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  
•       •       •

16553 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Nov 2013 at 8:24 PM (40 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
 
2013-11-15 04:42:34 AM
Perhaps 'aged' isn't the word, but I think people now have higher expectations about what robots/androids can look like and do.
 
2013-11-15 05:08:20 AM
Artoo? WTF is that?
 
2013-11-15 05:18:17 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.


The point isn't that Star Trek has always had elements with lower standards, the point is that the standards aren't lower.  In fact, they're par for the course.  It's just that some of you (very few of you, really, although you guys are awfully loud) have become so myopic about this that you're essentially chasing us kids off your lawn.  And when has misplaced nostalgia ever been a good argument for whether a work is any good or not?

Abram's Star Trek movies are excellent.  You don't like them, and that's fine.   Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive.  Objectively judging the quality of something and expressing your personal taste are two entirely different things, and all combinations are possible and plausible.  In other words, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it sucks (and vice versa).

/Make it so.
 
2013-11-15 05:32:39 AM
Star Trek: Into Derpness was fairly terrible for Trek fans, but that's not who the movie was made for. Hell, they gave up on Trek movies being for Trek fans about halfway through Generations. After the first 10 minutes of First Contact, if you want to be generous.

Give it up, guys.

-----------------------

The only thing I'm hoping for with Star Wars is that Abrams has the presence of mind to keep a consistent badguy/group of badguys through the trilogy, rather than introducing a new threat that is handled the same way each movie.
 
2013-11-15 05:39:08 AM

Jensaarai: The only thing I'm hoping for with Star Wars is that Abrams has the presence of mind to keep a consistent badguy/group of badguys through the trilogy, rather than introducing a new threat that is handled the same way each movie.


That we don't know who that might be is a bit bothersome.  If they go by the established material, there's the Imperial Remnant, Grand Admiral Thawn, and those freaky Vong guys from outside the galaxy.   But those are all less than 35 years after the Battle of Endor, so..  I dunno what they'll do.
 
2013-11-15 05:41:31 AM
I would rather they make that rumored movie that was a rip-off of Seven Samurai just set in the Star Wars universe that idea sounds pretty sweet.
 
2013-11-15 06:01:24 AM

Alphax: Jensaarai: The only thing I'm hoping for with Star Wars is that Abrams has the presence of mind to keep a consistent badguy/group of badguys through the trilogy, rather than introducing a new threat that is handled the same way each movie.

That we don't know who that might be is a bit bothersome.  If they go by the established material, there's the Imperial Remnant, Grand Admiral Thawn, and those freaky Vong guys from outside the galaxy.   But those are all less than 35 years after the Battle of Endor, so..  I dunno what they'll do.


I doubt they're going to even give a second thought to EU stuff - even the good parts. At most, there will be a few references dropped here or there that make no sense. Like someone will be in the middle of a battle, and the comm officer will tell the main Sithy Bad Guy on the bridge of the vaguely triangular ship that "Admiral Thrawn reports he has broken through the enemy lines, sir!"
 
2013-11-15 06:02:36 AM
I heard part of the story was released by J.J. Abrams.

Han is going to die, but Chewbacca will bring him back to life after discovering you can bring dead ewoks back to life by injecting them with Jedi blood. Meanwhile Jabba the Hutt who mysteriously survived Han's rescue put a price on Luke's head after being pissed over the rescue. Boba Fett captures Luke, freezes him in carbonite, and gives him to Jabba the Hutt. Then Han plans an elaborate rescue where he tricks Jabba by gifting him R2D2 and C3PO. After the rescue there is a final epic battle where they destroy a Deathstar.
 
2013-11-15 07:21:36 AM
I thought they didn't even have a script yet.
 
2013-11-15 07:59:56 AM

Xythero: I thought they didn't even have a script yet.


I'm pretty sure R2 would be in the film whether there is a script or not.
 
2013-11-15 08:00:42 AM
I'm late to the game here but here's my 2 cents:

I wasn't a Trek fan growing up but I can see where Trek fans would be upset.  Having said that, I enjoyed the new Trek films.  No, the characters don't act remotely like I remembering them acting in the originals, but I enjoyed them anyway.

Now I'm a HUGE Star Wars fan.  I was 8 when A New Hope came out so yeah, I'm the KEY demographic for these.  And I can tell you right now, I'm excited about the new films.

I don't see them as a continuation of the originals, just a different take ON the originals.

In fact I would be for a fresh reboot OF he originals.  Why?  Because I still love the original, nothing can take that away from me, just like nothing will take away the original Trek from YOU.

But Lucas himself ruined any 'good will' of Star Wars with endless tinkering, too much 'product' out there and just awful prequels.

So I'm just curious to see others take on Star Wars.

/side note, someone made a Night of the Living Dead and like every 30 seconds was spliced with fan edits?
Like it was a contest to remake NotLD, you could use puppets, stop motion, animation, live action, whatever.
So when they got all the entries they spliced them together in one movie ... and it was really interesting to see all those different takes on the same movie
 
2013-11-15 08:34:21 AM
Snapper Carr

/Every Star Trek film between The Undiscovered Country and Abrams' reboot has been mediocre to terrible. The answer to the idiocy that is brannon braga (and rick berman) is not lindolf and abrams.
 
2013-11-15 09:17:30 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!


Do you really not know how Rotten Tomatoes works?
1 - it's critics, so critical darlings or 'redeemed' old stories get a boost
2 - if they give a movie 2.5 stars or better equivalent, then their review goes into the 'fresh' column.  If it's 2 stars or worse, it's 'rotten'.

So a movie that most critics think is 'decent' and that movie-goers will be satisfied with gets a solid fresh, 80-90% is not hard to reach.  Puss n Boots 84%. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy 83%.  Looper 93%.  Il Futuro 87%.

It's analogous to presidential elections.  Reagan only won 59% of the votes in 1984, but he was rated 98% fresh in the electoral college.  Doesn't make him bestest president eva, or immune to criticism.
 
2013-11-15 09:30:22 AM

Alphax: 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.


Abrams is supposed to be hot shiat. He has access to money and talent and that's the best he could do? I expect better.

Change is good. I'm ok with the reboot. More action and less philosophy? Shake things up a bit? Groovy. I'm not ok with crap storytelling. Into Darkness had a crap story and was poorly executed. He didn't screw the pooch nearly as badly as Lucas did with the Star Wars prequels but Into Darkness fell well below the mark. Nice eye candy though.
 
2013-11-15 09:33:19 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.


The empire came unglued when the emperor died but its not like all the ships evaporated. Every Tom Dick and Harry with a star destroyer probably declared themselves king of some pebble somewhere. Lots of messes to clean up.
 
2013-11-15 09:35:35 AM

MechaPyx: Alphax: 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.

Abrams is supposed to be hot shiat. He has access to money and talent and that's the best he could do? I expect better.

Change is good. I'm ok with the reboot. More action and less philosophy? Shake things up a bit? Groovy. I'm not ok with crap storytelling. Into Darkness had a crap story and was poorly executed. He didn't screw the pooch nearly as badly as Lucas did with the Star Wars prequels but Into Darkness fell well below the mark. Nice eye candy though.


And why do you say it was crap storytelling?
 
2013-11-15 09:36:44 AM

Bacontastesgood: 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!

Do you really not know how Rotten Tomatoes works?
1 - it's critics, so critical darlings or 'redeemed' old stories get a boost
2 - if they give a movie 2.5 stars or better equivalent, then their review goes into the 'fresh' column.  If it's 2 stars or worse, it's 'rotten'.

So a movie that most critics think is 'decent' and that movie-goers will be satisfied with gets a solid fresh, 80-90% is not hard to reach.  Puss n Boots 84%. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy 83%.  Looper 93%.  Il Futuro 87%.

It's analogous to presidential elections.  Reagan only won 59% of the votes in 1984, but he was rated 98% fresh in the electoral college.  Doesn't make him bestest president eva, or immune to criticism.


All good movies, so what's your point?

You Trek nerds don't even seem to realize how you're ruining it for yourself.  Hey, it doesn't matter to me.  I love old Trek, I love new Trek - a good movie is a good movie.  You guys are the ones suffering.  It's sad that it's self-inflicted, but it's no skin off my nose.  Think whatever you want.  But don't expect the rest of us non-nerds to provide a lot of sympathy.

They aren't bad movies - you just don't like them.  There's a difference.
 
2013-11-15 10:02:33 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-15 10:05:45 AM

karmachameleon: All good movies, so what's your point?

You Trek nerds don't even seem to realize how you're ruining it for yourself. Hey, it doesn't matter to me. I love old Trek, I love new Trek - a good movie is a good movie. You guys are the ones suffering. It's sad that it's self-inflicted, but it's no skin off my nose. Think whatever you want. But don't expect the rest of us non-nerds to provide a lot of sympathy.

They aren't bad movies - you just don't like them. There's a difference.


Agreed, and I've been watching Star Trek since the '80s. Did the new Treks have plot holes? Yes. Did 'Into Darkness' make a few missteps, most notably by trying to recreate the iconic scene from 'Wrath of Khan?' Certainly. Did I enjoy them despite all this? You bet. Star Trek, even good Star Trek, still has plenty of plot holes and inconsistencies. Years ago, there was an author who wrote four 'Nitpickers Guides' to Star Trek, filling hundreds of pages with plot holes large and small. And he was a fan of the show.

This is why these new Star Trek movies are wonderful. It gives us geeks on the internet something to complain about. That's the gift Star Trek has been giving us for decades. First it was Kirk v. Picard. For a while it was Westley Crusher, until we all realized that Wil is awesome and declared him our king. Then Voyager and Enterprise let us rage for well over a decade. The Next Generation movies gave us good fodder as well.

Then it all went away for a while, and we didn't have any new Star Trek to complain about. I mean, we could keep complaining about Voyager, but our hearts weren't in it. But then, when all was lost, we found out that there was going to be a new Star Trek movie, one that rebooted the Original Series. And since 2009, we've had fresh material to complain about. These movies will keep us sustained well into the next decade, and the more popular and well-regarded they are, the more we'll hate them.

That's not all. We also will get to rip apart the new Star Wars, and with J.J. behind the camera, it's going to be glorious. We also have plenty of superhero films to hate: Batman versus Superman, Avengers 2 and 3, Days of Future Past, to name a few.
 
2013-11-15 10:13:02 AM

Jensaarai: Star Trek: Into Derpness was fairly terrible for Trek fans, but that's not who the movie was made for. Hell, they gave up on Trek movies being for Trek fans about halfway through Generations. After the first 10 minutes of First Contact, if you want to be generous.

Give it up, guys.

-----------------------

The only thing I'm hoping for with Star Wars is that Abrams has the presence of mind to keep a consistent badguy/group of badguys through the trilogy, rather than introducing a new threat that is handled the same way each movie.


That weakened the prequels. Here's Darth maul! Wait, he's dead. Here's count dooku! Dies unceremoniously in the opening of the next film. Here's robot Jedi guy! Oh, he's bumped off quick. And don't give me that they were big in the cartoons, that's on the level of the ewok cartoon.
 
2013-11-15 10:13:45 AM

soporific: Agreed, and I've been watching Star Trek since the '80s. Did the new Treks have plot holes? Yes. Did 'Into Darkness' make a few missteps, most notably by trying to recreate the iconic scene from 'Wrath of Khan?' Certainly. Did I enjoy them despite all this? You bet. Star Trek, even good Star Trek, still has plenty of plot holes and inconsistencies. Years ago, there was an author who wrote four 'Nitpickers Guides' to Star Trek, filling hundreds of pages with plot holes large and small. And he was a fan of the show.


I've got a couple of those around the house.  And I can think of at least one that he missed that really bugged me.
 
2013-11-15 10:31:55 AM
It'll be malfunctioning within a day, the nearsighted scrap pile.
 
2013-11-15 11:01:03 AM

Fano: Jensaarai: Star Trek: Into Derpness was fairly terrible for Trek fans, but that's not who the movie was made for. Hell, they gave up on Trek movies being for Trek fans about halfway through Generations. After the first 10 minutes of First Contact, if you want to be generous.

Give it up, guys.

-----------------------

The only thing I'm hoping for with Star Wars is that Abrams has the presence of mind to keep a consistent badguy/group of badguys through the trilogy, rather than introducing a new threat that is handled the same way each movie.

That weakened the prequels. Here's Darth maul! Wait, he's dead. Here's count dooku! Dies unceremoniously in the opening of the next film. Here's robot Jedi guy! Oh, he's bumped off quick. And don't give me that they were big in the cartoons, that's on the level of the ewok cartoon.


You must not have watched either of the clone wars cartoons because they're both good.

Speaking of clone wars, what's the deal with the "good guys" using an army of billions of brainwashed and drugged child soldiers who have had half their lives stolen by growth accelerants? Kindof a dick move, Jedi.
 
2013-11-15 11:05:06 AM

Ned Stark: You must not have watched either of the clone wars cartoons because they're both good.


I still haven't seen those.. and Star Wars was the biggest part of my childhood.  I'm not sure where to go to find them.
 
2013-11-15 11:05:08 AM
thezeroroom.net
 
2013-11-15 11:17:13 AM

baufan2005: My prediction is that when this film comes out all the people who were mad at Lucas for ruining the prequels will be saying "I wish Lucas was back doing the films" Even though these will probably be better without him.


Nah, I fully expect the consensus to be: "Well, at least they're better than the prequels but still nothing compared to the originals." I know Abrams's movies get plenty of hate here but I think (and hope) most people like them better than Episodes 1 and 2 at least.
 
2013-11-15 11:35:39 AM

Alphax: MechaPyx: Alphax: 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.

Abrams is supposed to be hot shiat. He has access to money and talent and that's the best he could do? I expect better.

Change is good. I'm ok with the reboot. More action and less philosophy? Shake things up a bit? Groovy. I'm not ok with crap storytelling. Into Darkness had a crap story and was poorly executed. He didn't screw the pooch nearly as badly as Lucas did with the Star Wars prequels but Into Darkness fell well below the mark. Nice eye candy though.

And why do you say it was crap storytelling?


Because the idea of hiding a starship in an ocean is dumb, especially when you consider that the pre-technological society on the planet would have no way of detecting the ship in orbit. There was no reason to hide the ship there. I did love the way it looked rising out of the ocean though. And then they make a big deal out of not letting the aliens see the ship when they go to rescue Spock. Um, they could have just stayed in orbit in the first place and beamed him out if that was a concern. Very contrived scene. Given the unlimited range of transporters why even send a ship. Just assemble your bomb and beam it directly into the volcano from Starfleet HQ.

When Khan flies his little shuttle in to shoot all the Starfleet brass during their meeting where was security? You'd think they'd notice an unauthorized ship flying around. This is Khan though so maybe he outsmarted security. Right then. But then he beams himself all the way to the Klingon homeworld. Putting aside the technical limitations of transporters and the stupidity of removing those limitations....why exactly did Khan transport there? Qo'noS is months away at warp speed by the way. It's not a day trip. Also, if transporters have unlimited range why did the send a ship out there to bring him back? Why not just beam him back?

I don't understand why exactly I'm supposed to hate this Khan either. Admiral Marcus finds him and thaws him out, then enslaves him, and threatens to kill his friends if he doesn't do as he's told. Which, you know, Khan just put all their lives in jeopardy by backstabbing Admiral Marcus. What exactly was his plan there?

Admiral Marcus' secret base is hiding out by Jupiter? Not very hidden. Scotty manages to get a ship up close and infiltrate this supposedly high security facility too. If warp technology has advanced so far that they can make a day trip to the Klingon homeworld then they're perfectly capable of hiding this secret ship building facility someplace a lot farther away and less likely to be discovered than Starfleet's backyard.

Admiral Marcus' ship had serious firepower and couldn't destroy the Enterprise. The whole time it felt like he was pulling his punches. Also, they're having a firefight in the heart of Federation space. They're duking it out right by Earth and no one in Starfleet notices? No one tries to hail them? No ships stationed in the area come to have a look? Two Federation ships shooting the crap out of each other next to Earth. Someone might want to check that out.

The Enterprise loses power and despite being in a stationary position it get sucked into Earth's atmosphere from quite a distance away. Physics....how does it work?! Don't get me started on how easily Kirk was making his way around inside while the ship is falling through atmosphere either. Maybe he had help from the bridge crew rerouting anti-grav and inertial dampeners but they sure didn't say anything about it. It's amazing how the ship didn't break apart during reentry. Also, that whole thing with Kirk kicking the warp core back into place? Uh....no. Technology that complex really doesn't work that way. I'd like to see someone try that with a nuclear reactor....while falling through atmosphere at that.

Seriously though, why was I supposed to hate Khan? What was the point of even having him? So Abrams could ham handedly recreate the scene from Wrath of Khan? And then he kills off Kirk and brings him back a few minutes later with some magic blood that apparently heals everything including death. Even Miracle Max would be impressed. Abrams wrote himself into a corner on that scene and had to pull something out of his arse to get out of it.

The writing for this movie was amateur hour at best. It's kid stuff. If you let a kid write a movie script this is what you'd get. Nonsensical scenes that are included because the kid thought it was cool.

You know what they should have done? They should have had Kirk working with Khan to stop Admiral Marcus from starting a war with the Klingons and have the movie end with Khan betraying Kirk. Then follow up the story with the next movie. Then Kirk has a reason to hate the guy and track him down.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B22Uy7SBe4
 
2013-11-15 11:38:35 AM

Ned Stark: Fano: Jensaarai: Star Trek: Into Derpness was fairly terrible for Trek fans, but that's not who the movie was made for. Hell, they gave up on Trek movies being for Trek fans about halfway through Generations. After the first 10 minutes of First Contact, if you want to be generous.

Give it up, guys.

-----------------------

The only thing I'm hoping for with Star Wars is that Abrams has the presence of mind to keep a consistent badguy/group of badguys through the trilogy, rather than introducing a new threat that is handled the same way each movie.

That weakened the prequels. Here's Darth maul! Wait, he's dead. Here's count dooku! Dies unceremoniously in the opening of the next film. Here's robot Jedi guy! Oh, he's bumped off quick. And don't give me that they were big in the cartoons, that's on the level of the ewok cartoon.

You must not have watched either of the clone wars cartoons because they're both good.

Speaking of clone wars, what's the deal with the "good guys" using an army of billions of brainwashed and drugged child soldiers who have had half their lives stolen by growth accelerants? Kindof a dick move, Jedi.


I watched the tartakovsky one and while it was great, the idea that all of general grievous and count dooku comes from there is ridiculous. The toons should have been the filler background material while the movies where they did stuff. I didnt have to play x-wing to find out who this Han solo fellow was. I did also watch the first season of the clone wars.

Then again, my POV comes from ST:web RPG where star wars has a sliding scale of canon where the movies are sancrosanct, and everything on down is negotiable, or happened unless word of god said it didn't. So from your point of you perhaps it is I that am evil.
 
2013-11-15 12:12:50 PM
BTW Ned stark, I agree with you on the clone army being a dick move on the part of the Jedi. I guess after a long while of rumors from EU,I assumed the clone wars might be a long cold war with treachery and espionage, with clones being used as Elite assassins.
 
2013-11-15 12:40:15 PM

browntimmy: baufan2005: My prediction is that when this film comes out all the people who were mad at Lucas for ruining the prequels will be saying "I wish Lucas was back doing the films" Even though these will probably be better without him.

Nah, I fully expect the consensus to be: "Well, at least they're better than the prequels but still nothing compared to the originals." I know Abrams's movies get plenty of hate here but I think (and hope) most people like them better than Episodes 1 and 2 at least.


It's hard to take hardcore fans seriously. Many hardcore fans like hating on Abrams' movies because it's not how Gene Roddenberry would've made them, or they allegedly go against everything he believed in. Yet the one Star Trek movie that most embodies Roddenberry's philosophy, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, is one of the more widely-loathed Trek movies, and the Trek movie most fans love, Star Trek II, is the one Roddenberry hated most.
 
2013-11-15 12:44:18 PM
All of this stupid arguing and not one comment had noticed this:

JJ Abrams is wearing the same flannel shirt as George Lucas does.

Wow.

By the way, I liked the prequels in Star Wars and I liked all the Star Trek Movies.  So fark you.
 
2013-11-15 01:47:32 PM

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]


so you want to have space battles that look like they are taking place in a pressurized atmosphere? Rocket exhaust looks like the picture when you have an atmosphere to resist the expansion of the gas. go back and watch a shuttle or any other rocket launch video with the camera attached to the rocket and watch how the exhaust changes it shape as the atmospheric pressure decreases. at the end it is just less than perpendicular to the velocity vector.
 
2013-11-15 02:18:54 PM

Bith Set Me Up: browntimmy: baufan2005: My prediction is that when this film comes out all the people who were mad at Lucas for ruining the prequels will be saying "I wish Lucas was back doing the films" Even though these will probably be better without him.

Nah, I fully expect the consensus to be: "Well, at least they're better than the prequels but still nothing compared to the originals." I know Abrams's movies get plenty of hate here but I think (and hope) most people like them better than Episodes 1 and 2 at least.

It's hard to take hardcore fans seriously. Many hardcore fans like hating on Abrams' movies because it's not how Gene Roddenberry would've made them, or they allegedly go against everything he believed in. Yet the one Star Trek movie that most embodies Roddenberry's philosophy, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, is one of the more widely-loathed Trek movies, and the Trek movie most fans love, Star Trek II, is the one Roddenberry hated most.


Alternatively, you could read most people's issues with the movie and realize the real problem is with the two hours of absurd contrivances.

The idea of rebooting is fine. Star Trek needed a revitalization. This isn't fanboy hatred, its more the fact that the movie has some very real script issues that are so frequent and so absurd that it becomes hard to enjoy the movie on any level.

This movie has most of the jj fans arguing that scenes like a ship "falling" out of space from somewhere near the moon is masterful writing. Yet somehow we're the ones that don't get it...

Most of you are massively missing the point of our criticism.
 
2013-11-15 02:25:30 PM
All the biatching and moaning in here reeks of old man complex.

/There is no greater rage than that of an old nerd
 
2013-11-15 02:58:31 PM
I would totally buy one of these for a pet. The droid, not Abrams.
 
2013-11-15 03:01:55 PM
So there's no possible way of expressing dislike of a clearly bad script without being called and old fanboy? Maybe, just maybe, the script sucked. It's not like I didn't say the same thing for movies like Generations and Nemesis.

I have no problem with rebooting Trek. Trek was clearly dead when JJ came along. I think they could have explored the universe a little more than going back to the Kirk/Spock well but whatever, that's fine. I don't even care about the lens flares. Just get some decent writers. I don't think that's an unreasonable fanboy request.
 
2013-11-15 03:06:30 PM

Spaced Cowboy: Most of you are massively missing the point of our criticism.


Some of us, sure.

A good chunk of us have also seen TOS and think that Abrams doesn't have a monoply on convluted bullshiat that makes no sense.

www.startrek.com

Like those of us enjoying the new movies and doing the same thing, you can explain away most of the things that may not make logisitcal sense. That doesn;t mean it isn't bullshiat. The new movies just happens to be OUR flavor of bullshiat.
 
2013-11-15 04:12:34 PM
Abrams' Trek is a reboot of The Original Series and has the flavor of that show. Trekkies who grew up on the Next Generation and that version of Star Trek don't understand that Picard and the gang weren't really Star Trek at all, that was a completely different vibe and show. But they grew up with it, so that's what they think Star Trek is. Nope. Star Trek is a goofy 60s TV show that was turned into some movies of varying quality. All were cheesy fun though, and that's Star Trek. Not Picard moping around while Geordi blathers techo-babble and Data makes painfully bad jokes.
 
2013-11-15 05:07:56 PM

Mugato: So there's no possible way of expressing dislike of a clearly bad script without being called and old fanboy? Maybe, just maybe, the script sucked. It's not like I didn't say the same thing for movies like Generations and Nemesis.

I have no problem with rebooting Trek. Trek was clearly dead when JJ came along. I think they could have explored the universe a little more than going back to the Kirk/Spock well but whatever, that's fine. I don't even care about the lens flares. Just get some decent writers. I don't think that's an unreasonable fanboy request.


Do you really think the huurrr duurrr fanboiz stuff is genuine criticism? They aren't making a point, dude they're just masturbating their egos over how much more mature, socially adept, and sexually experienced they are than some guy they've imagined. Don't go trying to argue a point over their stroking motion.
 
2013-11-15 07:09:07 PM

RedTank: All the biatching and moaning in here reeks of old man complex.

/There is no greater rage than that of an old nerd


Into Darkness looked fantastic but the storywriting fell short. Tastes great, less filling, etc and I'm absolutely going to point it out and rag on Abrams for not doing his best. This isn't hate for Abrams specifically or for the changes he made in rebooting Trek. I'm no purist.

This is criticism against a sub par effort. I'd have the same complaints no matter whose name was attached to the movie. I'm vocal because I really like Star Trek, I like the direction Abrams has taken it, I want more, and I really want to like it but he's making it difficult to do so. He's harshin' my buzz and I'm not happy about it.
 
2013-11-15 07:39:38 PM

Mugato: So there's no possible way of expressing dislike of a clearly bad script without being called and old fanboy? Maybe, just maybe, the script sucked. It's not like I didn't say the same thing for movies like Generations and Nemesis.

I have no problem with rebooting Trek. Trek was clearly dead when JJ came along. I think they could have explored the universe a little more than going back to the Kirk/Spock well but whatever, that's fine. I don't even care about the lens flares. Just get some decent writers. I don't think that's an unreasonable fanboy request.


Sure there's a way - have a good argument backed by solid reasoning.  Reference Red Letter Media's reviews of the Star Wars prequel movies - he rightly tears those apart with no hint of "old fanboyism".  The reason you guys are having so much trouble getting away with it on Abrams Star Trek movies is that it isn't true, so it's hard to give good reasons for something that isn't there.

You don't like them, we get that.  But they are good movies.  There is a difference.  I'll say this as many times as necessary.

(It's particularly hilarious that you don't like the new Star Trek movies, but you like the new Star Wars movies.  lol...frankly that's pretty revealing about your taste in movies, and tells me how seriously I should take your opinion.)
 
2013-11-15 08:06:07 PM

karmachameleon: Reference Red Letter Media's reviews of the Star Wars prequel movies - he rightly tears those apart with no hint of "old fanboyism".  The reason you guys are having so much trouble getting away with it on Abrams Star Trek movies is that it isn't true, so it's hard to give good reasons for something that isn't there.


Actually I watched the Red Letter Media reviews and they admitted that the first JJ Trek was stupid even though they liked it and didn't like the last one at all.
 
2013-11-15 08:16:30 PM

Mugato: karmachameleon: Reference Red Letter Media's reviews of the Star Wars prequel movies - he rightly tears those apart with no hint of "old fanboyism".  The reason you guys are having so much trouble getting away with it on Abrams Star Trek movies is that it isn't true, so it's hard to give good reasons for something that isn't there.

Actually I watched the Red Letter Media reviews and they admitted that the first JJ Trek was stupid even though they liked it and didn't like the last one at all.


Um, no, he liked the 2009 movie.  Regardless, the point is that that's how you critique without having to worry about being called merely a fanboy.  You work in the industry, you should know how to critique this stuff properly.
 
2013-11-15 08:22:54 PM

karmachameleon: Um, no, he liked the 2009 movie.  Regardless, the point is that that's how you critique without having to worry about being called merely a fanboy.  You work in the industry, you should know how to critique this stuff properly.


I and others have outlined how the writing was terrible. If you disagree then fine The movies made money so the box office is on your side. Doesn't mean others can't have an opinion about the ridiculousness of the scripts.
 
2013-11-15 08:39:34 PM

Mugato: karmachameleon: Um, no, he liked the 2009 movie.  Regardless, the point is that that's how you critique without having to worry about being called merely a fanboy.  You work in the industry, you should know how to critique this stuff properly.

I and others have outlined how the writing was terrible. If you disagree then fine The movies made money so the box office is on your side. Doesn't mean others can't have an opinion about the ridiculousness of the scripts.


Ok.  BTW I'm just curious, what do you do (i.e. what's your job)?
 
2013-11-15 08:42:35 PM

karmachameleon: Ok.  BTW I'm just curious, what do you do (i.e. what's your job)?


Not that it has anything to do with anything but video editing, motion graphics and web programming.
 
2013-11-15 08:56:20 PM
Isn't that droid like a hundred years old by now? Aren't there better models out now?
 
2013-11-15 10:00:56 PM
tng.trekcore.com

See, lens flare is nothing new in Star Trek!

Seriously, though, can't we wait until he's actually made the movie before we offer our judgements?
 
2013-11-15 10:28:34 PM

Mugato: karmachameleon: Ok.  BTW I'm just curious, what do you do (i.e. what's your job)?

Not that it has anything to do with anything but video editing, motion graphics and web programming.


Cool.  No, I was just curious.  I envy you working in the industry.
 
2013-11-15 10:51:15 PM
The shaft is ray shielded, and despite the fact that it leads directly to a reactor core of a frightful design that half a day of review showed will fail like a thermonuclear bomb if hit by a missile, nobody thought to put some metal bars over it to keep missiles out.

Then again, despite having mastered interstellar travel and light saber construction, neither the Empire nor the rebels seems to have ever thought of developing a "heat-seaking" missile that can hit a two-meter diameter thermal exhaust port.  Instead, they have to attack with small fighters and bomb it conventionally.

The fact that the Empire chose to position the exhaust port in the crack between the butt cheeks was clear indication to the rebel attack planners that the Empire does, in fact, have a sense of humor.
 
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