Hunter6 said:
Dude - there are considerably better screen grabs to post.
doubleofive said:I had a friend in elementary school (early 90's) and every time we sat at our Apple-IIs in computer class, we'd say "A keyboard, how quaint", crack our knuckles, and type randomly.
I think we've all been there...
Well, like it or not, looks like this kind of Trek will be with us for a few more years at least.
Sequel by the same guys already in the works
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118001885.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
Johnny Ringo said:doubleofive said:...in elementary school (early 90's) and every time we sat at our Apple-IIs ...
I think we've all been there...
Well, not all of us. ;-)
I will pay to see the sequel if at the end of this movie the timeline is restored, and they have New writers and a new director on the sequel and somehow have a cameo role for William Shatner as Captain Kirk.
I would see it if the Enterprise in the movie is the real movie enterprise from films 1-6 and not an abomination by a prequel star wars designer.
Or if the film fails return to the same Trek universe as before only go forward in time and have new actors, new characters. Show Them boldy going and exploring where no one has gone before, way into the future past the picard era. Why go backward instead of forward?
I have come to the conclusion prequels suck in general. I would have rather had a real star wars sequel trilogy rather than those dreadfull prequels we are forced to accept as canon.
In fact the only prequel that worked imho is the batman Begins and Dark Knight reboots.
I mean Bond was not a true prequel in Casino Royale despite being a fine action film in its own right, and Quantum of Solace was less than Satisfactory.
I have come to the conclusion to Enjoy the new JJ trek verse you have had to have no interest or knowledge of star trek or seen little or none of the older films or tv series. You have to pretend the other films and shows don't exist. I could not do that for bond and i cannot do that for star trek either.
Batman was easier because it returned the series to its noir crime fighter roots, and plus i was not a huge batman fan anyway.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
skyjedi2005 said:I will pay to see the sequel if....they have New writers and a new director
Then you won't be paying to see it.
Why go backward instead of forward?
Because it's a part of the story that many people have wanted to see for decades. It's also a part of the story that the studio has wanted to tell for quite a while.
In fact the only prequel that worked imho is the batman Begins and Dark Knight reboots.
There are plenty of prequels that have done very well and have legions of fans – whether you like them (or approve of them) or not.
….have a cameo role for William Shatner as Captain Kirk.
They’ve moved past Shatner needing to be part of every film for it to be accepted as canon. His involvement – as iconic as it has been in the previous films – is not necessary anymore. Star Trek can exist, and do so very well, without Shatner.
……plus i was not a huge batman fan anyway.
That’s the most important part of your post.
Because you weren’t a huge Batman follower, the changes & additions to the story & characters were acceptable. That very same situation is now taking place with Star Trek. People who are less dug-in – or at least more open-minded - are looking forward to the pre-TV part of the story. They’re were you were with Batman Begins. Along those same lines, the way you feel about the new Enterprise is the way I feel about the new Batmobile.
I've been a big Star Trek fan since I was a kid, not rabid like some people, but a fan for sure. Personally, I'm looking forward to a clean look at the early part of the story. Truth is, I was hoping they'd make it even cleaner and break from the 60s & 80s completely by not having any of the original cast involved. For me, they've gone to the well too many times already.
skyjedi2005 said:I have come to the conclusion to Enjoy the new JJ trek verse you have had to have no interest or knowledge of star trek or seen little or none of the older films or tv series. You have to pretend the other films and shows don't exist. I could not do that for bond and i cannot do that for star trek either.
True.
For me, The New Bond and Batman Movies are way more easier to handle then this new Star Trek movie.
It really feels and looks like the new Star Trek movie is way off-base.
Bad set designs, Bad ship designs, Bad make-up, most of the actors seem not right for the roles and The film not being made for the fans. also, JJ Abrams and the Writers seems to say just the wrong things which piss off the fans.
I have read many stories like this "Star Trek Movie, What the @#$% Are You Doing" one:
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/03/star_trek_movie_what_the_are_you_doing.php
This new star trek is just wrong to most people who had or have interest in or knowledge of star trek.
JJ Abrams may say "This film is not for the Fans", but He wants the money from the fans.
The number of Star Trek Fans in the world is more then non-fans.
JJ's Star Trek Sequel???? maybe seeing than even the Transformers movie which allot of people hate is having a Sequel. I question how Transformers 2 will do, seeing allot of people seem to hate Transformers 1 and I feel that a JJ's Star Trek Sequel will be in the same boat.
Hahaha, that slave girl thing was funny. I have to admit, they really did fuck that one right up!
War does not make one great.
Hunter6 said:
Scotty (Simon Pegg) trapped inside water pipes then He has his "I like this ship…it’s exciting" line.
Simon Pegg as Scotty maybe worst then Jar Jar.
This movie is looking even more horrible.
This maybe the kid's trailer, but it is still bad and will be in the movie.
http://trekmovie.com/2009/03/29/see-star-trek-kids-trailer-aired-during-kids-choice-awards-w-analysis-pine-appearance/
That's not Simon Pegg, it is obviously Chris Pine as James Kirk.
I think this is the picture he means, look how retarded this actor looks in this picture and picture JAR JAR's head superimposed over his body.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
Scotty Binks - Jar Jar's half-wit brother.
Star Wars Episode XXX: Erica Strikes Back
If you want Nice, go to France
That pic made me laugh my ass off. Funny thing is it reminds me of that redone trek trailer by some fan using the audio and footage of the star wars prequels, in the trailer Jar Jar says "I like this ship. It is Exciting"
I mean what is the worst that could happen in this movie they have a robot sidekick called bad robot,lol.
They won't do that but some fans made jokes to the contrary.
Man whats with all those water pipes in engineering i though this was a star trek movie not a super mario bros movie.
Replace scotty with a plumber named Mario and he would be called on by captain kirk to keep the pipes unclogged to achieve warp speed.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
Is it possible that he was beamed - wet clothes and all to the ship from some other place?
http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/01/review-star-trek-countdown-4-more-clues-to-star-trek-movie-revealed/
Most significantly showing both Spock’s Jellyfish and Nero’s Narada getting inadvertantly pulled into a black hole created when Spock released the ‘red matter’ into the Hobus Supernova (sending them back in time).
http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/03/trekink-review-crew-2-preview-missions-end-2-news-on-post-st09-comic/#comment-1689281
As the "Star Trek Countdown" prequel was set entirely in the TNG universe, this new book titled "Spock: Reflections" will be the first comic tie-in set in the universe of the new movie. According to Harris, "It looks to be set in the new, post-film timeline established by the rebooted continuity. It should hit shelves sometime around July, just in time for the San Diego Comic-Con."
Trekmovie Comment:
17. Darrksan - April 3, 2009
“the rebooted continuity”
I guess that means JJ’s trek is erasing TOS.
damn it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think darrksan is right and I say damn it too.
the rebooted continuity, I maybe can picture what it is:
ENT-era-----JJ's era------movie era-------TNG-Era
Do they even hand draw comics any more? That spock reflections preview looks an awful like it was made on a computer. Would not surprise me though. Now we get "digital paintings" that are fake paintings, HD VIDEO served up as film, fake comics and fake movie posters created in photoshop.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
the rebooted continuity, I maybe can picture what it is:
ENT-era-----JJ's era------movie era-------TNG-Era
That don't work. I think you need to watch back to the future 2 again ;). Then again, If the Nero from the future is now in the past...how could we possibly know about it?
At present my understanding [whether i'm right or wrong] is basically this -
Please forgive the crudeness and scale of the mockup...
A new tv spot was released. Wow this movie just keeps getting more and more rediculous its just plain laughable. This is not star trek in anything but name.
Pine Kirk "Bring some more guys and it will be an even fight" in the space bar that looks an offal lot like the star wars one in attack of the clones.
This is top gun trek just like the abandoned academy days script by Harve Bennett, it was a bad idea in the time they were gearing up to make a sixth star trek film. It is still a bad idea now.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
From:
http://chud.com/articles/articles/18883/1/STAR-TREK-THE-WRATH-OF-A-REVIEW/Page1.html
Tonight was the world premiere of JJ Abrams' Star Trek in Australia... or so everybody thought. Paramount actually secretly brought the film to the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin, Texas, where a crowd had assembled for what they thought was a free screening of Wrath of Khan. When the show let out excited reactions hit Twitter; while I've been highly and vocally skeptical about this rebootquel, the responses - especially from a couple of other skeptics - have me heartened.
We don't usually run reader reviews, but long time message board denizen Greg Clark is lucky enough to live in Austin and was double lucky enough to be there tonight. He sends in his thoughts:
The lovely bastards at the Drafthouse pulled a fast one on us tonight. Last week they announced a free screening of Star Trek II and baited us with a special 10 minute sneak preview of J.J. Abrams’ upcoming Trek reboot; since Wrath of Khan isn’t just my favorite Trek films but one of my favorite films period, I made sure I was there to see it on the big screen in the best theatre in the country. Well, turns out they got the times right but the programming got switched; we got the first ten minutes of Khan, and suddenly the film melted. Everyone’s panicked, Tim League, owner of the Drafthouse, looked pretty peeved. Suddenly, a tall figure enters the room, reveals himself to be none other than Leonard Fucking Nimoy (his full name, I believe), and asks us if we’d like to be the first audience in the world to see the new Trek film (the film is officially premiering in Sydney as I’m writing this, so we win that title by mere hours). “Um, sure,” the crowd responds. “Twist our arms on that one.” So, somewhat surreally, the lights go back down, and I’m suddenly becoming one of the first people to legally see one of this summer’s tentpole movies.
I enjoyed it. I'm still euphoric from the utter shock of Leonard Nimoy appearing right in fucking front of me (I was second row from the front, and was one of the first people to figure out who exactly this big lanky guy in the ballcap was), but the movie taken on its own...well, it doesn't suck. Anyone who says it's better than Wrath of Khan is talking out of their hyperbolic ass though. This one doesn't nearly have as clear a thought out script as that one, easily one of the tightestly plotted films in any genre, and suffers from the same problem as that other Orci and Kurtzman collaboration, Transformers: it wants to be all things for all people at all times.
Before the movie, the writers said that they really looked at Khan and decided that they wanted to aim for that; they weren't kidding. Khan was always more of a straight up action/adventure movie than a science fiction one, a true submarine naval thriller set in the stars, and this one is certainly trying for that. In that sense it succeeds in its goal; it is a very exciting picture. The film is definitely more concerned with action and a quick pace than it is in being a sci-fi film about exploring the galaxy. The setpieces are fun, they're fast, and they keep you interested. All the actors do a fine job in varying degrees, most of the dialogue works, and it's a very handsome looking film.
The problem I run into, though, is that it's trying to do too many things. It wants to keep the hardcore fanbase happy, so we get a very laboriously explained tie into the old Trek continuity. And yet we have a new cast and a desire to get the mainstream back roped back into this universe, so the film stars off with massive explosions and a deafening sound mix. I really wish they had just started over from scratch, like a real reboot should, but surprisingly, the way they tie everything ends up working for the most part. Where it all falls down is that it takes so long to get the basic point of Bana's villain across that the movie's halfway through the second act before you really get a feel for what exactly his motivation is, and why we need to tie into the old Trek in the first place. It literally takes Leonard Nimoy showing up as Old Spock to get the plot to snap into making any sort of sense; instead of a tired "it's all about REVENGE" motivation Nero could have just been a crazed Romulan looking to beat the competition (read: Vulcans/Federation) in order to show who had the bigger stick. The only thing that would've changed would have been Bana's ship might not have resembled Sarrisus' destroyer from Galaxy Quest so much, and it possibly could have given Bana something to do; the man's trying but he's basically roaring angrily for 80% of his screentime.
This leads to my biggest problem with the movie: they take the shorthand way out when this is supposed to be these character's first big adventure. We're just tossed into the fray and it's full of assumed knowledge, like why the Romulans and Vulcans hate each other, or what the Federation stands for. Yeah, I know, if you're reading this you know all these things, but look at it this way: the two most successful reboots, Batman Begins and Casino Royale, still explained the motivations of its characters. It didn't just assume we knew everything about Bond or Batman, it let their origins play out. In fact, one could say the entire length of both those movies was entirely about what made these characters tick and lead them to become the iconic images we recognize (probably moreso in Casino Royale). Trek leans heavily on the iconography but skimps on the details, which makes for a fun, but ultimately very lightweight movie. It's far more interested in keeping our heart racing than it is in exploring any real sci-fi themes about exploring the universe or the meaning of sacrificing oneself for a greater good, two of the cornerstones to the best episodes and films in the Trek canon. Again, going back to Khan, that film was about something. It explored themes and ideas about growing old, trying to hold on to youth and the past long after one’s prime, and what happens when that past comes back to haunt you. Kirk spends all of Khan trying to ignore death, cheat it, until it unavoidably hits him square in the face. This new Trek isn’t ABOUT anything, thematically; it bandies about talk of destiny and facing your fears, but it’s all lip service. And like I said, that makes it fun, a lot more fun than almost any other Trek film out there, but it's full of sound and fury and little else.
Despite the first twenty minutes or so being dedicated to Spock and Kirk's childhood/formative years and Academy days, we don't get a good feel for what really makes them tick. It's all quickly brushed broad strokes and archetypes, with again a nice handful of assumed knowledge and glossing over. Kirk's childhood segment (the car chase in the trailer) really, really blows, and its soundtrack choice was so glaringly dumb (and pandering to the mainstream) and out of place that I became frightened that J.J. Abrams had fully transformed into Michael Bay. Let's just say I happy when we were done with kids Kirk and Spock and moved onto the Academy days, because we got a healthy dose of fun in the form of Karl Urban's McCoy. Yeah, he's basically aping DeForrest Kelly for the most part, but it's a very good imitation in that he makes it feel natural. While Urban will never win any acting awards, he does do doom and gloom pretty well, and when played for chuckles his cynicism makes the movie, well, fun in a more classic sense. So much of this movie is a very loud rollercoaster; I cherished the moments when it remembered that it could be fun by just letting the actors and their characters have a few moments to breathe.
This is mostly shown by how wonderful Simon Pegg is in here; it's almost a crime that the film is halfway over before Scotty makes it into the movie. Chris Pine does the most surprising work when he shakes off any Shatnerisms that might feel required when playing Kirk and makes him a very familiar, yet fresh character. It didn't take me long to accept him as Kirk; I was even more impressed when I saw flashes of what Shatner brought to the role that worked while ditching all the things that make him so mockable. I'm not too familiar with Pine, but I think he's got a very good quality about him, and lets it show through the underneath Kirk's cocky asshole exterior he has his moments where he fully realizes just how out of his depth he probably is. Quintano takes a lot more cues from Nimoy, but really, the man defined how to play a Vulcan, and while Quintano doesn't quite get there as far as making being emotionless not mean being a prick, he does a much better job dealing with Spock's internal struggle between his Vulcan sensibilities and his very real human emotions. John Cho has a moment to shine as Sulu and little else, while Zoë Saldana gets a few moments of requisite girl power before being relegated to very pretty window dressing. Anton Yelchin is basically an extended cameo as Chekov, and his bizarre Russian accent is some much welcome goofiness amidst such serious and intense (and loud. Did I mention this movie’s volume is ramped to 11 for most of the running time?) proceedings.
I really feel like I'm coming down on this movie hard, but that's mainly because I want to give it a fair shake taken on its own, not just from the admittedly near euphoric atmosphere I saw it in. Premieres at the Drafthouse are exciting enough; a surprise one with a legendary actor ten feet away from you makes it all the harder to remain objective. And trust me that I'm not bullshitting when I say it's a very exciting, very fun adventure movie; it most certainly is. Furthermore, they manage to work the way-too-convoluted-for-its-own-good time travel/old continuity bridge into a convincing new foundation for further adventures with the new cast, something that is in itself a small miracle (an achievement lessened when you consider that this juggling act could have been avoided altogether). The movie should easily become the biggest (and probably most popular with the mainstream) Trek film out there, and Paramount might have successfully turned this back into a cash cow. Let's just hope the next time out we can get some real exploration based adventure, instead of spending half a running time figuring out what the point of the film is going to be. But overall, for now, I'll say that Trek is back, and I'm eager to see the new crew take on what's next. I’ll be honest, though: when the credits came up on this and the applause died down, I couldn’t help but shake the fact that I still wanted to watch Wrath of Khan on the big screen.
And here's one from Quint @ AICN
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40675
He seemed to dig the film...as did most of the reviews on that site
Hunter6 said:From:
http://chud.com/articles/articles/18883/1/STAR-TREK-THE-WRATH-OF-A-REVIEW/Page1.html
Tonight was the world premiere of JJ Abrams' Star Trek in Australia... or so everybody thought. Paramount actually secretly brought the film to the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin, Texas, where a crowd had assembled for what they thought was a free screening of Wrath of Khan. When the show let out excited reactions hit Twitter; while I've been highly and vocally skeptical about this rebootquel, the responses - especially from a couple of other skeptics - have me heartened.
I'd be so pissed, thinking I was going to get to see the Wrath of Khan on the big screen for free, only to witness Abrams pulling his pants down and taking a giant crap on the big screen before my very eyes.
Okay, so I am just kidding. Even though I have my doubts about the new film, this is really cool that they did that. That was an obvious outreach to fans, as they would be the only ones taking up the offer for a free screening of The Wrath of Khan. Really cool way to have a free, ST fan only, exclusive screening of the new film. Had they announced it was the new playing, hoards of folks outside fandom would have invaded, including the media. Whoever was behind this whole idea, very impressive stuff.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
Really nice to hear in-depth, positive reviews. From the sound of things, they did with this film exactly what I'd hoped they'd do with it - give Star Trek the depth & respect that the idea & characters deserve.
The whole thing reminds me very much of James Bond.
When Casino Royale was first announced, I was a little concerned. I've been a huge 007 nerd since 1973. I didn't really think the idea & character needed to be changed. It just needed to be brought back into focus. I had been very disappointed with the previous two films. When Casino Royale came out, I was beside myself - they'd finally made the 007 film that I'd always wanted. It instantly became the standard-bearer for me.
The very same situation looks to be presenting itself again with Star Trek. I didn't like the last two Trek films I'd seen and didn't even bother with Nemesis. However, I don't really think the idea needs to be scrapped - just a return-to-form. It certainly looks - and now sounds - as though that's what they've done.
I'm really looking forward to seeing this.
The whole old Spock contrived bit of continuity management annoys me to no end though.
It would be like Casino Royale, if Casino Royale had felt the need to explain why Bond was going on his first mission in modern times, when he has been a kickass spy since the 50s. It was a reboot, didn't need to be explained. We knew we were starting over from scratch, back at the beginning, none of that stuff from the other films has ever happened.
I was excited back when I thought it was a straight up reboot, but this whole alternate timeline bit is dumb, and makes more problems than it fixes.
Imagine this scene at the beginning of Casino Royale.
Pierce Brosnan as Bond: What do you have for me this time R?
John Cleese as R: For you next mission 007, we will be sending you back in time to re complete your for mission for... (insert long winded and contrived reason here) ...the only catch 007 is that you will not be able to return to this time.
Bond: You're joking! Your sending me back to the 1950's to re complete my first mission as a 00 at the Casino Royale? What about the young version of me? Won't I just get in his way?
R: Well here's the thing 007, you WILL be the young you, and you wont be in the 1950's, it'll be now... it is complicated, don't make me explain, just do you job, will you?
Brosnan Bond steps through glowing portal and comes out the other end as Daniel Craig. Bond theme plays loudly in background.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
C3PX said:The whole old Spock contrived bit of continuity management annoys me to no end though.
It would be like Casino Royale, if Casino Royale had felt the need to explain why Bond was going on his first mission in modern times, when he has been a kickass spy since the 50s. It was a reboot, didn't need to be explained. We knew we were starting over from scratch, back at the beginning, none of that stuff from the other films has ever happened.
I get that there are differences with regard to the respective time lines. I'm speaking in a more general sense - just as a 007 film & a Star Trek film to see and enjoy the stories of.
Where continuity is concerned during the span of 40-year-old franchises, unless you use the same cast, it can't really be addressed correctly anyway. You can bend the rules a little with Trek because the series were only vaguely connected and because it's science fiction. With 007 - reboot or not - continuity went out the window a long time ago. If it hadn't, 007 would be a 90-year-old man struggling with these blasted cell phones, trying to navigate the interweb, and complaining that he's only allowed to smoke outside.
As a fan of certain franchises, I definitely want, and expect, some continuity. However, I'm much more concerned that the continuity be in the premise, not so much every plot point. There are guys going off on how Kirk shouldn't see a Warbird yet because it conflicts with a 1966 TV episode. I don't care if those bits are conflicting. There's a much bigger message & ideal to be conveyed. What I want is for Kirk to be a good guy who can handle the pressure of the assignment - that Spock is a guy struggling with his emotions - that McCoy is a little pessimistic - that Uhura is an intelligent woman - Scotty a little left-of-center, etc, etc.
I want to be excited to go on the journey again and to give a damn about what happens to the characters. I didn't have that anymore with the last few entries in both franchises. Casino Royale fixed that - even to the point of becoming my favorite 007 film ever (by far). I'm hoping Star Trek does something similar.
The funny thing is if i went to see wrath of khan on the big screen and they showed this i would feel cheated beyond belief. I would be willing to pay a lot of money to see Trek II on the big screen.
I would not spend 2 cents to see this contrived piece of dung paramount is putting out. And when that reviewer compared it transfromers that seals the deal with me i'll be staying home, that movie had some of the most attrociously bad script writing i have ever seen next to lucas at his indiana jones IV and prequel best.
After seeing Lost, Alias, Fringe and MI:III i am convinced orci and kurtzman are the biggest hacks in hollywood at the moment. Next to David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman that is.
The thing is no matter what i think this movie is going to make tons of money. Just like the horrible comic prequel sold out in stores.
People are going to see this because it is not star trek even though it is calling itself such. People that would have stayed away because trek was for geeks and nerds and losers or whatever stereotype is popular at the moment,lol. What they made is another popcorn munching, cgi blockbuster that looks like a 200 million dollar videogame. Basically the Trek version of bays transformers. It will be action packed and sexy and not real science fiction or cerebral roddenberry trek which others hate but i like. The cage and the motion picture happen to be some of my favorite trek in this way.
They have been making action trek flicks for years. The last one which had any thought going on in it was Insurrection, well that ones message was incapsulated in an action film trying to be like first contact which was a mistake imho. Then Nemesis a rehash of star trek II and an action film. Every film since First contact has pretty much been this way. The studios want to make money, they care nothing about getting you to think or film as art.
It is unfortunate that a great film like trek II would unseat and destroy the very franchise it saved, by making each film have to be militaristic and an action piece and not about exploration or the final frontier.
Wow i just saw the mtv clip what stupid dialogue the scene was as funny as it was cringe worthy, reminds me of the padme and anakin scenes in the prequels.
He tells Uhura who is a linguist that she has a "talented tongue" Uhura tells him something like since he is a farmboy from iowa he must have sex with the farm animals and pine quips "not only" WTF? This sounds more like a Kevin Smith movie than a star trek movie.
I just knew the guys who gave Sam Witwicky in Transformers the screen name ladiesman, and had bumblebee pissing and Optimus Prime saying "my bad" like he was from the clueless movie could not get a thing right. All the bad one liners you could ever think of. I hope its not American Pie in outerspace or trek 90210, but things are looking pretty grim. These guys wrote in the comic "get Your ass up here bigboy". Wow such great writing. Dude a bunch of drunk fratboys might write like this but these guys are paid screenwriters in hollywood.
Their writing would not pass muster in a high school english class much less a college one. They get paid millions to write scripts that a room full of monkeys could come up with. Here lets smear poo on a piece of paper,lol.
This is the so called stellar Script Nimoy was waiting for he came out of retirement to make, yet he turned down generations, just wow. Unbelievable. I hope they paid the old chap well enough because this thing is a visual feast but written like a turd.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
