Remember, people, that George is still in the background for Episode VII, and has anyone forgotten about the hype for Episode I 15 years back? With Abrams being a Spielberg clone at best, we might have another perfect storm in our hands. Hopefully Abrams has more respect for SW than he had for ST.
generalfrevious said:
Remember, people, that George is still in the background for Episode VII, and has anyone forgotten about the hype for Episode I 15 years back? With Abrams being a Spielberg clone at best, we might have another perfect storm in our hands. Hopefully Abrams has more respect for SW than he had for ST.
If he has as much respect for Star Wars as he did for Star Trek, you will likely be left to mutter to yourself in a corner.
generalfrevious said:
Remember, people, that George is still in the background for Episode VII, and has anyone forgotten about the hype for Episode I 15 years back? With Abrams being a Spielberg clone at best, we might have another perfect storm in our hands. Hopefully Abrams has more respect for SW than he had for ST.
Thank you. We can't assume that Lucas is the only bad director in the world.
darklordoftech said:
DuracellEnergizer said:<span style="font-size: 0.95em; line-height: 1.2em;">Nothing could ever be worse than the PT.</span>
Twilight, Transformers, Batman & Robin
DuracellEnergizer said:
darklordoftech said:
DuracellEnergizer said:Nothing could ever be worse than the PT.
Twilight, Transformers, Batman & Robin
I never watched the first two (and never will)
good decision
DuracellEnergizer said:
darklordoftech said:
DuracellEnergizer said:Nothing could ever be worse than the PT.
Twilight, Transformers, Batman & Robin
I never watched the first two (and never will), so I can only take your word for it. As for B&R, I'd say it's just about equal to the PT.
As bad as those movies are, they are still way better than the PT. At least they have scenes that actually feel genuine with proper pacing and decent acting. The PT was a failure on every level and has no redeemable qualities whatsoever.
“In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.” - George Lucas
Cobra Kai said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
darklordoftech said:
DuracellEnergizer said:Nothing could ever be worse than the PT.
Twilight, Transformers, Batman & Robin
I never watched the first two (and never will), so I can only take your word for it. As for B&R, I'd say it's just about equal to the PT.As bad as those movies are, they are still way better than the PT. At least they have scenes that actually feel genuine with proper pacing and decent acting. The PT was a failure on every level and has no redeemable qualities whatsoever.
B&R is horrible, but one underrated plot-line was Alfred's terminal illness.
Reegar said:
generalfrevious said:
Remember, people, that George is still in the background for Episode VII, and has anyone forgotten about the hype for Episode I 15 years back? With Abrams being a Spielberg clone at best, we might have another perfect storm in our hands. Hopefully Abrams has more respect for SW than he had for ST.
If he has as much respect for Star Wars as he did for Star Trek, you will likely be left to mutter to yourself in a corner.
Nah, I'll be there muttering with him. And that's exactly what I expect from JJ's SW: a very safe, appeals-to-all, Hollywood piece of crap that feels good in the moment but then feels empty for reasons you can't quite put your finger on... then the realization will hit that it's no more than a Best Of collection of moments from the OT with all the soul sucked out.
OR- maybe it'll be a very interesting tale of aging heroes dealing with deeper, more mature themes.
Nah, it'll be their kids running around cracking 'wise' and swingin' laserswords.
EDIT- What a grumpy post! No more replying before coffee!
ray_afraid said:
it'll be their kids running around cracking 'wise' and swingin' laserswords.
I'll take over the boredom of the PT anyday (Of course perfect sequels would be nice too).
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
Larry Kasdan's writing so it will at the very least have good dialog.
Though not my first choice, Abrams is a solid director. There is no possible chance that it is going to be anywhere as bad as the PT.
I will admit though, that I got a little worried after seeing STID. At least he didn't have anything to do with the story or script.
“In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.” - George Lucas
the storyline made no sense but it was very entertaining.
^This.
I don't get the hate for Abrams. So far he's proven to be a fantastic director. The hate toward his Star Trek films are mostly do to them being not exactly true to the spirit of Star Trek (and lens flares, but I seriously doubt he'll do that for SW), but that's because he isn't a Star Trek fan, whereas he is a HUGE Star Wars fan. And really, if you look at the plot of Star Trek (2009) and the overall styling of the film, its basically Star Wars set in the Star Trek universe, with Kirk playing the same sort of role as Luke, Pike as Ben, Spock as Han, Uhura as Leia, and Scotty and the little alien dude (don't know his name, sorry) as C-3PO and R2D2. He knows what he's doing guys. Plus Kasdan is writing, so we have an amazing writer, a really good director, most of the principle cast assumed to return, and John Williams returning to do the music. I think it's safe to say our beloved franchise is in good hands.
I hope we get pre-late 90's Williams, that's all I have to say...
I’m just here because I’m driving tonight.
Tack said:
I hope we get pre-late 90's Williams, that's all I have to say...
^This. And to add, I'd like 1980 John Williams for EpVII if it's possible.
Furthest from the bright center of the universe
vacuum said:
the storyline made no sense but it was very entertaining.
Harmy said:
^This.
I have to disagree here. It was much better than the 2009 reboot, but I didn't enjoy it at all. It was essentially a safe, braindead rip-off of Star Trek 2 in which everything that's been ripped off worked to the detriment of the movie because of the way it was handled this time around. On top of that, what's been altered and added was geared strictly towards the cheap seats and just not good enough. You don't get to have a (highly dramatic) reveal with no surprise, and the set-up was inept to the point where you didn't even need to know about ST2 in order to not get surprised. That bugged the hell out of me.
I'm fine with a few subtle callbacks, but I'm not fine with what effectively constitutes almost a feature length clip show. Plus I've got a lot of problems with the script for that movie aside from what I've already mentioned. Mind you, script-wise ST 2009 was equally bad, if not worse, but there wasn't a lot to it. If you're aiming higher (and they did aim higher with that whole "Kirk isn't ready" business), you need to up your game. Abrams and co. didn't up their game, hence the movie actually feels inferior to ST 2009, even if it's actually not.
ST2 had a theme supported by its narrative. STID craps all over its supposed theme with the narrative, because $$$. I agree that safe in the case of Star Wars would be an improvement at this point, but keep in mind that the PT is the lowest possible bar you could set for a movie and there is such a thing as "too safe".
Darth Lucas said:
I don't get the hate for Abrams. So far he's proven to be a fantastic director. The hate toward his Star Trek films are mostly do to them being not exactly true to the spirit of Star Trek (and lens flares, but I seriously doubt he'll do that for SW), but that's because he isn't a Star Trek fan, whereas he is a HUGE Star Wars fan. And really, if you look at the plot of Star Trek (2009) and the overall styling of the film, its basically Star Wars set in the Star Trek universe, with Kirk playing the same sort of role as Luke, Pike as Ben, Spock as Han, Uhura as Leia, and Scotty and the little alien dude (don't know his name, sorry) as C-3PO and R2D2. He knows what he's doing guys. Plus Kasdan is writing, so we have an amazing writer, a really good director, most of the principle cast assumed to return, and John Williams returning to do the music. I think it's safe to say our beloved franchise is in good hands.
I think I've responded to your post with my rant, heh.
I agree John Williams is past his best (80s), though it's understandable. How can one man maintain the standard he set himself. I may be fed to the sarlacc for suggesting this but perhaps another composer with some fresh ideas would be better? (Of course using some of the original themes created by Williams).
I found STID waaaay more entertaining than ST2 - ST2 was a better written film in terms of internal logic of the plot, there's no denying that but I was pretty bored watching it and after all the hype of a lot of people saying it was the best ST film, I was quite disappointed.
I think, to me, the Abrams' ST films are so entertaining, because they have very well written dialog between the principle characters. This is also why my favorite old crew ST movie is ST4 - like Abrams, I'm just not a big ST fan and I like these films, because they are less Star Treky. This, I think is the principle problem why the opinions on the new ST films vary so much, the hard core ST fans are disappointed, because it's not really Star Trek, where as people like me are happy for the very same reason :)
But I'm quite convinced that whatever the new ST films' undeniable faults, they are mostly script related and the films are really well directed.
Harmy said:
I found STID waaaay more entertaining than ST2 - ST2 was a better written film in terms of internal logic of the plot, there's no denying that but I was pretty bored watching it and after all the hype of a lot of people saying it was the best ST film, I was quite disappointed.
I think, to me, the Abrams' ST films are so entertaining, because they have very well written dialog between the principle characters. This is also why my favorite old crew ST movie is ST4 - like Abrams, I'm just not a big ST fan and I like these films, because they are less Star Treky. This, I think is the principle problem why the opinions on the new ST films vary so much, the hard core ST fans are disappointed, because it's not really Star Trek, where as people like me are happy for the very same reason :)
I am bored to death by action movies which aren't character-driven. That's why I enjoy The Wrath of Khan more every time I watch it. I don't care about stuff blowing up if I don't give a damn about who's blowing stuff up and/or who's getting blown up. It's really that simple. Action should be used with restrain, otherwise it completely loses its impact. Without drama there's no story and without a story there's no movie, maybe a light show at best. ST2 is easily the most entertaining (and by far the best) Star Trek movie to me.
The funny thing is, ST2 was Star Trek made by (Nicholas Meyer) and for people who weren't fans of Star Trek. Hence the submarines in space angle and all that. It's the same idea as with ST 2009 and STID, except that I feel the audience isn't treated like drooling morons by The Wrath of Khan. As a member of said audience I appreciate not being treated like a drooling moron ;)
As far as directors go I find Abrams pretty unremarkable overall. The lens flares really are the most distinct feature of his movies up to this point and that's very telling.
You know, when he was announced as the director for Ep VII I thought the movie was in fairly good hands. After watching STID and thinking it over again, I'm no longer so sure for a lot of reasons. I also think that unless he evolves as a filmmaker he might become a (profitable) punchline very soon, but that's another discussion.
One question about STID that bugs me is this: how much control did Abrams have over the movie? Because if he didn't have any, not all hope is lost. For instance, the cop-out ending felt like it was tacked on because the real ending didn't go well with test audiences, and this would explain the weak set-up as well. At least that one. Then again, if that's how the movie was intended, Ep VII is likely going to suck pretty hard (which won't prevent it from being infinitely better than the PT, but, again, that's a different matter).
Ah, speculation.
I absolutely don't want a shallow action movie. I want politics in the sequel trilogy.
darklordoftech said:
I absolutely don't want a shallow action movie. I want politics in the sequel trilogy.
I don't want either. I want a good story.
I'm a huge Star Trek fan going back 30 years, and I honestly think Star Trek fans in general have given JJ too hard a time over ST and STID.
The biggest criticism seems to be that there's too much crash bang wallop and not enough moral introspection and ethical debate. The problem with that is that all the best Trek films (II, IV, VI, VIII) have been action oriented, and (with the exception of Nemesis) all the worst ones (I, III, V, VII, IX) have been the character pieces.
Leave the ethical debates for TV episodes, but when you're doing a blockbuster movie I want to see where all the money has gone. Not only has JJ done this with both of his Trek movies, but there has also been nice chemistry between the characters.
Of all the directors currently active, I think only Chris Nolan would have been a better choice (and I don't think they could have gotten him anyway as I don't think he'll want to commit to something like this after Batman).
statto said:
I'm a huge Star Trek fan going back 30 years, and I honestly think Star Trek fans in general have given JJ too hard a time over ST and STID.
The biggest criticism seems to be that there's too much crash bang wallop and not enough moral introspection and ethical debate. The problem with that is that all the best Trek films (II, IV, VI, VIII) have been action oriented, and (with the exception of Nemesis) all the worst ones (I, III, V, VII, IX) have been the character pieces.
Leave the ethical debates for TV episodes, but when you're doing a blockbuster movie I want to see where all the money has gone. Not only has JJ done this with both of his Trek movies, but there has also been nice chemistry between the characters.
Of all the directors currently active, I think only Chris Nolan would have been a better choice (and I don't think they could have gotten him anyway as I don't think he'll want to commit to something like this after Batman).
I don't think the quality of these movies is governed by whether they're action-oriented or not.
But I also think that beyond The Wrath of Khan these movies aren't very good and past IV they're absolute garbage. TMP is barely a movie, but I still find it interesting.
statto said:
The problem with that is that all the best Trek films (II, IV, VI, VIII) have been action oriented, and (with the exception of Nemesis) all the worst ones (I, III, V, VII, IX) have been the character pieces.