skyjedi2005 said:Every overladen Cgi blockbuster can be tied back to Lucas in some way so i don't understand your question. JJ is taking inspiration from the prequels and is using the same ILM crew that wroked on the prequels you don't see a connection. He met with Spielberg and Lucas and nobody that had anything to do with Trek.
If you can watch that trailer and not see that they are going for the same feel as the star wars prequels then you must be blind. Even the Kirk as a rebel james dean type character is a throwback to Hayden as Anakin.
HAHAHAHA! Yeah, because Kirk isn't at all the "shoot first, ask questions later" type. That's exactly who Kirk is. That's what made him such a great starship captain. Diplomacy was out the door almost instantly with Kirk. There's nothing new here.
Has nothing to do with the real canon history of the character as i have read the novels and seen the films Roddenberry sanctioned as canon.
I've seen all the movies too. And several tv episodes. Nothing about Kirk being a rebel is out of character. Star Trek 3 anyone? Completely disobeys a direct order. By the end of IV, he's been demoted from Admiral back down to Captain. So how is this new movie not in character?
This movie is a joke to those who loved the old series and the old movies 1-6. It can in no way be a prequel since nothing matches up. Unless they use some lame time travel excuse which would be totally orci by the way.
We are in agreement on this.
The studio was not at all happy with MI3 but blamed Cruise instead of JJ. They also blamed Cruise for the failure of War of the Worlds and not Spielberg.
In both cases, it's because people saw such a whack job that Cruise was in public. It has a lot to do with his publicity of Scientology. Hell, he recently said he was acting crazy on Oprah, with jumping on the couch and all that. It looks like he's finally starting to chill out about everything, which is exactly what he needs to do.
Paramount is a very bizarre studio. They allowed Spielberg to Direct Indiana Jones IV after the debacle that was War of the Worlds and knowing what Lucas did to the prequels they allowed him to produce and write the story.
Uh, yeah, because Lucas and Spielberg can pull no weight of their own. Seriously, Paramount knows how much of a money maker the Indy franchise is. As many interviews showed, it was either now or never, so of course they allowed it to go forward. If Spielberg says he's going to do another one, then Paramount will let him do it.
Now they made up with Cruise and want a blockbuster MI4 in the vein of MI2 to star Cruise and possibly be directed by him. If he does not direct he will be the producer.
So? What's the problem with that?
The paramount suits don't care if this new movie is garbage and not real Star Trek as they never cared for Gene's creation anyway, they only care if it makes money and can be sold to the lowest common demoninator and the teen audience. So they tell JJ to put in a bunch of sex and explosions and Throw hundreds of millions of dollars at this piece of trash that will be all cgi and rubbish and not true at all to Roddenberrys vision.
Again, we're in agreement.
sky, the only thing we disagree on is that you seem to think that anything that has a lot of CG can't possibly be good. I have four words for you "Lord of the Rings". Here's two more "The Matrix". All three LOTR movies had very heavy CG, but the story is what was important and the CG didn't get in the way. Sames goes for the Matrix. The problem isn't CG, the problem is the story. If a story is great, the CG can look like hell and it won't get in the way. But if the story is bad, no amount of CG will save it. If the story is bad, the movie is going to be bad, period. This is exactly why I can't even watch Transformers again. Aside from a couple of battle scenes, the entire movie is just bad.