Just back from seeing it and really impressed (first time I tried 3D as well, heard they made great use of it here and it does add a lot). Can't really say much without spoiling, so no review. Will say that as expected Abrams does a fantastic job on the action elements but there's well written dialogue, plenty of story (and story hooks for later installments) and the new cast members are pretty impressive.
Handful of nitpicks here and there, but nothing major. Star Wars does literally have "space magic" after all
Just back from seeing it and really impressed (first time I tried 3D as well, heard they made great use of it here and it does add a lot). Can't really say much without spoiling, so no review. Will say that as expected Abrams does a fantastic job on the action elements but there's well written dialogue, plenty of story (and story hooks for later installments) and the new cast members are pretty impressive.
Handful of nitpicks here and there, but nothing major. Star Wars does literally have "space magic" after all
No need to spoil anything to answer the 2 most important questions, IMO:
1) does it maintain the same "feeling" of Star Wars that the original trilogy had?
2) does it have any pathetically stupid characters like Jar Jar?
As long as the first answer is "yes" and the second answer is "no", that's all I'm hoping for
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Just back from seeing it and really impressed (first time I tried 3D as well, heard they made great use of it here and it does add a lot). Can't really say much without spoiling, so no review. Will say that as expected Abrams does a fantastic job on the action elements but there's well written dialogue, plenty of story (and story hooks for later installments) and the new cast members are pretty impressive.
Handful of nitpicks here and there, but nothing major. Star Wars does literally have "space magic" after all
Will be seeing it at midnight tonight. I know the 2 big spoilers and I don't really care. Frankly, the moment Disney threw out all the expanded universe stuff was the moment I stopped caring about spoilers. Everything J.J. touches that isn't original, he ruins.
No need to spoil anything to answer the 2 most important questions, IMO:
1) does it maintain the same "feeling" of Star Wars that the original trilogy had?
2) does it have any pathetically stupid characters like Jar Jar?
As long as the first answer is "yes" and the second answer is "no", that's all I'm hoping for
1) Yes, and then some. Other than Stormtroopers that can actually shoot straight
2) No, even BB-8 is actually more cute than wrist-slittingly irritating.
Frankly, the moment Disney threw out all the expanded universe stuff ...
All?
No, not all ...
Luke didn't scratch his balls for 30 years in the books. He kept extremely busy. Would have been cool seeing Chewbacca being killed by a giant moon falling on him.
Frankly, the moment Disney threw out all the expanded universe stuff ...
All?
No, not all ...
Luke didn't scratch his balls for 30 years in the books.
He didn't in TFW either.
He started a Jedi Academy, but Ben turned dark and destroyed it and presumably killed the other students. At some point after, Luke went into seclusion. We don't know how long that has been as it wasn't stated in the movie that I recall. But definitely not 30 years of ball scratching.
And yes, I want to know if your Not Going also, but let's try to keep the inter-IP furor down to a dull roar.
No - I'm not even going to see a new Star Trek movie after the damage Orci and Abrams did to the Star Trek universe - I didn't even see Into Darkness until 2 years after its release... on Netflix. Of course I never liked Star Wars to begin with so Abrams really doesn't have anything to do with why I'm not going to see the new Star Wars. I'm not going to see it because Star Wars is dumb - albeit probably better than the first three seasons of Enterprise.
Frakes says CBS thinks it "diluted" Star Trek - they just don't realize, I guess, that the problem was that the writers of Enterprise, primarily Berman and Braga, sucked - big time. I'm still in shock that the guy who created an underrated masterpiece of TV like DS9 also wrote Enterprise.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
And here I thought Trek was just a silly TV show all along! Saw Star Wars and it wasn't bad at all for another silly series.
Silly? Often enough - but not nearly as silly as the vast majority of TV which doesn't even have the pretense of pushing to rise above the bare prolefeed level. Star Trek occupies a role which was fulfilled by old fairy tales - sometimes being scary stories - sometimes being unhappy - but always occupying and owning a theme and/or moral. Most modern TV won't bother to do this because it turns off a portion of the consumer base and because the writers are too cowardly and/or uncultured to try (how many NCIS episodes do you have to see before you realize that seeing one is seeing them all?).
Star Trek is ultimately about political/moral philosophy - sometimes a poorly delivered, othertimes not as much. The best conflicts in the series have always been thematic - from Kirk rescuing midgets from sadistic megalomaniacs to the sympathy you feel for the Jem'Hadar - and even, at time, the Vorta - as their "culture" is explored in DS9. It's hard even to affix the word "evil" to someone like General Chang who murders the Chancellor of the High Council and tries to kill Kirk. Every time Star Trek has run away from this "realism" in their villains it falls flat - whether it's the raw and unsympathetic evil of the Nemesis villain who is so irrelevant to me I've forgotten his name or if it's the stupid and brainless evil of the Xindi Reptilians - or if it's the new movies where we have what's his name who's just going to blow up the Enterprise for no reason because he wants war with the Klingons.
Star Wars has evil villains (Darth Vader, the Emperor) - Star Trek seldom does. It's similar to the difference between DC comics and Marvel Comics - with Marvel seldom lacking motivated and articulated antagonists and villains (e.g. Doc Oc, Magneto) and DC's villains just being evil because they're evil and you don't need to know anything else about it because that consumer base actually buys the mustache twirling evil big bad trope (e.g. Lex Luther, Joker) and isn't inexplicably bored to tears by it.
Post edited by penemue#7777 on
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Comments
So far, the early ratings for it are extremely good as per Rotten Tomatoes. %94.
Handful of nitpicks here and there, but nothing major. Star Wars does literally have "space magic" after all
No need to spoil anything to answer the 2 most important questions, IMO:
1) does it maintain the same "feeling" of Star Wars that the original trilogy had?
2) does it have any pathetically stupid characters like Jar Jar?
As long as the first answer is "yes" and the second answer is "no", that's all I'm hoping for
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
No...
Maybe.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Will be seeing it at midnight tonight. I know the 2 big spoilers and I don't really care. Frankly, the moment Disney threw out all the expanded universe stuff was the moment I stopped caring about spoilers. Everything J.J. touches that isn't original, he ruins.
1) Yes, and then some. Other than Stormtroopers that can actually shoot straight
2) No, even BB-8 is actually more cute than wrist-slittingly irritating.
Luke didn't scratch his balls for 30 years in the books. He kept extremely busy. Would have been cool seeing Chewbacca being killed by a giant moon falling on him.
It's pretty much this hard to keep just one timeline intact. ♪
He didn't in TFW either.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
No - I'm not even going to see a new Star Trek movie after the damage Orci and Abrams did to the Star Trek universe - I didn't even see Into Darkness until 2 years after its release... on Netflix. Of course I never liked Star Wars to begin with so Abrams really doesn't have anything to do with why I'm not going to see the new Star Wars. I'm not going to see it because Star Wars is dumb - albeit probably better than the first three seasons of Enterprise.
Frakes says CBS thinks it "diluted" Star Trek - they just don't realize, I guess, that the problem was that the writers of Enterprise, primarily Berman and Braga, sucked - big time. I'm still in shock that the guy who created an underrated masterpiece of TV like DS9 also wrote Enterprise.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Silly? Often enough - but not nearly as silly as the vast majority of TV which doesn't even have the pretense of pushing to rise above the bare prolefeed level. Star Trek occupies a role which was fulfilled by old fairy tales - sometimes being scary stories - sometimes being unhappy - but always occupying and owning a theme and/or moral. Most modern TV won't bother to do this because it turns off a portion of the consumer base and because the writers are too cowardly and/or uncultured to try (how many NCIS episodes do you have to see before you realize that seeing one is seeing them all?).
Star Trek is ultimately about political/moral philosophy - sometimes a poorly delivered, othertimes not as much. The best conflicts in the series have always been thematic - from Kirk rescuing midgets from sadistic megalomaniacs to the sympathy you feel for the Jem'Hadar - and even, at time, the Vorta - as their "culture" is explored in DS9. It's hard even to affix the word "evil" to someone like General Chang who murders the Chancellor of the High Council and tries to kill Kirk. Every time Star Trek has run away from this "realism" in their villains it falls flat - whether it's the raw and unsympathetic evil of the Nemesis villain who is so irrelevant to me I've forgotten his name or if it's the stupid and brainless evil of the Xindi Reptilians - or if it's the new movies where we have what's his name who's just going to blow up the Enterprise for no reason because he wants war with the Klingons.
Star Wars has evil villains (Darth Vader, the Emperor) - Star Trek seldom does. It's similar to the difference between DC comics and Marvel Comics - with Marvel seldom lacking motivated and articulated antagonists and villains (e.g. Doc Oc, Magneto) and DC's villains just being evil because they're evil and you don't need to know anything else about it because that consumer base actually buys the mustache twirling evil big bad trope (e.g. Lex Luther, Joker) and isn't inexplicably bored to tears by it.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert