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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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".
 
Displayed 50 of 269 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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