Anchorhead

sent

DJ, I have the full-size, non-cake version as a PSD with a transparent background if you want it.  PM an address to me that can handle a large attachment.

Yoda Is Your Father said:

If the bloke playing Kirk done a Shatner impression everybody would laugh their arses off and you lot would moan.

Also, I'm sure he was directed on how to act it - go easy on the guy man, shit.

I agree. Besides,  if I wanted to see a Shatner Kirk, I have countless hours of that already available.

In fact, Pine said he intentionally stayed away from doing a Shatner impression.  Here's an interview in Variety where he addresses that very subject;

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117994644.html?categoryId=3289&cs=1

"They're that iconic. They left that indelible a mark on the social psyche," Pine says of Kirk, Spock and the rest of the crew.

In jumping full throttle into cramming sessions with "Trek" lore encyclopedias and watching the original series, however, Pine decided midway that he was doing himself an injustice.

"All I was doing was heaping upon myself an incredible amount of responsibility, weighing myself down with 'You must remember to act this way' and such," explains Pine, taking over a part whose mannerisms, as embodied by William Shatner, have become instantly recognizable. "That's when I was really able to let go and accept the parameters that J.J. set forth in the beginning, which was to bring what was special and unique about us to the roles."

That meant embracing Kirk's descriptors -- charming, funny, leader of men -- rather than a predigested image.

"Just try to be human," Pine clarifies. "I got to do everything: yell, shout, cry, laugh, take charge and be vulnerable. I pulled the lucky straw."

Hunter6 said:

I do not had to see this jj trek movie to tell it is on the wrong foot.

So - don’t go see it. Save yourself $10.00 and take a stand that means something.  Belching out hate on a message board isn’t going to do anything other than raise your blood pressure.

I’m a huge fan of the 007 franchise, been following it since 1973.  When the latest – Quantum Of Solace – came out, I went to see it as soon as I could, just as I have all the others. I was very disappointed. Only saw it once and I won’t be buying a copy.  That still leaves me 21 other films to watch.  It didn’t ruin anything – it can’t. It’s only a movie - only one out of 22 films.

I’ve also been a huge Star Wars nerd since 1977.  The original film is all I really like.  Because I'm not a fan of altered versions of films, I haven't seen the SEs.  Because Phantom was so bad, I didn't bother with the last two prequels.  Yet, that one film - Star Wars 77 -  is plenty to keep me as big a nerd as anyone here, as big as I’ve ever been.  The 1977 film moved me that much. For crying out loud – I post on a Star Wars board and I only like one film! – I’m in a really small group. ;-)

So it looks like you won’t be seeing this new Trek film. That leaves you 10 other films and over 700 TV episodes of Star Trek to watch.  Why in the world is that something to mount a crusade over? Is 720 hours of Star Trek not enough?

the star wars fan-base now is in two groups : SE/prequels lovers with sites like TF.N and OOTP fans with sites like this site I'm on. Star Wars Fans V.s Star Wars Fans and now The Star Trek Fan base is broken apart with Trek Fans V.s. Trek Fans. 

Fans vs fans? – who gives a shit?

Why would you worry about which side you’re on, which side is more popular, which side is correct, etc?  I don’t give a fuck if there are 10 groups of Star Wars fans – I’m the only group that matters when I put the DVD in.  The other groups aren’t in my living room watching the film with me. I'm just glad the folks around here haven't run me off after all these years. They probably think I'm some sort of far out old man, but they don't berate me for my views - at least not openly.  ;-)

You speak of the groups as though they were some sort of governing bodies – N. Korea vs S. Korea – Union vs Confederacy – Israel vs Palestine. Man, they’re just people going to the movies, that’s all. There’s no war - nothing to win.

People on TF.N would say Lucas was right for making the prequels like he did…..

And for what they want in a film, he did. For people who don’t care about continuity or story – he did. For people who want style over substance – he did.

 For what I want in a film - he didn’t, so I didn’t go see the last two.

 just you are saying Abrams is right....

I only said he was right about the insane fanatics.  As far as whether or not he was right about the film itself – I’ll have to see it first.

Gaffer Tape said:

You know, Abrams's comments there really didn't bug me at all.  I know I'm a nerd, and it's a fact I appreciate while trying to maintain a sense of humor about myself.  Therefore, being called an "insane fanatic" doesn't insult me.  It either humors me or actually compliments me.  And that said, I can understand what he's talking about.  With any kind of adaptation, a balance needs to be reached between serving the purists and serving the new medium. 

 I'm the same way.  I'm aware of my lifetime of nerdiness.  However, at the same time I also have a healthy sense of humor about it, as well as keeping one foot in reality.

Besides, Abrams is right.   You don't have to look any further than this very thread - people knowing for a fact this new Trek film is terrible (even though they haven't seen it yet) - asking fans to boycott the film - posting hate messages from other boards - comparing photographs of different actors' facial expressions - claiming a TV show from 43 years ago is being destroyed, etc.

Clearly, for a select group of fans, there's only their way or the wrong way. Abrams knows what he's up against.

I'll be seeing this in the theater.  It's nice to have Trek back and for me this new film is very welcome after the last couple of offerings.  Anyway, it's just a movie - it's not disease, foreclosure, unemployment, or bankruptcy.

Worst case scenario - I go see it, I don't like it, I leave the theater, and I go get something to eat - because it will probably be lunch time when the movie is over.

Best case scenario - I go see it, I like it, I eventually buy it on DVD, and my Star Trek film library doubles in size.  ;-)

I suppose the greatest example of film\TV influencing reality would have to be the first space shuttle being named Enterprise.

It's always been interesting to me how Star Wars has become part of culture beyond just it's influence in the entertainment industry. It's certainly a testament to it's gravitas beyond film. The following incident reminded me of it. This happened a few minutes ago.

There’s a new guy at work - young kid, maybe 23 or so, nice guy.  He’s a Landman.  That means his job is to deal with land owners of the acreage we want to shoot seismic on, or drill under (I work for an oil & gas company).  It’s a tough job because sometimes land owners are less than cooperative – man, the stories they tell and the arguments I hear – crazy stuff.

Anyway, he’s been having an especially difficult time with one landowner in particular the past week and he’s about at the point where he can’t trust the guy at all anymore. I just heard him talking to one of the geophysicists about a statement the land owner made a few minutes ago.  The Landman just got off the phone with the land owner, came into our area, discussed the latest developments in the deal, and then had this to say about the guy -  “My Jedi instinct tells me the guy is lying”. 

Funny that he used it in a real-world context, as opposed to a Star Wars discussion.  In fact, he didn’t even reference Star Wars.  He said it as though there really is such a thing.

A lot of films have an influence for several months after their release, but Star Wars has gone far beyond that. Not many films are that influential.

Erikstormtrooper said:

All of the Luke and Biggs stuff is golden.

Very much so.  After a lifetime of seeing a few b&w shots and some grainy footage of a huge part of the story that was left out - it is especially neat to finally have it in it's entirety.   In fact, the entire first chapter is fantastic.  You get a much better understanding of Luke by seeing how his friends treat him.  You understand why he's sort of a loner.

DarkFather said:

I absolutely love Leia's voice in this.

+1

I prefer her over Fisher.  Much more expressive and a deeper character.  Part of the depth comes from the fact that she has a much bigger role in this version.  This is six hours vs two, and Leia is central to a great deal of it.  The chapter with her and her father on Alderaan is one of my favorite parts of the story.

C3PX said:

Having different actors for many of the characters was just fine for me, when I listen to it I like to try to forget about the movie as much as possible and imagine everything in my head. May sound strange, but when I listen to this, the characters in my imagination are based off of the Ralph McQuarrie paintings rather than the actors from the films.

I agree.  The different actors don't bother me at all. There isn't any mental conflict for me when I'm listening to it.  Truthfully, Leia & Han have replaced the film versions for me.  Much deeper characters now.

Glad you're digging it, man.  It's by far my default way to experience Star Wars. Much deeper story in this form.

That said -  the credit goes to C3PX.  He's the one that put me back in touch with it.  I hadn't heard it since I was a kid, when it was originally broadcast.  Back then I only heard a few portions.  It would have been lost forever for me, if it hadn't been for him.

zombie84 said:

It sucks watching the GOUT, but to be honest I would still be watching my VHS tapes...so I can live with it.

+1

The state of my Star Wars world is strong (Star Wars77 & NPR). Plus - I finally have a much more stable version of what I had been watching the past few decades (DVD vs tape) .

No complaints here.

C3PX is correct.  Fat content has very little to do with shelf life of milk.

http://www.idfa.org/facts/milk/pasteur.cfm

In all my years of posting on message boards & forums, I believe that is the most off-topic post I've ever made.

I'm with Gaffer & Doc on this one.  These future Blu-ray releases (if they end up happening) may mean nothing.  However, they are at least a sign that the OOT isn't automatically being swept under the rug anymore.  I don't really care what reasons\excuses\stories\etc Lucas comes up with when & if he finally releases Star Wars77 in it's best possible form.  I'll just buy it and watch it.

Tiptup said:

I know some other people (perhaps in another thread) also said they had issues with the movie. I remember Anchorhead saying he disliked it a lot.

I thought it was terrible.  It was where I said goodbye to the direction Star Trek was going.  Because of Insurrection, I never saw Nemesis.  The whole thing was a very similar situation to Star Wars for me.  Because I disliked Phantom so much, I didn't bother with Attack or Revenge.

That said, I'm somewhat interested in this new Star Trek film.  It might end up being terrible, but I'll go in with an open mind because it's a different direction than they were taking  several years ago.  If it is bad, it won't ruin anything for me. 

In my world, new films in a franchise can't ruin the films that came before them. They can only become something I soon forget and quit following. Phantom didn't ruin Star Wars77, and Insurrection didn't ruin Star Trek TNG. They're just two films I wasted money on. Star Trek 09 may be another or it may not, but it won't ruin Star Trek TOS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/secret_of_the_incas

Octorox said:

2.) Who is the "another" Yoda talked about.

George has admited in interviews that they shot that scene without any idea of who it would be or how they were going to resolve that plot point. He just figured he'd come up with something in time for a third film.

More proof that he's lying when he says he had it all planned out in the early 70s.

For me, 1989 Batman will always be my favorite, by far. The second Burton outing was just to big of a mess. The Schumaker films were all but unwatchable. 

I enjoyed Batman Begins, but thought they spent way too much time on history and backstory.  I don't care to know how or why he learned martial arts or the entire story behind the batmobile. I much prefer the darkness and mystery of Batman89.  Which brings me to my only serious criticism of  the Nolan films;  the  high-contrast cinematography.  I really don't like how well-lit and sharp everything is.  For me, that literal removal of the darkness also takes away the character's darkness. Dark Knight seems even more well-lit\high-contrast than Begins.

I've been a Batman nerd since the 60s.  When I was a little kid, I never missed Batman on TV every week.  I had the comic books, made mt own capes, etc.  For me, when Batman89 was released, it was what Batman had always been in my imagination.  To me, it was perfect - Keaton, his portrayal of Wayne, the Batcave, the darkness, the mystery - all of it. Not to mention, the coolest Batmobile there has ever been.

Unless a bunch of people want to go after work one night, I'll probably wait for Dark Knight on cable.