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.

(Making Star Wars)   J.J. Abrams tweets the first real photo from the production of Star Wars Epsiode VII featuring R2D2   (makingstarwars.net) divider line 156
    More: Spiffy, J.J. Abrams, music production  
•       •       •

16551 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Nov 2013 at 8:24 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-14 10:41:53 PM

Funbags: [i.imgur.com image 450x293]


WTF is that, some kind of Star Wars bukake video?
 
2013-11-14 10:47:48 PM

Snapper Carr: [i.imgur.com image 450x338]


I knew Fark wouldn't disappoint me.
 
2013-11-14 10:48:35 PM
could we maybe get a star wars story set someplace else in that vast universe and not just have it be a rehash focusing on the same five farking characters? please?
 
2013-11-14 10:50:03 PM
oh and if the climax is a 1-on-1 lightsaber battle i may have an aneurysm
 
2013-11-14 10:52:00 PM
Star Trek (2009) - 95% / 89%

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - 87% / 90%

It's like all 10% of people who didn't like these movies post right here on Fark!

/I bet the movies they like are so cool that we've never heard of them before...
 
2013-11-14 10:55:22 PM
It'll be fine
What's the worst that could happen...
img36.imageshack.us
 
2013-11-14 10:56:11 PM

karmachameleon: Star Trek (2009) - 95% / 89%

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - 87% / 90%

It's like all 10% of people who didn't like these movies post right here on Fark!

/I bet the movies they like are so cool that we've never heard of them before...


Nerds are never happy. Perhaps if they got laid or something...
 
2013-11-14 10:56:29 PM

Pincy: Sorry, Lucas pretty much killed the franchise with his latest three abominations.  This new stuff is going to have to be mind altering good in order for me to give a fark again.


Honestly, the best thing to do is to simply discard the prequel movies.  Really, I mean it.  You just ignore them and act as if they never existed.  To me there are only 3 Star Wars movies.  I know 3 more were made, but they don't count.  What, just because they were made means I have to consider them?  No, I really don't.  As far as I'm concerned there's a much better backstory for Star Wars than the prequels, and they've never been told (which is as it should be, it being, you know, backstory and all).

And it's really easy to do this, too.  There's such a dichotomy of style between the two trilogies, it's a piece of cake to separate them and decide they can't co-exist.  And so they don't as far as I'm concerned.  Join me.  You know you want to.
 
2013-11-14 10:58:38 PM

NewWorldDan: And other than Simon Pegg's portrayal of Mr. Scott, they were awful.


Uhh, Karl Urban's Dr. McCoy was awful?

smhttp.14409.nexcesscdn.net
 
2013-11-14 10:58:57 PM
Whoa!
They totally went in a different way with that design than I was expecting.
Excellent re-imagining.
 
2013-11-14 11:16:11 PM
api.ning.com
 
2013-11-14 11:18:46 PM
So when is this new one supposed to be set? After Return of the Jedi or before Phantom Menace? Or sometime in between?
 
2013-11-14 11:23:46 PM

Active introvert: So when is this new one supposed to be set? After Return of the Jedi or before Phantom Menace? Or sometime in between?


Basically realtime, so 35 years after the BoE (Battle of Endor).
 
2013-11-14 11:29:41 PM

mjbok: Active introvert: So when is this new one supposed to be set? After Return of the Jedi or before Phantom Menace? Or sometime in between?

Basically realtime, so 35 years after the BoE (Battle of Endor).


(groan) Whose fighting who now? How many times can you go to the well people.
 
2013-11-14 11:32:30 PM

LectertheChef: Mugato: mjbok: What is the shelf life of an Astromech.  Given that he was at least 20 by episode IV, he'd be 50 by now.  Granted they may last, but tech (even when it still works) tends to be replaced.

Technology is pretty stagnant in Star Wars. If you go by the expanded universe (which I'd rather not but just to make a point). they had basically the same tech for like a thousand years. Besides, if you had a '57 Chevy that you really liked and it had artificial intelligence to boot, you'd probably want to keep it in the same shape as when you bought it.

Well, if you go by the EU stuff, the denizens of the galaxy are essentially scavengers. They didn't figure out the whole hyperspace thing, they just reverse engineered hyperdrives they found, that were built by far older civilizations. I'm guessing that same principle would hold true for most other forms of technology. Makes sense, if you look at their strategies for warfare. It's all pretty much brute force. Look at the pinnacle of that, the Death Star. Nothing subtle about it. Hell, in the EU, their war with the Yuzhan Vong, they were fighting a culture that hadn't advanced their technology in thousands of years, and were still lagging way behind.


The thing I never understood about Star Wars: where are the missiles and torpedoes?
 
2013-11-14 11:38:23 PM

fusillade762: The thing I never understood about Star Wars: where are the missiles and torpedoes?


internal bomb bays or something
 
2013-11-14 11:38:49 PM

mjbok: Bootysama: ParadoxDice: And considering this is after the trilogy, the droid should be a bit more beat up/aged and not shiny and new.

Funny thing about robots is, as they are not people, they can have parts easily replaced with brand new shiny ones.

What is the shelf life of an Astromech.  Given that he was at least 20 by episode IV, he'd be 50 by now.  Granted they may last, but tech (even when it still works) tends to be replaced.


I agree. One of the things that Star Wars gave us was the idea of a "used future".

Plus, how many people here just replaced worn parts on their VCR vs just getting a DVD player? Actually, I have a better "bad analogy". Although we're getting the next generation of video game systems this month, there are people who still have thier original 8 bit Nintendos. Perhaps they still work. But they probably are showing signs of wear and tear. And those Nintendos never were shot at.(Heh, that I know of.)
 
2013-11-14 11:40:34 PM
or are you asking where are they in the setting because they are there but more of a video game thing

Link

Link

Link

Link
 
2013-11-14 11:45:07 PM

fusillade762: The thing I never understood about Star Wars: where are the missiles and torpedoes?


*cough* "The shaft is ray-shield so you'll have to use proton torpedoes."
 
2013-11-14 11:58:49 PM

Solon Isonomia: fusillade762: The thing I never understood about Star Wars: where are the missiles and torpedoes?

*cough* "The shaft is ray-shield so you'll have to use proton torpedoes."


OK, so ONE TIME. This is more what I expect space battles to look like:

persephonemagazine.com
i8.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-14 11:58:57 PM

karmachameleon: Pincy: Sorry, Lucas pretty much killed the franchise with his latest three abominations.  This new stuff is going to have to be mind altering good in order for me to give a fark again.

Honestly, the best thing to do is to simply discard the prequel movies.  Really, I mean it.  You just ignore them and act as if they never existed.  To me there are only 3 Star Wars movies.  I know 3 more were made, but they don't count.  What, just because they were made means I have to consider them?  No, I really don't.  As far as I'm concerned there's a much better backstory for Star Wars than the prequels, and they've never been told (which is as it should be, it being, you know, backstory and all).

And it's really easy to do this, too.  There's such a dichotomy of style between the two trilogies, it's a piece of cake to separate them and decide they can't co-exist.  And so they don't as far as I'm concerned.  Join me.  You know you want to.


I liked the prequel trilogy, warts and all.
 
2013-11-15 12:02:16 AM

karmachameleon: Star Trek (2009) - 95% / 89%

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - 87% / 90%

It's like all 10% of people who didn't like these movies post right here on Fark!

/I bet the movies they like are so cool that we've never heard of them before...


I'd like to introduce you to the concept of big budget movie shills.  You don't think all the ST budget went into $3.50 flashlights to shine into the camera did you?  I assure you, there was plenty of money left to pay off dopes who have never watched a single episode of star trek or seen a coherent plot in their lives.  That second movie was an 87% if i'm the farking President of the United States and i'm pretty certain i'm just a random guy and not the farking President.

That movie was bad.  If you enjoyed it, you either know dick about Star Trek or are just plain stupid and like flashy, mindless action that makes somewhere near zero sense.
 
2013-11-15 12:04:33 AM

fusillade762: Solon Isonomia: fusillade762: The thing I never understood about Star Wars: where are the missiles and torpedoes?

*cough* "The shaft is ray-shield so you'll have to use proton torpedoes."

OK, so ONE TIME. This is more what I expect space battles to look like:

[persephonemagazine.com image 590x329]
[i8.photobucket.com image 710x400]


Tons of missiles in both episodes II and III.
 
2013-11-15 12:09:01 AM
In the time between the sixth and seventh film, have they finally upgraded R2-D2 so he can speak an understandable language and not just beeps and bleeps?
 
2013-11-15 12:23:01 AM

Befuddled: In the time between the sixth and seventh film, have they finally upgraded R2-D2 so he can speak an understandable language and not just beeps and bleeps?


what about the sweeps and the creeps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXKOsajNZY4
 
2013-11-15 12:26:41 AM

John Nash: Befuddled: In the time between the sixth and seventh film, have they finally upgraded R2-D2 so he can speak an understandable language and not just beeps and bleeps?

what about the sweeps and the creeps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXKOsajNZY4


Spaceballs was a better Star Wars movie than any of the prequels.
 
2013-11-15 12:28:34 AM

Spaced Cowboy: karmachameleon: Star Trek (2009) - 95% / 89%

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - 87% / 90%

It's like all 10% of people who didn't like these movies post right here on Fark!

/I bet the movies they like are so cool that we've never heard of them before...

I'd like to introduce you to the concept of big budget movie shills.  You don't think all the ST budget went into $3.50 flashlights to shine into the camera did you?  I assure you, there was plenty of money left to pay off dopes who have never watched a single episode of star trek or seen a coherent plot in their lives.  That second movie was an 87% if i'm the farking President of the United States and i'm pretty certain i'm just a random guy and not the farking President.

That movie was bad.  If you enjoyed it, you either know dick about Star Trek or are just plain stupid and like flashy, mindless action that makes somewhere near zero sense.


Let me guess, you hated Voyager and Enterprise as well, right?
 
2013-11-15 12:31:38 AM

Active introvert: mjbok: Active introvert: So when is this new one supposed to be set? After Return of the Jedi or before Phantom Menace? Or sometime in between?

Basically realtime, so 35 years after the BoE (Battle of Endor).

(groan) Whose fighting who now? How many times can you go to the well people.


It is literally called "Star Wars", ya know?
 
2013-11-15 12:35:12 AM

fusillade762: OK, so ONE TIME.


the falcon's concussion missiles destabilized the core/reactor/whatever of the second death star too
 
2013-11-15 12:40:50 AM

ParadoxDice: mjbok: Bootysama: ParadoxDice: And considering this is after the trilogy, the droid should be a bit more beat up/aged and not shiny and new.

Funny thing about robots is, as they are not people, they can have parts easily replaced with brand new shiny ones.

What is the shelf life of an Astromech.  Given that he was at least 20 by episode IV, he'd be 50 by now.  Granted they may last, but tech (even when it still works) tends to be replaced.

I agree. One of the things that Star Wars gave us was the idea of a "used future".

Plus, how many people here just replaced worn parts on their VCR vs just getting a DVD player? Actually, I have a better "bad analogy". Although we're getting the next generation of video game systems this month, there are people who still have thier original 8 bit Nintendos. Perhaps they still work. But they probably are showing signs of wear and tear. And those Nintendos never were shot at.(Heh, that I know of.)


I've still got an old G3 iMac, and it still runs nearly as well as the day I got it. Oddly, it's the only Mac I've had that didn't die on me, which is why I don't use Macs anymore.
 
2013-11-15 12:41:42 AM

Spaced Cowboy: karmachameleon: Star Trek (2009) - 95% / 89%

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - 87% / 90%

It's like all 10% of people who didn't like these movies post right here on Fark!

/I bet the movies they like are so cool that we've never heard of them before...

I'd like to introduce you to the concept of big budget movie shills.  You don't think all the ST budget went into $3.50 flashlights to shine into the camera did you?  I assure you, there was plenty of money left to pay off dopes who have never watched a single episode of star trek or seen a coherent plot in their lives.  That second movie was an 87% if i'm the farking President of the United States and i'm pretty certain i'm just a random guy and not the farking President.

That movie was bad.  If you enjoyed it, you either know dick about Star Trek or are just plain stupid and like flashy, mindless action that makes somewhere near zero sense.


(points and laughs at Spaced Cowboy)
 
2013-11-15 12:47:27 AM
That's one of the droids I'm looking for.
 
2013-11-15 12:47:29 AM

LectertheChef: I've still got an old G3 iMac, and it still runs nearly as well as the day I got it. Oddly, it's the only Mac I've had that didn't die on me, which is why I don't use Macs anymore.


I used a lime iMac DV from 2000 for 7 years.  Eventually, the CRT died, though I actually plugged in an external display for a little while.  I'm still using the dual core Intel based replacement iMac.
 
2013-11-15 12:50:49 AM

Spaced Cowboy: karmachameleon: Star Trek (2009) - 95% / 89%

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - 87% / 90%

It's like all 10% of people who didn't like these movies post right here on Fark!

/I bet the movies they like are so cool that we've never heard of them before...

I'd like to introduce you to the concept of big budget movie shills.  You don't think all the ST budget went into $3.50 flashlights to shine into the camera did you?  I assure you, there was plenty of money left to pay off dopes who have never watched a single episode of star trek or seen a coherent plot in their lives.  That second movie was an 87% if i'm the farking President of the United States and i'm pretty certain i'm just a random guy and not the farking President.

That movie was bad.  If you enjoyed it, you either know dick about Star Trek or are just plain stupid and like flashy, mindless action that makes somewhere near zero sense.


As opposed to classic Star Trek, which was all about quality storytelling and coherent plots. For fark's sake, TOS was classic 60's camp, fun and stupid. TNG was just total bullshiat. Every problem was solved by Data and Geordi fixing it with science. Usually one of the other crew members would distract the problem, in their own stupid way. Warf would let it beat the crap out of him, Picard would philosophize with it, Troi would try to reason with it, or Riker would try to fark it. In the end though, Data and Geordi would fix it with science. Deep Space Nine was good, Voyager wasn't always awful, Enterprise I couldn't even make it through the first episode it was so farking boring.

That's Star Trek.
 
2013-11-15 12:54:11 AM

Alphax: LectertheChef: I've still got an old G3 iMac, and it still runs nearly as well as the day I got it. Oddly, it's the only Mac I've had that didn't die on me, which is why I don't use Macs anymore.

I used a lime iMac DV from 2000 for 7 years.  Eventually, the CRT died, though I actually plugged in an external display for a little while.  I'm still using the dual core Intel based replacement iMac.


I used my iMac for a long time, and used it when the other two Macs died on me, until I could get a replacement. After adjusting to Windows though, I actually prefer it to the useless pile of crap that OSX has become.
 
2013-11-15 12:56:36 AM

Solon Isonomia: NewWorldDan: And other than Simon Pegg's portrayal of Mr. Scott, they were awful.

Uhh, Karl Urban's Dr. McCoy was awful?

[smhttp.14409.nexcesscdn.net image 590x300]


He was a caricature.  McCoy was soulful, protective, and a little ornery.  He was the humanity to Spock's...alienity. A genuine good ol' country doctor. Urban's McCoy (in the first one, I've not seen the second) is slapstick humor.
 
2013-11-15 12:59:40 AM

Snapper Carr: [i.imgur.com image 450x338]


You missed a spot

i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-15 12:59:42 AM
Wow, that had me creaming my jeans... I thought it was a shot of actual acting.
 
2013-11-15 01:09:19 AM
Rage on, Trekkies.

I hope the next one has to do with whales and time travel.
 
2013-11-15 01:12:58 AM

gadian: Solon Isonomia: NewWorldDan: And other than Simon Pegg's portrayal of Mr. Scott, they were awful.

Uhh, Karl Urban's Dr. McCoy was awful?

[smhttp.14409.nexcesscdn.net image 590x300]

He was a caricature.  McCoy was soulful, protective, and a little ornery.  He was the humanity to Spock's...alienity. A genuine good ol' country doctor. Urban's McCoy (in the first one, I've not seen the second) is slapstick humor.


He was good enough that it left Leonard Nimoy pining for his old friend.
 
2013-11-15 01:25:16 AM
So it's a picture of R2D2 . . . looking exactly the way it's always looked.

Oooo. I think I have goose bumps.
 
2013-11-15 01:26:38 AM

Bslim: He'll do for this franchise the same thing he did for Trek...yipeee!


"Luke......I am not our father."
 
2013-11-15 01:32:59 AM

Spaced Cowboy: karmachameleon: Star Trek (2009) - 95% / 89%

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - 87% / 90%

It's like all 10% of people who didn't like these movies post right here on Fark!

/I bet the movies they like are so cool that we've never heard of them before...

I'd like to introduce you to the concept of big budget movie shills.  You don't think all the ST budget went into $3.50 flashlights to shine into the camera did you?  I assure you, there was plenty of money left to pay off dopes who have never watched a single episode of star trek or seen a coherent plot in their lives.  That second movie was an 87% if i'm the farking President of the United States and i'm pretty certain i'm just a random guy and not the farking President.

That movie was bad.  If you enjoyed it, you either know dick about Star Trek or are just plain stupid and like flashy, mindless action that makes somewhere near zero sense.


lol...wow, you sure put me in my place, you raging Trekkie you!  What should we call this, argument by denial?

Fact:  both movies were well liked by critics and audiences alike.  (The shills probably liked them too.)  If your best rebuttal is to close your eyes and stick your head in the sand like you did up above, displaying your ass for all to see, then I rest my case.
 
2013-11-15 01:33:12 AM

chewielouie: Spaced Cowboy: karmachameleon: Star Trek (2009) - 95% / 89%

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - 87% / 90%

It's like all 10% of people who didn't like these movies post right here on Fark!

/I bet the movies they like are so cool that we've never heard of them before...

I'd like to introduce you to the concept of big budget movie shills.  You don't think all the ST budget went into $3.50 flashlights to shine into the camera did you?  I assure you, there was plenty of money left to pay off dopes who have never watched a single episode of star trek or seen a coherent plot in their lives.  That second movie was an 87% if i'm the farking President of the United States and i'm pretty certain i'm just a random guy and not the farking President.

That movie was bad.  If you enjoyed it, you either know dick about Star Trek or are just plain stupid and like flashy, mindless action that makes somewhere near zero sense.

Let me guess, you hated Voyager and Enterprise as well, right?


I simply hate shiatty Baysplosion movies with fantastically retarded plotlines that shamelessly steal iconic scenes from far better movies in order to paste together undeserved "homages", while simultaneously managing to ignore even the most basic canon of a science fiction franchise that spanned nearly 50 years prior to Derp Mcfarking Flashlight's re-imagining.  I guess if you give zero shiats about Star Trek and are incredibly dim, you don't mind the direction of the new Star Trek.

To anyone with more than an 85 IQ, you have to look at that movie as completely ridiculous and immersion breaking.  The new movie gifted us with such amazing plot devices as:  spaceships hiding underwater instead of in space, instantaneous transportation with unlimited range, magic resurrection blood that works on wildly different species, humans/vulcans that now have jedi powers and can fall hundreds of feet without injury, a warp core that requires advanced rock climbing skills to properly maintenance in an emergency yet can be kicked back into working order, a spaceship "falling" towards the planet Earth from 270,000 km above the planet (gravity doesn't work that way.jpeg), torpedoes randomly and somehow secretly stuffed with human popsicles, an hour long "secret" showdown between the Enterprise and USS Whateverthefarkstupidbadguyspaceship in Earth's orbit without being seen.

I mean they spend literally half the damn movie a mere 270,000km from Earth and not a single soul notices.  We'd notice that with today's technology.  They even say point blank on screen that they are extremely close to Earth.  I'm pretty sure there would have been fleet of starships right there to assist within a few seconds of those ships dropping out of warp.  It'd be like having a modern day war movie where a fully visible enemy warship arrives at our nation's capital without a single person noticing for a few hours.  Everyone in the theater would be like "dafuq is this dumb shiat.  Where's the military?"

About half way through the movie, the list of absolutely retarded things happening on screen took me entirely out of the movie.  I can only suspend disbelief so far and when a movie actively insults the general concept of intelligence I see no value in pretending such a movie is good.

It's sad that the other big budget action moview about giant robots punching giant ocean monsters in the face was 100 times more coherent.  How a new wave Godzilla movie had a better plot than a major Star Trek motion picture, I'll never understand.

and since i'm pretty drunk and kinda on a roll, Kahn wasn't an arrogant, indestructable British ninja, ffs.
 
2013-11-15 02:15:06 AM
Spaced Cowboy: ~~and since i'm pretty drunk and kinda on a roll, Kahn wasn't an arrogant, indestructable British ninja, ffs.

Nor was his name Kahn.

/It's *KHAN*
//read the box or watch the opening titles of STAR TREK II
//a drunk *and* butthurt...the worst of both worlds
 
2013-11-15 03:37:22 AM

LectertheChef: Spaced Cowboy: karmachameleon: Star Trek (2009) - 95% / 89%

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) - 87% / 90%

It's like all 10% of people who didn't like these movies post right here on Fark!

/I bet the movies they like are so cool that we've never heard of them before...

I'd like to introduce you to the concept of big budget movie shills.  You don't think all the ST budget went into $3.50 flashlights to shine into the camera did you?  I assure you, there was plenty of money left to pay off dopes who have never watched a single episode of star trek or seen a coherent plot in their lives.  That second movie was an 87% if i'm the farking President of the United States and i'm pretty certain i'm just a random guy and not the farking President.

That movie was bad.  If you enjoyed it, you either know dick about Star Trek or are just plain stupid and like flashy, mindless action that makes somewhere near zero sense.

As opposed to classic Star Trek, which was all about quality storytelling and coherent plots. For fark's sake, TOS was classic 60's camp, fun and stupid. TNG was just total bullshiat. Every problem was solved by Data and Geordi fixing it with science. Usually one of the other crew members would distract the problem, in their own stupid way. Warf would let it beat the crap out of him, Picard would philosophize with it, Troi would try to reason with it, or Riker would try to fark it. In the end though, Data and Geordi would fix it with science. Deep Space Nine was good, Voyager wasn't always awful, Enterprise I couldn't even make it through the first episode it was so farking boring.

That's Star Trek.


So what....because Star Trek hasn't always lived up to higher standards in the past we're just supposed to accept that's the way it is and put up with lower standards in the current stuff?

How about....no.
 
2013-11-15 03:40:17 AM

Spaced Cowboy: If you enjoyed it, you either know dick about Star Trek or are just plain stupid and like flashy, mindless action that makes somewhere near zero sense.

And

I was drunk and stoned. What's your point?

Oh, yeah - liking things that you don't like = calling checkmate on The Incredible Sulk
 
2013-11-15 03:55:32 AM

MechaPyx: So what....because Star Trek hasn't always lived up to higher standards in the past we're just supposed to accept that's the way it is and put up with lower standards in the current stuff?

How about....no.


It's not lower standards.  That's just false.

You're ignoring a lot of stupid stuff in 99% of Star Trek.  It's really NOT Star Trek without inconsistencies and contradictions.
 
2013-11-15 04:37:48 AM
R2D2 hasn't aged well. Nobody wants to see a once-was embarrass himself. How about some new blood oil on the franchise?
 
2013-11-15 04:38:31 AM

starsrift: R2D2 hasn't aged well. Nobody wants to see a once-was embarrass himself. How about some new blood oil on the franchise?


So, the strike button is over there.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report