admit this ... you've invested too much in ranting against this movie.


Jesus, I point out a few plot holes in a crappy film and all of a sudden I'm some kinda crazy obsessed hater. Strawman much?
 
2013-06-09 05:25:47 PM  

Gunther: Soulcatcher: Seriously. We can only hope that the new JJ Star Wars movies have hours and hours of committees discussing trade negotiations and senatorial filibustering because that is the benchmark we are accustomed to and the stuff that dreams are made of. Maybe we will be lucky enough to get to watch someone scrape wookie shiat off their shoes.

Saying I don't want nonsensical shiat doesn't automatically mean I want boring shiat. You can make something exciting and fast-paced without also making it farking stupid. Iron Man 3 was a fun, fast-paced action filled movie and I didn't walk out of that feeling like the writer held me in contempt.

jrodr018:  Watch those movies again. There were just as terrible or worse when it comes to plot holes.

Man, I watched WoK a couple weeks ago. It's still a damn solid movie, as is 3, 4, 6 and 8. The rest suck, but that doesn't somehow excuse the new one from also sucking.


No, the point is you will NEVER like anything that he does with either franchise. Out of the gate you HATE it. You hate it now, you'll hate it next week, you'll hate it a year from now. You'll hate every word that he writes. You only even think about it now in order to come up more things to complain about in the future. It's already a done deal.

I'm tired of you crybabies.
 
2013-06-09 05:26:50 PM  

Gunther: Soulcatcher: Seriously. We can only hope that the new JJ Star Wars movies have hours and hours of committees discussing trade negotiations and senatorial filibustering because that is the benchmark we are accustomed to and the stuff that dreams are made of. Maybe we will be lucky enough to get to watch someone scrape wookie shiat off their shoes.

Saying I don't want nonsensical shiat doesn't automatically mean I want boring shiat. You can make something exciting and fast-paced without also making it farking stupid. Iron Man 3 was a fun, fast-paced action filled movie and I didn't walk out of that feeling like the writer held me in contempt.

jrodr018:  Watch those movies again. There were just as terrible or worse when it comes to plot holes.

Man, I watched WoK a couple weeks ago. It's still a damn solid movie, as is 3, 4, 6 and 8. The rest suck, but that doesn't somehow excuse the new one from also sucking.


I love it too. But it didn't bother you that nobody noticed a planet was missing? And an old admiral taking what amounts to be recruits to an unknown and possibly dangerous mission? Khan being outwitted several times by inferior beings? The death of Spock that came out of nowhere? That's not a solid movie to me, but to each...
 
2013-06-09 05:32:14 PM  

Gunther: Soulcatcher: Seriously. We can only hope that the new JJ Star Wars movies have hours and hours of committees discussing trade negotiations and senatorial filibustering because that is the benchmark we are accustomed to and the stuff that dreams are made of. Maybe we will be lucky enough to get to watch someone scrape wookie shiat off their shoes.

Saying I don't want nonsensical shiat doesn't automatically mean I want boring shiat. You can make something exciting and fast-paced without also making it farking stupid. Iron Man 3 was a fun, fast-paced action filled movie and I didn't walk out of that feeling like the writer held me in contempt.

jrodr018:  Watch those movies again. There were just as terrible or worse when it comes to plot holes.

Man, I watched WoK a couple weeks ago. It's still a damn solid movie, as is 3, 4, 6 and 8. The rest suck, but that doesn't somehow excuse the new one from also sucking.


Oh and how did Khan know that Kirk was going inspecting a training ship AND that he would take said ship to investigate a defective transmission? Not a huge plot hole? That's the whole premise of the movie right there.
 
2013-06-09 05:33:52 PM  

Soulcatcher: No, the point is you will NEVER like anything that he does with either franchise. Out of the gate you HATE it. You hate it now, you'll hate it next week, you'll hate it a year from now. You'll hate every word that he writes. You only even think about it now in order to come up more things to complain about in the future. It's already a done deal.


Calm down before you give yourself a heart attack. Jesus.

I actually really liked Cloverfield. And lost was pretty good until the last season came off the goddamned rails. Even the first Star Trek reboot was goofy fun. Just because Into Darkness objectively sucked ass does not mean I'm some kind of rabid JJ Abrams hater.
 
2013-06-09 05:37:48 PM  
jrodr018:

Khan's characterization in WoK is of an incredibly smart guy who's also pretty ignorant due to being from the past. He makes brilliant leaps and dumb mistakes in equal measure. I'm far more OK with that kinda thing than I am with neo-Khan being a total dumbass.
 
2013-06-09 05:44:50 PM  

jrodr018: Gunther: Soulcatcher: Seriously. We can only hope that the new JJ Star Wars movies have hours and hours of committees discussing trade negotiations and senatorial filibustering because that is the benchmark we are accustomed to and the stuff that dreams are made of. Maybe we will be lucky enough to get to watch someone scrape wookie shiat off their shoes.

Saying I don't want nonsensical shiat doesn't automatically mean I want boring shiat. You can make something exciting and fast-paced without also making it farking stupid. Iron Man 3 was a fun, fast-paced action filled movie and I didn't walk out of that feeling like the writer held me in contempt.

jrodr018:  Watch those movies again. There were just as terrible or worse when it comes to plot holes.

Man, I watched WoK a couple weeks ago. It's still a damn solid movie, as is 3, 4, 6 and 8. The rest suck, but that doesn't somehow excuse the new one from also sucking.

I love it too. But it didn't bother you that nobody noticed a planet was missing? And an old admiral taking what amounts to be recruits to an unknown and possibly dangerous mission? Khan being outwitted several times by inferior beings? The death of Spock that came out of nowhere? That's not a solid movie to me, but to each...


I know. But, apparently we can forgive every plot hole from the original series. I mean... if we REALLY love tried and true old school Trek, we can pretend that everything from the past is perfect and everything new is an abomination from Hell.

I don't know about you guys, but I grew up with these characters. I really love them. I cried when I saw Star Trek 2009 because I was so happy to see these amazing characters come alive again. Kirk and Spock and Bones... and they weren't 70 year olds wearing toupees- they were young inexperienced kids trying to find their way in the universe. I was so happy to see my old friends again. You can shiat all over everything, but you can never take that away from me.

If not for JJ they would be gone, gone, gone and dead forever.
 
2013-06-09 05:50:44 PM  

Soulcatcher: I'm tired of you crybabies.


Soulcatcher: I cried when I saw Star Trek 2009


Something, something, something, you should really just relax.
 
2013-06-09 05:55:02 PM  
Seems relevant to this thread...

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-09 05:56:50 PM  
So repeat to yourself, it's just a show, I should really just relax...

Actually I'm cooking a turkey right now and it smells really good.

=]
 
2013-06-09 06:15:24 PM  
The first Abrams Trek movie only partly worked: the origin story of "how the band got together" is almost always going to work,, that part, and the cast, carried the first movie, but the whole "revenge-obscessed Romulan out of his time" thing was crap.

Into Darkness, as Plinkett rightly describes it, is a generic action movie with star trek fan service and references to other Trek scenes glued on over it, but it really isn't much of a Star Trek movie. Maybe you could compare Abrams' trek in these terms:

Abrams' Trek is to Real Star Trek as the high school in "Grease" is to "American Graffitti".
 
2013-06-09 06:19:00 PM  

Soulcatcher: Cumberbatch is a better actor in his sleep than Mr "Corinthian Leather" ever was.


Yeah but he was a foppish British guy playing a dictator from East India. Granted, Montalban wasn't Indian either but he was more convincing than Englebert Cabbage Patch. I mean was Hugh Grant not available?
 
2013-06-09 06:19:45 PM  
dl.dropboxusercontent.com
What the JJ Abrams version will look like . . .
 
2013-06-09 06:26:08 PM  
When I saw episode 1 (1999?), I had won tickets from a radio station (yes, there was such a thing in those days). They were "VIP" tickets so we could bypass the lines of people impressively dressed like it was Halloween. It was the first screening in my time zone. And man, I was stoked.

When the John Williams score exploded through the impressive multiplex sound system as the film began, everyone in the packed audience stood up and went apesh*t. We all clapped and screamed and I'm pretty sure no one read the scrolling script.

Then we saw the actual movie.

Jesus, after all that hype, you piss on our legs and tell me it's raining? I'd have had a better experience if Homer told me that Vader was the father.
 
2013-06-09 06:44:12 PM  

Soulcatcher: jrodr018: Gunther: Soulcatcher: Seriously. We can only hope that the new JJ Star Wars movies have hours and hours of committees discussing trade negotiations and senatorial filibustering because that is the benchmark we are accustomed to and the stuff that dreams are made of. Maybe we will be lucky enough to get to watch someone scrape wookie shiat off their shoes.

Saying I don't want nonsensical shiat doesn't automatically mean I want boring shiat. You can make something exciting and fast-paced without also making it farking stupid. Iron Man 3 was a fun, fast-paced action filled movie and I didn't walk out of that feeling like the writer held me in contempt.

jrodr018:  Watch those movies again. There were just as terrible or worse when it comes to plot holes.

Man, I watched WoK a couple weeks ago. It's still a damn solid movie, as is 3, 4, 6 and 8. The rest suck, but that doesn't somehow excuse the new one from also sucking.

I love it too. But it didn't bother you that nobody noticed a planet was missing? And an old admiral taking what amounts to be recruits to an unknown and possibly dangerous mission? Khan being outwitted several times by inferior beings? The death of Spock that came out of nowhere? That's not a solid movie to me, but to each...

I know. But, apparently we can forgive every plot hole from the original series. I mean... if we REALLY love tried and true old school Trek, we can pretend that everything from the past is perfect and everything new is an abomination from Hell.

I don't know about you guys, but I grew up with these characters. I really love them. I cried when I saw Star Trek 2009 because I was so happy to see these amazing characters come alive again. Kirk and Spock and Bones... and they weren't 70 year olds wearing toupees- they were young inexperienced kids trying to find their way in the universe. I was so happy to see my old friends again. You can shiat all over everything, but you can never take that away from me.

If not for JJ ...


Wow.
 
2013-06-09 06:50:34 PM  

Confabulat: Go on, subby, I'll call you. What's your problem, exactly, with the casting choices?


Seriously. Say what you want about other aspects of the films, but the casting is nearly farking perfect.
 
2013-06-09 07:04:21 PM  
They could have removed the iconic ships and logos from the last one, changed all the names around and called it "Solar Journey" and nobody would have known it was a Star Trek movie.

My friends and I are in total shock at how terribly written it was.

Seriously, with a character's name like that, you cast one of the most white English actors to play the villain? Casting perfect? LOLWHUT.JPG
 
2013-06-09 07:08:52 PM  

Skunkwolf: They could have removed the iconic ships and logos from the last one, changed all the names around and called it "Solar Journey" and nobody would have known it was a Star Trek movie.

My friends and I are in total shock at how terribly written it was.

Seriously, with a character's name like that, you cast one of the most white English actors to play the villain? Casting perfect? LOLWHUT.JPG


Can't wait for the casting of legendary (previously thought dead )Jedi Mace Windu as played by Chris Ecclestone?!
 
2013-06-09 07:13:51 PM  

NutWrench: [dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 500x281]
What the JJ Abrams version will look like . . .


Now I know why those stormtrooper helmets have such dark lenses...
 
2013-06-09 07:15:47 PM  
The hate makes me love these movies even more. The new Star Treks are amazing and I can't wait to see what he'll do with Star Wars.
 
2013-06-09 07:16:12 PM  

Skunkwolf: They could have removed the iconic ships and logos from the last one, changed all the names around and called it "Solar Journey" and nobody would have known it was a Star Trek movie.

My friends and I are in total shock at how terribly written it was.

Seriously, with a character's name like that, you cast one of the most white English actors to play the villain? Casting perfect? LOLWHUT.JPG


I'm curious... what exactly do you like about Star Trek, in general?
 
2013-06-09 07:21:08 PM  
Star Wars movies have clean shot action scenes, where you see what is happening.

JJ is in love with shaky camera work and lots of cut, to make action scene seem exciting.
 
2013-06-09 07:21:15 PM  

Confabulat: Go on, subby, I'll call you. What's your problem, exactly, with the casting choices?


He got Cumberbatch for Khan.  Subby's argument is invalid.

/subby needs a Whaaaambulance
 
2013-06-09 07:27:56 PM  

Gunther: objectively sucked ass


LOL ... is that your opinion?
 
2013-06-09 07:31:49 PM  

Into the blue again: To all who are (or will be) butthurt, please suck it.


/Just a movie
//I will be second in line, great hope I have!
///I actually saw episode one 13 times in the theater, pathetic I know. It wasn't very good
////I'd rank the movies like this: 5, 4, 3, 6, 1, 2 ( 6 and 3 can be interchangeable)
//I hated Whiney anakin in ep2
//how many slashies are too many?


You thought that The Empire Strikes Back was the worst?  Wow.

My picks:

2, 1, 3...and the rest are garbage that I've never watched a second time.
 
2013-06-09 07:38:05 PM  

bborchar: Into the blue again: To all who are (or will be) butthurt, please suck it.


/Just a movie
//I will be second in line, great hope I have!
///I actually saw episode one 13 times in the theater, pathetic I know. It wasn't very good
////I'd rank the movies like this: 5, 4, 3, 6, 1, 2 ( 6 and 3 can be interchangeable)
//I hated Whiney anakin in ep2
//how many slashies are too many?

You thought that The Empire Strikes Back was the worst?  Wow.

My picks:

2, 1, 3...and the rest are garbage that I've never watched a second time.


He is numbering them by series number and you are numbering by chronological order. If you switch his 6 & 3 (as he suggested was an option) you actually match.
 
2013-06-09 07:40:09 PM  

TacitusProximus: ShadowKamui: Shostie: To be completely honest, anything that wasn't in the movies should be excised from the canon.

No need to complicate matters with hundreds of sh*tty novels, comic books and early 80's television specials.

Canon is only what's in the movies according to Lucas

Quote him saying this and I'll find quotes of him giving his blessing to book series and games.


Blessing them and saying they are canon isn't the same thing. Its why they refer to it as E.U.
 
2013-06-09 07:49:18 PM  
Anyone who thinks ANY of the Star Wars movies were quality to begin with really need a reality check.
 
2013-06-09 07:51:15 PM  
Will he blow up Alderaan in the first 15 minutes to show that his universe is similar, yet different from the original series?

...what?
 
2013-06-09 07:57:33 PM  
Lots of pointless bickering, people jumping off of things in space and ships that produce 3 times their mass in debris when they're shot at. Oh, and 3 hours of unrelenting space battles where everything is destroyed but no one dies.

I honestly just hate this guy's style front to back. So empty, I end up wishing I was doing my taxes.
 
2013-06-09 08:01:46 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: Lots of pointless bickering, people jumping off of things in space and ships that produce 3 times their mass in debris when they're shot at. Oh, and 3 hours of unrelenting space battles where everything is destroyed but no one dies.

I honestly just hate this guy's style front to back. So empty, I end up wishing I was doing my taxes.


This, this right  here sums up what I think about JJ's whole shtick.
 
2013-06-09 08:06:38 PM  

dickfreckle: When I saw episode 1 (1999?), I had won tickets from a radio station (yes, there was such a thing in those days). They were "VIP" tickets so we could bypass the lines of people impressively dressed like it was Halloween. It was the first screening in my time zone. And man, I was stoked.

When the John Williams score exploded through the impressive multiplex sound system as the film began, everyone in the packed audience stood up and went apesh*t. We all clapped and screamed and I'm pretty sure no one read the scrolling script.

Then we saw the actual movie.


There's a story recounted by film critic Mark Kermode about how they did a competition to fly off to the premiere. Serious, hardcore Star Wars questions to filter it down to just the most serious Star Wars nerd. The guy who won knew everything about the movies.

They flew him to the premiere, watched the movie and he came out and said "it was OK, I guess".

What's struck me looking back is that Lucas didn't know what he was making. On the one hand, there's a sense of trying to make something profound about power, on the other, he's got a stupid CG rabbit. And I think the power thing was a much better idea - the story of how vadar turns his back on freedom to support fascism. But the writing's terrible. You watch The Godfather I and II, Michael descends into evil gradually and naturally. You hardly notice as he goes from innocent college boy to monster - the transformation is so subtle.
 
2013-06-09 08:12:31 PM  
The lens flare in Trek was chosen to convey a certain feeling in that franchise. A feeling that everything is shiny, sleek, new, high-tech, etc.

Abrams does not use it in all his films. Super 8 didn't really use it (unless it made sense). He also didn't use it on his TV shows.

I don't see the problem. It's a design choice. It works.
 
2013-06-09 08:35:59 PM  

Confabulat: Ignored "Confabulat". If you want to completely hide ignored user comments, change the "Show header of ignored comments" option in your user profile.


Confabulat: Ignored "Confabulat". If you want to completely hide ignored user comments, change the "Show header of ignored comments" option in your user profile.


Confabulat: Ignored "Confabulat". If you want to completely hide ignored user comments, change the "Show header of ignored comments" option in your user profile.


Confabulat: Ignored "Confabulat". If you want to completely hide ignored user comments, change the "Show header of ignored comments" option in your user profile.

You talk too farking much.
 
2013-06-09 08:41:15 PM  
so basically JJ Abrams will probably fark the franchise less than George Lucas?
 
2013-06-09 08:59:09 PM  
Given that the last good Star Wars movie was 33 years ago, I say, yeah, let's give someone else a shot.  He can't wreck canon any more than crap like Jar Jar Binks and midi-chlorians.
 
2013-06-09 09:05:05 PM  
You know, after the shiat that was ST: Voyager and Enterprise, I've found myself unable to truly care about (almost)anything that JJ might have done wrong.  Kirk going from cadet to first officer of the flagship to captain in a WEEK is something that's so stupid there is no way to fix it, but to be honest I think after the opening with George Kirk everybody just forgives.  Into Darkness was fun just for Cummberbatch and Section 31.

And JJ's sensibilities will work MUCH better for Star Wars, where he doesn't have to be topical or high concept, where instead pure emotion and action movie themes will work perfectly.
 
2013-06-09 09:09:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.


In one of his three sci-fi movies, he made a stylistic choice to include what, in retrospect, is an annoying amount of lens flare.  Of course, Super 8 and Into Darkness didn't but, hey, this is the Internet where truth doesn't hold up against irrational butthurt.
 
2013-06-09 09:11:09 PM  

frepnog: i expect nothing less than the most ridiculously awesome star wars movie ever made.  it will be loud, flashy, exciting, fun, and will revitalize a series that has done nothing but shiat on itself for years.

/the new trek movies are AWESOME.  fark the haters.

//41 year old life long trek and SW fan.

///one request - NO farkING YODA.  he died in Return of the Ewok.  Let him be dead.


I enjoyed the new Star Trek movies (as their own movies, they're quite good).  Also -- Super 8 was incredible.  The new Star Wars will be farking brilliant.
 
2013-06-09 09:12:42 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Into the blue again: To all who are (or will be) butthurt, please suck it.

So, you're butthurt about people being butthurt?

/We have to go derper.


Lol, re-reading my comment it does sound like that. I was going for snarky, guess I failed
 
2013-06-09 09:18:55 PM  

Jarhead_h: You know, after the shiat that was ST: Voyager and Enterprise, I've found myself unable to truly care about (almost)anything that JJ might have done wrong.  Kirk going from cadet to first officer of the flagship to captain in a WEEK is something that's so stupid there is no way to fix it, but to be honest I think after the opening with George Kirk everybody just forgives.  Into Darkness was fun just for Cummberbatch and Section 31.

And JJ's sensibilities will work MUCH better for Star Wars, where he doesn't have to be topical or high concept, where instead pure emotion and action movie themes will work perfectly.


I completely agree. My only real complaint with Star Trek was Kirk's huge promotion. I would have rather seen time pass between Kirk cheating the Kobayashi Maru and him arriving on the Enterprise, but the scene where McCoy kept injecting him with stuff "I can fix it" was just too entertaining. In the end, I forgive the movie because it rescued the franchise from the way it had deteriorated. (I watched the series until the bitter end.) I'm super excited to see what Abrams brings to the franchise.

Persnickety: Given that the last good Star Wars movie was 33 years ago, I say, yeah, let's give someone else a shot.  He can't wreck canon any more than crap like Jar Jar Binks and midi-chlorians.


And now I feel old. Thanks a lot.
 
2013-06-09 10:03:46 PM  
And later this month the butthurt will really flow.
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-09 10:21:17 PM  

teto85: And later this month the butthurt will really flow.
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x297]


That just confuses me.

/Also, seen it hundreds of times in fan art already.
 
2013-06-09 10:22:47 PM  

Cheater71: Seriously, we'll never see something like this in the new movies:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x574]


Yes we will. Do you know how many toys that thing sold?
 
2013-06-09 10:27:24 PM  
Oh no I hope JJ doesn't ruin the sacredness of Episodes 1 2 and 3.
 
2013-06-09 10:40:03 PM  
Submitter: one of those sad, weeping jackasses with nothing to offer but scorn, and no imagination to support his lack of interest in the imaginations of others.  He's a type.
 
2013-06-09 10:48:41 PM  

teto85: And later this month the butthurt will really flow.
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x297]


My sister had to screen that (she's a theater GM).  She said it was the worst crap she's watched since Red Dawn.
 
2013-06-09 10:51:49 PM  

Any Pie Left: The first Abrams Trek movie only partly worked: the origin story of "how the band got together" is almost always going to work,, that part, and the cast, carried the first movie, but the whole "revenge-obscessed Romulan out of his time" thing was crap.

Into Darkness, as Plinkett rightly describes it, is a generic action movie with star trek fan service and references to other Trek scenes glued on over it, but it really isn't much of a Star Trek movie. Maybe you could compare Abrams' trek in these terms:

Abrams' Trek is to Real Star Trek as the high school in "Grease" is to "American Graffitti".


That's good, I loved Grease. Had it on in-store play all the time when I worked at Suncoast Motion Picture Company.

/wish Abrams' Trek movies were musicals
//one of my favorite TOS novels was How Much For Just The Planet? and I wish they could make that into a movie. Musicals just aren't the same when written as novels.
 
2013-06-09 10:53:49 PM  

LoneWolf343: teto85: And later this month the butthurt will really flow.
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x297]

That just confuses me.

/Also, seen it hundreds of times in fan art already.


The producers are trying to wring a few more dollars out of the franchise.  It's just capitalism.
 
2013-06-09 10:58:21 PM  
I can't even read these threads any more.  You "fans" are the worst curse a movie or franchise could ever ask for.
 
2013-06-09 11:12:45 PM  
imageshack.us

Abrams Trek meets Abrams Wars, soon to be followed by Game of Abrams, and a comedy, Dumb and Abrams.

/Malcovich
 
2013-06-09 11:30:48 PM  
Meh.

After the prequel trilogy, and JJ's latest reboot, I'm done with Stars Trek and Wars.
 
2013-06-10 12:27:41 AM  

Lernaeus: Meh.

After the prequel trilogy, and JJ's latest reboot, I'm done with Stars Trek and Wars.


Well.... bye
 
2013-06-10 02:40:08 AM  
If Abrams thinks that Star Trek is too philosophical and feels the need to dumb it down for the general populace, then Star Wars should be that much easier for him to bring to life.
 
2013-06-10 03:35:58 AM  

gadian: If Abrams thinks that Star Trek is too philosophical and feels the need to dumb it down for the general populace, then Star Wars should be that much easier for him to bring to life.


Of course the filmmakers and the studios want the film to work for the "general populace." Do you think they're willing to drop $200 million on a movie that only hardcore Trekkies would want to see?

But it's interesting that you bring up the "general populace," because that explains so much. Fanboys are mad that a filmmaker has made a Star Trek movie that is being enjoyed by the people who used to make fun of them for liking Star Trek. It's no longer their special secret thing. It's gone mainstream, to borrow a phrase from music snobs.

Everyone that is shrieking "PRIME DIRECTIVE!" and complaing that it's dumbed down are looking through rose colored glasses at what was one of the campiest sci-fi shows ever made.
 
2013-06-10 03:55:22 AM  

stoli n coke: But it's interesting that you bring up the "general populace," because that explains so much. Fanboys are mad that a filmmaker has made a Star Trek movie that is being enjoyed by the people who used to make fun of them for liking Star Trek. It's no longer their special secret thing. It's gone mainstream, to borrow a phrase from music snobs.


No, fanboys are upset because Abrams took away the philosophical bits that, as a kid, he was too dumb to understand in favor of more explosions.  The philosophical made the shows worth watching.  Campy?  Hell yes.  And fun.  But it was about more than an angry Vulcan and blowing up planets.  It's not the fanboys fault that the "general populace" is too damn dumb or ADD for a two hour introspective character driven piece.
 
2013-06-10 04:29:29 AM  

gadian: stoli n coke: But it's interesting that you bring up the "general populace," because that explains so much. Fanboys are mad that a filmmaker has made a Star Trek movie that is being enjoyed by the people who used to make fun of them for liking Star Trek. It's no longer their special secret thing. It's gone mainstream, to borrow a phrase from music snobs.

No, fanboys are upset because Abrams took away the philosophical bits that, as a kid, he was too dumb to understand in favor of more explosions.  The philosophical made the shows worth watching.  Campy?  Hell yes.  And fun.  But it was about more than an angry Vulcan and blowing up planets.  It's not the fanboys fault that the "general populace" is too damn dumb or ADD for a two hour introspective character driven piece.



Paramount tried that with Star Treks 5,6,7,8,9, and 10. Nobody wanted to see them.
 
2013-06-10 04:44:12 AM  
 
2013-06-10 04:45:47 AM  
Rickie La Touche : Star Trak Jedeye!!!


who names someone "Rickie La Touche " anyway?
 
2013-06-10 04:56:37 AM  
i.imgur.com

Welcome to Planet Butthurt:

 
2013-06-10 05:01:17 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-10 05:07:50 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-10 05:31:25 AM  
out before the lock
 
2013-06-10 07:39:14 AM  
Star Trek movies haven't been philosophical since Trek 2, arguably 1.
 
2013-06-10 08:30:52 AM  
thezeroroom.net
 
2013-06-10 08:33:04 AM  

Farking Canuck: Gunther: objectively sucked ass

LOL ... is that your opinion?


Nope, it's fact. Movie sucks, deal w/it.

Also, you've completely given up on the argument and are just nitpicking.
 
2013-06-10 08:50:12 AM  
Gunther:  Nope, it's fact. Movie sucks, deal w/it.

Also, you've completely given up on the argument and are just nitpicking.

No. I just gave up on you a while ago. You demonstrated that you are not interested in a discussion ... just interested in preaching your inane proclamations to everyone.
 
2013-06-10 09:32:40 AM  
The only people I hate more than Star Wars fans are the Taliban. For f's sake, Star Wars isn't YOURS. It belongs to Lucas and he was nice enough to let you get butthurt over his decisions.  You're welcome.
 
2013-06-10 10:05:16 AM  

AliceBToklasLives: MaudlinMutantMollusk: cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.

I didn't get it at first, but then I went back and watched Star Trek again

/Every. Freaking. Scene.
//it becomes just clutter after a while

You know, it is a cool callback to the days when it was unavoidable, but only, you know, once or twice in the film.  Not every damn shot.


jjabramstrollface.jpg
 
2013-06-10 10:09:10 AM  

LL316: The only people I hate more than Star Wars fans are the Taliban. For f's sake, Star Wars isn't YOURS. It belongs to Lucas and he was nice enough to let you get butthurt over his decisions.  You're welcome.


George R.R. Martin like typing detected.
 
2013-06-10 10:10:41 AM  

Andric: Skunkwolf: They could have removed the iconic ships and logos from the last one, changed all the names around and called it "Solar Journey" and nobody would have known it was a Star Trek movie.

My friends and I are in total shock at how terribly written it was.

Seriously, with a character's name like that, you cast one of the most white English actors to play the villain? Casting perfect? LOLWHUT.JPG

I'm curious... what exactly do you like about Star Trek, in general?


Episodes and movies that have problems not solved by technology, but exploiting character flaws, using logic, and cunning.

Going to strange new worlds, and doing smart things, basically.

You know what Farscape, Stargate, Stargate SG1, Stargate Atlantis, Stargate Universe, Battlefield Earth, The Stars My Destination, Contact and a bunch of other books and series, all have in common? Interplanetary teleportation. It's an End Game technology, once you have it, you conquer everybody. The Borg would suck the eyeballs out of everybody in the galaxy to get it. Through shields at lightspeed+  nonetheless!

Yeah, freaking L. Ron Hubbard knew that.

I knew after the last one Abrams doesn't read or watch science fiction.

Do he and Michael Bay hang out?
 
2013-06-10 10:12:57 AM  
Oh, in case you didn't notice he obsoleted all starships. There would be no point in using them.  There wasn't even some kind of power consequence, a freaking shuttle can power this thing.

Oh and the Hyperion novels.
 
2013-06-10 10:20:32 AM  

Skunkwolf: movies that have problems not solved by technology, but exploiting character flaws, using logic, and cunning


The Star Trek movies do not do this.

And before you say "But ST:2 Kahn", Kirk and Co win because Kahn "shows a penchant for 2 dimensional thinking".

Ok, so the guy who controlled one quarter of Earth itself through intelect and power get's beat by tactics that anyone with a Playstation 1 could understand? I am well aware of the cultural differences between the time when the show and the movie cam out and today.

At the very best, that logic does not stand the test of time and at worst is ludicrous.
 
2013-06-10 10:40:48 AM  

Jim from Saint Paul: [thezeroroom.net image 401x385]


We need to just start putting that at the beginning of every thread.
 
2013-06-10 10:47:40 AM  
Can there be worse casting than Jake Lloyd for Anakin, and Natalie Portman for Padme? I defy you to find a worse pairing!
 
2013-06-10 10:55:06 AM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Skunkwolf: movies that have problems not solved by technology, but exploiting character flaws, using logic, and cunning

The Star Trek movies do not do this.

And before you say "But ST:2 Kahn", Kirk and Co win because Kahn "shows a penchant for 2 dimensional thinking".

Ok, so the guy who controlled one quarter of Earth itself through intelect and power get's beat by tactics that anyone with a Playstation 1 could understand? I am well aware of the cultural differences between the time when the show and the movie cam out and today.

At the very best, that logic does not stand the test of time and at worst is ludicrous.


Khan was superhuman, but he wasn't a god.  He was still defined by his experiences, none of which included modern space combat.  All of his experiences were based on conventional planetary combat.  On a planetary scale, everything (including air combat) is effectively two-dimensional.  It's not that much of a stretch to believe that a veteran crew with decades of experience in starship combat tactics would be able to outsmart a bunch of neophytes even if they were superhumans.
 
2013-06-10 11:15:28 AM  

Farking Canuck: Gunther:  Nope, it's fact. Movie sucks, deal w/it.

Also, you've completely given up on the argument and are just nitpicking.

No. I just gave up on you a while ago. You demonstrated that you are not interested in a discussion ... just interested in preaching your inane proclamations to everyone.


I've pointed out that the plot doesn't make sense, your response has been to mostly ignore the points I'm making and launch melodramatic personal attacks. And you think I'm the one who isn't interested in discussion?
 
2013-06-10 11:25:32 AM  

Gunther: I've pointed out that the plot doesn't make sense, your response has been to mostly ignore the points I'm making and launch melodramatic personal attacks. And you think I'm the one who isn't interested in discussion?


LOL ... you declared that your opinion of a movie was "objective". Keep playin' that fiddle.
 
2013-06-10 11:37:08 AM  

dj_spanmaster: Can there be worse casting than Jake Lloyd for Anakin, and Natalie Portman for Padme? I defy you to find a worse pairing!


Portman is one of the most overrated actresses of her generation but her toothless performance as Padme wasn't her fault.  If anything she gave her character some semblance of emotion.  Jake Lloyd was awful but just a kid.  Whether it's bad casting or it's bad writing to give a young kid so much facetime is a hopeless chicken-and-egg question.

What these debates are really about isn't what made Star Wars good but what Star Wars means to people.  Lucas' vision turned out to be a fragmented smorgasbord of pop culture reference planted in a unique setting.  To Plinkett it was a story about characters.  We'll find out what Abrams' vision is soon enough, but I get the feeling the kinder judgements will more praise his work as more a feat of engineering than an adventure.  Story is both his biggest strength and ultimate failing, really.  Strength because he can concoct a story that packs maximum excitement into a film; failing because that excitement is provided at the expense of making sense or giving audiences something to dream about.

Abrams doesn't "breathe life" into anything.  He's really just a very competent taxidermist -- with Star Trek he took the rotting and desecrated corpse of a franchise and turned it into something pretty to look at but full of filler.  With Star Wars my worst fear is that he'll find success reviving the franchise with popcorn action movies but suck all the passion out of it.  I'm sure many here would see that as a victory, but to me that would vindicate what Lucas did with the prequels and make "quality" strictly a matter of execution.  Either way, a "competent" film that's "fun to watch" seems to be the ceiling for Abrams.  But consider A New Hope.  When's the last time you saw a movie that continues to influence popular culture three decades after its release?  Everyone's comparing speculation about Abrams' effort to the prequels but did we forget just how much a miracle the original trilogy was?  We can be honest about its flaws but love 'em or hate 'em, they weren't just blockbusters.  They got people wanting to leave this world to live in that one.  The difference, to me, is how the audience relates to the characters -- it's what breathes life into the world.  Even bit players like Boba Fett and Wedge Antilles have their fans because the characters feel so real -- and frankly, the original trilogy isn't without its gaping plot holes.  The reason why the plot holes are more prominent in Abrams' films is because the audience's experience isn't anchored by protagonists they can empathize with.  That didn't just hide the plot holes; it's what made the original trilogy so memorable.

Maybe the original trilogy just happened to catch lightning in a bottle.  My heart isn't quite made of stone yet but while I doubt the next Star Wars movie will suck, I feel like I haven't seen some real movie magic in a long time and nothing Abrams has done gives me the feeling he'll change that.  There's a subtlety to the telling of A New Hope beyond mere nostalgia that made Luke feel more like a real hero-in-the-making than the formulaic cliche he was.  Some of that was Mark Hamill's raw but very expressive performance but casting a very competent Ewan McGregor didn't save the prequels so it's not just that.  If I was to put my finger on it, it's two things.  First, Hollywood was never NOT about being a cash cow but Lucas in the 70s was an anti-system guy.  That might've given the people around him their chance to make a movie with passion.  The original trilogy was much more of a collaborative effort than anyone knew until the prequels were made.  These days, Hollywood's stranglehold on creativity is as strong as it's ever been.  Second, despite being run by sociopaths Hollywood is still acutely aware of pop culture trends and these days it's all meta and cynicism.  The ideals of Nolan's Batman feel more like meaningless deadweights in his cynical world (Nolan's gestures to dispel the cloud of doom he worked so hard to create are laughably pathetic); RDJ as Ironman is a beloved douchebag; and the harsh beatings honor takes in A Game of Thrones only pause so that GRRM can take steaming dumps on it before the shiat-splattering beatings resume.  OK the last is a TV show but its nothing if not popular.  As a result it seems as if pop culture, outside the occasional kid's movie, is terrified of feeling genuine.  It's been so long that the "heart of gold" protagonist worked that no one's good at it anymore.  Lucas certainly took the sappy route in many prequel scenes but I fear the horrible results only reinforced the belief that Americans above the age of ten are incapable of feeling positive emotions through cinema.

Today's pop culture is NOT following naive farm boy heroes like Luke Skywalker.  It's a culture clash waiting to happen, and while Abrams getting stuck in the middle isn't his fault, it seems he isn't a victim so much as gladly turning once-beloved franchises into something today's audiences want to see.  He'll win that battle I can choose to call it a bad thing, but it could just be a sign that I'm old and waiting for a lonely bitter death.

RIP, heroes of my childhood.
 
2013-06-10 11:39:45 AM  

Mentat: Jim from Saint Paul: Skunkwolf: movies that have problems not solved by technology, but exploiting character flaws, using logic, and cunning

The Star Trek movies do not do this.

And before you say "But ST:2 Kahn", Kirk and Co win because Kahn "shows a penchant for 2 dimensional thinking".

Ok, so the guy who controlled one quarter of Earth itself through intelect and power get's beat by tactics that anyone with a Playstation 1 could understand? I am well aware of the cultural differences between the time when the show and the movie cam out and today.

At the very best, that logic does not stand the test of time and at worst is ludicrous.

Khan was superhuman, but he wasn't a god.  He was still defined by his experiences, none of which included modern space combat.  All of his experiences were based on conventional planetary combat.  On a planetary scale, everything (including air combat) is effectively two-dimensional.  It's not that much of a stretch to believe that a veteran crew with decades of experience in starship combat tactics would be able to outsmart a bunch of neophytes even if they were superhumans.


If by the 1990's (in the trek universe), you had ugenics. Superhumans.

I am suggesting they would have had a playstation 1 by then.
 
2013-06-10 11:57:35 AM  

Farking Canuck: Gunther: I've pointed out that the plot doesn't make sense, your response has been to mostly ignore the points I'm making and launch melodramatic personal attacks. And you think I'm the one who isn't interested in discussion?

LOL ... you declared that your opinion of a movie was "objective". Keep playin' that fiddle.


And you keep on ignoring every argument I've made and every plot hole I've pointed out to fixate on one word. That's how you win an argument, after all; desperately ignore what they other guy is saying as much as possible.
 
2013-06-10 12:04:25 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Mentat: Jim from Saint Paul: Skunkwolf: movies that have problems not solved by technology, but exploiting character flaws, using logic, and cunning

The Star Trek movies do not do this.

And before you say "But ST:2 Kahn", Kirk and Co win because Kahn "shows a penchant for 2 dimensional thinking".

Ok, so the guy who controlled one quarter of Earth itself through intelect and power get's beat by tactics that anyone with a Playstation 1 could understand? I am well aware of the cultural differences between the time when the show and the movie cam out and today.

At the very best, that logic does not stand the test of time and at worst is ludicrous.

Khan was superhuman, but he wasn't a god.  He was still defined by his experiences, none of which included modern space combat.  All of his experiences were based on conventional planetary combat.  On a planetary scale, everything (including air combat) is effectively two-dimensional.  It's not that much of a stretch to believe that a veteran crew with decades of experience in starship combat tactics would be able to outsmart a bunch of neophytes even if they were superhumans.

If by the 1990's (in the trek universe), you had ugenics. Superhumans.

I am suggesting they would have had a playstation 1 by then.


There's no evidence that Khan ever player X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter.
 
2013-06-10 12:07:03 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: If by the 1990's (in the trek universe), you had ugenics. Superhumans.

I am suggesting they would have had a playstation 1 by then.


His ship was practically blind, they both were.It wasn't even about using 3 dimensions, it was just a matter of sneaking up on him.
 
2013-06-10 12:09:34 PM  

Cheater71: Seriously, we'll never see something like this in the new movies:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x574]


The Lego SW Rancor Pit has a cute little hiding-hole place built into one of the 'legs' of the construction. I place Luke in there whenever the Rancor snaps that bone (also included).
 
2013-06-10 12:28:54 PM  

Mugato: Jim from Saint Paul: If by the 1990's (in the trek universe), you had ugenics. Superhumans.

I am suggesting they would have had a playstation 1 by then.

His ship was practically blind, they both were.It wasn't even about using 3 dimensions, it was just a matter of sneaking up on him.


However the logic presented to the audience is exactly that. The use of 3 demensions.

I love WoK. It's my favorite of all the movies and a top 10 movie for me in general. Doesn't mean that it doesn;t have it's own massive gaps in logic.
 
2013-06-10 02:44:30 PM  

PsyLord: lens flare


Ok, so I saw the new Trek movie with my wife, it was in 3-D IMAX.  The WHOLE time I was thinking to myself "man these glasses are causing some weird glare-effects." While also thinking "Wow, not a lot of lens flare, huh.  Weird."  I now realize practically the ENTIRE MOVIE had those flares in them.  Also, I'm a dumbass.  But mostly THE ENTIRE MOVIE.  Ugh.
 
2013-06-10 04:07:32 PM  

Gunther: And you keep on ignoring every argument I've made and every plot hole I've pointed out to fixate on one word.


So you obviously didn't read any of my responses. In my first few responses I addressed your whiny little complaints point-by-point.

Then I realized you were not reading my posts and were not here to discuss the movie. You were just being a whiny little biatch. Since then I've just been mocking your idiotic statements ... like how your opinion of a movie is "objective". Good times.
 
2013-06-10 04:26:45 PM  
www.geekstir.com
 
2013-06-10 05:26:10 PM  

Farking Canuck: In my first few responses I addressed your whiny little complaints point-by-point.


Yeah, with brilliant counter arguments like "Khan's long term plan was never revealed", therefore it's OK that nothing he does in the movie makes any sense, and "McCoy's Tribble experiment was an obvious a dues ex machina" which... I don't even know how that's a counter argument. You apparently don't realize deus ex machinas are considered to be terrible writing. You didn't even bother mentioning any of the other massive holes in the plotI mentioned -  like howthe admiral's plan makes no sense and he abandons it for no reason.

Those are direct quotes, BTW. Those are the freaking responses that you think addressed my complaints point by point.They are some pretty goddamn terrible attempts at countering only two of the points I made, yet you apparently feel they're strong enough that you can stop arguing and just make dickish personal attacks.

Speaking of which; we're two grown men arguing over plot holes in a Star Trek movie on a website. What we're doing here is about as trivial and unimportant as you could get. How about you calm the fark down with the righteous fury and the insults and everything?
 
2013-06-10 05:40:16 PM  
Lol ... I'm quite enjoying your hysterics. It hasn't been about the movie for a while now.

So now that you've admitted that I did indeed address the points you raised is your issue that my counterpoints weren't good enough for you?

I'm not sure where the goal posts have been moved to. Could you do me a favor and wave?
 
2013-06-10 05:41:02 PM  

stoli n coke: gadian: stoli n coke: But it's interesting that you bring up the "general populace," because that explains so much. Fanboys are mad that a filmmaker has made a Star Trek movie that is being enjoyed by the people who used to make fun of them for liking Star Trek. It's no longer their special secret thing. It's gone mainstream, to borrow a phrase from music snobs.

No, fanboys are upset because Abrams took away the philosophical bits that, as a kid, he was too dumb to understand in favor of more explosions.  The philosophical made the shows worth watching.  Campy?  Hell yes.  And fun.  But it was about more than an angry Vulcan and blowing up planets.  It's not the fanboys fault that the "general populace" is too damn dumb or ADD for a two hour introspective character driven piece.


Paramount tried that with Star Treks 5,6,7,8,9, and 10. Nobody wanted to see them.


I don't quite recall the numbers for Star Trek 6 but I believe even in conventional terms, it was well received (both in revenue and critical acclaim).

The other movies didn't do too well because they just weren't all that good. While I agree that the original Treks were pretty campy, what made Trek adored *was* the philosophical introspection. Star Trek 6 happened to hit that sweet spot where it was both a good movie in its own right (production value, plot, script, etc) *and* it included some very potent philosophical questions.

There's no reason we can't have both and while Abrams does a much better job of production quality, his ability at plot and story is fairly lacking. I don't think criticism of lack of substance and debt is unwarranted, nor is expectation of better. This isn't just about Trekkies wanting better Trek; it's movie-goers wanting better movies. Try to let go of the defensiveness and judge it as a movie, not a "Trek" movie. Does it really compare to The Dark Knight Returns or Taken (first, not second)? I think it falls flat.
 
2013-06-10 05:50:52 PM  

Farking Canuck:It hasn't been about the movie for a while now.

Only because you don't want to discuss the film, you want to heap abuse at people who don't share your opinions on a popcorn film. Good luck with that, I'm done responding to you.

imgod2u: while Abrams does a much better job of production quality, his ability at plot and story is fairly lacking. I don't think criticism of lack of substance and debt is unwarranted, nor is expectation of better. This isn't just about Trekkies wanting better Trek; it's movie-goers wanting better movies. Try to let go of the defensiveness and judge it as a movie, not a "Trek" movie.


Take my advice, dude; they do NOT want to hear it.
 
2013-06-10 10:15:26 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: However the logic presented to the audience is exactly that. The use of 3 demensions.

I love WoK. It's my favorite of all the movies and a top 10 movie for me in general. Doesn't mean that it doesn;t have it's own massive gaps in logic.


Again, there's no logic problem.  Khan was arrogant and thought he was superior to his opponent in every way.  It blinded him to the fact that he was dealing with a savvy, battle-hardened crew.  Khan and his people were not accustomed to space combat and even an intellectual understanding of three dimensional combat wouldn't be enough to counter a veteran crew that had literally written the book on space combat.  It would be like my saying I could go toe-to-toe with a Marine in rifle combat because I studied the history of firearms.
 
2013-06-10 11:13:56 PM  

Mentat: Khan was arrogant and thought he was superior to his opponent in every way.  It blinded him to the fact that he was dealing with a savvy, battle-hardened crew.


I keep trying to explain this. And even if Khan considered that the Enterprise could come from above or below, they were practically blind, there's nothing he could do about it anyway.
 
Displayed 269 of 269 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report