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 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!
 
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