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 57
    More: Fail, J.J. Abrams, Star Wars, Episode VII, Michael Arndt, experimental film, Bad Robot, 2013 and beyond in film, George Lucas  
•       •       •

2060 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-09 10:04:00 AM
4 votes:
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 02:12:40 PM
3 votes:

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 01:48:06 PM
3 votes:
Episode 7 will suck. Hard.
You will BEG for the return of Jar Jar Binks.
2013-06-09 01:34:04 PM
3 votes:
There's no way he can screw it up as badly as Lucas did.
2013-06-09 01:33:46 PM
3 votes:

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 01:23:07 PM
3 votes:
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 01:19:34 PM
3 votes:
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 09:47:58 AM
3 votes:
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.)
2013-06-10 11:37:08 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-06-09 05:17:38 PM
2 votes:
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 03:20:17 PM
2 votes:

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 03:16:03 PM
2 votes:
Seriously, we'll never see something like this in the new movies:

3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-06-09 02:45:24 PM
2 votes:
Star Wars does need more of this...

www.thecrosbypress.com
2013-06-09 01:58:14 PM
2 votes:

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 01:55:01 PM
2 votes:

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 01:27:07 PM
2 votes:
The only good Star Wars movie was (and will continue to be) The Empire Strikes Back.

There, I said it.
2013-06-09 01:21:00 PM
2 votes:

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 01:20:32 PM
2 votes:
Say good bye another favorite franchise.

 Thanks a lot douchebag!
2013-06-10 10:10:41 AM
1 votes:

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 02:40:08 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-06-09 10:40:03 PM
1 votes:
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 09:05:05 PM
1 votes:
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 08:59:09 PM
1 votes:
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 08:41:15 PM
1 votes:
so basically JJ Abrams will probably fark the franchise less than George Lucas?
2013-06-09 07:57:33 PM
1 votes:
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 06:15:24 PM
1 votes:
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 05:19:40 PM
1 votes:

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 05:15:25 PM
1 votes:

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 04:47:08 PM
1 votes:

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 03:48:46 PM
1 votes:
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 03:30:56 PM
1 votes:

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 03:05:26 PM
1 votes:
Jar Jar Abrams made Star Trek palpable to the booger-eating moron demographic. Star Wars is already there.
2013-06-09 02:54:13 PM
1 votes:

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 02:36:48 PM
1 votes:

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 02:34:31 PM
1 votes:

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 02:33:24 PM
1 votes:

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 02:33:05 PM
1 votes:

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 02:27:36 PM
1 votes:

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 02:24:32 PM
1 votes:

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 02:21:10 PM
1 votes:

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 02:17:05 PM
1 votes:
The only canon that is important to me:

www.televisionwithoutpity.com
2013-06-09 02:12:22 PM
1 votes:

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 02:03:15 PM
1 votes:

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 01:37:04 PM
1 votes:

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 01:36:07 PM
1 votes:
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 01:34:19 PM
1 votes:
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 01:33:44 PM
1 votes:

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 01:32:59 PM
1 votes:

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 01:31:13 PM
1 votes:
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 01:27:32 PM
1 votes:

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 01:20:49 PM
1 votes:

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 01:14:52 PM
1 votes:

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 10:29:38 AM
1 votes:
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 10:08:22 AM
1 votes:

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 09:17:54 AM
1 votes:

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


Nice try, JJ
2013-06-09 09:00:26 AM
1 votes:
Oh are you just another butthurt Trekkie talking out their ass.
2013-06-09 08:59:12 AM
1 votes:
Go on, subby, I'll call you. What's your problem, exactly, with the casting choices?
 
Displayed 57 of 57 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report