New Star Wars movies 7, 8 and 9

[Rogah]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[ShiningStar]

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.

yes they were, to this day no one can tell me when Uhura was in love with Spock.

 

[honyock]

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

I agree with you in one sense...it's a brilliant argument you're making, if claiming to be right is the important thing. It fits every situation. Anyone who disagrees with me is shallow, stupid and lazy. If almost everyone disagrees with me, then almost everyone is shallow, stupid and lazy. It's a one size fits all argument.

 

[ShiningStar]

I agree with you in one sense...it's a brilliant argument you're making, if claiming to be right is the important thing. It fits every situation. Anyone who disagrees with me is shallow, stupid and lazy. If almost everyone disagrees with me, then almost everyone is shallow, stupid and lazy. It's a one size fits all argument.

oh come on be real you cant listen to them and think they make sense. All ESPN does during FA is link every FA player to the Cowboys. We are not even talking a few times or every now and than, and some of the ones they hire for name only. You ae making a horrible comparison.

Some dont even bother learning the players name or their positions let alone what they are going to talk about. Its horrible to even laugh at such a pitiful attempt at sports writing and research.

 

[honyock]

oh come on be real you cant listen to them and think they make sense. All ESPN does during FA is link every FA player to the Cowboys. We are not even talking a few times or every now and than, and some of the ones they hire for name only. You ae making a horrible comparison.

Some dont even bother learning the players name or their positions let alone what they are going to talk about. Its horrible to even laugh at such a pitiful attempt at sports writing and research.

I'm assuming you're talking about burmafrds comparison. My post was about the movie and critics.

 

[ShiningStar]

I'm assuming you're talking about burmafrds comparison. My post was about the movie and critics.

both are horrible, but yes, the critics argument is not one you are winning. Its an opinion, sure, but your argument isnt holding water. ESPN alone will tell you, "listen, its for the ratings and the money" . They dont care how they drag the people in and yes, if its to appease "the most amount of people in the least amount of time" than they will do it.

Now a days its about speed over quality work, people will claim its technology and its the "way of the business" and those are agruments, good ones, no, but its what they are going to say.

Its plunged to new depths.

 

[honyock]

both are horrible, but yes, the critics argument is not one you are winning. Its an opinion, sure, but your argument isnt holding water. ESPN alone will tell you, "listen, its for the ratings and the money" . They dont care how they drag the people in and yes, if its to appease "the most amount of people in the least amount of time" than they will do it.

Now a days its about speed over quality work, people will claim its technology and its the "way of the business" and those are agruments, good ones, no, but its what they are going to say.

Its plunged to new depths.

I'm not even going there with the football analogy. Here's my point on a site like Rotten Tomatoes...when I see a movie that an extremely large percentage of critics like, AND an extremely large percentage of fans like, it's a good sign the movie has something going for it. I don't agree with them all the time. I just saw "The Artist", which was highly rated and it didn't do anything for me. I just didn't care for it. But I'm not presumptuous enough to call the vast majority of critics and audiences who liked it shallow, stupid and lazy. There's a difference between hating art (or popular art). and throwing everyone who disagrees with you under the bus.

If that line of thinking doesn't work for you, so be it.

 

[ShiningStar]

I'm not even going there with the football analogy. Here's my point on a site like Rotten Tomatoes...when I see a movie that an extremely large percentage of critics like, AND an extremely large percentage of fans like, it's a good sign the movie has something going for it. I don't agree with them all the time. I just saw "The Artist", which was highly rated and it didn't do anything for me. I just didn't care for it. But I'm not presumptuous enough to call the vast majority of critics and audiences who liked it shallow, stupid and lazy. There's a difference between hating art (or popular art). and throwing everyone who disagrees with you under the bus.

If that line of thinking doesn't work for you, so be it.

and who said they arent paid for these ratings and promotions. Come on man, Hollywoods been dying for many years, but the corpse is pretty big. give it a rest, it has nothing in common with Star Trek besides the name. Nothing, thats why its called a "reboot".

They have very little orginial thought anymore, no one argues this point. They use the word "reboot" to give them wiggle room to prove to you they have no orginal thought. They go out of their way to pour money into movies, they know have no orginal thought. Movies like the Die hard Series are still produced because they have no original thought. THey are tired of showing you they have no original thought and here you are arguing like its a good thing. Its not.

they are called reboots to give them and people the illusion they know what they are doing, they dont. if they did original ideas and movies and shows would be rolling out. the next thing they have is digging up the old actors .

It was horrible, its the same as continuing the fight "the planet is flat" Okay fine, the planet is flat and its one big conspiracy. But its round and no point is going to change the fact.

 

[honyock]

and who said they arent paid for these ratings and promotions. Come on man, Hollywoods been dying for many years, but the corpse is pretty big. give it a rest, it has nothing in common with Star Trek besides the name. Nothing, thats why its called a "reboot".

They have very little orginial thought anymore, no one argues this point. They use the word "reboot" to give them wiggle room to prove to you they have no orginal thought. They go out of their way to pour money into movies, they know have no orginal thought. Movies like the Die hard Series are still produced because they have no original thought. THey are tired of showing you they have no original thought and here you are arguing like its a good thing. Its not.

they are called reboots to give them and people the illusion they know what they are doing, they dont. if they did original ideas and movies and shows would be rolling out. the next thing they have is digging up the old actors .

It was horrible, its the same as continuing the fight "the planet is flat" Okay fine, the planet is flat and its one big conspiracy. But its round and no point is going to change the fact.

So liking the 2009 Star Trek movie is akin to believing the planet is flat? Okay, got it. Not much else to say here.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

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.

It says the legacy is in his hands. Sounds like an indication to me.

Legacy of one episode??

 

[ShiningStar]

So liking the 2009 Star Trek movie is akin to believing the planet is flat? Okay, got it. Not much else to say here.

you liek it you like it, its called an opinion. but to sit there and argue its a star trek movie, when they call it a "reboot", which you can allude to they use the term so they can use the name and come up with any idea they want (and they pretty much did) and think its a star trek movie, when they could not come up with a good star trek movie or think of any way to go forward with the series which was being butchered by anyone who thought they had a new idea or any idea with the universe, is quiet frankly insane.

sorry but to a lot of people who grew up on the series and hold it dear and understood it for what it was, remember it wasnt a favorite of many people who wrote it off as being garbage because it was cancelled, it wasnt a star trek movie. When fans can point out the flaws and show you point by point, (yes we are nerds) that the movie is not a star trek movie, than yes, evidence points to that argument and makes it valid.


You have two different ideas that people are confusing. You can call it a good movie, thats all well and good. Can you call it a "star trek movie" not with the word reboot, you are saying "we are changing anything we want, because lets face it We either 1) never saw the original or 2) had no concept of what we were watching. Both valid points, both prove the point it was not a star trek movie.

A few common things, names, planets, and the word star trek, Possibly ranks, but after that, its like calling volkswagon a rebooted Corvette. and believe you me that doesnt go over with fans of the corvette. I can say what i want, and pay people what i think they should think, but believe me when i tell you, its not going to go over well with people who tell me, "its not a corvette we dont care if you use the word "reboot" its a volkswagon. or hey you can pay to call it whatever you want, dont use the word corvette in the title." those people will be correct.