http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWiTl_eAAnA - now, I know this is meant to be humorous, but that's a pretty good comparison. I wouldn't have caught it at first.
A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em
Well, I saw an interview with director J.J. Abrams somewhere and he said he knew he would never get the chance to direct a Star Wars film, so he thought of this as one and only shot to direct a Star Wars type film. He was intentionally going for more of a Star Wars vibe within the Trek universe.
From what i have seen this is almost a remake of star wars in the star trek universe, no wonder trekkies are so livid as they hate star wars and how it has had influence over star trek since 1977.
The only show free of wars influence was the original series and that borrowed heavily in the pilot the cage from a certain movie called forbidden planet which was a sci fi remake of Shakespeare's the tempest.
Ilm did effects on how many of the 11 features?, i know they worked on the pilot encounter at farpoint built the first models and developed the new warp effect on the next generation tv show.
Abrams is a tv guy this was his first chance to shoot an epic scale blockbuster instead everything from the music and the movie seems like an extended tv episode with like 200 hundred times the budget.
That has always been the problem with star trek film, they really have not been spectacular enough to break their tv origins, star trek at its best was a serialized television show where the characters were developed over time while the plots were recycled and alien menaces too,lol.
The only ones that seemed to me to be more than an extended tv episode were the motion picture and first contact. Those were epic in scope, the 11th film was visually epic in scope but recalls all jj's previous failed attempts at film, and reminds you of what he has done, alias, lost and fringe. MI:III was like a tv episode where the second film was a bloated action and cgi spectacle from john woo, the shaky cam thing was annoying on that godzilla ripoff he produced Clovershit, i mean cloverfield.
I like Star Trek 11 but i see it as half a failure, half a success because instead of being a true reboot it was only done half assed, and wanted to be a continuation at the same time or Nimoy would not have been in the film, and they would not have tried doing caricatures of the acting of the old stars, the only person i noticed who avoided this was Chris Pine.
If i was a director i would have made a complete break with the old continuity and made it very plain that this was a separate trek universe from what roddenberry created, then the fans could not complain of raped childhoods unless they thought they could claim ownership to the characters names.
Then you would have had to create a whole new crew and formula and start from scratch with a new ship, and probably set it way later than nemesis. They chose the easy and lazy path and the one that could make the quick money like lucas doing the prequels and crystal skull instead of creating anything new.
The same star trek with a tune up and a new paint job, talk about being creatively bankrupt i would just as soon the franchise died, They should have done a real start from scratch like Batman Begins or The Galactica remake, instead they chose to go the superman returns, casino royale route.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
What's with the generalities? A lot of Trek fans love Star Wars, myself included. SW is the main reason Paramount bumped what might have been a short lived tv revival into a full fledged big budget movie.
Star Trek did do alien bar fights and a giant planet destroying machine first. ;)
Both films have drawn upon universal themes of a hero's journey from callow youth to experienced leader. Luke and Ben have been compared to Arthur and Merlin since the beginning. Spock is Kirk's Merlin in a way.
I thought Abrams made a damn good movie. I'm not a fan of shaky cam, nor lens flares, but the movie has an epic feel to it. Only Star Trek could be rebooted like this, and keep what has gone before, yet have it be a new separate timeline where things will be different. I hated what happens to Vulcan, and Amanda's death, but in terms of the story they made sense.
And being a "tv guy" doesn't mean you can't make feature films, just ask Steven Spielberg. ;)
Going back to Kirk and Spock was really the only way to go, they are the characters even non-fans know.
Where were you in '77?
I don't think it was necessary to go back to Kirk and Spock and fuck them up. And I'd much rather have the Trek franchise vanish than return with mockeries of established characters.
SilverWook said:
What's with the generalities? A lot of Trek fans love Star Wars, myself included. SW is the main reason Paramount bumped what might have been a short lived tv revival into a full fledged big budget movie.
Star Trek did do alien bar fights and a giant planet destroying machine first. ;)
Both films have drawn upon universal themes of a hero's journey from callow youth to experienced leader. Luke and Ben have been compared to Arthur and Merlin since the beginning. Spock is Kirk's Merlin in a way.
I thought Abrams made a damn good movie. I'm not a fan of shaky cam, nor lens flares, but the movie has an epic feel to it. Only Star Trek could be rebooted like this, and keep what has gone before, yet have it be a new separate timeline where things will be different. I hated what happens to Vulcan, and Amanda's death, but in terms of the story they made sense.
And being a "tv guy" doesn't mean you can't make feature films, just ask Steven Spielberg. ;)
Going back to Kirk and Spock was really the only way to go, they are the characters even non-fans know.
yea. im a trekkie also and just love star wars! and if u didn't notice, a lot of stories follow the same premise.
also, silverwook was right to go back to kirk and spock. they really were the only non fan characters out there. i knew more about spock then my dad when i was like seven and he watched star trek all his life.
Trek did well for years not focusing on "non-fan characters". They didn't need to change that now, just be a bit more creative.
Vaderisnothayden said:
I don't think it was necessary to go back to Kirk and Spock and fuck them up. And I'd much rather have the Trek franchise vanish than return with mockeries of established characters.
"Mockieries"? Elaboate, please.
The characters were easily the best part of the new Star Trek film.
Sylar as Spock? Mockery plain and simple. To reduce Spock from the heights of Nimoy's performance to the lowdown pettiness of watchacallims performance. Awful.
hey, they did awsome on the cast. that was the one thing about the movie i was worried about when they were making it and they pulled it off. the next one they do, i hope they use the same cast again. besides, having a cameo appearence from lenoard nimoy really boost the acception of the characters.
Awesome on the cast? The whole idea of recasting the characters was bull and made no sense (no, I'm not suggesting they should have used the original cast, I'm suggesting they shouldn't have gone back to those characters because the only actors who can do them are too old or dead). Those characters acted by different people are different characters. If they didn't pretend they were versions of the same characters it'd be ok. And now there's a situation in which I can come across people gushing about "Spock" and I have to realize they don't mean Spock they mean this awful Sylar counterfeit. It's just ugh. Hayden as Anakin all over again.
well, that's my personal opinion. which makes me wonder, do u think the should of left the PT alone or are u just pissed sabastian shaw didn't play anakin skywalker?
Obviously Sebastian Shaw couldn't play Anakin, but they could have found somebody appropriate for the role. Shaw left his mark on the character, but the character wasn't as locked to Shaw as Spock was to Nimoy. As such it would have been perfectly ok to have a younger actor to play the character if they'd gotten somebody appropriate. But they didn't. We always knew a younger actor would have to play Anakin, that was the deal from the start, way back in the days the OOT was coming out. Whereas Spock was just Nimoy, plain and simple, defined by him to a great degree and played by him in endless hours of tv/film, very different from playing one scene, however significant.
As it is, there was a lot more wrong with the prequels than just the casting of Anakin, but the awful writing and acting for Anakin was one of the worst things about it. A better actor, with different writing and directing could have turned out an Anakin that worked. But Spock IS Nimoy and it's not ok to give the role to someone else for more than flashback scenes and little stuff like that. The planned Star Wars prequels (which would have been different from the ones we got), with their younger version of Anakin played by a younger actor, were part of the planned Star Wars saga long before the OT was completed and before Shaw got the role. But this Star Trek movie wasn't on the horizion until recent times when they decided to go back and fuck up the old characters wth bad imitations. There's a marked difference in the Anakin and Spock situations.
However it WASN'T ok to give the Anakin role to Hayden Christensen, who fucked it up totally. And similarly, Quinto gets Spock totally wrong. Quinto's Spock is an insult to the character and the fans of the character, just as Hayden's Anakin was an insult to Vader/Anakin and to Star wars fans. It would have been better to have no prequels than ones in which the character of Anakin was so ruined. And it would have been better to have no new Trek than to have the character of Spock crapped on like that.
Gaarrrrg!!! I hate that "u" has become an acceptable replacement for "you" in our English language! Drives me absolutely insane! Sorry, I usually don't post gripes like this, it is very out of character for me. I just had to vent a bit before my head exploded.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
I am often tempted, when using my small and inaccurate cell phone keypad, to use "l33tsp3ak" but I decline because of how strongly u feel about this, C3PX.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Obviously Sebastian Shaw couldn't play Anakin, but they could have found somebody appropriate for the role. Shaw left his mark on the character, but the character wasn't as locked to Shaw as Spock was to Nimoy. As such it would have been perfectly ok to have a younger actor to play the character if they'd gotten somebody appropriate. But they didn't. We always knew a younger actor would have to play Anakin, that was the deal from the start, way back in the days the OOT was coming out. Whereas Spock was just Nimoy, plain and simple, defined by him to a great degree and played by him in endless hours of tv/film, very different from playing one scene, however significant.
As it is, there was a lot more wrong with the prequels than just the casting of Anakin, but the awful writing and acting for Anakin was one of the worst things about it. A better actor, with different writing and directing could have turned out an Anakin that worked. But Spock IS Nimoy and it's not ok to give the role to someone else for more than flashback scenes and little stuff like that. The planned Star Wars prequels (which would have been different from the ones we got), with their younger version of Anakin played by a younger actor, were part of the planned Star Wars saga long before the OT was completed and before Shaw got the role. But this Star Trek movie wasn't on the horizion until recent times when they decided to go back and fuck up the old characters wth bad imitations. There's a marked difference in the Anakin and Spock situations.
However it WASN'T ok to give the Anakin role to Hayden Christensen, who fucked it up totally. And similarly, Quinto gets Spock totally wrong. Quinto's Spock is an insult to the character and the fans of the character, just as Hayden's Anakin was an insult to Vader/Anakin and to Star wars fans. It would have been better to have no prequels than ones in which the character of Anakin was so ruined. And it would have been better to have no new Trek than to have the character of Spock crapped on like that.
really though, u'd be saying the same thing about any other actor that took the place of anakin or spock. so, either way, u'd be complaining. on the bright side u could have a different screen name.
xhonzi said:
I am often tempted, when using my small and inaccurate cell phone keypad, to use "l33tsp3ak" but I decline because of how strongly u feel about this, C3PX.
I have no idea what "l33tsp3ak" means... and all these u's are making my eye twitch. I have honestly never seen "u" made into a contraction before. Reading rcb's last post with all the "u'd"s was a bit of a surreal experience for me. Well, I've got to go sob uncontrollably now. See you all.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
Have fun!
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
I think my work here is done.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
rcb said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
Obviously Sebastian Shaw couldn't play Anakin, but they could have found somebody appropriate for the role. Shaw left his mark on the character, but the character wasn't as locked to Shaw as Spock was to Nimoy. As such it would have been perfectly ok to have a younger actor to play the character if they'd gotten somebody appropriate. But they didn't. We always knew a younger actor would have to play Anakin, that was the deal from the start, way back in the days the OOT was coming out. Whereas Spock was just Nimoy, plain and simple, defined by him to a great degree and played by him in endless hours of tv/film, very different from playing one scene, however significant.
As it is, there was a lot more wrong with the prequels than just the casting of Anakin, but the awful writing and acting for Anakin was one of the worst things about it. A better actor, with different writing and directing could have turned out an Anakin that worked. But Spock IS Nimoy and it's not ok to give the role to someone else for more than flashback scenes and little stuff like that. The planned Star Wars prequels (which would have been different from the ones we got), with their younger version of Anakin played by a younger actor, were part of the planned Star Wars saga long before the OT was completed and before Shaw got the role. But this Star Trek movie wasn't on the horizion until recent times when they decided to go back and fuck up the old characters wth bad imitations. There's a marked difference in the Anakin and Spock situations.
However it WASN'T ok to give the Anakin role to Hayden Christensen, who fucked it up totally. And similarly, Quinto gets Spock totally wrong. Quinto's Spock is an insult to the character and the fans of the character, just as Hayden's Anakin was an insult to Vader/Anakin and to Star wars fans. It would have been better to have no prequels than ones in which the character of Anakin was so ruined. And it would have been better to have no new Trek than to have the character of Spock crapped on like that.
really though, u'd be saying the same thing about any other actor that took the place of anakin or spock. so, either way, u'd be complaining. on the bright side u could have a different screen name.
What's your proof that I'd be saying the same thing about any other actor who took the Anakin role? You have no proof of that. Whatsoever. The situation with Hayden is not merely the situation of an actor other than Shaw taking the role. It's a situation in which an especially inappropriate actor was given the role. There are many actors I would have been happier with. So no I wouldn't necessarily have been complaining. You'd do well not to make careless statements about me that are not based on any proof.
As for the Spock situation, I would not have been happy with the role being given to somebody other than Nimoy, but it could have been better than it is. They could have picked somebody better than Quinto.
And C3PX is right, your use of "u" for "you" is annoying.
Vaderisnothayden said:
rcb said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
Obviously Sebastian Shaw couldn't play Anakin, but they could have found somebody appropriate for the role. Shaw left his mark on the character, but the character wasn't as locked to Shaw as Spock was to Nimoy. As such it would have been perfectly ok to have a younger actor to play the character if they'd gotten somebody appropriate. But they didn't. We always knew a younger actor would have to play Anakin, that was the deal from the start, way back in the days the OOT was coming out. Whereas Spock was just Nimoy, plain and simple, defined by him to a great degree and played by him in endless hours of tv/film, very different from playing one scene, however significant.
As it is, there was a lot more wrong with the prequels than just the casting of Anakin, but the awful writing and acting for Anakin was one of the worst things about it. A better actor, with different writing and directing could have turned out an Anakin that worked. But Spock IS Nimoy and it's not ok to give the role to someone else for more than flashback scenes and little stuff like that. The planned Star Wars prequels (which would have been different from the ones we got), with their younger version of Anakin played by a younger actor, were part of the planned Star Wars saga long before the OT was completed and before Shaw got the role. But this Star Trek movie wasn't on the horizion until recent times when they decided to go back and fuck up the old characters wth bad imitations. There's a marked difference in the Anakin and Spock situations.
However it WASN'T ok to give the Anakin role to Hayden Christensen, who fucked it up totally. And similarly, Quinto gets Spock totally wrong. Quinto's Spock is an insult to the character and the fans of the character, just as Hayden's Anakin was an insult to Vader/Anakin and to Star wars fans. It would have been better to have no prequels than ones in which the character of Anakin was so ruined. And it would have been better to have no new Trek than to have the character of Spock crapped on like that.
really though, u'd be saying the same thing about any other actor that took the place of anakin or spock. so, either way, u'd be complaining. on the bright side u could have a different screen name.
What's your proof that I'd be saying the same thing about any other actor who took the Anakin role? You have no proof of that. Whatsoever. The situation with Hayden is not merely the situation of an actor other than Shaw taking the role. It's a situation in which an especially inappropriate actor was given the role. There are many actors I would have been happier with. So no I wouldn't necessarily have been complaining. You'd do well not to make careless statements about me that are not based on any proof.
As for the Spock situation, I would not have been happy with the role being given to somebody other than Nimoy, but it could have been better than it is. They could have picked somebody better than Quinto.
And C3PX is right, your use of "u" for "you" is annoying.
thx for the compliment! btw, what actors would u have been happier with?
Vaderisnothayden said:
What's your proof that I'd be saying the same thing about any other actor who took the Anakin role? You have no proof of that. Whatsoever. The situation with Hayden is not merely the situation of an actor other than Shaw taking the role. It's a situation in which an especially inappropriate actor was given the role. There are many actors I would have been happier with. So no I wouldn't necessarily have been complaining. You'd do well not to make careless statements about me that are not based on any proof.
But the part was still written and directed to be a whiny teenager in AOTC, and then a moody young man prone to crying in ROTS. Do you suppose any actor could have pulled that off in a way you would call "Vader-worthy?" Is it even possible, in ur opion?
U did it again! Please! Every1! for the sake of C3PX, will u all stop using 'U' as a replacement for 'you', and 'ur' as a replacement for "your" and "you're"?!?!?
Thank u.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
xhonzi said:
U did it again! Please! Every1! for the sake of C3PX, will u all stop using 'U' as a replacement for 'you', and 'ur' as a replacement for "your" and "you're"?!?!?
Thank u.
Wut R you rantin abut? I dnt c NEthing.
xhonzi said:
U did it again! Please! Every1! for the sake of C3PX, will u all stop using 'U' as a replacement for 'you', and 'ur' as a replacement for "your" and "you're"?!?!?
Thank u.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
BANG!
THUD!
...
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape