>>65093442 he demonstrated with Star Trek that he's willing to completely sacrifice any sort of artistic vision/integrity if that's what his corporate overlords want. He's basically a puppet for boardroom directors.
>>65093526 >>65093584 this I remember him talking about how disney gave him a lot of freedom to do what he wanted with star wars. Which makes sense when you consider how much of a "by the numbers" filmmaker he is. They can give him freedom because they know he wont take any risks.
>>65093923 I really can't think of any film from the last 5 years that's gonna leave a heavy mark on pop culture. Like it or not I think people will remember the memes of today more than the films, the music, the literature, etc...
No, Star Wars ALREADY left a mark on pop culture. Star Wars 7 itself had absolutely nothing unique or memorable. BB-8 is just soccer ball R2D2. He might be remembered but he's basically just a toy. Nothing about the movie itself is memorable. Shit even the prequels had memorable moments and dialogue that people quote.
>>65094210 The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he wasn't shamalamadingdong all along.
>>65093442 I actually have a semi controversial theory to throw out there about this. It's like this: he's not stupid, he's not a hack, he's just a very shrewd opportunist that only cares about making money. He's about 10-15 years older than his base demographic and he took a look at what is an unprecedented opportunity to make money off of them and cashed in. Let me explain, before Ronald Regan took office there were laws about advertizing durring children's programming. He rolled those back. What immediately followed were close to two decades worth of mainstream children's programming focusing in on toy sales. Hasbro would make a line of toys, and then make a TV show basically as a commercial to promote it. Many of these were science fiction or fantasy in nature, so years later when those same people who were children at the time have come of age and now have jobs with disposable income what you have is the second largest generation America has ever seen all indoctrinated and predisposed to liking science fiction and fantasy crap because it's been markets at them since before they could talk.
JJ saw this coming and he capitalized on it. He saw the burgeoning future market of 24-48 year olds with money and a propensity to like sci-fi. He also saw their kids. He predicted that not only could he convince this whole generation to watch whatever schlock he chucked at them- they were going to have impressionable children and make them watch too.
So no, I don't think he's the antichrist, I think honestly if he thought there was a dollar in it for him he has the capacity to make some of the most thoughtful interesting movies of his generation.
But he's not in it for the art. He's a businessman, and business is good.
Darth Maul was basically like ANH Vader or Boba Fett with less dialogue. He was a scary looking badass and nothing else, but he was extremely popular (so much so that they brought him back from the dead in canon), had a unique design, and a unique weapon. Darth Maul may not be a great character, but he definitely is memorable.
I have to say that people years from now will probably remember the new ones, even if it's only for nostalgia. I was a kid when the prequels came out and I loved them, to me people saying that they aren't memorable is baffling because as far as I'm concerned things like pod racers and General Grevious are just as Star Wars as Vader and X-wings. Kids growing up now will see Kylo and Maz as iconic of Star Wars.
>>65096064 What is with you contrarian faggots? Can't you just admit that despite the plot being a rehash, the Force Awakens was still an entertaining movie with good characters and a is decent addition to the Star Wars franchise. I doubt there is a single person on here (without autism) who actually hated it. Sure, disliked, but not hated. It felt way more like Star Wars than fucking Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones did, and wasn't just a CGI shitfest like the prequels were.
I just watched Phantom Menace today and I have to totally disagree with you. It felt far more like Star Wars than TFA did. TFA just felt like it was trying really hard to be Star Wars, and it kinda did it, but not really. There weren't even any Star Wars aliens in the background ffs.
>>65093526 >"I never liked 'Star Trek' when I was a kid," said Abrams. "Growing up, I thought, honestly, I couldn't get into it. My friends loved it. I would try, I would watch episodes but it always felt too philosophical to me. Some of the writers loved 'Star Trek,' I was not really a fan, my producing partner never saw it ... so when we were all happy it felt like that was the way to go."
>>65096416 It "felt" like Star Wars to you because of nostalgia. If someone only watched the prequels as a little kid and you showed them the original trilogy as an adult, they would probably say it doesn't feel like Star Wars to them.
Maybe so, but you have to admit the same possibility for TFA. It relied very heavily on nostalgia beats by constantly making references to ANH. The prequels did this a little too, but they were usually plot points like Jango being Boba's father or Anakin being from Tatooine. TFA just through in random shit like the kessel run joke or Finn finding the training remote.
Except in the prequels callbacks to the OT were mostly plot points, not random gags and jokes. Besides most of the callbacks in the prequels make perfect sense. Obi-Wan and Yoda pretty much had to be in them since their relationship with Anakin was central to the plot. Jango was unnecessary but at least he gave Boba a backstory.
>>65096722 Plot was definitely the weakest point of TFA. JJ focused mainly on developing the characters and setting up the greater universe, and considering how the characters were all well received and fully brought to life (excluding Rey), I think he succeeded here. It is much easier to fix a weak first act story than shitty, unlikable characters. The next director could take the story in any direction they might want to, and hopefully there will be a much larger focus on the plot in Episode VIII. If JJ had left Rian Johnson with Anakin and Jar Jar-tier characters, there would be no saving the franchise. In regards to the OT references,I did find some of them to be a little tiring, but overall they were clever and JJ didn't just ram them down your throat. It was nowhere Guardians of the Galaxy level memeing by any metric. My favorite was probably when Finn gets into the gunner position on the Millennium Falcon and the old TIE fighter targeting screen pops up. In any case, I think we're just going to have to wait for Episode VIII to come out before we can really judge this film. It's obvious JJ was trying to lay the foundations of the trilogy by establishing strong characters while only establishing basic story elements, leaving almost a blank slate for the next director to work with. I think you could make the argument New Hope was the similar in that Empire Strikes Back could have gone in literally any direction after the Death Star was destroyed. If Episode VIII can be pulled off properly, then people will remember Episode VII in a positive light for setting up the rest of the trilogy. If things get fucked up by an incompetent director and writing staff, then people are going to shit on it for not providing enough of a story to keep future directors from getting drawn off course. Honestly, I have no idea what's going to happen. I've heard good things about the new director and I think JJ has left him decent material, so perhaps cautious optimism is warranted.
He could have established the characters and the world without sticking so closely to the originals. Not just the plot, but even stylistically and aesthetically. Stormtroopers, TIE Fighters, X-Wings, a Palpatine ripoff, it just reeks of unoriginality. Even if the prequels had their flaws they still expanded the universe and brought in new ideas, concepts and situations, many of which were actually pretty damn interesting. This movie was a classic case of fanboy bullshit. The prequels aren't great, but the bandwagon for hating them has gone too far, so Disney doesn't want to touch them with a ten foot pole, which means they are going to stick as close to the originals as possible. All the bandwagon jumping fanboys will eat it up because le practical effects and le TIE Fighters and they won't demand anything original.
Safe director to print money for the studio. His shit lacks originality but is enjoyable. Of course TFA does not have the Star Wars feel but is way far easier to watch than the prequel movies. Lucas attempt to do Shakespeare, politics and shit at the same time in the AotC made the movie a mess. Also the cringey dialogue does not help either. Meanwhile, JJ's TFA is full of Mr. Nigga Ooga Booga doing random stupid shit while saying silly lines with occasional R9Kylo Ren throwing tantrum but I can follow Mr. Nigga through his adventure without wishing he would shut the fuck up like I wish Anakin did
>>65095388 >>65096114 /tv/ literally gets away with the most retarded, kiddie shit like "wow Darth Maul was a cool character!" just so long as they're not praising the current popular one. Darth Maul was literally edgy kiddie bait. It sometimes boggles my mind how bas /tv/s taste is. Struggling to find ways to praise the prequels is only one example of this.
>>65098755 Not implying that. Just implying you can more often find retarded apologetics for the prequels here than elsewhere. Also all the hypocritical criticisms /tv/ applies to TFA but have equal validity to the prequels, like blatant thievery from the OT.
>>65098910 >not because its mindless in stupid or anything It's not mindless, it's just not science fiction. It's a perfectly well-made adventure film with well-drawn characters and good direction. Calling it mindless is absurd.
>>65099054 >they ruined kirk and spock and made uhura an annoying girlfriend. You're judging the characters of the reboot by the standard of how they were portrayed in the past. i.e. they "ruined" the characters because they changed them. This is a fucking stupid way to think about the movie; it's not a sequel.
>>65099041 the fuck do you expect then? should trek fans stop wanting good writing? should they not expect creativity or clever science fiction? you just want us to accept simplistic garbage? fuck off
>>65099048 He directed one episode of Lost and then left. that hardly even counts. And TFA hasnt left an impact, its just a recent movie. we wont know if it left an impact until time has passed. by that logic avatar would have left a huge impact.
>>65099050 Sorry I wouldn't have the faintest what you mean Alot of people on here have varying opinions is what I meant It's a far cry from when we use to discuss movies, come to a conclusion, then never need to have the same thread in less than a month
>>65099128 >He directed one episode of Lost and then left. He directed the best episode of the series, got it financed, and served as producer for years. >TFA hasn't left an impact It's the highest grossing film in American history. That's an impact in and of itself.
>>65099098 >>65099125 Uhura was turned from a logical, stoic person, the ENTIRE POINT of his character, into some guy who gets cucked by his coworker. And he rages out like some kind of pussy, he wasnt a vulcan at all.
Chris Pine did well as Kirk but they ruined him by having him become captain immediately. it was retarded.
>>65099145 But Tarantino is just a flat out better director. And Inglourious Basterds was a creative, original, meaningful film, and Abrams hasnt made anything half as good. There was another movie named inglourious basterds but Tarantino's version had nothing to do with it other than the title. When Abrams makes something as good as that, then we can talk.
>Hey look, it's that table on the Millennium Falcon with the alien monster chess game. It's even got the same 70s era claymation special effects!
>Hey, Boba Fett's dad was also a famous bounty hunter, who was tasked by Sheev to assassinate Darth Vader's future (past) wife by hiring another bounty hunter to use a droid to use poisonous slugs to try to kill Padme, which resulted in a high speed chase with Obi Wan hanging onto the slug-shitting robot while flying through the skyscrapers of Coruscant so it will take him back to the shapeshifter Jango Fett hired to kill Padme rather than doing it himself, who Jango silences using a poison dart so rare that it is only made on one planet in the entire galaxy, Kamino, (information gained from Obi Wan's good friend, Dex Jettster, six armed alien with a massive ass crack and proud owner of Dex Jettster's 50s space diner and Classified Republic Secrets Emporium), where Obi Wan finds the Ayy Lmao people secretly manufacturing a massive clone army based on the idle "Hey, you know what would be so fucking cool?" suggestion of some mid-ranking member of the Jedi council who died like ten fucking years ago, the Kaminos apparently being ok with the Republic not making a down payment before they actually create the million man slave army bred only to fight and die for some Jedi masters who didn't like the idea of the Outer Rim wanting to secede from a corrupt bureaucracy that uses slave armies to flatten entire planets like Geonosis (remind me why the separatists were the bad guys again?) but HOL UP because WAT WE SAYING IS IT WUZ actually JANGO FUCKING FETT who was used as the genetic template for the clone army, and Boba Fett was his own personal clone, meaning Boba Fett IS ACTUALLY A STORM TROOPER and his dad was the literal father of Sheev's stormtrooper army, and even though Jango was a total badass Lucas pulled a ROTJ and had Mace Dindu cap his ass even though there was no reason to kill him. He was a good friend.
>>65099145 tarantino takes from disparate sources in his pastiches, combining the 'low culture' of exploitation films with the 'high culture' of french new wave, and does it with his own distinctive spin. super 8 is a simple homage. i think tarantino is vastly overrated and found super 8 enjoyable, but it's not a fair comparison.
>>65099234 >Uhura was turned from a logical, stoic person, the ENTIRE POINT of his character, into some guy who gets cucked by his coworker. And he rages out like some kind of pussy, he wasnt a vulcan at all. >Chris Pine did well as Kirk but they ruined him by having him become captain immediately. it was retarded. In other words, it's bad because it's different. You wanted a remake or a sequel, not a reboot. I bet you also complain that the TFA is too similar to ANH, don't you?
>>65099234 While I do not disagree that Tarantino has left a bigger impact and is a better director. I still think Super 8 shines on its own and differentiates itself enough from the films it is idolizing. Is it as good as anything Tarantino makes, no, but that is a pretty high standard.
>>65099241 Fett got development. Not much, but a family and a background are development. Meanwhile Maul stared blankly as some white twink vaulted over him, in reach the whole time, and took a big obvious sbre swing to the midsection. His death was equally stupid, he looked like a juggalo, and was a complete non-character. Your defense of Maul is exactly the sort of shit that makes /tv/s taste so laughable.
>>65099304 no retard, its bad because Spock was interesting because he was logical and stoic. thats what makes him interesting. thats the whole fucking point. if you cant understand that you're retarded.
and the captain thing isnt a matter of it being different its a matter of it not making any sense.
> I bet you also complain that the TFA is too similar to ANH, don't you?
What Boba got in Clones is not development. Can you tell me a single thing about his personality beyond "he's a badass?". Also I don't know how you can think that Fett's death is less stupid than Maul's since Fett was literally killed by being accidentally hit with a stick by a blind guy.
>>65099371 Name a reason why the reboot Spock can't be distinct from the original Spock. Is it because you want to complain about the differences between nuTrek and the original series while simultaneously bitching about TFA's similarity to that series' original trilogy?
>>65099463 the issue with nutrek isn't that it's 'different,' it's that it's a blatant dumbing-down of the original series. it's a well-crafted movie in its own right, but completely misses the spirit of star trek.
>>65099530 >but completely misses the spirit of star trek. Again, it's bad because it's different. NuTrek is tonally district from the original series, and that's not a reason to dislike it in and of itself.
>>65099612 tng is different from tos in many ways, but maintains its social/philosophical commentary and focus on exploration and diplomacy (from what i've seen, which is admittedly only a handful of episodes). nutrek amounts to nothing more than an action blockbuster. if you can't see the difference you're a retard.
>>65099128 It's not simplistic garbage though, it's a concise and well-realized action movie. Your autism over there not being enough philosophical pondering is understandable, but your dismissal of the film as a whole is not.
If the film was not called "Star Trek", people would be hailing it as one of the greatest action thrillers of the 2000's.
>>65093442 I'm very passionate about creativity in cinema so to me he is the anti-christ of filmmaking. He represents everything I hate about modern cinema. Crusty haired prick. Shame he had to touch star wars. /tv/ needs to stop him!
>>65099580 All value judgements are subjective, but you can still use objective examples. In other words, whether or not Into Darkness is a good movie is subjective, but you can point to objective similarities to Wrath of Kahn in your critiques of it.
>>65099603 >it's bad because it's not like it was before The Spock in nuTrek kept his emotions in check except for the few times he wasn't able to, a contrast that's a good recipe for drama. I'm 100% sure that Abrams understood this facet of the original Spock, given that it's not in the least bit complex or interesting.
>>65099655 You don't understand the distinction between plot as parable and good storytelling for its own sake. Sci-fi authors treating commentary as substitute for characterization is part of the reason why that genre isn't respected in literary fiction.
>>65096301 I'm no contrarian. I've always tried to have a balanced view on things but the conclusion is clear, it's not a good movie. And even if it's slightly entertaining it didn't deserve to be. It doesn't deserve 2 billion dollars in the box office. Because it's everything wrong with 2010's filmmaking, boring rehash, pc, feminist, paint by numbers,nostalgia pandering, shallow garbage. TFA will not stand the test of time. BB-8 might but everything else is too much of a rip off to survive. It's the death of good cinema- the movie for christ sake!
>>65099854 i went on to list similarities that establish a spiritual connection between the two, so that in spite of their differences both make sense as star trek. nutrek, by contrast, has no real connection to the series other than in name.
>>65094123 There have been some movies that were really great. But in general you are right, movies seem to get worse rather then better. I don't really understand why this is the case, since they also get more expensive.
>>65095023 He's an assembly line of movie making. McDonald's, if you will. He didn't make Star Trek the way it was out of hatred of it, he made it out of his desire to make money and sell a product.
His movie are by far the most watchable movies ever produced because not a single risk is taken in any of them. He's just doing math equation on screen for nearly two hours. They're meant to leave you unfulfilled so that you may have to watch them or something like them again to try to figure out what you liked but didn't get enough of.
>>65099849 i don't see how nay of that is relevant to my post. this isn't a discussion on the literary value of nutrek vs oldtrek, it's a discussion on why i feel nutrek misses the point of oldtrek. nice try though.
>>65099833 >by that logic he should also get a sex change and speak Chinese. Sure, why not? And why not a female James Bond? Again, the point of a reboot isn't to just do what's been done before again. Having a Spock who projects an unemotional exterior while being capable of feeling the same things that Kirk is isn't an uninteresting way to tackle his character.
>>65099810 No you didn't, you said that the difference between Tarantino and JJ is that Tarantino's work is more than the sum of its influences. Except you don't make any arguments as to why that is, you just assert it.
You're acting autistic. If you just want a rehash of the original series, watch the original series.
Or be a grown up and start judging the film on its own merits, rather than how similar it is to something you've already seen.
>>65099892 Actually he didn't say any of that. He just vaguely hinted at the fact that they were different, somehow; and then spent the rest of his post pontificating on how exactly they were the same. If they were truly and unique and fresh, you would think he would illustrate how.
I'd argue that TNG is best when it isn't slavishly sticking to the "spirit" of the original series, and the 2009 Trek film was a welcome departure as far as the films go. You're right, it was a completely new tone for the franchise and it worked.
>>65099994 I'm saying that nuTrek has a more human, relatable story. It doesn't have the aspects of science fiction that repels the public: a story that's nothing more than just an excuse to articulate an idea.
>>65098040 >The prequels aren't great, but the bandwagon for hating them has gone too far, so Disney doesn't want to touch them with a ten foot pole, which means they are going to stick as close to the originals as possible
Yea you're right, but keep in mind that hatred for the Prequels is certainly justified. Phantom Menace is a collection of half baked concepts and "Yes Man" style script development, which is why we ended up with several interesting but never developed concepts like Darth Maul, laid over a foundation of pure shit like Jar Jar, virgin birth Space Jesus Anakin, and midichlorians. Attack of the Clones is even worse, because at least Phantom has special effects that still hold up today (due to heavy use of models in Phantom). Revenge of the Sith has many redeeming qualities, unlike the other two films. It's the only prequel that has a decent, non convoluted plot (Sheev begins his final ascension to becoming the Emperor, Anakin has Sheev induced visions of his wife dying in childbirth and falls to the dark side in a desperate attempt to save her, Obi Wan fails to sense Anakin growing more distant and confused and contributes to his fall to the dark side), and by 2005 the CGI had progressed far enough to look convincing for much of the film, although CGI stormtroopers and Yoda look absolutely awful today. Some might go far enough to even say the Revenge of the Sith is a good or even "great" film, although personally I think it has too much Lucas-tier stupidity to be considered great by any measure. It's really silly that these /tv/ contrarians have taken the fact that ROTS is a decent movie that doesn't deserve much of the hate it gets, and applied that to the entire prequel trilogy. Episodes I and II have nothing redeemable about them, Attack of the Clones especially. They might have been "original", but just because some dog shit on the ground happens to be a neat color doesn't mean the dog shit is as artistically valuable as a Picasso painting.
>>65100050 Here's the thing that bug me about people like you: a female James Bond doesn't retroactively ruin the already established canon of work relating to that character. If a great actress like Emily Blunt was chosen to play Jane Bond, that wouldn't make Goldfinger a less entertaining movie, or the Ian Fleming novels any less fun. Make old characters new again. Who gives a fuck.
>>65099310 Yes, and Finn, Kylo Ren, and Poe all had absolutely zero character development throughout the film. Fuck, even Rey was pretty likeable and fun to watch when she was just chilling on Jakku exploring old star destroyers and shit, before she was busy being a Mary Sue.
>>65100193 Because Star Trek is an interesting universe with iconic characters and imagery. And as the 2009 film proved, you can make an excellent action movie out of the franchise even if the themes of exploration and morality aren't the focus.
>>65100034 drawing from such a disparate, at times seemingly-opposing, sources for your pastiche necessarily adds a unique spin to a film. the sources abrams draws from in super 8 are all closely aligned in their sense of sentimentality and nostalgia.
>>65100226 Craig has the most English sounding Scottish accent then, also Spectre set up this Bond to be in a different universe than past Bonds. Also, you can be born in Scotland and be black. Granted it is minority, but still plausible.
>>65100271 >nefarious idea >changing a character's gender James Bond isn't a character that deserves this much reverence. It's a fucking spy thriller. Make him Japanese and set it in Tokyo. It would probably end up being more interesting that Spectre.
>>65100279 Tarantino borrows entire scenes, shots, and plot ideas, while JJ simply borrowed tone and plot ideas. JJ's borrowing of Spielberg isn't any different than Spielberg's borrowing of adventure serials for Indiana Jones.
However, since we are in the Age of Obama, the film needs to be politically correct in its line-up of heroes – hey, we can’t have white guys saving an all-white universe anymore. In “The Force Awakens,” the main heroes are a rebellious Storm Trooper that turns out to be a black guy who is the outer space equivalent of a runaway slave (British actor John Boyega, giving a vocal performance heavy in American ghetto jive), a kick-ass female warrior whose character feels closer in spirit to Gloria Steinem than George Lucas (British actress Daisy Ridley, keeping her London accent) and a swaggering Hispanic pilot (Oscar Isaac, bringing a bit of rico suave to the Resistance). All of the villains, of course, are white men - well, don't they always create problems?
>>65100343 >What is a retcon. Also Scotland is part of Britain, so British accent is a misnomer. Besides this detail was only added in the Craig bonds and obviously they are different due to the backstory of him and Blofield in Spectre. >>65100362 Pretty sure everything Gore has made has been panned outside of Rango, Black Pearl, and Ring.
>>65100317 >Make him Japanese and set it in Tokyo. It would probably end up being more interesting that Spectre. for what purpose? why do sjws always have to demand something that doesn't concern them. if you hate the white patriarchy so much why do you care about bond, just live and let live reddit.
>>65100361 yes, but tarantino takes all of those from widely divergent sources, which gives his films a unique vision. even if jj is only borrowing tone and plot ideas, the end product comes out feeling like less of a distinctive vision.
>>65100302 This would only be a legitimate complaint if James Bond was a single character who had remained largely unchanged throughout the decades, but that isn't the case. Every actor has had his own spin on the character; a female Bond can just be an interesting one-off like the original 1967 Casino Royale.
>>65100462 but star trek was deep, creative science fiction. Nutrek has literally none of that. It has nothing memorable at all. if you think its actually a space opera then youre a moron, it was just some shitty action movie that partially took place in space. there was nothing deep or well made about it. calling it an opera just shows how liberal the definition is.
>>65100311 >because they feel it misses the point of star trek A series having a "feel" or a "point" is a legitimate notion when it comes to a sequel or a prequel. You wan't everything to be tonally consistent. It's not a legitimate point when it comes to a reboot series intended to be different from its predecessors.
>>65100462 >"it's different, and that's bad!" looks like someone hasn't been reading the thread
look man, i agree it's a well-crafted action movie, but it shouldn't be hard to understand why many longtime star trek fans are upset that their beloved moral/philosophical drama has been turned into something completely different.
>>65100343 >why just alter james bond? Because he's altered in every film. It would just be another alteration.
>>65100344 It would be more like a black woman playing Shaft.
>>65100412 I'm not an SJW, I just don't think that a character like Bond can remain unchanged for decades without getting stale. Why not try something new? The worse that can happen is that the experiment fails and they go back. It's this type of inability to process the new that makes every new film a sequel.
>>65100569 >Huge Part of his character Not really, him being British is. An american James Bond would not work. So long as he his British, it does not matter how long his lineage has been in Britain or Scotland. It is not crucial to his character, like being a womanizer, cold, or a borderline alcoholic is. This is why Moore is the worst Bond, because he is too much like a clown.
>>65100420 I've heard people compare Tarantino to a hip-hop artist who samples. If that's the case, then JJ is like a post-punk revival band who grew up listening to Joy Division. If a band like Savages is derivative to you, then so be it. I don't have a problem with them, though.
>>65100623 >Why not try something new? they always try something new. they went to mexico city in the last film, i don't think they've ever done that. why are you obsessed with a woman bond? there's literally no point. there are 0 women agents like bond anyway so it's not even believable.
>>65100454 >the character in general maintained several key traits A suit, womanizing, a preferred drink. Bond's traits aren't complex or interesting enough to warrant decades of no change. I bet that you can have someone like Cate Blanchett retain many of those traits while still being a woman.
>>65100676 Ha, he was afraid to do anything cold and was against the excellent scene in For Your Eyes only where he kicks the car off the cliff. This is something the book bond would have done easily. Bond is not a gentleman, but a dark tortured soul who is a cold-blooded killer. Not some pussy vegan/peta supporter
>>65100703 I HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT ITS SHALLOW AND LIFELESS LMAO
>>65100740 but why should we keep those traits? if youre changing everything else, why not make him sloppily dressed, sober, and not even a secret agent at all? why dont we make him a children's author who writes stories on his ranch in Vermont?
>>65100596 But the original films and seres will always be there. To me 09 Star Trek is a spiritual successor to Star Wars; it's everything we wanted the prequels to be. It being dissimilar to Wrath of Kahn (which I also like) doesn't bother me. It just means that we got a good adventure film rather than a good science fiction film.
>>65100844 everyone bitched that daniel craig was too blonde. it was actually sorta hard to tell in casino royale because of the lighting, but in general Bond should have dark hair. And like you said, scottish is still british so it fits
>>65100546 >but it shouldn't be hard to understand why many longtime star trek fans are upset that their beloved moral/philosophical drama has been turned into something completely different.
This is literally ">it's different, and that's bad!", so I'm not sure how I'm not reading the thread. You keep trying to mention how different series of the show are slightly different from the others, but then you insist that they are all deep moral/philosophical dramas which handle the same subjects in the same manner when the same tone and the same consistency. They actually aren't all that different at all.
The 2009 film is ACTUALLY different, in that is completely abandons the notion of having something to say about morality and philosophy, and that's why you don't like it. So I repeat, ">"it's different, and that's bad!" is exactly what describes you.
>>65100676 You can take many of the same traits that Bond has, like his nationalism, personal recklessness, charm, and let a female actress try it out. I don't buy the notion that his ENITE character is predicated on his gender.
>>65100810 look, if jeff mangum decided he wanted to start playing thrash metal and he reformed nmh as his vehicle to do so, wouldn't that strike you as just a tad disingenuous when he could instead have just formed a different group?
>>65100888 But Flemming explicitly said he was of Swiss-Scottish descent. Therefore he must at all times speak with a Scottish accent. Not an English accent, not a Welsh Accent, and certainly not an Irish one. Anything else is an insult to Flemming. This is why Connery is the only true Bond, the rest are imposters.
>>65100808 You can change characters entirely, sure. But at that point you might as well write a new character. Allowing for some of the old traits while still changing major aspects is excuse enough to keep the original character's name.
>>65100949 Here's a hint, we live in a cynical post-modern world where brand recognition is what sells, and it's no longer a game about being new and inventive, it's a game of trying to give people the same thing in a different way.
>>65100955 > This is why Connery is the only true Bond, the rest are imposters.
many people make that exact argument. personally I dont, but many do consider him the definitive Bond.
> It focusing on action, character, and spectacle; over philosophy and exploration, doesn't make it stupid or shallow.
When the characters are annoying and lame, and the spectacle is Star Wars ripoff, that does make it shallow.
> Bond's ancestry is not important to the majority of the films
But its referenced multiple times in different incarnations. Just because it isnt brought up constantly doesnt mean it isnt important. Fuck off with your double standards, either its okay to change all races or its not okay to change any.
>>65100991 > You can change characters entirely, sure. But at that point you might as well write a new character
THATS EXACTLY WHAT IVE BEEN SAYING
>>65101029 it has as much depth as a hack jew and his shitty writers demanded? awesome. it has characters but theyre poorly written.
>>65101047 bad example. McDonalds in many ways was a revolutionary establishment. it didnt become big for no reason.
>>65100939 Bowie, Radiohead, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell. Some of the greatest musicians of all time were able to change genre mid-career. I wouldn't want Jeff Mangum to switch to metal because I don't enjoy metal, but he was successfully able to make both Rock and Folk music simultaneously.
>>65101004 >Why was the opening scene of the Stormtroopers landing and fighting on Jakku bad? storm troopers indiscriminately start massacring people for no reason. stupid goofy good fighter guy was a shit actor. finn is just walking around like an autist. tries to be dramatic but just looks funny. i wasn't even trying to be cynical but i kept saying what the fuck is this trash and try not laughing because it wasn't supposed to be comical i think.
>>65100849 >So, when the original is well written and deep, and you try to deviate from that, it means youre intentionally creating shit. Good job.
They didn't deviate from being "well written", they deviated from ponderous themes and extended moralistic discussions. In terms of an action thriller, it was very well-written, and it had all the depth it needed in order to competently tell the story and keep the pacing exhilarating.
>>65101000 >So, when the original is well written and deep, and you try to deviate from that, it means youre intentionally creating shit. Good job.
And once again, that's a lie. You do simply dislike it because it's different. You rewording that doesn't change the fact. You like the the original series and it's sequel because they aren't different in the way you think is important. The 2009 movie was, and that's why you dislike it. That "tone" is the only difference that matters.
>>65101095 but they've all made careers out of switching up their style.
and the point wasn't merely about jeff playing metal, it's about him reforming neutral milk hotel to play metal. that doesn't strike you as disingenuous, as a cheap cash-in on their recognition, when he could have easily just formed a new band?
>>65100949 There are masculine women. Again, I don't actually care very much, I just gave it as an example. An case of this actually occurring is the masculine Ripley being written as man before Sigourney Weaver joined the production.
>>65101210 if Bond is a woman, then is she still a womanizer? otherwise its a different character entirely. and that would make zero fucking sense unless Bond happened to come across lesbians constantly.
>>65101321 you're ignoring the point about nmh though
>and the point wasn't merely about jeff playing metal, it's about him reforming neutral milk hotel to play metal. that doesn't strike you as disingenuous, as a cheap cash-in on their recognition, when he could have easily just formed a new band?
I'll repeat, Uhura was never important, and the 2009 carries on this tradition.
>Spock being emotional and whiny just means he's like every other human.
Your implying a few emotional outbursts during the film characterize his entire performance, which is simply untrue. He spent the majority of the film in stoic silence or quiet disdain towards those around him. It's in line with the portrayal of Vulcans from the television shows, just a little rushed I suppose.
So basically you're saying that dumbing down a franchise known for having a modicum of thought to a mindless action thriller does not represent a drop in quality and nobody can think that is bad for any reason except hating change on principle.
For a blockbuster director, I think he is pretty good. He doesn't really do anything innovative, but always looks like he deeply cares about the movies he makes and he does have a style and good eye for action scenes, and isn't really pretentious about popcorn flicks he makes
>>65101482 No, that's not what I'm saying, and I'm seriously starting to question your mental capacity for understanding what I'm trying to illustrate at all. The movie is not mindless, it is not "dumbed down", and is if anything, a notable increase in quality compared to at least half of the preexisting Trek films.
>>65101391 >then get a bar dyke to play Bond. I bet you that an androgynous actress like the great Tilda Swinton could convincingly play Bond's aristocratic disposition and nationalistic attitude perfectly.
>>65101535 >so many iconic things about Bond involve him being a womanizer Again, that's not his only trait. Craig's Bond might technically be a womanizer, but that's not the most important aspect of that conception of Bond. In fact, he gets attached to a single woman in most of the recent films.
>>65101624 >but the strongest male will always be more athletic and strong than the strongest woman. Obviously, but Bond isn't the strongest male anyways. The most interesting Bonds are the ones who kill the muscle brains and gadgets, not with fists.
>if you want Tilda Swinton as Bond and you aren't being ironic or baiting, fuck off. Tilda Swinton is literally perfect and could play anything.
>>65101549 but why should jeff reform nmh only to play metal when he could create a new band to do so, or just release a solo album? with every example you've given of bands changing genres, they do it while already active. in this hypothetical situation jeff slaps the neutral milk hotel name on an album in a style completely different to what that band has typically played. that doesn't strike you as a cheap cash in on the name-recognition?
>>65101738 >because its an origin story establishing how he became a womanizer. It's also the story of Quantum, and he again becomes attached to an single woman in Spectre. So 3 out of the 4 Craig Bond films have him actually care about his love interest.
>but Bond is an assassin trained in hand to hand combat Bond has a gun with a licenses to kill. I don't think melee is a necessary aspect of his character.
>>65101624 >Just because you keep saying that doesnt make it true.
That same logic applies to you.
> Nutrek isnt near as deep as search for spock, wrath of khan, or undiscovered country.
The film isn't "dumbed down", it's just not exploring the same themes as those films. A dumbed down movie would be one that is exploring those same things and hitting those same beats, but doing so in a shallow or incompetently rushed manner. The 2009 film isn't doing that, but is instead doing something completely different, and existing as a film on its own terms.
>>65101799 I'm not sure if that analogy is appropriate, though. You're comparing Bond's gender to NMH's genre of music. You can make a spy film of the exact same ilk of the previous Bonds with a woman. Changing NMH to a metal band would be like making the next Bond film a sci-fi movie set in space.
>>65101624 >no, its bad because it takes away the spirit that made it good. just because its new doesnt mean we have to like it
I never said you had to like it, I just wish you could provide a reason besides, "it's different so it's bad."
And yes, I know your reply is going to be some rewording of that phrase and pretending it's a different sentiment, so don't bother. You clearly have nothing insightful to contribute and your criticisms of the 2009 film are as shallow as you imagine the movie itself to be.
There are legitimate gripes you can have against it, but you have provided absolutely none. You have a child's understanding of cinema, and all the criticism expertise of a redditor from /r/movies.
>>65101866 >Quantum took place RIGHT, and I mean MINUTES after casino royale, How does this make what I said less true? It doesn't count because the film has an excuse for it happening?
>did you miss the fucking opening scene of Casino Royale with a fight scene in a bathroom? Have you read Ian Fleming or seen the previous Bond movies? Casino Royale isn't the only, or even model portrayal of Bond.
>>65101896 no, i'm not involved in the discussion on bond. i'm still discussing star trek. the point i'm making is that the 09 star trek might be a good film, and jeff's metal album could be a good piece of music, but it's ultimately a cheap cash-in on a recognized franchise and will understandably alienate longtime fans.
>>65101891 >okay then what themes is nutrek exploring? In terms of Spock's character, the struggle between emotion and logic. In terms of Kirk's character, the struggle to live up to your own expectations. In terms of both their characters, friendship and camaraderie in the face of stark personal differences.
I said nothing about the film having deep meaning. It's an action movie, not a philosophical one.
>how is it not dumbed down?
Because a dumbed down movie would be one that is exploring those same things and hitting those same beats, but doing so in a shallow or incompetently rushed manner. The 2009 film isn't doing that, but is instead doing something completely different, and existing as a film on its own terms.
>>65102026 And potentially bring in even more new fans, who are a much more important and profitable demographic. And judging from how much money it made it comparison to the other films in the franchise, I would say it worked.
>>65101934 > I just wish you could provide a reason besides, "it's different so it's bad."
I have but you keep ignoring them and saying "ITS A REBOOT SO ITS OKAY TO FUCK IT ALL UP LMAO"
I criticized the characterization going against what made them so engaging, as well as the laws of the established universe. And once again, its the same universe, it just branched off, but the majority of it should be the same.
honestly, fuck me for wanting JJ Abrams to actually have some kind of philosophical reasoning right?
Classic star trek is popular because it WORKS. It has meaning, it has relatable characters, and this formula can be changed while retaining the depth and majesty of good trek. The Next Generation proved that. If Abrams had shifted things around, but still given it MEANING, I wouldnt have minded.
In many ways, different DOES mean its bad because the original was so good and has managed to stay popular for DECADES. You wouldnt adapt Moby Dick and just make it about whaling, that would be fucking dumb, because Moby Dick is so much more than its surface level story.
>>65102026 I feel like you're thinking about this the wrong way. People said a similar thing when Bob Dylan shifted from folk to rock, but the problem with their complaints is that he was as good a rock musicians as he was a folk musicians. And to me, 09 Star Trek is as a good an adventure film as Wrath of Kahn is a sci-fi film. The film works on its own merits without comparing it to what came before, and that's enough for me.
>>65102070 > It's an action movie, not a philosophical one.
cool story. but people like star trek because it isnt just action. if you want action then go watch fucking Mad Max, its a great action movie and it isnt fucking up anything that sold itself as philosophy.
if star trek started out as an action franchise, I might have enjoyed the new films, but Trek became beloved because its MORE than that.
You have not. What you've done is consistently claim that you aren't simply upset that it's different, and then complain that it's different. Saying, "it's disliked because its differences make it inconsistent with the tone of its predecessors" is just a wordy way of saying you dislike it because it's different.
> and saying "ITS A REBOOT SO ITS OKAY TO FUCK IT ALL UP LMAO"
No, that's just the same strawman you've been trotting out this whole discussion. Not once have I said it's okay to fuck up, dumb down, or make decrease the quality of the films; and I've argued consistently that the 2009 reboot did none of these things. And in response you've managed to provide absolutely nothing as a rebuttal.
>honestly, fuck me for wanting JJ Abrams to actually have some kind of philosophical reasoning right?
No, I think that's fine. I just don't think you're looking at the film objectively. If you simply did not like action movies, and only enjoyed films with deep philosophical pondering, then I would understand. But that's not the case. If this movie wasn't called Star Trek you would hold it in much higher regard (regardless of the lie your about to insist upon because I've brought this up, so don't bother), but your appreciation for the original series clouds that judgement.
>Classic star trek is popular because it WORKS.
Classic Star Trek is popular with a certain subset of people. Star Trek wasn't nearly as popular as it had been back in 2009. Enterprise was a colossal failure.
> If Abrams had shifted things around, but still given it MEANING, I wouldn't have minded.
Because it wouldn't have been different in any actual meaningful way. You want the same thing. And you dislike it because it's different.
>>65102127 once again you're missing the point, and i fear you'll never get it. it has nothing to do with the quality of the films, or the quality of the hypothetical albums, or the quality of fucking whatever. star trek fans were dissatisfied because they felt the abrams trek was a cheap cash-in on the name recognition of their favorite franchise. period. good night.
>>65102157 >cool story. but people like star trek because it isnt just action.
People liked PREVIOUS Star Treks because they weren't just action. This was a new film with a new modus operandi, a new tone, and a new demographic. People very much like the 2009 Star Trek because of the action, spectacle, and character.
>if you want action then go watch fucking Mad Max,
I have, and it's great as well. In terms of being shallow, it's much more so than Star Trek though. There's absolutely nothing to the Mad Max character in Fury Road, he's simply a conduit through which the story progresses.
>if star trek started out as an action franchise, I might have enjoyed the new films, but Trek became beloved because its MORE than that.
Ah, so would it be fair to say, if this movie wasn't called Star Trek you would hold the film in higher regard? And would it also be fair to say that you perhaps dislike it because it's different?
>>65102362 Explaining why Trekkies are dissatisfied isn't the same as explaining why it's wrong. Fanboys are annoying, they get mad at everything. As for your point, I still don't see how it's distinct from Radiohead using the reputation it made off alternative rock to release electronic music.
Yes I have, I gave an example like how stupid it was for Kirk to become captain immediately, or making characters whiny and annoying. But fine, JUST to humor you, I can give other reasons it was shit, just off the top of my head.
1. Nero was a lame villain 2. Doing the sword fight on that space laser was beyond retarded 3. having Spock date Uhura was fucked. Vulcan's don't want to mate except on very rare occasions. That's established lore and would still apply to the reboots. 4. Having Spock abandon Kirk on a planet was fucked, Starfleet isnt that brutal. They just throw you in the brig. 5. Kirk just happens to come across old Spock on this huge ass ice tundra?
Honestly I havent seen it in a little while and its late. I cant list off EVERY single criticism off the top of my head. I still think the reasons I gave before were justified but you're so hellbent on saying "dude it's a reboot" to invalidate my complaints that its hard to debate with you.
> If this movie wasn't called Star Trek you would hold it in much higher regard
you're probably right, but that isn't the case. It sold itself as trek so I will judge it as such. Would I enjoy this franchise if it was some new sci-fi series by JJ Abrams? Fuck I might have really liked it, but there are certain things you expect from trek.
> Star Trek wasn't nearly as popular as it had been back in 2009. Enterprise was a colossal failure.
Yeah but it still lasted a really long time. It faded out, but that was inevitable. The series lasted way longer than most.
> Because it wouldn't have been different in any actual meaningful way.
Yes it would? There are countless subjects to make sci fi about. JJ Abrams could have picked one. It didnt have to have the same deep, philosophical meaning as any previously established trek, but I wanted SOME meaning.
>>65102377 > In terms of being shallow, it's much more so than Star Trek though.
Maybe, but Mad Max is definitely not shallow. Road Warrior was very unique, creative, well written, and just in general a very unique film that really affected pop culture.
> Ah, so would it be fair to say, if this movie wasn't called Star Trek you would hold the film in higher regard?
Maybe, but that isnt relevant. If they made a sherlock holmes movie some romance, and had almost no mystery, I would be pissed even if it was a great romance story, because I expect certain things from a Holmes film.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.