Is JJ Abrams the anti-christ of filmmaking? I honestly can't

>>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.

Well he is a kike...

>>65093526
"corporate puppet" is how I've always described him. He's every studio exec's wet dream.

>>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.

The guy knows how to make a flick. I'd like to see him try something original. I don't think he's incapable. I think he just likes the easy money.

>>65093712
New movies make me sad

Filmmakers used to push boundaries and try and create new memories

People like JJ Abrams just cash in on old ones.

>>65093765
I fucking guarantee you none of JJ's movies will leave a single mark on pop culture

His Star Trek and Star Wars movies have absolutely nothing unique about them, nothing memorable at all. Anything that was different was awful.

File: George_Lucas_and_JJ_Abrams redcarpet.jpg (103KB, 696x604px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 696x604px

George doesn't want to be associated with JJ or Star Wars anymore

>>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...

>>65093923
Star Wars will. You're in complete denial if you think otherwise. He created, kinda, BB-8 and he's huge already.

File: M._Night_Shyamalan_2008_-_still_40580_crop.jpg (26KB, 304x384px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 304x384px

>>65093442
It's my final act.

>>65094123
I imagine some will. It's sorta hard to know until time has passed though. The Marvel stuff as a whole might be remembered.

>>65094168
What?

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.

>>65093442

He is a manlet.

>>65093442
No he's just a good cuck

>>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.

>>65094114
O how i wish that was real.

>>65094266
You're in denial.

>>65095250
How am I in denial?

What about Star Wars 7 will leave a mark on pop culture? The only thing you named was BB-8.

>>65095299
All the shitty toys kids are playing with now will leave it's mark on a generation. Just like all the shit in the prequels.

>>65095345
but the prequels had more unique characters and scenes like darth maul

>>65094168
It's a fucking toy you autist!

Jesus this website 96% literal children.

>>65095388
haha darth maul! shit character. the guy was like a jackie-chan sith dancing around with his lightsaber.

TFA is a good movie. I hated the new protagonist(not because it's a girl, but the actress was a bad choice-like anakin- and won't make it like luke did). I'm looking forward to the next episodes.

File: intothetrashitgoes.jpg (31KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x400px

>>65095932
>TFA is a good movie

>>65095932
Darth Maul was a unique character with a cool saber. The writing wasnt great but whatever he was definitely unique and memorable.

>>65095932

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.

>>65095345
>>65095299

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.

He has a style, but it is soulless and utterly lacking in empathy or understanding of the human condition.

>>65096114
>>65096064

wasn't great? lol he even speaks in the movie?

grievous is more interesting than darth maul tbqhf

kylo ren is a real character. people love, people hate. debate his intentions, weakness, power, etc. like darth vader. you can deny it but it's a fact.

you guys are just young and in need to be contrarians. a good dose of vagina in your penis should fix this problem. I encourage you!

>>65096320
kylo ren is an angry little aspie with anger issues. He isnt interesting at all, how can you even think that

>>65093923
Dude... Lost.

>>65096381
Lost is a TV show

I clarified movies

>>65096301

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.

>>65096364
>an angry little aspie with anger issues
What's uninteresting about that?

File: 1452470068405.png (84KB, 706x680px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 706x680px

BELEEB IT HASBRO

>I honestly can't believe someone so void of style or originality could be one of the most successful directors of all time

>>65096415
Alright. But you must admit Lost had a huge cultural impact.

>>65096431
but before Abrams other directors became huge by doing something unique or memorable.

>>65096364
he's just like you. do not be mad if people make fun of him. you can try to be a better person. he'll try it in the next episodes

File: 1447513642009.png (257KB, 700x497px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 700x497px

>>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.

File: 1431778344287.jpg (174KB, 805x688px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 805x688px

>>65096320

>you guys are just young and in need to be contrarians. a good dose of vagina in your penis should fix this problem. I encourage you!

10 year old detected

>>65096266
Maz the Minion will never be Star Wars

>>65096608
8 years old detected la la la la la

>>65093442
>Everyone in this thread is a critic who didn't get off the couch of their momma's couch for the past week and wouldn't even know a single thing about what makes motion pictures great.

>>65096596
>It "felt" like Star Wars to you because of nostalgia.

You mean, just like TFA?

>>65096648
>the couch of their momma's couch
Haha. Okay?!?!?!

>>65096648
so only directors can criticize movies?

>>65096662
Fair enough. Still, I enjoyed it for reasons besides that.

>>65096596

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.

>>65096695
yes. and musicians for music and so on.

>>65096635

People said the same thing about the prequels but there's a whole generation of Star Wars fans who see them as being just as iconic as the originals.

>>65096743
This is the most retarded thing I've ever read on /tv/

>>65096722
it relied because it's 20-30 years old after ROTJ. like the prequels relied too(darth vader baby, growing up as a jedi), obi-wan, yoda, sheev, bobba fet and his father

>>65096778
I'm being ironic, relax

Jar Jar should have been revealed to be Darth Plagueis, would have been great.

>>65096776
the difference is that George Lucas is far more creative than Abrams

He might be a shit director but the man has a wonderful imagination

>>65096805

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.

Why is no one talking about super 8?

>>65093442
Imma shoot that guy

File: 1280px-DM-SC-92-03658.jpg (93KB, 640x655px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 640x655px

>>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.

>>65093442
He's the fabled jewish Golem.

>>65096301
The whole movie is pandering to morons.

>>65096415
Lost is just a really long movie though

>>65093442

And yet he made a better Star Wars than any of Lucas prequels.

>>65096648
Go home JJ.

>>65093442
>void of style
>everyone keeps ragging on about his lens flares
Come on man, I can watch any of his movies and tell they were made by him. He's got style.

>>65096778
You're going to get tired of saying that one day.

>>65093442
Darren Aronofsky is because he's actually satanist.

>>65097923
but he left after one episode

>>65097966
okay lens flares I guess? Light refractions arent much of a style

>>65097205
That movie was OK, but very forgettable.

>>65097732

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.

>>65093442
>I honestly can't believe someone so void of style or originality could be one of the most successful directors of all time.

I can't believe it either, which leads me to believe he's not actually void of style or originality, and you're just upset that people are able to enjoy something that you don't.

>>65097933

A better movie maybe. Not a better Star Wars movie. JJ didn't even understand how the Force works ffs.

>>65098043
okay then describe his style

say something original he has done

It should be easy then.

>>65097987
Usually I don't fall for stuff like that but it seemed real.

>>65097966

a single motif does not a style make, senpai

desu, everything else is so plain. He's like the Woody Allen of action movies. Michael Bay has more style than him.

>>65098185
Michael Bay has a fuck ton of style. He may be one of the most unique directors out there.

we may not like him but a Michael Bay movie is a Michael Bay movie.

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

>>65098102
How haven't you filtered that faggot?
He's been shitting up this board for years

>>65095023
couldn't have said it better myself

>>65098552
his points are good but even if he wanted to i dont think JJ Abrams could make some unique classic. He really isnt that talented.

>>65097205
i enjoyed super 8 but it was nothing more than spielberg worship.

>>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.

>>65093442
He has a style. Both aesthetic and thematic. Have you seen any movies by him?

>>65098542
This begs the question, how do you know who he's replying to if you have me filtered?

>>65098102
He made a Star Trek movie that felt and looked completely unlike any of the others.

>>65098678
>/tv/ is a single entity that holds the same consensus on everything and never changes it's mind

>>65098678

How is Maul any different from Boba Fett then?

>>65098093
>JJ didn't even understand how the Force works ffs.
Neither did Lucas. The prequels completely contradicted the OT.

>>65098746
he made a shitty star wars ripoff with a trek coat of paint.

>>65093526
>>65096582
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM

>>65098806
>his Star Trek is just Star Wars
>his Star Wars isn't Star Wars
nice consistency

>>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.

>>65098810
yeah because THATS why trekkies hate it. not because its mindless in stupid or anything

>>65098846
I never claimed his star wars isnt star wars you retard.

>>65098771
You mean ASIDE from the fact that Fett got developed and didn't literally look like an evil clown?

>>65093923
Super 8 was a great throwback to Spielberg and Chris Columbus.

>>65098876
Oh wow you actually browse star wars threads
You know they are as bad as capeshit threads right?

>>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.

>>65098910
>not because its mindless in stupid or anything

...this attitude is exactly what the video is mocking.

>>65093923
Lost left an impact on pop culture, and TFA has already left an impact, regardless of how you feel about it.

>>65099003
On /tv/ almost all threads are bad, but the fact that you actually commonly see people claiming 7 was worse than the prequels puts it from bad to retarded contrarian hipster scum.

>>65098991
your example of him being unique is him ripping off two directors? come on

>>65099019
the characters are shit. they ruined kirk and spock and made uhura an annoying girlfriend.

>>65099054
The characters are not shit. Kirk and Spock were obvious standout performances, and Uhura was never important.

>>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

>>65099054
Tarantino receives shit-ton of praise for only creating homage films. And an homage is not the same as ripping off. It is like calling Frances Ha, a rip-off of french new wave films.

>>65099141
Let me try to explain it to you real carefully then.

"Certain shit opinions are more common in [site]" does NOT mean "all opinions in [site] are shit".

That enough hand holding for you?

>>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.

>>65098970

Fett didn't get any development in the canon. He is exactly the same as Darth Maul, a badass with barely any lines. At least Maul wasn't killed by a blind guy and eaten by a big sandy butthole.

File: 1445904968253.png (331KB, 5267x2732px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 5267x2732px

>>65096908

>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
fuck I meant Spock not Uhura

>>65099221
Avatar was also the highest grossing movie ever and it left almost no impact

>>65099242
>>65096908

Honestly, which sounds worse to you?

>>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?

>>65097732
>developing characters
>setting up greater universe

Yeah Kanjiklub real world building stuff. along with that spaghetti monster thing. And the orange nigger who goes on about the force.

This was a fucking travesty on all levels.

>>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.

JJ Abrams is one of the best directors working today. His 2009 Star Trek is the best action-adventure film of the 21st century so far in my opinion.

>>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.

>>65099260
True, but I was trying to find similar directors. Abrams is obviously influenced by directors like Spielberg, Lucas, and Columbus, but adds a modern day touch to them.

>>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?

yeah cause fuck creativity or risk taking right?

>>65099276

I'm not saying that Clones is better than TFA, but I would actually rather have callbacks that a relevant to the plot than random pandering to OT fanboys.

>>65099341

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.

>>65099200
Makes sense without all your gay star wars references
I tend to gloss over anything that mentions star or cape shit

>>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?

>>65099368
for me the difference is that tarantino's work is more than just the sum of its influences set in a different era, while super 8 is not.

>>65099463
because thats what vulcans are

the reboot trek takes place in the same world as the originals, but the timeline branched off. but the laws of the universe, and what vulcans are, is still the same.

if you knew anything about the show you would know this.

>>65099455
>b-b-b-but, the eu, it made it so that he survived and got a super cool character development. Just like IG-88

>>65099466
That's purely subjective. The only difference is that you recognize what JJ is referencing while Tarantino's references are too obscure for you.

>>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.

>>65099455
>What Boba got in Clones is not development.
It was more development than Maul got, both had stupid deaths, and Fett wasn't retarded looking.

>>65099502
Spock is also, hear me out, HALF HUMAN. This is something that the film emphasizes, and is treated like a major plot point.

>>65099511
>film criticism is ultimately subjective

whoa, you should try to publish this groundbreaking insight

>>65099551
yeah but Spock was interesting because he kept his emotions in check

if hes emotional, hes like literally every other character to have ever existed

fucking jew jew abrams doesnt understand that

>>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.

>dumbing-down
Nice meme. Pseudo-science isn't intelligence.

>>65093442

Only makes reboots. No originality. Just succeeds with updated special effects and a market/audience already present.

I honestly don't understand how people actually paid to watch TFA. It blows my mind.

>>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.

>>65099603
I think it adds an interesting dynamic to his character; having him battle his Vulcan side and human side is fascinating.

>>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.

>>65099612
> >dumbing-down
Nice meme. Pseudo-science isn't intelligence.

jesus fucking christ you dont understand star trek at all. it wasnt smart because of technobabble, it was smart because of clever stories with meaning and unique twists on sci-fi.

>>65099655
Exactly fucking this

>>65099657
it would be if a more competent director did it. if anything in the ST09 movie fascinates you then youre easily fascinated.

>>65099663
no they wouldnt. the action isnt that good. youre being fucking delusional.

>>65099671
Anon this is pretty much exactly how I also feel

>>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.

>>65099757
The action is great. Exciting and well-paced.

>>65099724
yes, and i made a subjective value judgment on the objective examples of super 8 and tarantino's oeuvre. you responded with a vacuous post. glad we're on the same page.

>>65099757
I did not say it always succeeded, but it is not a bad idea in concept to have Spock be emotional at times.

>>65099776
no Spock would ever date a coworker. thats so illogical and against the character I dont know where to begin

and dont say WELL THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT thats a shit excuse. by that logic he should also get a sex change and speak Chinese. because if its a different interpretation then all changes are okay right?

>>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.

>>65099655
>nutrek being different doesn't automatically make it bad
>b-but tng and tos were very different as well!
>goes on to list how they are the same

>>65099830
I could count the amount of times Spock showed emotion in the series on one hand. it was rare and ALWAYS carried weight when it happened.

>>65099833
Yes, literally all changes are okay. It is a different character.

What matters is if the characters works in his own movie, not if he is the same as the character from another film/television series.

>>65099854
how retarded are you honestly?

he said that it maintained the spirit but still kept it fresh and unique. Nutrek didnt

>>65099833
Chinese is not a language. Cantonese and Mandarin are (and of course the different dialects). And I am sure the language he speaks changes depending on what country he is in

>>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!

>>65099882
> literally all changes are okay

fuck off

>>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.

File: 1512130520129278.png (368KB, 440x604px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 440x604px

>>65093442
He gives the Chinese what they want - soulless entertainment with simplistic plots and green screen special effects.

>>65093526
how so?>>65093584
>>65093712

>>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.

>>65097896
Moreso than the prequels, which were explicitly pandering to children?

There was absolutely nothing original about this movie. I could write the outline of a better plot in 1 hour.

3 death stars? What a wasted opportunity of a lifetime.

>>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.

>>65099652
Same reason people paid to see the OT given it's more or less a clone of them.

>>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.

>>65099997
i cant believe people like you exist.

james bond shouldnt be a female because thats a different character entirely. make a female spy. james bond is a heterosexual spy male.

if you really think its okay to fuck up beloved characters that much then I dont know what to say to you

>>65099916
No.

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.

>>65100089
I dont want a rehash. I just want something that is smart and isnt just an action movie.

the old movies did that without losing good writing. they were also exciting.

if you honestly think the nutrek films are remotely acceptable you are everything wrong with modern audiences.

File: 1353551759942.png (365KB, 458x450px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 458x450px

>>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.

>>65099922
It was a reboot, it didn't need a connection to the series. Those films still exist for you to watch and enjoy.

The 2009 film was supposed to be completely standalone, and new launch for an established franchise.

>>65100050
At least you aren't saying he has to be white.

>>65100097
you're free to feel that, but it still doesn't mean people only dislike nutrek because it's 'different'


fans of the original series have legitimate reason to dislike jj's treatment of the franchise which should be obvious, regardless of whether or not you agree

>>65100144
I rather have a new tv series with the same actors and a movie every so often.

>>65100144
why relaunch an established franchise if you don't plan to be true to its vision? why not just create a new franchise?

>>65100136
The movie was smart. Not in the sense that science fiction is smart, but in the sense that it is an expertly-crafted adventure from top to bottom. It is anything but mindless.

>if you honestly think the nutrek films are remotely acceptable you are everything wrong with modern audiences.

You're literally one of the caricatures from the onion video, now.

>>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.

>>65100159
Not all fans hate it. My dad is an old school Trekkie and quite enjoyed the 2009 film and into darkness

>>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.

>>65100144
that doesnt mean its void of criticism or that trek fans have to like it.

>>65100158
James Bond is scottish. Skyfall established his backstory in great detail. He pretty much does have to be white

>>65100194
> expertly crafted
lmao

>>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.

>>65100159
They don't like it because it's not how they feel the series should be, not because it's poorly made, which amounts to them not liking it because it's different from the original series.

>>65100207
You just went full SJW. Don't change establish characters to fit your nefarious ideas

>>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.

>>65093442
>one of the most successful directors of all time.

How long a list you got to where JJ is included? I mean, gore vorbinski is above him on that list.

>>65100207
then create a new spy character who is a female. if it is good i will watch it

dont shoehorn in shit like that to other movies. its fucking dumb.

>>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.

>>65100255
no, that amounts to them disliking it because they feel it misses the point of star trek, not for merely being different. i'd again like to point you to my tng example.

>>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.

>>65100301
Maybe he is talking about financially and critically.

>>65100309
but he came from a long family bloodline of white scottish people

his accent is British but his family hails from Scotland

>>65100317
that wouldnt be james bond then you faggot. just make a DIFFERENT character. why just alter james bond?

god fucking SJWs are retarded

>>65100317
Alright an anglo-saxon born in east-asia playing Shaft.

>>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.

>>65100325
>gore vorbinski is above him on that list.

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.

>>65100403
why would you make a claim you can verify as false, yourself, in less time than it would take to make the claim in the first place?

>>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.

>>65100403
> Besides this detail was only added in the Craig bonds

nope

now its obvious you know nothing about Bond. On Her Majesty's Secret Service established him as scottish, as did the books.

>>65100435
but they also had a lot in common, the only difference was the tone. the character in general maintained several key traits. if you cant see the difference, you're very dense.

>>65100435
>>>/r/eddit

go back to your home

>>65100226
>that doesnt mean its void of criticism or that trek fans have to like it.

Sure, but if your complaints don't venture beyond, "it's different, and that's bad!" then no one of note is going to care what you have to say.

And yes, it is an expertly-crafted movie. It's hard to think of many better space operas this decade.

>>65093712
or alternatively: they can just tell him to say that because they know he'll obey

>>65100311
TNG isn't different in any way that actually matters. So yes, your problem is solely the fact that it is different.

And that's stupid. You think Star Trek HAS to be this one thing, when it reality is can be whatever it needs to be to suit the audience.

>>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.

File: 1354746797963.jpg (193KB, 500x592px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 500x592px

he remakes and fills old films with ideology and faggots feel it 'gets' them because they agree with all the bullshit

>>65100454
>The books
Ever heard of "Death of the Author"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKjpH2qO8XY

>>65100430
Pretty sure the critics have had a less than warm reaction to most Verbinski films and a warm reaction to Abrams films.

>>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.

>>65095023
/thread

great explanation

>>65100503
> when it reality is can be whatever it needs to be to suit the audience.

so it should be stupid and shallow to suit the audience? okay

>>65100526
cool story. but every incarnation of Bond is Scottish. Its a huge part of his character. Why don't we make Black Panther white then? there are also white people in Africa

>>65100569
Why not, and why not have a white MLK or a black George Washington.

>>65100515
the point is that longtime star trek fans resent the fact that a reboot of their favorite franchise was intended to be something entirely different from its predecessors.

Anyone who unironically liked the new Star Wars movie needs to commit suicide

I'm being totally serious. Stick a gun in your mouth, preferably a shotgun, and off yourself

You cancerous losers are the reason Star Wars has died

There will never be a good Star Wars movie again

Literally name anything about the movie and I'll tell you why it's bad

>>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.

>>65100618
Are you Carrot?

>>65100623
if you want an asian or woman spy then write one

you realize that the majority of his characterization has to do with being male? its not the same character.

>>65100650
false, Roger Moore was a gentleman and more British than all the other Bonds combined. He was just in some shitty movies.

>>65100670
no

>>65100510
>but star trek was deep, creative science fiction.

It was. Now it isn't.

Get over it, cuck. This conversation is circular as shit, you aren't actually saying anything.

>>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

>>65100669
that's a fair comparison, actually. no complaints on this end.

>>65100510
>but star trek was deep, creative science fiction.

Yes, and?

>Nutrek has literally none of that.

Yes, it was actually different and was actively trying to be something new. It wasn't trying to be The Original Series for a new generation.

>It has nothing memorable at all.

False, the movie is very memorable and is one of the best space operas of the 2000s. Only the first film, mind you, the second one I can barely remember and was actively copying a superior movie.

>space opera
>there was nothing deep or well made about it.

lol, you don't even know what a space opera is. Why are you acting like a credible source on science fiction again?

>>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.

>>65100808
Then why not demand that all Bonds have dark hair and have a Scottish accent?

>>65100800
> Yes, it was actually different and was actively trying to be something new.

So, when the original is well written and deep, and you try to deviate from that, it means youre intentionally creating shit. Good job.

>>65100810
nobody is claiming its altering past work. But we don't like the new direction it went.

>>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?

>>65100725
I'm not obsessed with the idea. I just gave it as an example and am now defending it. To be honest, I'd rather see Fassbender as Bond than anyone else.

>>65100907
but it is you retard. hes masculinity incarnate. thats what made him so popular with men and women. hes like the ideal man's man.

just make a different character? why are you so fucking obsessed with changing old characters when you could create a new, memorable female character?

>>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.

>>65100569
>so it should be stupid and shallow to suit the audience? okay

It was neither of those things. It focusing on action, character, and spectacle; over philosophy and exploration, doesn't make it stupid or shallow.

>cool story. but every incarnation of Bond is Scottish. Its a huge part of his character. Why don't we make Black Panther white then? there are also white people in Africa

Bond's ancestry is not important to the majority of the films. Black Panther's ancestry is important to the majority of his comics. Bad analogy.

>>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.

>>65100894
first of all i never said i disliked it. did you even read the post you responded to?

second, once again, it's not disliked MERELY because it's different. it's disliked because its differences make it inconsistent with the tone of its predecessors.

>>65100618
Why was the opening scene of the Stormtroopers landing and fighting on Jakku bad?

Why was Kylo Ren being seduced by the light side, as opposed to the inverse we've grown accustomed to bad?

Why was tell that to kanjiklub bad?

>>65100808
>I HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT ITS SHALLOW AND LIFELESS LMAO

You keep insisting this, but it isn't true. It is full of character and wit, and the movie has as much depth as the story JJ wanted to tell requires.

>I honestly can't believe someone so void of style or originality could be one of the most successful directors of all time

Can't you? McDonald's isn't on every corner because of style and originality.

>>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.

>>65100158

He has. If you don't understand why, you're the cancer killing cinema (and civilization).

>>65101093
>either its okay to change all races or its not okay to change any.

Does the concept of a gradient mean nothing to you?

>>65101109
you people act like ST09 is a masterpiece

even as a movie in general, not taking my love of trek into consideration, its okay at best

>>65101095
bowie never really changed genre he was always experimental brand of rock glam rock/ new wave

>>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.

>>65101183
find a woman as masculine as sean connery or daniel craig

fucking do it right now

>>65100317
>James Bond isn't a character that deserves this much reverence

Any character deserves enough reference to not have its name used as a vehicle to market an entirely different character who is too shitty to stand on its own.

>Make him Japanese and set it in Tokyo.

Ah, you're one of those fucking idiots who think that nationality and culture are not key parts of a character.

>>65101093
>THATS EXACTLY WHAT IVE BEEN SAYING
I don't think that you'd have to change enough traits to justify a new character just by making Bond a woman is what I'm saying.

>>65101206
>Any character deserves enough reference to not have its name used as a vehicle to market an entirely different character who is too shitty to stand on its own.

Well you sure picked the wrong time to be alive.

>>65101099
>storm troopers indiscriminately start massacring people for no reason.

You mean like blowing up a peaceful planet with no ties to the Rebellion? You mean like murdering a family of innocent Tatooine sandfarmers?

> stupid goofy good fighter guy was a shit actor.
>Oscar Isaacs is a bad actor

And you just invalidated anything else you had to say on the subject. I won't even respond to the rest. You're done.

Unless you're talking about John Boyega, who wasn't a fucking pilot, and is a perfectly serviceable actor in his own right.

>>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.

>>65101093
>it has as much depth as a hack jew and his shitty writers demanded? awesome. it has characters but theyre poorly written.

They are not poorly written at all, they are very compelling and exciting to watch. The only criticism I've seen in this thread is that they are not like the originals.

>>65101159
Listen to Golden Years and Queen Bitch.

>>65101183
>There are masculine women.

There aren't. There are only women who ruin their lives pretending to be masculine and blowhards who claim to be but will flee from any honest competition with a man.

>An case of this actually occurring is the masculine Ripley being written as man before Sigourney Weaver joined the production.

Ripley is not masculine.

>>65101151
It's a great movie, I'm not insisting it's a masterpiece or anything. It's just a standout in the genre, especially when compared to other movies this decade.

>>65101262
Uhura was made into a lame girlfriend

Kahn was ruined

Spock being emotional and whiny just means he's like every other human. he was engaging because he wasnt human

>>65101169
Bands successfully shifting genres is usually a cause for respect. People actually really like Robert Plant's country music career.

>>65101205
Maybe not Sean Connery, but any old bar dyke is more masculine than Craig

>>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?

>>65101205
Serena Williams.

>>65101228
>Well you sure picked the wrong time to be alive.

Well yes, living look increasingly likely to envy the dead before the end of my natural lifespan, but shitty movies that I'll never watch is not nearly the biggest reason for that.

>>65101347
then get a bar dyke to play Bond. The movie will be shit.

>>65101360
no she isnt, are you fucking stupid. just because shes athletic doesnt mean shes more masculine than fucking daniel craig.

>>65101206
Nationality IS an important part of a character, as is gender. A character that's been around for as long as Bond can also change substantially if done right.

>>65101258
A femme fatale can, in some ways, be viewed as a womanizer in reverse. That's also not Bond's singular trait.

>>65101266
both songs are funky, the second one is a little more disco i admit but he always had bouncy songs aka soul love doesn't sound that much different than golden years

he was always sort of exuberant imo

>>65101303
>Kahn was ruined

We're not talking about the sequel.

>Uhura was made into a lame girlfriend

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.

>>65101109

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.

Fuck off.

>>65101391
Her being more masculine than Daniel Craig makes her more masculine. But yes, she's also more athletic by sheer fact that she is a professional athlete.

>>65093442

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

>>65101435
are you fucking kidding? so many iconic things about Bond involve him being a womanizer. honestly youre fucking insane if you think changing the womanizing aspect affects little

>>65101465
literally the only character that they kept spot on was Bones. Everything else was fucked. If they had actually done everything as well as they did with Karl Urban I would have liked it

>>65101499
how in the fuck is Serena Williams more masculine than daniel craig?

>>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.

>>65101290
>There aren't.
My sister could probably beat you up. I'm not kidding.

>>65101359
I don't get the distinction you're making. If a band like Blondie successfully changed genre, why can't NMH? It wouldn't strike me as disingenuous, just experimental.

>>65101535
>literally the only character that they kept spot on

"it's different so it's bad" again.

Keeping characters "spot on" isn't important. The characters should be judged on their own merits, not how similar they are to characters you enjoyed in the past.

>how in the fuck is Serena Williams more masculine than daniel craig?

Stronger, tougher, meaner. Looks fiercer, sounds fiercer.

>>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.

>>65101445
Exuberant and funky aren't really genres, though. The album Low can't really be compared to Aladdin Sane, can it?

>>65101540
> The movie is not mindless, it is not "dumbed down",

Just because you keep saying that doesnt make it true. Nutrek isnt near as deep as search for spock, wrath of khan, or undiscovered country.

>>65101549
> My sister could probably beat you up. I'm not kidding.

but the strongest male will always be more athletic and strong than the strongest woman.

>>65101573
no, its bad because it takes away the spirit that made it good. just because its new doesnt mean we have to like it

> Stronger, tougher, meaner. Looks fiercer, sounds fiercer.

no she isnt. shes a fucking tennis player. daniel craig is intimidating as shit. Serena is still very clearly feminine.

>>65101593
if you want Tilda Swinton as Bond and you aren't being ironic or baiting, fuck off.

>>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.

>>65101671
because its an origin story establishing how he became a womanizer. Vesper betraying him made it difficult to trust women or establish relationships

its honestly like you didnt even watch them

>>65101706
but Bond is an assassin trained in hand to hand combat, he will always be able to beat women in a fight.

>>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.

>>65101812
holy shit it really is like you didnt watch them

Quantum took place RIGHT, and I mean MINUTES after casino royale, and he was still dealing with the loss of Vesper.

> I don't think melee is a necessary aspect of his character.

did you miss the fucking opening scene of Casino Royale with a fight scene in a bathroom? Honestly do you have ANY clue about what you're talking about?

>>65101863
okay then what themes is nutrek exploring?

what deep meaning am I missing?

how is it not dumbed down?

>>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.

>>65101624
>no she isnt. shes a fucking tennis player. daniel craig is intimidating as shit. Serena is still very clearly feminine.

She's a tennis player with bigger arms, a more savage appearance, and a louder voice.

>>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.

>>65093712
>They can give him freedom because they know he wont take any risks.
It's sad how true this is.

>>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.

>>65097996
Someone who made the Fountain can't be evil.

>>65102110
>I have but you keep ignoring them

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.

>>65102130
JJ Abrams would never take a risk in his life. He's way too comfortable with pleasing studios.

>>65102284
Keeping Cloverfield a secret until less than two months before its theatrical release is a small risk. Making a sequel to Return of the Jedi is a risk in and of itself, too.

>>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.

>>65102280
> You have not

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.

>>65102521
>>65102584
nobody is replying to these so im gonna assume this thread is over and im going to sleep

peace out niggas