Red Mosquito

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:Ep VII clone trooper design:

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/ ... ooper.html

Spoiler: show

They're called Storm Troopers again.

Spoiler: show

But this is something else.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Just remember that Orci and Kurtzmann aren't involved with this project. I put like 60% of the blame for the shittiness of the Abrams Star Trek movies on them.

I really dislike Star Trek and enjoyed the Abrams movies because they were fun space adventures (even when serious) and not classic Star Trek. I seriously hope whatever magic was there makes it's way to star wars

Then again, I enjoyed fords performance in Indy 4. Whatever flaws that movie had (and it had some big ones) it wasn't him

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Neither of the Trek movies were like Star Wars AT ALL, but SW has had that sort of pacing and would suit that sort of pacing in the new ones, if nothing else..

How were they not? A bunch of dashing space heroes fight a big villain while engaging in buddy dynamics. That's pretty much Star Wars.

That's virtually every action film, though. Are all action films Star Wars?

Star Wars is much more of a Western than anything else.

Yeah, that's a good point - saying it's Star Wars is kind of reductive; what it really is just a standard action film, as you pointed out. And that is sooooooooo not what Star Trek is supposed to be about.

Which is why I could watch if without wanting to claw my eyes out

All the ST reboot had to do was cast Kirk and Spock perfectly, the rest, effects n even storyline, was easy. But they nailed the main two, perfect casting.I dont know how familiar you guys are with the original ST but that guy played a young Kirk to a tee..even down as far as vocal inflections and movement. he nailed it. And Quinto's Spock, perfect.
For me, I was excited that it got such a good reboot, but the screwing with canon and basically redoing a story already done, with Khan, that i'm not sure about.

There's a whole galaxy, they didn't have to do that. Fans would have gone anyways.
And that screwing with canon makes me a little nervous for SW.

dimejinky99 wrote:All the ST reboot had to do was cast Kirk and Spock perfectly, the rest, effects n even storyline, was easy. But they nailed the main two, perfect casting.I dont know how familiar you guys are with the original ST but that guy played a young Kirk to a tee..even down as far as vocal inflections and movement. he nailed it. And Quinto's Spock, perfect.
For me, I was excited that it got such a good reboot, but the screwing with canon and basically redoing a story already done, with Khan, that i'm not sure about.

There's a whole galaxy, they didn't have to do that. Fans would have gone anyways.
And that screwing with canon makes me a little nervous for SW.

I'm a pretty big Trekker and I totally disagree with this. Chris Pine had none of Shatner's magic. But that has a lot to do with the writing, I think - they made Kirk into a dashing, young space cadet, when a big part of what made Kirk interesting was his intelligence and experience.

Those movies just raped everything I love about ST. It's supposed to be about society, people, ideas; not space fights and a Machiavellian villain.

Really? wow.. I thought he got Kirk down perfectly...thats interesting..

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Chris Pine had none of Shatner's magic. But that has a lot to do with the writing, I think - they made Kirk into a dashing, young space cadet, when a big part of what made Kirk interesting was his intelligence and experience.

I thought new Kirk was a plot device in the first movie, but was the only thing decent about the second one (a lot of this was to Pine's credit). But it never seemed like the same character as the original. It was the equivalent of doing a warbly, low-voice "yea-uhhh.....yeahhhhh--uhhhhh," and saying you're a Layne Staley impersonator.

Those movies just raped everything I love about ST. It's supposed to be about society, people, ideas; not space fights and a Machiavellian villain.

The original series, to me, was about a civilization that is going out into the universe and wants to be above their humanity but isn't. It was just a new way to play out the fight between our devils and angels, naivity and wisdom, xenophobia and acceptance.

The movies were mostly much just fun, well-made 80's films, using characters who had already been established...harmless, cheeseball fun. The new movies were just post-2000 effects blockbusters...harmless, unremarkable yawns.

The best thing about either of the new movies was Thor playing Kirk's dad.

McParadigm wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Chris Pine had none of Shatner's magic. But that has a lot to do with the writing, I think - they made Kirk into a dashing, young space cadet, when a big part of what made Kirk interesting was his intelligence and experience.

I thought new Kirk was a plot device in the first movie, but was the only thing decent about the second one (a lot of this was to Pine's credit). But it never seemed like the same character as the original. It was the equivalent of doing a warbly, low-voice "yea-uhhh.....yeahhhhh--uhhhhh," and saying you're a Layne Staley impersonator.

Those movies just raped everything I love about ST. It's supposed to be about society, people, ideas; not space fights and a Machiavellian villain.

The original series, to me, was about a civilization that is going out into the universe and wants to be above their humanity but isn't. It was just a new way to play out the fight between our devils and angels, naivity and wisdom, xenophobia and acceptance.

The movies were mostly much just fun, well-made 80's films, using characters who had already been established...harmless, cheeseball fun. The new movies were just post-2000 effects blockbusters...harmless, unremarkable yawns.

To be honest, I'm a bigger TNG fan than TOS fan. Like you said, TOS was humanity battling their demons, bettering themselves. But because TNG took place much later, it showed a civilization that had already attained that transcendence. It showed the result of the struggle as opposed to the struggle itself. I find that very inspirational.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Chris Pine had none of Shatner's magic. But that has a lot to do with the writing, I think - they made Kirk into a dashing, young space cadet, when a big part of what made Kirk interesting was his intelligence and experience.

I thought new Kirk was a plot device in the first movie, but was the only thing decent about the second one (a lot of this was to Pine's credit). But it never seemed like the same character as the original. It was the equivalent of doing a warbly, low-voice "yea-uhhh.....yeahhhhh--uhhhhh," and saying you're a Layne Staley impersonator.

Those movies just raped everything I love about ST. It's supposed to be about society, people, ideas; not space fights and a Machiavellian villain.

The original series, to me, was about a civilization that is going out into the universe and wants to be above their humanity but isn't. It was just a new way to play out the fight between our devils and angels, naivity and wisdom, xenophobia and acceptance.

The movies were mostly much just fun, well-made 80's films, using characters who had already been established...harmless, cheeseball fun. The new movies were just post-2000 effects blockbusters...harmless, unremarkable yawns.

To be honest, I'm a bigger TNG fan than TOS fan. Like you said, TOS was humanity battling their demons, bettering themselves. But because TNG took place much later, it showed a civilization that had already attained that transcendence. It showed the result of the struggle as opposed to the struggle itself. I find that very inspirational.

more inspirational than godzilla?

Tread lightly, 'lex

did my single-handed destruction of the thodoxicon put me on thin ice with the mods?

Alex wrote:did my single-handed destruction of the thodoxicon put me on thin ice with the mods?

No. Just don't anger loathed vermin. He's one of the good guys.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Alex wrote:did my single-handed destruction of the thodoxicon put me on thin ice with the mods?

No. Just don't anger loathed vermin. He's one of the good guys.

enumerate the good guys

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Alex wrote:did my single-handed destruction of the thodoxicon put me on thin ice with the mods?

No. Just don't anger loathed vermin. He's one of the good guys.

Alex wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Alex wrote:did my single-handed destruction of the thodoxicon put me on thin ice with the mods?

No. Just don't anger loathed vermin. He's one of the good guys.

enumerate the good guys

1. thodoks

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:All the ST reboot had to do was cast Kirk and Spock perfectly, the rest, effects n even storyline, was easy. But they nailed the main two, perfect casting.I dont know how familiar you guys are with the original ST but that guy played a young Kirk to a tee..even down as far as vocal inflections and movement. he nailed it. And Quinto's Spock, perfect.
For me, I was excited that it got such a good reboot, but the screwing with canon and basically redoing a story already done, with Khan, that i'm not sure about.

There's a whole galaxy, they didn't have to do that. Fans would have gone anyways.
And that screwing with canon makes me a little nervous for SW.

I'm a pretty big Trekker and I totally disagree with this. Chris Pine had none of Shatner's magic. But that has a lot to do with the writing, I think - they made Kirk into a dashing, young space cadet, when a big part of what made Kirk interesting was his intelligence and experience.

Those movies just raped everything I love about ST. It's supposed to be about society, people, ideas; not space fights and a Machiavellian villain.

I'm with dime on this. I'm also a huge Star Trek fan (primarily TNG, but any and all really). And I think Pine was fantastic. Again, the brilliant thing about this reboot concept is that it let actors play a bit. These literally aren't the same characters as before. New things happened to them that never happened originally. So they are free to be different versions of the characters. Pine and Quinto both nailed the essences of Kirk and Spock and where still able to breath a new vitality into them. I just can't say enough good things about the way this was rebooted. Just brilliant. But then, Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman have never really been short on concepts.

And there are still a lot of issues being examined in Star Trek (2009). It's still about people and ideas. Maybe a little less about society, but as Stip pointed out, this is the beginning of all of that. This is still demon battling and whatnot. JJ just found a way to weave space fights into the fabric and pick up the pace for a new "modern" audience. Still, I totally understand disliking those choices. I just appreciate that they are obviously choices and they are consistent.

The villain is terribly underwritten. But otherwise, the characters and the performances are pretty strong. Especially since we only have a 2 hour film and not a multi-season series in which to flesh things out.

Well ST in all it's TV forms, was episodic but had that space(no pun) to make it about differences in society/coming together and understanding, or not. The films dont have that room and it wouldnt work if they tried that.
it's gotta be blockbuster approach and all that entails, which is outside our understanding of ST and the same reason i'd be wary of a Star wars TV show, in any form really..

I'm probably going to watch a movie tonight. Should it be the extended edition of the first hobbit movie, or Into Darkness?

stip wrote:I'm probably going to watch a movie tonight. Should it be the extended edition of the first hobbit movie, or Into Darkness?

Absolutely, Into Darkness.