- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who thinks the new Star Wars trilogy will suck?
Posted on 2/1/13 at 9:24 am to Ace Midnight
Posted on 2/1/13 at 9:24 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
He ruined Star Trek (I know I'm in the minority, but I'm not shutting up.)
You're in the minority on this one because of a good reason: you're very, very wrong.
Really, its not even worth arguing.
1
Posted on 2/1/13 at 9:30 am to elprez00
quote:
very much enjoyed Abrams Star Trek movie. I see no reason why he couldn't bring a fresh and interesting take on the Star Wars Universe.
I like Abrams alot, but I don't see him as a breath of fresh air to the franchise. I can pretty much see it in my mind almost exactly how it will be, and I'll be shocked if I'm wrong. Granted what I've got in my head is good, but not a game changer like I was hoping. It's just really JJ Abrams is by far the safest choice they could have gone with. Would have been cool to see Del Toro or Bird go after the franchise.
quote:
IMO, Abrams should recast Luke, Leia, Han, etc if they intend on continuing that story. I dont think you'll get a good movie with an old Luke, Leia, and Han while skipping forward 40 or so years from Jedi.
Why not? You just don't make the story about Luke, Leia, and Han. You move on to other more youthful characters.
quote:
Think about the backstory required. You have to assume that, after the Battle of Endor, the Empire didn't surrender. They still control the majority of the galaxy. I'd be very disappointed if the crawl just said, "Its been 40 years since the battle of Endor. The Emperor died, the Empire surrendered, Han and Leia got hitched, Luke got a dog, everything is peachy, until a new threat...."
Honestly, they should pick up a completely new plot to go with. Just bring up the original trilogy in passing (and never bring up the prequels since they'll hopefully remake them in a few decades into something much better), and don't have the Sith in it. There's so much potential for the universe that has been created that they really need to do new inspired material.
This post was edited on 2/1/13 at 9:35 am
Posted on 2/1/13 at 9:32 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
When the original 3 movies came out, why were they titled 4,5, and 6? Did Lucas have it in his head that someday down the road he would introduce another 3 movies as a prequal?
When the first one came out (Episode IV), it didn't have "Episode IV: A New Hope" at the top. It was just Star Wars. I think Lucas and the gang just came up with Darth Vader being Luke's father and knew they could milk another trilogy out of it. Plus it would really excite people when they saw "Episode V" on top of the screen. They'd realize why at the end of film.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 9:46 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
You're in the minority on this one because of a good reason: you're very, very wrong.
NOTHING about that movie was consistent with the principles of Star Trek. NOTHING about the plot made sense. I tried to accept it as an alternate universe, but it just doesn't make sense. NOTHING about the characterizations was consistent with the character development, though the kid playing Spock did his best.
The movie pretty much started to lose me when Kirk (Kirk and Spock famously knew nothing about 20th century automobiles in "A Piece of the Action", reiterated in Star Trek IV:TVH) was driving a Corvette as a child. It lost me the rest of the way in making Scotty a one-note joke by getting stuck in a pipe like Augustus Gloop in Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory.
That movie is terrible (although it does have impressive space combat scenes, one of Eric Bana's worst performances and lens flares).
quote:
Really, its not even worth arguing.
Everything of value is worth arguing. TOS was of value - that JJ Abrams take on it is completely disposable. But, again, I accept I'm in the minority. Whatever.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 10:11 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Everything of value is worth arguing. TOS was of value - that JJ Abrams take on it is completely disposable. But, again, I accept I'm in the minority. Whatever.
This is the problem with people who are far too invested in the originals to accept a new take on their favorite shows. I'm not saying I don't understand where you're coming from. I get it. But taken alone, the JJ Abrams Star Trek was a great film. True, Eric Bana was bad, but Chris Pine as the smart arse Kirk, Karl Urban as Bones, Zoe Saldana as Uhura... it all worked and it worked well together.
If you can divorce yourself from the "source" material, and look at the movie more objectively, you'll find that it is, at the very least, a fairly tightly done, well imagined story that takes the basic ideas of Star Trek and makes them into something more action packed and geared toward a modern audience, all without devolving into Michael Bay-dom. And the time travel plot device was perfectly used since Abrams clearly wanted to take the franchise in a different direction so he wouldn't be restrained by the past.
Star Trek was, and is, a great movie. Despite the fact that I think Abrams is somewhat overrated.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 10:22 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
If you can divorce yourself from the "source" material
Aren't I interested in the stupid movie in the first place because I'm a Star Trek fan?
quote:
But taken alone, the JJ Abrams Star Trek was a great film.
Alone from what?
quote:
True, Eric Bana was bad, but Chris Pine as the smart arse Kirk, Karl Urban as Bones, Zoe Saldana as Uhura... it all worked and it worked well together.
I hate Chris Pine, all of the characters he's ever played, including his take on Kirk. Karl Urban gets an "A" for effort - honestly the script failed McCoy, rather than Urban. Ditto for Scotty. I didn't care for the Uhura, either.
When Star Trek is at its best, it is about the characters and their interaction, particularly the big 3, Kirk as the Id, Spock as the Ego and McCoy as the Superego. Abrams doesn't appear to care about any of that, as long as it is "hip", "dope", fast-paced and action-oriented. And lens flares.
Compare that to Whedon's Avengers. In Abrams' defense, I had high expectations for Star Trek, probably impossible ones, but I only went to see Whedon's Avengers, because he's on my very, very short list of trusted filmmakers. The movie was very faithful in its treatment of characters. I am not a complete slave to the source material - I think that what Robert Downey, Jr. has done with the Iron Man character is a departure, but it works.
quote:
look at the movie more objectively, you'll find that it is, at the very least, a fairly tightly done, well imagined story that takes the basic ideas of Star Trek and makes them into something more action packed and geared toward a modern audience, all without devolving into Michael Bay-dom.
I don't watch Star Trek for the action sequences, I was raised on TOS - we had to overlook the poor special effects, but we watched for the characters. Those characters have been killed and replaced by something else. I guess most other TOS fans are fine with that. I'm not.
From where I sat, Michael Bay might as well have made Star Trek.
This post was edited on 2/1/13 at 10:30 am
Posted on 2/1/13 at 10:55 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I don't watch Star Trek for the action sequences, I was raised on TOS
Every one of your arguments is predicated upon your past experiences with the franchise. You are blinded by your own expectations. Again, I don't blame you and I'm not trying to piss you off. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and you have valid reasons for it.
All I'm getting at is that for someone who gave 2 shits about Star Trek prior to this movie, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It has nothing to do with being "dope." I thought it was well done and I'm not the only one. Abrams completely revamped the franchise. You don't like it because you felt the franchise didn't need revamping in the first place. Understandable. I just think you are unfairly criticizing the movie based on your expectations for what a Star Trek movie should be.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 11:01 am to OMLandshark
quote:
quote:
IMO, Abrams should recast Luke, Leia, Han, etc if they intend on continuing that story. I dont think you'll get a good movie with an old Luke, Leia, and Han while skipping forward 40 or so years from Jedi.
Why not? You just don't make the story about Luke, Leia, and Han. You move on to other more youthful characters.
Notice i said "that" story. If you are going to make a movie about the original characters, recast them. I'd have no issue with doing a movie with Rogue Squadron, or some others.
I know its EU stuff, but the X-Wing series of novels were all about Rogue Squadrons reformation, and the liberation of Coruscant. Luke et al were only mentioned in passing.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 11:04 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
I just think you are unfairly criticizing the movie based on your expectations for what a Star Trek movie should be.
It is a Star Trek movie. How else was I supposed to judge it? This is a serious question.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 11:57 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I don't watch Star Trek for the action sequences, I was raised on TOS - we had to overlook the poor special effects, but we watched for the characters. Those characters have been killed and replaced by something else. I guess most other TOS fans are fine with that. I'm not.
For the time, the effects and production values have been good for all of the series.
I do think the JJ hype over Trek is overblown. The movie was good but had just as many plot holes as all previous films.
And even though The Onion did that great bit on the new movie being so different than past iterations, I think that was overblown.
It wasn't any different. It was a Trek movie with a younger cast. That was about the only difference.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 12:00 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
It is a Star Trek movie. How else was I supposed to judge it? This is a serious question.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ, are you fricking dense? Clearly it's not the same Star Trek you grew up with and loved. It is NOT a Star Trek movie in the vein of Wrath of Khan. For frick's sake, I've already told you how to judge it: independently from the other films and the TV show. It is a standalone piece that borrows very little from the original world. fricking get over it.
Are all Trekkies as crazycakes as you? This is a serious question.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 12:09 pm to LoveThatMoney
quote:
Jesus Tapdancing Christ, are you fricking dense? Clearly it's not the same Star Trek you grew up with and loved. It is NOT a Star Trek movie in the vein of Wrath of Khan. For frick's sake, I've already told you how to judge it: independently from the other films and the TV show. It is a standalone piece that borrows very little from the original world. fricking get over it.
So, if it does not have anything in common with the known Star Trek product that I already enjoy, I can just choose (should have chosen, anyway) to disregard it? Thanks. That is good advice - good advice that I will be following into the future.
quote:
Are all Trekkies as crazycakes as you? This is a serious question.
No, seriously, if I am not supposed to evaluate how the new Star Trek product is treating the characters that I, frankly, care about, then I don't understand why it says, "Star Trek", why it involves characters with these names or the similarities it superficially has with TOS.
Ya'll keep saying "It's different", "It's new", "It's fresh", whatever, but I still don't like it and I think it is not only "not" good, but that it's terrible. Your position is that I'm crazy for thinking so. Whatever.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 12:10 pm to LoveThatMoney
quote:No. I'm a pretty hardcore Trekker and I liked the new movie. Heck, I was just so happy to have it back on the big screen it could have been terrible and I would have enjoyed it.
Are all Trekkies as crazycakes as you? This is a serious question.
I initially was a bit nervous about rebooting the universe, but I think it was handled just fine.
Now don't get me started on the silliness of the death drill, the lack of any planetary defenses on Vulcan or the fact the Romulans sat around in the same exact spot for 20 years (they actually didn't but their movements and the plot behind that was cut). Even the cut out plot was silly because that means the Klingons spent 20 years with the captured Romulan ship without taking it apart or duplicating the technology.
See, I told you to not get me started.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 12:18 pm to elprez00
quote:
Notice i said "that" story. If you are going to make a movie about the original characters, recast them. I'd have no issue with doing a movie with Rogue Squadron, or some others.
I know its EU stuff, but the X-Wing series of novels were all about Rogue Squadrons reformation, and the liberation of Coruscant. Luke et al were only mentioned in passing.
Still, just move on from the EU stuff. You're going to need Jedis, which I'm not sure if a storyline like that is going to provide.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 12:29 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Still, just move on from the EU stuff. You're going to need Jedis, which I'm not sure if a storyline like that is going to provide.
That's always been the "Trilogy" problem, hasn't it. Between Episode 3 and 4, the only Jedi were Obi Wan and Yoda - Obi Wan dies in Ep 4, Yoda at the beginning of 6, leaving only Luke to train the next generation (who was optimistic about those prospects), with, presumably his children (ultimately) and Han and Leia's children forming the corps of the next generation of Jedi.
Those stories would be interesting, but could they sustain a trilogy of films? I think that would be a better fit for an actual, multi-season Star Wars series. A film trilogy would need big stories a big crisis or a big villain. They could go way back prior to Episode 1, or they could go way forward to the rise of Vader's grandchildren/great-grandchildren and maybe a new Jedi/Sith divide.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 12:33 pm to LoveThatMoney
quote:
Jesus Tapdancing Christ, are you fricking dense? Clearly it's not the same Star Trek you grew up with and loved. It is NOT a Star Trek movie in the vein of Wrath of Khan. For frick's sake, I've already told you how to judge it: independently from the other films and the TV show. It is a standalone piece that borrows very little from the original world. fricking get over it.
Are all Trekkies as crazycakes as you? This is a serious question.
You're in the wrong here buddy, and overly mad. You're asking longtime fans to forget everything they know about the story. That's impossible. It's like making a new Star Wars and asking everyone to forget what happened in the past. Same for Godfather. Same for Lord of the Rings. Ain't gonna happen. It's an unreasonable request.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 12:51 pm to boom roasted
I know several long time Trek fans that really liked the JJA version.
One of them even goes to conventions dressed up and shite.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 1:01 pm to boom roasted
quote:
You're in the wrong here buddy, and overly mad.
Not really on either account.
I was explaining that simply because a film doesn't fit within the framework of expectations, doesn't make it a bad movie. I have explained that quite clearly in my previous posts. Ace largely ignored it and, instead, continued to evaluate the movie based on what he expected the movie to be, which is why, when he asked "How else am I supposed to judge it?" I called him crazycakes.
If he wanted to argue plot holes, which there are plenty of as pointed out by TigerMyth, and bad acting, which there is as I've admitted, and lack of continuity in the film itself rather than in the film in relation to the previous films, that'd be one thing and I would appreciate his viewpoint on Abrams' Star Trek.
However, nearly all of his arguments for why the film is bad are based on how Abrams' abandoned the previous franchise. I'm not saying he needs to like the movie, there are plenty of good movies that I don't like. I can appreciate that he doesn't like it and WHY he doesn't like it. If they made an Akira movie starring Leo DiCaprio as Kaneda, I'd probably lose my fricking mind. But I would at least try to divorce my previous experiences from the DiCaprio rendition, particularly if the DiCaprio rendition is liberal with the source material and amounts to a standalone film. All I was trying to do was get him to see passed his biases. Obviously he's not going to like a movie that takes such liberties with previous incarnations if he's a major fan of the previous incarnations.
Now I'm done explaining myself about Abrams because, frankly, I'm not a JJ Abrams fan. I think his hiring for the Star Wars trilogy is the safest bet, but I also think no matter who directs it, the next trilogy will blow balls.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 1:05 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
That's always been the "Trilogy" problem, hasn't it. Between Episode 3 and 4, the only Jedi were Obi Wan and Yoda - Obi Wan dies in Ep 4, Yoda at the beginning of 6, leaving only Luke to train the next generation (who was optimistic about those prospects), with, presumably his children (ultimately) and Han and Leia's children forming the corps of the next generation of Jedi.
This time I'd honestly rather not have the main protagonist be a Jedi or become one. Just have it to where he may be at the wrong place at the wrong time (or right place depending how you look at it) and does some sort of shenanigan that gets the attention of the Jedis. I wouldn't make the Jedis huge either, maybe just a dozen or two instead of thousands.
Posted on 2/1/13 at 1:15 pm to Dr RC
quote:
I know several long time Trek fans that really liked the JJA version.
As do I, thus I continued to reiterate I was in the minority and explaining why I disliked it, and why I didn't agree with this consensus that it was a great movie.
I reiterate - I am in the minority, even amongst hardcore fans of TOS, although we were clearly not the target of the new material - they knew most of us would, eventually, give it a try. This was a tug at fans of Star Wars or Transformers, where much of the movie is a pretense or excuse for a special effects sequence. I am not against movies like that, per se, if it is well done, "Iron Man" and "The Avengers" are recent examples of Marvel products that are in this category.
And, since the JJ Abrams' brand of Star Trek is the new normal, going forward, I will just have to abstain.
I was already going to abstain from future Star Wars films (call me if Ridley Scott, Joss Whedon, Joel and Ethan Cohen or Peter Jackson get involved with a future Star Wars or Star Trek project - I may reconsider), so this rant is, to a certain degree, me just b*tching about the way things are. Abrams clearly doesn't care what original fans of TOS think - since he, himself, is a fan of Star Wars, maybe he will do it justice...and lens flares.
This post was edited on 2/1/13 at 1:18 pm
Page 7 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News