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  
•       •       •

2062 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
 
2013-06-10 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 19 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 »






Report