Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Spiffy, J.J. Abrams, music production  
•       •       •

16572 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Nov 2013 at 8:24 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2013-11-14 08:55:28 PM  
5 votes:

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


So, make them watchable again?

/Every Star Trek film between The Undiscovered Country and Abrams' reboot has been mediocre to terrible. Abrams' two installments have been entertaining space action popcorn flicks.
2013-11-15 01:33:12 AM  
3 votes:

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.
2013-11-14 08:44:17 PM  
3 votes:

vatica40: Wait, are they actually actually making this thing? Ever since people started talking about it, I always assumed it was so ridiculous that it would never actually make it that far and would fall through. Huh. That's dumb.


Well let's see. Disney paid Lucas 4 billion for the property and the Prequels, despite the internet hate made a few billion, not counting DVD and merchandising. So yeah, I think they'll be committed to making more films.
2013-11-14 08:16:59 PM  
3 votes:
Zzzzzzzzz

we reached peak star wars long ago
2013-11-15 03:01:55 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:18:54 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:44:18 PM  
2 votes:
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 05:18:17 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:02:16 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-11-14 11:58:49 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:58:38 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:56:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:52:00 PM  
2 votes:
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 09:50:58 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-11-14 09:45:56 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-11-14 09:43:05 PM  
2 votes:

TheGregiss: Yeah I spent the last decade being a star wars hating fanboy. I'm done. I'm back to the little kid super stoked about these movies. They can suck to high heaven and I will not give a fark, and will be the biggest fan. There. I said it.


My expectations for Episode I back in the day were through the roof. Now, I'll just be happy if the new trilogy is watchable.
2013-11-14 09:28:48 PM  
2 votes:

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


Why would they let R2 get beat up and aged? He doesn't belong to a rag tag rebellion anymore, he belongs to the New Republic, the establishment.
2013-11-16 01:37:54 AM  
1 vote:

mjbok: Mugato: The movies made money barely broke even so the box office is on your side.


You must be a studio accountant

Star Trek
Budget $150 million
Box office $385,494,555

ST:ID

Budget $190 million
Box office $467,365,246
2013-11-16 12:05:52 AM  
1 vote:

karmachameleon: Reference Red Letter Media's reviews of the Star Wars prequel movies - he rightly tears those apart with no hint of "old fanboyism".


Except for all of those parts where he explicitly refers to the original trilogy and why it was better.

Anyway, shame that you can't accept that you just like any old crap hollywood pumps out, and that JJ Abrams really does make lame movies.  What's funny is he's even starting to publicly admit that he sucks, and all you dick suckers who had his back about the lens flares, or the totally adrift story of Lost are left looking pretty dumb.

Let me guess, you totally liked Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?
2013-11-15 08:22:54 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:12:34 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:25:30 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:47:32 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:40:15 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:35:39 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:36:44 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:30:22 AM  
1 vote:

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 05:39:08 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:50:49 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:47:27 AM  
1 vote:
That's one of the droids I'm looking for.
2013-11-15 12:35:12 AM  
1 vote:

fusillade762: OK, so ONE TIME.


the falcon's concussion missiles destabilized the core/reactor/whatever of the second death star too
2013-11-15 12:28:34 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:09:01 AM  
1 vote:
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?
2013-11-14 11:58:57 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-11-14 11:40:34 PM  
1 vote:
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 11:23:46 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:16:11 PM  
1 vote:
api.ning.com
2013-11-14 10:56:11 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:07:10 PM  
1 vote:

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Zzzzzzzzz

we reached peak star wars long ago


No....YOUR peak Star Wars experience happened long ago. In contrast my two older grandsons (11 and 13) think SW is a new franchise, because it's new to them. Lots of swashbuckling action, enough CGI and new creatures to keep them entertained, and timeless morality stories. So relax. Disney will keep the franchise alive for generations, just as they have done with Snow White, the Sorcerer's Apprentice and lots of other stories.
2013-11-14 10:05:06 PM  
1 vote:

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

Why would they let R2 get beat up and aged? He doesn't belong to a rag tag rebellion anymore, he belongs to the New Republic, the establishment.

R2D2 is what? 60-70 years old at least at this point? That's just the three generations we know about. The Star Wars universe deserves to be crushed for being so stagnant and wasting away. Imagine if humanity hadn't increased technology in the last 50-60 years. We still be using vacuum tubes in almost all our electronics.


If Knights of the Old Republic is any indication, technology in that universe has been frozen for thousands of years.

As for the movies, any chance they'll be the Thrawn trilogy or the Vong war (probably too "adult" for the Disney-fied SW universe, but one can hope)?
2013-11-14 10:04:06 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-11-14 09:53:39 PM  
1 vote:

Pincy: Sorry, Lucas pretty much killed the franchise with his latest three abominations


Yeah, at $850 mill worldwide, that last movie was a real flop. They'd be a fool to make any more movies.
2013-11-14 09:39:24 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-11-14 09:39:17 PM  
1 vote:

Slow To Return: Mugato: Well let's see. Disney paid Lucas 4 billion for the property and the Prequels, despite the internet hate made a few billion, not counting DVD and merchandising. So yeah, I think they'll be committed to making more films.

ouch.

Disney paid Lucas 4 billion for the property.  And the prequels, despite the internet hate, made a few billion, not counting DVD and merchandising.


Of course they'll make more films. Look at what they're doing with Marvel.
2013-11-14 09:21:27 PM  
1 vote:
He really ass raped Star trek; I hate star wars, I hope he farks them with a donkey dick
2013-11-14 09:11:22 PM  
1 vote:
I like JJ Abrams movies. Super 8 was awesome. Both Star Trek movies were awesome. Mission Impossible III was....well....it....wasn't Mission Impossible I or Mission Impossible II.
2013-11-14 09:06:04 PM  
1 vote:

Snapper Carr: /Every Star Trek film between The Undiscovered Country and Abrams' reboot has been mediocre to terrible. Abrams' two installments have been entertaining space action popcorn flicks.


Only II, III, VI, and First Contact are watchable Star Trek movies (and III was a bit of a fark you to II, but it's Star Trek and nobody ever stays dead for long), but I do think First Contact was really pretty cool.  Undoubtedly better than the other TNG movies by a long way, anyway, not quite as awesome as II and VI.

The reboot was a fun popcorn flick.

Into Darkness was a fun popcorn flick IF you weren't a fan of Star Trek II.  It was such an enormous fark you to II.
2013-11-14 08:56:22 PM  
1 vote:

Mugato: Well let's see. Disney paid Lucas 4 billion for the property and the Prequels, despite the internet hate made a few billion, not counting DVD and merchandising. So yeah, I think they'll be committed to making more films.


ouch.

Disney paid Lucas 4 billion for the property.  And the prequels, despite the internet hate, made a few billion, not counting DVD and merchandising.
2013-11-14 08:46:09 PM  
1 vote:
They're actually just going to use that one photo for all of the R2D2 scenes and add everything else in with CGI.
2013-11-14 08:40:33 PM  
1 vote:
i.imgur.com
2013-11-14 08:35:10 PM  
1 vote:
Meh.
 
Displayed 51 of 51 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report