Abrams is Destroying Star Trek like Lucas has Destroyed Star Wars — Page 21

Yeah the big hands thing is like something out of a childrens cartoon.  Reminds me of the big heads code in the arcade game NBA Jam.

But remember who the writers are they wrote transformers and MI3.  They have to be the worst screenwriters i have seen since david koepp or akiva goldsman. 

Which does not seem possible read akiva scripts for lost in space and batman and robin, or koepp's Indiana Jones IV.  Oh yeah thats right the indy IV script was so bad it was never even leaked much less publicly released in book form.

Just like the trek script on JJ's movie will probably never be released.  Or not for a long while.

It will have to be judged based on the movie.

I am waiting to see just what kind of laughable dialogue they came up with for transformers 2, or what they will come up with for star trek 2 JJ abrams.  Remember JJ's new movie is like star trek 1 not star trek 11.  So the next film will really not be star trek 12.

and Trek 2009 is not really even a new movie it is only being released now but has almost been finished for a year.

Yes the big hands is worse than spocks brain, kirok or the singing hippies in the sixties show.

generalfrevious said:

Transformers to me represents the zeitgeist of our era, despite being hardly a good film.

Really? I don't know. I have never seen it, nor have I any interest in seeing it. And all my friends who have seen it have basically told me to give it a skip. To me it looks nothing more than your typical summer blockbuster, and carries no more or no less hype than typical. I think zeitgeist may be a little exteme of a word to use. The summer blockbuster has been around forever, and will continue to be.

I think the style of transformers has its genesis in just about every big movie Lucas or Spielberg ever made.  The film has tons of homages.  But it clearly recalls the prequels type of over the top cgi and i don't think hollywood going to go back to making movies the old school way ever again.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy may be one of the last to use traditional tecniques along with cgi and be shot on film instead of HD video.  I know that other movies like Serenity also did both. 

Trek 2009 like Sky Captain is and the matrix is probably 90%or more designed in a computer.

To me LOTR is the last of the great trilogies i love it second only to the original star wars trilogy.  Every other modern thing is either garbage or entertainment for 2 hours that you never ever watch again.

Maybe some exceptions like Spider Man 1 and 2 and x-men 1 and 2.  I will never watch transformers again, or x-men 3 or spider man 3.

And I would add Batman Begins.  I'm kind of split on the dark knight.  I think the movie was way over rated and over hyped.  Still a good movie.  As for Iron man or the new hulk i don't understand the hype over those crap films.  Iron Man like the upcoming Terminator had great design by the Stan Winston studio but beyond that there is not much else i can say.  Its another blockbuster with rediculous unnecessary over the top cgi.

I'll admit Iron Man has heart, and is better than the fox made marvel films.  Still it is a very silly movie based on a comic book and the cgi takes center stage and the acting is second place.

It does well for its genre and does not pretend to be something that its not.  Unlike say the star wars prequels and indiana jones IV which roped you in with the promise as being as good as the originals and then crapped all over your memories.  The trailers lied and said they were epics and action packed awesome films.  Then you see the finished turd projected on screen.

Well i liked Hellboy, have to see Golden Army have not yet.  Liked his direction on Blade II.

Have yet to see Pan's Labyrinth the subtitles and non english was abit off putting.  Plus the plot was spoiled and i really don't like movies with really down endings.  But not all films have to have a happy ending. 

I am happy Del Toro is keeping Smaug's speech.  Early on the studio wanted to do away with that getting images of that bad movie where sean connery voices a dragon.

Having continuity and same actors for a lot of the roles with the lord of the rings films is awesome.  Filmed in the same locales as lord of the rings.  Peter Jackson as a producer and screenwriter with fran walsh.  Ian Mckellen as gandalf, i hope christopher lee returns as saruman.  I also hope to see Vigo as Aragorn, The dude from pirates of the caribbean as legolas.  I want to see how they pull off Beorn the were bear.  Who they choose to play Bilbo baggins and the dwarves.  The music better be by Howard Shore and the London Philarmonic.

I want to see the first convincing fairy story dragon brought to the screen.  It has not been done before.

Since the story of sigurd the dragon slayer has never been put to film at least with the dragon taunting the hero.  They better do the riddle contest in gollums cave, that chapter riddles in the dark was always one of my favorites.

IS Weta doing the effects ?  is it being shot on super 35mm film like lord of the rings?

Actually Pan's Labyrinth kind of has an up ending. It is a pretty good movie, and the DVD does actually have an English dub of the film, not sure how good it is though.

I have yet to see Devil's Backbone. I like Del Toro. I am glade he is doing The Hobbit, though I really hope they match PJ's The Lord of the Rings to a fair degree. But even if it doesn't, it is not that big of a deal, in many ways the actual book The Hobbit has a completely different tone and feel to it from LOTRs.

Humor in Star Trek is a fine balance. The heavy humor drivin Trek films ( IV & V) have not been on the top of my list, and I think the silly jokes in VI hurt the over all flow of the film.  With the original series, you had fun joke driven episodes such as "Trouble with Tribbles", that fit into the cannon along side very serious dramatic episodes like "Balance of Terror". This worked only when you keept the over the top corny jokes out of the dramatic episodes, and at the same time did not make the hokey episodes to heavy handed in the drama department.  "Wrath of Khan" kept it's humor on a very low and realistic level. It's the kind of humor most people encounter or use everyday with friends or co-workers.  It's not the "pie in the face" type.

This new film looks to be mixing styles. They seem to want to draw fans of the heavy hitting "Wrath of Khan" type films, but at the same time they are injecting "Row, Row, Row Your Boat", type lame jokes. Not a good mix.  If they want to make a Star Trek parody, they should just do that, and call it that. They should not try and trick people who want a hard hitting adventure into thinking that's what they are going to get.  In 1967, there was a James Bond movie called "Casino Royal". It was a parody, and billed as such. People who took it for what it was, a light hatred spoof, came away satisfied. People wanting a classic Bond adventure, got upset and some even panned the film for using the 007 logo and Bond name as a trick to lure them in (take a look at the Amazon reviews for the DVD).  The 1967 "Casino Royal" did have it's positive reviews, and history shows that the official series of Bond film's producers started to take note, and incorporate more and more corny jokes well into the 1970's and 80's. I am not a fan of that kind of Bond film, and got more and more disappointed viewing the series in order after O.H.M.S.S.

Well, so far I've read nothing but positive reviews for this film....So it can't be all that bad.

We get it on the 7th..So I do believe it's the same time as te rest of the world.

Johnny Ringo said:

* I'm almost certain that people are planning fanedits without having seen the film yet...

I predict it will be a  film that, like the PT movies, will be unfixable via a fan edit. There will just be too much wrong with it.

or..it might just be the best film you've seen in years that has no need for a fan edit!!

I'll be at Walt Disney World on Thursday night, and have tickets for the digital showing close by.  This should be a fun ride no matter what.

hilarious

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

Amazing.  Loved it.

No rotten reviews, even the greatest films get one or 2 rotten reviews. 

Something is fishy.  Too much like AICN and Trekmovie.com.

I don't believe it until i see the movie.  And they could be tricking us again like they did for revenge of the sith and indiana jones IV being good movies.  Because of that Ebert lost an extreme amount of credibility as well as him liking the mummy curse of the dragon emporer.

He gets my respect for his damning reviews of the clone wars movie and Quantum of Solace.  But even he admitted he likes dumb entertainment cheeseball cinema that is bad filmaking, how else do you excuse him being a Lucas appologist.  I miss Siskel he would have told that the later II prequels sucked doney balls, and that indiana jones IV was a giant stinking turd.

I don't get Indy 4's mostly positive rating on rotten tamatoes.  It is certified fresh.  When it is most certainly rotten.  But in comparison to other modern crap it was good according to these people.  So film has gone so low that crap films of yesteryear are better than todays movies. 

Temple of Doom was better than crystal Skulls never thought i would ever have thought that. It ties up the Raiders threads in a neat little bow but was that really necessary?  Reminds me a bit of Return of the Jedi which i still love by the way,lol.

I think Revenge of the Sith just barely scrapped by with a fresh rating the last time i checked,lol.