Considering I'm ONLY a Trekkie in regards to TNG and Voyager, 'maybe' as I HATED Shatner's Kirk and the all of the Shatner era Trek movies, except for Undiscovered Country.
I refuse to sit through Star Trek: Save the Whales!!! again. Ever -_-...I'd rather watch Twilight than that abomination.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And considering a lot of Trekkies weren't too fond of those movies because they weren't very Trek-ish, I fear what he will do to SW.
I've been a huge trekkie for more than 20 years, and I know a LOT of other trekkies, and everyone I know really liked the JJ Abrams films quite a bit.
There is certainly an online vocal minority that keeps trying to perpetuate that myth, but the truth is most people liked the movies.
I'm sure, especially given that Abrams has been a massive Star Wars fan since they first came out, he's going to knock this film out of the galaxy
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And considering a lot of Trekkies weren't too fond of those movies because they weren't very Trek-ish, I fear what he will do to SW.I've been a huge trekkie for more than 20 years, and I know a LOT of other trekkies, and everyone I know really liked the JJ Abrams films quite a bit.
There is certainly an online vocal minority that keeps trying to perpetuate that myth, but the truth is most people liked the movies.
I'm sure, especially given that Abrams has been a massive Star Wars fan since they first came out, he's going to knock this film out of the galaxy
The only Trek series that I really liked was Deep Space 9. And the movies that I really liked were WRATH OF KHAN and UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY.
My actual favorite Trek film isn't even really a Trek film it's GALAXY QUEST.
That being said I liked the JJ Abrams STAR TREK reboot quite a bit. INTO DARKNESS? Not so much. I felt that some of the big moments in that film werent really earned and felt empty. But then again he was never much of a real Star Trek fan but he's a HUGE Star Wars fan. SO I have high hopes for the new movies now.
And considering a lot of Trekkies weren't too fond of those movies because they weren't very Trek-ish, I fear what he will do to SW.I've been a huge trekkie for more than 20 years, and I know a LOT of other trekkies, and everyone I know really liked the JJ Abrams films quite a bit.
There is certainly an online vocal minority that keeps trying to perpetuate that myth, but the truth is most people liked the movies.
I'm sure, especially given that Abrams has been a massive Star Wars fan since they first came out, he's going to knock this film out of the galaxy
Agreed.
I've not actually met anyone Massive Trek Fans included who actually disliked it.
I've seen a lot of names online who claim that... but I'm 75% that all the negative people online are really Skynet trying to erode humanity anyway...
But yeah, Flesh and Blood people?! I know ONE person who discounted it immediately because it was a 'retcon' and never saw it... everyone else loved them both.
The first one was an okay popcorn flick that I admit to largely forgetting about a week after watching it. No dislike, but not something I would feel the need to see again
The second one had plotholes large enough to drive the Enterprise in, and tried to be Wrath of Khan 2.0 too much.
Um Wrath of Khan was the second one
Edit: never mind, got you meant the newer movies
And considering a lot of Trekkies weren't too fond of those movies because they weren't very Trek-ish, I fear what he will do to SW.I've been a huge trekkie for more than 20 years, and I know a LOT of other trekkies, and everyone I know really liked the JJ Abrams films quite a bit.
There is certainly an online vocal minority that keeps trying to perpetuate that myth, but the truth is most people liked the movies.
I'm sure, especially given that Abrams has been a massive Star Wars fan since they first came out, he's going to knock this film out of the galaxy
Agreed.
I've not actually met anyone Massive Trek Fans included who actually disliked it.
I've seen a lot of names online who claim that... but I'm 75% that all the negative people online are really Skynet trying to erode humanity anyway...
But yeah, Flesh and Blood people?! I know ONE person who discounted it immediately because it was a 'retcon' and never saw it... everyone else loved them both.
I suppose it depends on what you wanted out of them. I liked the movies, but readily acknowledged they don't really fit very well into the Trek landscape, especially for people that grew up watching TOS or TNG. There was a lot of action focus, and not nearly enough focus on character development or the kind of questioning that marked the high water mark of TNG. At its core Trek has always been more 'talky and techy' than action oriented.
The thing is, while talky and techy works great on TV where you often have lower budgets, for a mainstream audience it tends to fall a bit flat. The strongest Trek movies at the box office were generally those that leaned more towards action and suspense - e.g. those that went furthest away from the spirit of the shows.
My roommate is a huge Trek fan, rewatches TNG every year or two, and she hated the new movies with a passion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering how every movie that comes out now days is based on a novel... and Everyone everywhere does nothing but complain that the movie isn't as good as the book...
I'm really glad that this is an original story with no ties to 50+ books that everyone already obsessed over.
Add in the fact that Star Wars fans can be more rabid then 'normal' fans... and they already tore apart the last trilogy...
,
This is really a GOOD thing.
Allow me to rephrase that; I'm upset that they are completely ignoring the EU. I would have liked to see them take characters from the EU and make an original story (which admittedly they may be doing), rather than coming up with brand new ones as the main characters (unless these are EU characters that I don't know). Specifically I wanted to see the Solo twins and Corran Horn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I've had a bad sampling of Trekkies. I was only ever at best mildly interested in ST. I liked the new Trek movies for what they were but they didn't really strike me as particularly in tune with the previous material that I'd seen, and all the bad comments I'd heard were based on that opinion.
Count me also as a Treker that didn't like the new movies... although I did go see them. So that makes the movies LOOK more successful than they were, because profit = everything in Hollywood. In fact I rank the Second new Trek movie as one of the worst movies ever made. It just made NO sense at all.
Maybe I've had a bad sampling of Trekkies. I was only ever at best mildly interested in ST. I liked the new Trek movies for what they were but they didn't really strike me as particularly in tune with the previous material that I'd seen, and all the bad comments I'd heard were based on that opinion.Count me also as a Treker that didn't like the new movies... although I did go see them. So that makes the movies LOOK more successful than they were, because profit = everything in Hollywood. In fact I rank the Second new Trek movie as one of the worst movies ever made. It just made NO sense at all.
See, this is more of our normal disagreement. I gladly own both movies and watch them regularly. Love em.
The motion picture is still the worst.
truly awful.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I've had a bad sampling of Trekkies. I was only ever at best mildly interested in ST. I liked the new Trek movies for what they were but they didn't really strike me as particularly in tune with the previous material that I'd seen, and all the bad comments I'd heard were based on that opinion.Count me also as a Treker that didn't like the new movies... although I did go see them. So that makes the movies LOOK more successful than they were, because profit = everything in Hollywood. In fact I rank the Second new Trek movie as one of the worst movies ever made. It just made NO sense at all.
WHAT? it made a TON of sense!
And had you been in command of the army of essentially the entire galactic alliance, would you NOT gather all your generals in a single very poorly protected room at the top of a sky scraper with huge windows so that any dork with an airplane could kill all of them?
And don't you think it's entirely logical that even though there is a device that can instantly teleport a user from planet to planet spaceships are not obsolete?
And the last part of the movie is the one that makes the most sense - think about, they couldn't leave their main character dead, after all - had they done that it might seem as if events in the movie had consequences. I think introducing a miraculous technology that revives people (by synthesizing Khan's blood, which is a very repeatable process that can create as much of the blood as you would need) and then promptly forgetting about it is much better! I mean it wouldn't make ANY sense if the technology would be used, say, to make sure nobody ever dies again for any reason whatsoever. Nope, better use it as an excuse to revive the captain and move on to other explosions.
Into Darkness was one of the smartest movies I have ever seen. It has a long, contemplating attention span, and wasn't at all like a Fast and Furious In Space movie. I think it honored the source material, the genre of cinema science fiction, and the audience (especially their intelligence!).
/rant over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After watching this trailer, I requested 12/18 off at work so I can watch it at the midnight launch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I've had a bad sampling of Trekkies. I was only ever at best mildly interested in ST. I liked the new Trek movies for what they were but they didn't really strike me as particularly in tune with the previous material that I'd seen, and all the bad comments I'd heard were based on that opinion.Count me also as a Treker that didn't like the new movies... although I did go see them. So that makes the movies LOOK more successful than they were, because profit = everything in Hollywood. In fact I rank the Second new Trek movie as one of the worst movies ever made. It just made NO sense at all.
WHAT? it made a TON of sense!
** spoiler omitted **...
Damn. It seems we are at odds once more.
Maybe I've had a bad sampling of Trekkies. I was only ever at best mildly interested in ST. I liked the new Trek movies for what they were but they didn't really strike me as particularly in tune with the previous material that I'd seen, and all the bad comments I'd heard were based on that opinion.Count me also as a Treker that didn't like the new movies... although I did go see them. So that makes the movies LOOK more successful than they were, because profit = everything in Hollywood. In fact I rank the Second new Trek movie as one of the worst movies ever made. It just made NO sense at all.
WHAT? it made a TON of sense!
** spoiler omitted **...
Damn. It seems we are at odds once more.
Maybe I've had a bad sampling of Trekkies. I was only ever at best mildly interested in ST. I liked the new Trek movies for what they were but they didn't really strike me as particularly in tune with the previous material that I'd seen, and all the bad comments I'd heard were based on that opinion.Count me also as a Treker that didn't like the new movies... although I did go see them. So that makes the movies LOOK more successful than they were, because profit = everything in Hollywood. In fact I rank the Second new Trek movie as one of the worst movies ever made. It just made NO sense at all.
WHAT? it made a TON of sense!
** spoiler omitted **...
Damn. It seems we are at odds once more.
munch munch
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose it depends on what you wanted out of them. I liked the movies, but readily acknowledged they don't really fit very well into the Trek landscape, especially for people that grew up watching TOS or TNG. There was a lot of action focus, and not nearly enough focus on character development or the kind of questioning that marked the high water mark of TNG. At its core Trek has always been more 'talky and techy' than action oriented.
The thing is, while talky and techy works great on TV where you often have lower budgets, for a mainstream audience it tends to fall a bit flat. The strongest Trek movies at the box office were generally those that leaned more towards action and suspense - e.g. those that went furthest away from the spirit of the shows.
I agree that movies and tv are different mediums. I think the shows suffer from some serious expectation problems. Character development? It's a tough one to deal with here. We already KNOW these characters for 50 years...If they focus on it TOO much then it stops being Kirk and instead is Pine spoofing Shatner's 50 year character...
"At its core Trek has always been more 'talky and techy' than action oriented."
The Best Trek has always combined those aspects. Kirk was always action driven... when he wasn't romance driven. He fought and kissed his way all through the galaxy... Until Shatner got too old. Then there was still combat in the movies... but it wasn't as believable.
Picard was more serious then Kirk... but he Riker to go down to the planet and do the fighting and kissin'
Not to mention Worf or Data or any of the other awesome Bat'leth battles the Klingons did in TNG... and when it wasn't physical, the ray guns came out.
I remember when they were making the changeover between VI and First Contact that everyone complained about how Star Trek was all about diplomats arguing in conference room and no action... Now they argue that there is too much action and not enough 'talky'...
Most of the Criticisms of Lord Snow's, I can look past pretty easily. Star Trek has always been about Fantastic Technology... and it's limitations. For every Warp increase, there's a crack in a crystal... for every new program, there's a virus...
Khan's blood is awesome and cure death... except when it can't for some reason. Teleporting between planets? Only done by supergenius' Scotty and Khan so far... There is undoubtedly SOME reason that it doesn't crash the entire structure of this Sci-fi world... and if they had 180 hours spread out over decades, we'd be bombarded with the Tech talk. However it's only a movie and they have to keep the plot rolling.
Doesn't mean there isn't a reason... just means it didn't come up in a conversation on screen...
All generals in one room? Shrug. Would make it easier to avoid eavesdropping. They could have skyped across the galaxy but with that much tech SOMEONE would be listening... I've seen a lot of movies where the generals and leaders all meet at the pentagon or something and watch the news during a catastrophe... same basic principle.
These movies may not be for everyone... but it's just a matter of taste as opposed to 'not what Trek is'... Trek has been MANY things over MANY years, and every sci-fi show ever has plot holes and unexplained things going on. Half the fun of Sci-Fi is trying to explain things afterwards.
My own personal preference has always been TOS and TNG. DS9 was as far from what I felt 'Trek was' as possible. How can you have a 'Trek' if you sit on a station and wait for adventures to come to you?? Voyager... I couldn't get into for some reason... it's been too long. No Enterprise was probably part of it... I don't remember. But no Klingon empire, No contact with Federation space... just felt too far removed from the Mythos.
Still, A lot of people liked them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These movies may not be for everyone... but it's just a matter of taste as opposed to 'not what Trek is'... Trek has been MANY things over MANY years, and every sci-fi show ever has plot holes and unexplained things going on. Half the fun of Sci-Fi is trying to explain things afterwards.
Honestly I have not clue what Trek is. I never watched any before the new ones.
My beef with the movies is not that they are bad Star Trek movies, it's that they are bad science fiction movies. They are essentially just average hollywood action romps with spaceships in them. The stories are very average and bland, the characters uninteresting, the action scenes grandiose and feel like nothing that happens ever has any actual consequence. I described the movies earlier as "Fast and Furious in space" and that's pretty much how I feel.
As a caveat, my annoyance with the assembly of the generals scene wasn't that they were all in one place, it was that the place was so poorly guarded that a single man with a single wa machine was able to deliver such a devastating blow. You used the pentagon as an example. Can you imagine anybody being able to even approach a 50 miles radius to it with a military grade helicopter without being intercepted? If one does, I imagine a room with something sensitive as all your war leaders would be underground or well armored or something - not at the top of a skyscraper and with exceedingly large and exposed windows.
It's when I feel like nothing in the movie actually makes sense that I decide the outcome of each scene is random, and then I don't care anymore. If a movie losses me this way, I deem it bad.
The new Trek movies were really, really bad.
Honestly I have not clue what Trek is. I never watched any before the new ones.
My beef with the movies is not that they are bad Star Trek movies, it's that they are bad science fiction movies. They are essentially just average hollywood action romps with spaceships in them. The stories are very average and bland, the characters uninteresting, the action scenes grandiose and feel like nothing that happens ever has any actual consequence. I described the movies earlier as "Fast and Furious in space" and that's pretty much how I feel.
As a caveat, my annoyance with the assembly of the generals scene wasn't that they were all in one place, it was that the place was so poorly guarded that a single man with a single wa machine was able to deliver such a devastating blow. You used the pentagon as an example. Can you imagine anybody being able to even approach a 50 miles radius to it with a military grade helicopter without being intercepted? If one does, I imagine a room with something sensitive as all your war leaders would be underground or well armored or something - not at the top of a skyscraper and with exceedingly large and exposed windows.
It's when I feel like nothing in the movie actually makes sense that I decide the outcome of each scene is random, and then I don't care anymore. If a movie losses me this way, I deem it bad.
The new Trek movies were really, really bad.
I suppose that makes sense. In a show like this, or Avengers or A-team, or anything else with a well established cast of characters who are considered the 'PCs' of the adventure, there ususally is some sort of Plot armor attached to them, and coming into a franchise late and without the background, you probably didn't notice the consequences with the timelines and technology and stuff... there were a lot of deaths, and they were pretty well established characters so the ripples were there. They just weren't the core crew of the ship or listed in the opening credits.
As for sneak attack the Pentagon? 9-11 did have an attack where a plane smashed into a side causing massive damage... It's not mentioned much anymore because World Trade tower gets all the attention. So it's definitely possible.
As for underground bunker vs Skyscrapper? I don't know, there's always something that people in power do that's dumb enough to let the hero shine.
As a rule, I'm not a big fan of Sci-fi movies. Everytime there is just... way too much world building for me to sit through patiently. The ships, the tech, the communication, the hierarchy of government, the aliens, the relationships with the humans...
I really don't want to deal with all that for pretty much this reason. The tech and changes were 'improvements' of things we've been watching for 50 years... and there was a lot of backstory that the movies didn't feel the need to regurgitate and it was probably not 'new viewer friendly'
|
|
As for sneak attack the Pentagon? 9-11 did have an attack where a plane smashed into a side causing massive damage... It's not mentioned much anymore because World Trade tower gets all the attention. So it's definitely possible.
Possible, yes, though the circumstances were very different. The attack on the pentagon happened surprisingly, from a civilian craft with hostages on board and while a simultaneous attack was carried on against other targets. In the movie everyone was already aware that a very dangerous somebody is bent on some aggressive intentions and so I imagine any sane security network would be more ready.
But anyway, and more importantly, I can see what you mean about the movies not being newb friendly. And obviously tastes differ. The bottom line is that to me science fiction is about much more than fancy explosions in zero g. Star Wars, for example, is a very well defined world. It's silly and nonsensical and simplistic, but it is a distinct setting. My fears from Abrams is a project leader for the upcoming movie is that if it feels anything at all like the new Star Trek films, it would suck out a lot of the magic in Star Wars. I *want* a goofy story with lines like "Use the Force, Luke!", one that is action packed but also filled to the brim with imaginative locations, a story with a galaxy-wide scope yet fraught with personal drama. Bad Jedi philosophy, a sense of adventure... If all that we get is some space fights like in the Star Trek movies, well, that's just not Star Wars.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually the Pentagon is a heavily armored and guarded secure facility... there is no safer place to assemble all your generals. Sure a surprise attack by a civilian plane hit. BUT it did very little damage to the facility. It demolished one of the five sides of the outer ring. The top brass are either underground or in one of the inner rings. No top leaders were lost in that attack. The top observation lounge of a civilian hotel is neither armored nor secure.
BUT people in torpedoes ... the only thing that blows holes in is peoples suspension of disbelief. Pure stupidity. Worst movie ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was fine when it was worf's girlfriend.
But anyway, and more importantly, I can see what you mean about the movies not being newb friendly. And obviously tastes differ. The bottom line is that to me science fiction is about much more than fancy explosions in zero g. Star Wars, for example, is a very well defined world. It's silly and nonsensical and simplistic, but it is a distinct setting. My fears from Abrams is a project leader for the upcoming movie is that if it feels anything at all like the new Star Trek films, it would suck out a lot of the magic in Star Wars. I *want* a goofy story with lines like "Use the Force, Luke!", one that is action packed but also filled to the brim with imaginative locations, a story with a galaxy-wide scope yet fraught with personal drama. Bad Jedi philosophy, a sense of adventure... If all that we get is some space fights like in the Star Trek movies, well, that's just not Star Wars.
One thing that astounds me is that I actually care about these movies coming up. I loved Episode one, Rolled my eyes at Ep 2 and hated Ep 3. I was so sick of anything and everything that had to do with the Clone Wars time period that my love of Star Wars pretty much shriveled up and died. I figured anything else that Lucas did with it... I just wouldn't care.
Finding out that Lucas was out... Disney (of Avengers, Muppets, and Pirates) was in... and it was set in new territory with the old cast?? I can't believe how geeked I am about this. It could still suck and then the apathy will come back, but now I feel like a kid again thinking about this.
Personally, I never dove in as deep into Star Wars Lore as a couple of my friends did (I didn't in Star Trek either... just a baseline fan for plenty of years) Watch the movies, play the rpg games, didn't get into the bazillion novels or tech specs or anything...
Star Wars to me always seemed the more superficial of the two franchise. They really did set the stages for fiery explosions in the vaccum of space and laser swordfights.
Star Trek dealt in fully fledged out planets with Class specifics and governments and diplomatic relations.... Star Wars had the desert planet, the forest moon, the Ice world...
Star Wars started out with Vader saying the senate was disbanded... they started blowing up planets till their station was exploded...
When the Prequels came out and the big bads were Trade Federations arguing over embargos and political schemes to rise in power... People got bored VERY fast and hated them. I think the key is to have fantastic locations... but get overly detailed in them. Keep things fun, Keep it pulp-tastic.
I too hope he can balance the fun and nonsensical nature of imaginative settings... without leaving the action and adventure at the door. I have hope for this series... the 'origin' movies that are planned between the trilogy... Ehhh not as much.
|
|
I too hope he can balance the fun and nonsensical nature of imaginative settings... without leaving the action and adventure at the door. I have hope for this series... the 'origin' movies that are planned between the trilogy... Ehhh not as much.
The only one of those "anthology" movies is Rouge One which is not an origin movie - which I am very happy about. I actually think the premise is pretty exciting.
Finding out that Lucas was out... Disney (of Avengers, Muppets, and Pirates)
Well you can't really credit diseny for the Avengers as it too is a pretty recent purchase. As for pirates - loved the original trilogy, but movie 4 was such a hot stinking pile of garbage that it almost cancels out all the credit I was willing to dispense on account of the previous three.
Finding out that Lucas was out... Disney (of Avengers, Muppets, and Pirates)Well you can't really credit diseny for the Avengers as it too is a pretty recent purchase. As for pirates - loved the original trilogy, but movie 4 was such a hot stinking pile of garbage that it almost cancels out all the credit I was willing to dispense on account of the previous three.
I kind of lump all the Marvel movies in with Avengers and while 20 years ago Disney would was horrible thing to happen to movies... Now days they do a pretty enjoyable job with the franchises and licensed products. Not everything is a winner... /eyes pirates 4... But overall I've enjoyed the ride so far.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Disney largely keeps their hands off the creative workings of Marvel and I imagine Lucasfilm now, as long as they can deliver movies that make a profit.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
May The 4 th Be With You.
Photos of world renowned photographer, and my personal favorite Annie Leibovitz.
Man I can't wait for December, I loved the Lord of the Rings movies as being part of the Holiday tradition for well over a decade but it's time to show these younglings what I grew up on in the summertime of my youth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MAY THE 4TH BE WITH YOU!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
C8<]
Well, you know what they say, wherever there're four Jedi...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But anyway, and more importantly, I can see what you mean about the movies not being newb friendly. And obviously tastes differ. The bottom line is that to me science fiction is about much more than fancy explosions in zero g. Star Wars, for example, is a very well defined world. It's silly and nonsensical and simplistic, but it is a distinct setting. My fears from Abrams is a project leader for the upcoming movie is that if it feels anything at all like the new Star Trek films, it would suck out a lot of the magic in Star Wars. I *want* a goofy story with lines like "Use the Force, Luke!", one that is action packed but also filled to the brim with imaginative locations, a story with a galaxy-wide scope yet fraught with personal drama. Bad Jedi philosophy, a sense of adventure... If all that we get is some space fights like in the Star Trek movies, well, that's just not Star Wars.One thing that astounds me is that I actually care about these movies coming up. I loved Episode one, Rolled my eyes at Ep 2 and hated Ep 3. I was so sick of anything and everything that had to do with the Clone Wars time period that my love of Star Wars pretty much shriveled up and died. I figured anything else that Lucas did with it... I just wouldn't care.
Finding out that Lucas was out... Disney (of Avengers, Muppets, and Pirates) was in... and it was set in new territory with the old cast?? I can't believe how geeked I am about this. It could still suck and then the apathy will come back, but now I feel like a kid again thinking about this.
Personally, I never dove in as deep into Star Wars Lore as a couple of my friends did (I didn't in Star Trek either... just a baseline fan for plenty of years) Watch the movies, play the rpg games, didn't get into the bazillion novels or tech specs or anything...
Star Wars to me always seemed the more superficial of the two franchise. They really did set the stages for fiery explosions in the vaccum of space and laser swordfights.
Star Trek...
To be perfectly honest, the main reasons why I thought I-III were so bad was
a) Little Orphan Ani
b) Jar Jar Binks
c) CGI overload rather than practical effects
d) Jar Jar Binks
e) Hayden Christensen, may his backside itch and his arms be too short to rea ... ooh, wait, he got his hand cut off in the second movie. Too soon?
f) Jar Jar Binks
g) The utter, utter, UTTER ineptitude shown by the collective Jedi Council
h) Jar Jar Binks
i) The stark, endless, horrific parade of plotholes and self-contradictions "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" and lo-and-be-smegging-hold what the Jedi do throughout the ENTIRE prequel trilogy (examples: love is bad. Questioning authority is bad. Blindly following authority is bad. Eating fast food is bad. Having self-confidence is bad ... yeah, that one is going to create amazing Jedi padawans, "ehm, did I do this right? Oh no, I mustn't think I'm doing it right, that's the path to the dark side", having fun until you're officially a jedi master is bad and even then you should only ever do it if you're killing a rebel general where no other Jedi can see you because, you know, bad. )
j) Jar Jar Binks
k) Midi-Chlorians
l) Jar Jar Binks
m-z) JAR JAR SMEGGING BINKS!!!
If you can take the pure, distilled awesomeness that is Brian Blessed, a man so awesome he farts thunderclouds and belches rainbows while climbing Mount Everest without climbing gear at the age of 148, and it is still not enough to save the race of Gungans from becoming a travesty of utterly Imperial proportions, because of Jar Jar Bloody Binks, you know you've got something really, really vile on your hands.
That said, I loved the two new Trek-movies specifically because they were reboots. Trying to recreate the feel of the old movies would have fallen hopelessly flat. Creating something new and giving it a fresh flavour was an amazing idea. And when the new Spock got the old Spock's heartfelt and sincere seal of approval, it's gotta be good enough for me.
On that note, I am pretty sure that JJ can do something good with the new Star Wars films. Because practical effects. Because Han. Because Chewie. Because Luke and Leia.
Because NO JAR JAR GORRAM BINKS!!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This bit sounds EXACTLY like West End Games from 1987 and everything after that, up to Wookiepedia. So maybe EU is not that off base.
Emperor Palpatine’s twenty-year reign of terror new found prosperity and New Order came to an abrupt and fiery end in the skies above the forest moon of Endor. A decisive victory for the Rebel Alliance, to be sure, but even with the loss of its leadership, the Empire’s Moffs and regional governors retained their hold on important systems from the Core to the Outer Rim, thanks to the might of the Imperial Starfleet. Now, with a power vacuum atop the Empire, those Moffs will jockey for position and control, and the heroes of the Rebel Alliance will soon discover that a wounded and fractious Empire may be more dangerous than any threat they faced before!
To tell the truth, I really enjoyed the Star Trek movies. However, it's based on a TV series that had a LOT of episodes where things could change a LOT...and in some cases, there is a LOT of room to maneuver and change things to a degree. (at the same time, Abrahms basically ignored a TON of canon and that upset many fans...which I can actually understood. Fortunately, except for countdown, he basically said it was an alternate universe which left the original intact...something he hasn't said about Star Wars).
I really enjoyed the Avengers movies. They are based on comic books where nothing is ever stable to the point that characters die and are resurrected constantly (star trek did this to a degree also...Spock died...and came back...Kirk Died...and came back...Dax died...and though the host didn't...Dax came back...Data Died...and since they made Countdown canon...Came back by over riding B4's matrix...).
On the otherhand, Star Wars the movies are limited to six movies as the official canon.
The Heir to the Empire series was actually signed off on by George Lucas (though I'm not sure how much he was really involved with the EU after that...he at least got the summary and brief and was okay with authorizing it as canon for the Heir of the Empire series).
So...at least they should have accepted SOME of what Lucas signed off on (though honestly I hated 99% of the canon...if Abrahms is simply going to ignore some of the canon of the original trilogy...I'd rather have something that at least attempted to take into account everything from the original trilogy).
What's worse though, is IF the summaries and guesswork of fans are correct...the upcoming movie will actually ignore some of the stuff from the original trilogy (which makes me go...huh???) or at least pretend the logical thing didn't happen afterwards (such as Han and Leia getting together...nah...they just went their ways and such and Han went back to his old ways of being a smuggler and such)...
IF such summaries are true...what may have worked for star trek and marvel...for me isn't going to work for Star Wars (afterall, UNLIKE Star Trek and Marvel, before 2000 they never really had a mega hit which had several of its movies in the top ten highest grossing movies of all time).
I hope the summaries are wrong, but if they are right, I think the first may make a lot of money and make a LOT of people rather angry. It won't just be the mega fans, it's going to be the normal people who may have only seen the original trilogy, or maybe even four to six of the original movies...because it renders some of those movies items moot as well...
Abrahms showed he'd ignore stuff in ST...but with only six movies as hardcore Canon...to basically flaunt and ignore some of that stuff (I mean, we see at the end of RotJ that Coruscant was overthrown and the emperor's statue was being torn down as per the ending of the special editions...so why are these guys still the rebels and storm troopers are still part of what appears to be the major power of the galaxy?) of the prequel movies...or even worse, the original trilogy...I'm not so certain that's going to go over so well...and probably a LOT worse than anything anyone's seen with ST.
IF the summaries are correct(and there is no saying they are)...doesn't Disney have some sort of poll or research to give them a warning that it might be a bad idea? Oh wait..that's the same Disney that released Tommorrowland, let John Carter go WAAAAAY over budget (it could have been successful if it hadn't done that most likely), and cancelled Tron 3 for an unrelated reason...
Maybe Disney has just gotten lucky in who they've allowed to direct some series thus far (avengers and marvel) rather than actually having that much sense as I'd like them too.
Or maybe (and hopefully) the guesswork summaries are WAAAAAY off.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is countdown? I'm a big Star Trek fan but I don't know what this is ...
Regarding Star Wars and canon - can you elaborate? I've seen nothing about The Force Awakens that suggests Abrams is ignoring established events from the previous 6 movies. Are you talking about events from books?
What is countdown? I'm a big Star Trek fan but I don't know what this is ...
It is a comic book prequel by IDW to the 2009 Star Trek film.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as the EU and Star Wars canon is concerned, after Disney purchased Star Wars, they abolished everything from the official canon except the 6 movies, the one of the animated series and a few odd things.
So every book, every game, nearly every cartoon or comic that came before Disney purchased it is now considered non-canon. So Abrams won't have to worry too much about the previous canon (which is one of the major reasons Disney did it, especially since so much of the EU was all over the place in abilities, tone and theme).
I doubt that Abrahms will deviate from the movie canon. Also, these 'summaries' that you've been reading... where did they come from? Where's the validity of them? What proof do they have? Because as far as I know, Abrahms is withholding nothing in order to keep the story as secret as possible.
The EU was accepted as canon up until Attack of the Clones. But even then the EU was accepted as canon unless GL made something that specifically said otherwise.
All of the games, the comics, cartoons etc. were considered canon by most everyone.
Then Disney makes the statement that explicitly states the entire EU is no longer canon, and established what is considered canon.
