filmlover Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 3 minutes ago, UrosepsisFace said: New trailer was awesome. So excited. What's with all this nerd culture talk? Btw, some people think nerds and bullies are the opposite ends of the spectrum. Idk what generation everybody belongs to, but there are same scary nerd bullies on the internet these days. The Ghostbusters IMDB forum being a prime example of this. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 I knew this was gonna deliver. The cast in this is absolutely terrific, JJ is so good at casting the right actor in the right part. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlborn Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 25 minutes ago, dashrendar44 said: Why do you care about my diet? I'm lean, sharp and athletic thank you friendly. (A Suicide Squad fanboy lecturing me about shallowness and lack of depth, pot meets kettle yadda yadda) All I did was ask, why are you being so aggressive? And attacking my taste in movies in a site all about movies of all things? My God, some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macleod Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) Double Post! Edited July 19, 2016 by Macleod 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macleod Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, robertman2 said: They're losing future stories with the characters they love, and instead gain ones with characters they couldn't a shit about In TREK's case (since we're in the TREK thread), the mythical "They" are "losing" "future stories with the characters they love" because actors get OLD, and time moves ON. Many may take issue with contemporary reboots of so-called "sacred" material (me, myself, sometimes), but it's the HOWs and the WHYs and the WHERETOFOREs of these reboots that should have you questioning -- how well or not they tell their stories -- not because they're "trampling on sacred fan-protected grounds." This isn't Native American history, here...it's pop culture. And it changes with the times, like everything else...but like everything else, certain elements will always remain the same! None of these contemporary content creators should feel the need to apologize for it. But it's nice to hear some humbleness when they do muck it up (i.e. J.J. with STID...which, interestingly, he's already effectively "apologized" for, despite how many people may still "like it.") Edited July 19, 2016 by Macleod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Beezy Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 6 hours ago, Goffe said: As I see it, Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek 09 are similar in their problems, most people would agree on that, but the usual suspects don't pick the reboot apart (even though they try) because that movie is seen as one of the peaks of blockbusting filmmaking while Star Trek Into Darkness is an easier target, people were less enthusiastic about it and fans saw it as a breach to do their thing, you know complain about perceived plot holes and contrivances, how Star Trek is not Star Trek anymore, and stuff like that. The problems with STID were much more prominent than those in ST09. The thing about ST09 is that it doubled as an origin reboot *and* a passing of the torch sequel. Because it's an origin, there is a need to rely on the established mythology of the series, i.e. the Kobayashi Maru test. And sure, there's Kirk's cheating on said test in both the series and the new movie, but within the context of the new interpretation of the character, it makes sense. ST09 doesn't rely as much on key plot points or fan service as much as STID does. You could look at the inclusion of Nimoy as elder Spock as fan service, but that enforces the idea of a passing of the torch sequel as the elder Spock not only came from the future, but from an alternate universe where the events of the original series and movies remain intact. And ST09 has a more solid story structure with plot threads that converge at the end. STID feels like it jumps from one plot (Khan) to another (Marcus) and then back to the first one. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macleod Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 1 hour ago, shayhiri said: A lot of recent positive reviews claim that the biggest thing going for this is how "close it feels to the spirit of the original series". That is definitely NOT a plus for me. I would never watch the disgusting old TV junk. I liked STID so much because it is pure JJ - nothing else - and if this is different, I'm out. Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 38 minutes ago, Macleod said: (i.e. J.J. with STID...which, interestingly, he's already effectively "apologized" for, despite how many people may still "like it.") did he really? source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Adjusting and adapting for new generations is an indicator of a healthy franchise. It's something fans should embrace, it means that universe will continue to thrive and be relevant now and into the future. Yes, there's always the chance that you, a particular fan, might not like some of the directions the franchise takes. But that's okay, because the franchise was never yours alone. Popularity, by definition, means relinquishing a bit of grasp. But the benefit is greater cultural relevance. And even if you don't care for the current generation of some franchise or other, the great thing is that *your* preferred version is still there. Captain America isn't going away any more than he did after WWII. Neither is any other character you care about. Instead of fighting a battle to reject all who don't meet your definition of "fandom", why not look at the greater enjoyment: realize your franchise is alive, vital, and bringing in new fans, some of whom will discover the older versions and love and treasure them just as much as you. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macleod Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 12 minutes ago, Goffe said: did he really? source? https://www.buzzfeed.com/kateaurthur/jj-abrams-and-the-long-road-to-star-wars?utm_term=.sfDxqEv3yw#.jhqm1qAEPX Great, candid interview with Abrams here. Skip down to the section on Into Darkness for his full self-analysis on it. This is from December 2015. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Macleod said: https://www.buzzfeed.com/kateaurthur/jj-abrams-and-the-long-road-to-star-wars?utm_term=.sfDxqEv3yw#.jhqm1qAEPX Great, candid interview with Abrams here. Skip down to the section on Into Darkness for his full self-analysis on it. This is from December 2015. oh yes, I had already read it, couldn't remember. He brings a lot great points. he's what he says at the end though “I would never say that I don’t think that the movie ended up working,” Abrams said. “But I feel like it didn’t work as well as it could have had I made some better decisions before we started shooting.” Edited July 19, 2016 by Goffe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlborn Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 13 minutes ago, Macleod said: https://www.buzzfeed.com/kateaurthur/jj-abrams-and-the-long-road-to-star-wars?utm_term=.sfDxqEv3yw#.jhqm1qAEPX Great, candid interview with Abrams here. Skip down to the section on Into Darkness for his full self-analysis on it. This is from December 2015. Lovely interview, thanks for the link. I don't know if it's PR but he seems very humble and a bit too hard on himself, interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shayhiri Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 58 minutes ago, Macleod said: Really? How is that strange? I hate TV and I hate old movies. It would be a torture. If you pay me $50 an hour, I could sit through 20 episodes, I guess - but not more!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyMovieCanBeatUpYourMovie Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 1 hour ago, The Futurist said: I knew this was gonna deliver. The cast in this is absolutely terrific, JJ is so good at casting the right actor in the right part. Abrams really does have a gift for casting. He casts such talented, often unknown actors who are so perfect for their roles, that their enormously likable performances can often paper over whatever other problems his stories may have. Audiences just enjoy spending time with his characters. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 4 hours ago, shayhiri said: A lot of recent positive reviews claim that the biggest thing going for this is how "close it feels to the spirit of the original series". That is definitely NOT a plus for me. I would never watch the disgusting old TV junk. I liked STID so much because it is pure JJ - nothing else - and if this is different, I'm out. Lord in heaven. First please understand this very, very basic concept. No film is going to be pure JJ (at least not a major tent pole), and certainly not one where the characters, the past history, the design elements, the setting, some of the specific scenes and dialogue are all based on others work, some aren't even based word for word dialogue that was created by someone else. Abrams when he rebooted Trek wasn't trying to create new Trek material that could be placed next to an episode from 66 or 69 and be seen as part of that production. His goal and Viacoms was to take the essence of Trek and put into into a what audience expect and see in modern film productions. He has even given interviews back for the original where he mentions that what was most important was getting the spirit of the show and its characters. The very thing mentioned in the review 9and often mentioned in reviews both in the first and second reboot film). Saying something as the spirit of the original doesn't mean that its an exact replica of what was done back in the day. So obviously please don't watch this film, as it has a new director there is literally no way its going to be pure JJ, please save your money. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 It's all about the Linsanity. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPink Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, Telemachos said: It's all about the Linsanity. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Goffe said: oh yes, I had already read it, couldn't remember. He brings a lot great points. he's what he says at the end though “I would never say that I don’t think that the movie ended up working,” Abrams said. “But I feel like it didn’t work as well as it could have had I made some better decisions before we started shooting.” He has also talked in at least one interview in the Trek Magazine about things that he wished they could've done different in Star Trek from 2009. Though part of that might have been do from the writer's strike stopping them from script polishing during the actual filming. Most of the film directors and writers (and many of the writers/ producers of the various shows going back to the original have also done the same) who have worked on Trek have talked about some of the things that worked and didn't work, when viewed after the fact. its not something that is an uncommon event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 4 hours ago, Arlborn said: Aren't there still comics? Plus, you know, all those high-budget movies? Yeah, they wouldn't have been made in the first place if they didn't change some things for the GA. Just the hardcore nerd crowd wouldn't justify the investment. I guess next you're going to argue that maybe some nerds(people call me that all the time btw) would rather if those things were kept niche and they never made movies and shows out of them, right? Not high-budget ones anyway. And to that the only thing I could say is; that is a really silly mindset. I suppose the LOTR movies should never have been made? Fear of change can be crippling. Specifically in relating to TOS I never did understand the idea you hear and read that now all of a sudden producers were changing things for the general audience (And I have been hearing them about Trek since 78). Trek was created for the general audience. It was created for mass appeal television viewing. It was never, ever, ever designed to be niche. TV in those day had to hit 20 million just to be a viable not in danger property. While it never was very popular in original run, it did become popular in syndication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Back in the day, you simply couldn't do lots of sci-fi action on a TV budget. You needed ideas, stories, and characters. Roddenberry took the basic concept from WAGON TRAIN and his writing team did what written SF had been doing for decades: use the classic SF question "what it?" as a hook to explore contemporary philosophical, moral, and ethical questions in an adventurous setting. And, for what it's worth, TOS did take a fairly progressive approach (women in command positions, the first interracial kiss on TV, an ethnically diverse cast --including a Russian, which was a bigger deal back then than now), and all of this annoyed some people. A movie without those questions isn't inherently better or worse than one with them, but their absence does make it feel less Trek-y. If the new movie manages to mix in some basic Philosophy or Ethics 101 in between the action scenes, that'd be rad. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
