New Star Wars movies 7, 8 and 9

[theogt]

Originally Posted by coogrfan

That's the one; a poorly written and directed attempt to make a dumbed down version of Trek that would be palatable to the same movie going masses who paid to see the execrable Robert Downey Jr "Sherlock Holmes Action Hero" movies. "Kids today don't want to see a bunch of boring old dudes standing around in drawing rooms talking -- they want ACTION!!! THINGS GOING BOOM!!!" .

Star Trek has traditionally been a character driven drama with strong action/adventure elements. The reboot was nothing more than "Transformers in Outer Space". All style, no substance--sound and fury (and lens flare, lots and lots of lens flare) signifying nothing.

[View Full Quote]Ironically enough, one of the stars of the new Trek movie (Benedict Cumberbatch) has starred in a tv reboot of Sherlock Holmes that proved it was possible to make classic literary characters appealing to modern viewers without completely abandoning the things that made said characters interesting in the first place.

Your opinion is in the extreme minority. Extreme.

[Galian Beast]

Originally Posted by theogt

Your opinion is in the extreme minority. Extreme.

This.

I'm a huge Star Trek fan, and I thought the reboot was EXCELLENT!

Quite possibly the best Star Trek media I've ever seen. I'm hoping that they bring these actors and crew in to create a tv series continuing from the 2nd moving.

[dez_for_prez]

Originally Posted by TheDallasDon

I liked it but, never watched Star Trek......so

I thought it was good too. I have never seen any of the series, and don't plan on watching them.

[REDVOLUTION]

Originally Posted by junk

There are so many stories that can be spawned from the Star Wars universe. You could do several on the early years of Han Solo alone. They wouldn't even have to be part of the story arc of the movies that are out there now.

You could do origin stories on a lot of characters.

I actually thinking getting it out of Lucas' hands is a good thing.

Yeah I would like that too. Han and his adventures, getting a Wookie for co-pilot. His "scoundrel" adventures

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by coogrfan

That's the one; a poorly written and directed attempt to make a dumbed down version of Trek that would be palatable to the same movie going masses who paid to see the execrable Robert Downey Jr "Sherlock Holmes Action Hero" movies. "Kids today don't want to see a bunch of boring old dudes standing around in drawing rooms talking -- they want ACTION!!! THINGS GOING BOOM!!!" .

Star Trek has traditionally been a character driven drama with strong action/adventure elements. The reboot was nothing more than "Transformers in Outer Space". All style, no substance--sound and fury (and lens flare, lots and lots of lens flare) signifying nothing.

[View Full Quote]Ironically enough, one of the stars of the new Trek movie (Benedict Cumberbatch) has starred in a tv reboot of Sherlock Holmes that proved it was possible to make classic literary characters appealing to modern viewers without completely abandoning the things that made said characters interesting in the first place.

Are you talking about the most recent Star Trek movie?

I liked that movie, and I thought the character development was great. We must not be talking about the same movie are we?

[Rogah]

Originally Posted by REDVOLUTION

Ok

So JJ Abrams is set to make Star Wars parts 7, 8 and 9.

According to is article there were 12 parts and not 9 parts to the story.

Now that the franchise is owned by a corporation, you can rest assured there will be as many "parts" as there are people willing to go see them. Also, Abrams is only on board for E7. There's no indication he will be doing 8 or 9.

[burmafrd]

The Star Trek reboot appealed to the lowest common denominator. Something Trek had not done before.

So what if it was a hit with the shallow and stupid and lazy.

IT made very little sense and would not know logic if it reached up and slapped it.

Star Wars is much more flexible and susceptable to that sort of th ing so it is probably a good match.

[SultanOfSix]

The reboot was great. I think Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto did justice to the original. Karl Urban was good as Bones too. Looking forward to the next one.

[ShiningStar]

Originally Posted by theogt

Your opinion is in the extreme minority. Extreme.

no its not, not to the people of the original who loved the show for what it was and not what others claim to make it out to be.

hes in the very right as was myself when my friend and I tried to show people where the "reboot" (and thats why they get away with it) went not just wrong, but horribly incorrect.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

The Star Trek reboot appealed to the lowest common denominator. Something Trek had not done before.

So what if it was a hit with the shallow and stupid and lazy.

IT made very little sense and would not know logic if it reached up and slapped it.

Star Wars is much more flexible and susceptable to that sort of th ing so it is probably a good match.

Here's your proof it was a good movie.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by ShiningStar

no its not, not to the people of the original who loved the show for what it was and not what others claim to make it out to be.

hes in the very right as was myself when my friend and I tried to show people where the "reboot" (and thats why they get away with it) went not just wrong, but horribly incorrect.

The reboot wasn't anything like the originals, sure. But that's WHY it didn't suck.

[honyock]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

The Star Trek reboot appealed to the lowest common denominator. Something Trek had not done before.

So what if it was a hit with the shallow and stupid and lazy.

IT made very little sense and would not know logic if it reached up and slapped it.

Star Wars is much more flexible and susceptable to that sort of th ing so it is probably a good match.

Well, then 95% of the critics who reviewed it were shallow and stupid and lazy. That's the Rotten Tomatoes critics rating for it (even higher than the 91% audience rating). Shallow, stupid movies NEVER get that kind of critical rating. If anything, you see critics ratings at that level for movies that are above the mass audience ability to stay with a smart movie.

I thought the reboot was great - it showed the roots of the character tics and relationships that drove the characters in the original series.

[burmafrd]

not surprised that someone that thinks Costa will be in the Pro Bowl would think the reboot was good.


A real fan of Star Trek would understand.

Only the shallow stupid and lazy fans do not.

[burmafrd]

Originally Posted by honyock

Well, then 95% of the critics who reviewed it were shallow and stupid and lazy. That's the Rotten Tomatoes critics rating for it (even higher than the 91% audience rating). Shallow, stupid movies NEVER get that kind of critical rating. If anything, you see critics ratings at that level for movies that are above the mass audience ability to stay with a smart movie.

I thought the reboot was great - it showed the roots of the character tics and relationships that drove the characters in the original series.

95% of all mediots are shallow stupid and lazy. Have you not learned that yet?

Just look at sportswriters. No reason critics should be any better

[ShiningStar]

Originally Posted by theogt

The reboot wasn't anything like the originals, sure. But that's WHY it didn't suck.

than call it what it was, anything but star trek and i agree with you. but to sit there and call that star trek no way. you can argue it like people argued the world was flat and you may believe it, but history will show the worlds not flat and that movie was no star trek. Other than the name it had nothing else in common.