ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

JJ on The Sequel

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 05 2013, 9:00 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Mar. 05 2013, 6:00 pm

>I'm a huge Nimoy fan, I like everything he did, that's why I didn't want to see his Spock in Abrams' weak version Of Star Trek, his Spock was the best thing about that movie.Spock was an insight to humanity, he had emotions but it was in control, he question human weakness actions, he was a mystery but always cool, I think Nu Spock is nothing like that.

>old Spock was nothing like that at the begining either, he grew into that role in all the years.

>Nu Spock is just strating out, and hes not far from the apple tree at this point.

>


I agree with all of your points, but this one bears repeating. When Spock first started out, he was not the same as what would eventually come to know as Spock. It was a growing process, and i think that Quinto was able to work with Nimoy to capture a younger Spock, who hadn't fully come in to his own, anymore than Kirk had.


This is a character driven movie, a story of Kirk finding his place and direction in his life and Spock connecting the two halves of himself.

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this Mar. 06 2013, 1:54 am

Shatner's Kirk is already committed to "print."
The new cast are the ones writing STAR TREK's
history, now. They should own their characters.


I keep hoping that INTO the DARKNESS will allow
the new cast to do just that. These movies are
definitely going to recycle what worked for TOS,
but I think it will be even greater, still, if Abrams,
adds to the pot - with more infusion of originality,
than simply reinventing what's already been done.


Commandamanda

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 70

Report this Mar. 09 2013, 2:56 pm

I've just seen the new trailer (#2), and after careful consideration, I've concluded the Abrams is merely comitted to creating something that will generate dash, and --- give him and the cast a genuine opportunity to havve some fun.


Yes, Abrams is pompous. Have you seen the outtakes of him, lollygagging on the set, tapping into his micophone continously/ The cast had no other option than to go with the flow and dance to it...LOL.


SPOILER:


.


.


.


.


.


.


.


.


The shot of the ship Kirk and Spock are  piloting sideways is a direct ripoff of the Millenium Falcon's manuever...Oh, wait, the ydid that in many other films, including Maxtrix Revolution...heh. Yikes, how silly.


.


.


.


.


.


.


.


But seriously, folks, what can we really expect, but a popcorn flick that will sate ourneed for a little Star Trek, including special effects, some humor, and a tiny bit of character development?


I won't be at the theatre on opening day as I had for many other Star Trek films. It's just not  worth my time anymore. Perhaps it's that I've grown up; perhaps it's that this is merely Star Trek rehashed. I'm not sure.


 


I will, however, enjoy it thoroughly, eat my popcorn, and be transported once again to somewhere farin the future. I can only hope that it eases my brow for a few hours..that's what a fiom should do, eh?

lonstar70

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 72

Report this Mar. 11 2013, 4:45 am

Hmmm, I dunno. I may become a hater if this movie has some plot elements I read about it. Apparently the entire film was screened for the press in Brazil or somewhere (WTF?) and I read all about it. And it sounds stupid. I wish I hadnt read those spoilers, but I am hungry for anything. I won't link it here, but it's on the boards somewhere. It sounded really legit, which is too bad becasue I HATE IT! And am beginning to wish JJ would just go ruin Star Wars and some other creative control get Star Trek.


Actually, I kind of felt this way about the first movie after I had read some spoilers, but when I watched it I loved it. So... maybe that will be the case again.


This isnt a spoiler unless you havent seen the trailer from the Super Bowl. But does it look to you like the Enterprise gets destroyed by falling thru the atmosphere and landing in the ocean or something. That would be sooooo stupid.

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 13 2013, 2:34 am

Don't know if this has been posted anywhere else but it is of interest i think.


If JJ said it that is.


http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/levar-burton-calls-jj-abrams-star-trek.html

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 13 2013, 4:17 am

Actually, nothing he says surprises me anymore.


Jar Jar has no respect for Star Trek, its fans or legacy.  


 


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

GreggorDarr

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this May. 13 2013, 7:55 am

Funny, a few months ago, I posted my displeasure with Abram's verson of "Star Trek" and I was virtually tarred and feathered by many on these boards. Now that the new movie is coming out, it seems that there are more and more that are beginning to agree with me.  Along with William Shatner, and LeVar Burton. 

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/levar-burton-calls-jj-abrams-star-trek.html


Thanks for posting that Somniac.

Im not looking to fight, but I do wish that Star Trek fans could go back to the friendly rivalries that we used to have when it was just TOS vs TNG... good times. It just irks me that so many enlightened people can back the cinematic hack which is JJ Abrams. Ok, rant over. 



 

GreggorDarr

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this May. 13 2013, 8:51 am

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this May. 13 2013, 9:00 am


How adorable. Some of you really believe that Abrams has the final say on whether a tv series gets made instead of the company that owns the rights to make one. But you just keep on with that. Every delusional cult needs a "devil" to rail against.


I Am Ultra Narcissus.

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 14 2013, 3:20 pm

Oh right on cue !There goes that tar and feathering again.
Oh well. I guess when reasoned argument fails, insult makes a good fallback.

What other people think of you is none of your business.

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this May. 14 2013, 4:11 pm

lol!


 


DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 200

Report this May. 15 2013, 6:19 am

Quote: Beershark @ Dec. 13 2012, 2:18 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 13 2012, 9:42 am

Quote: Mitchz95 @ Dec. 13 2012, 9:31 am

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 13 2012, 7:19 am

>

>

>

>

>seriously?  we are supposed to be offended now by a director saying that characters have to believable? 

>

>

Dang... beat me to it!

 

  you gotta be quicker

You're both missing the point. If you read my ENTIRE post, you will see that I was making the point that Star Trek already had characters that were believable, grounded and well developed. He destroyed all that with his first attempt to re-invent Star Trek and NOW he's concerned with character developement. I thnk it really shows his arrogance.


JJ's characters were not believable, grounded and well developed. He has to accomplish that.


I haven't seen STID yet, but I hear there is much character development in this film.


The "developed & grounded" ones are your DVD's.


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 15 2013, 7:09 am

Opinions, opinions. The characters from the 2009 film were as well developed as can be expected from a feature film. Abrams has done us all a favor and nothing will "unmake" his films.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 15 2013, 10:18 am

Quote: DS9_FOREVER! @ May. 15 2013, 6:19 am

Quote: Beershark @ Dec. 13 2012, 2:18 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 13 2012, 9:42 am

Quote: Mitchz95 @ Dec. 13 2012, 9:31 am

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 13 2012, 7:19 am

>

>

>

>

>

>seriously?  we are supposed to be offended now by a director saying that characters have to believable? 

>

>

Dang... beat me to it!

 

  you gotta be quicker

You're both missing the point. If you read my ENTIRE post, you will see that I was making the point that Star Trek already had characters that were believable, grounded and well developed. He destroyed all that with his first attempt to re-invent Star Trek and NOW he's concerned with character developement. I thnk it really shows his arrogance.

JJ's characters were not believable, grounded and well developed. He has to accomplish that.

I haven't seen STID yet, but I hear there is much character development in this film.

The "developed & grounded" ones are your DVD's.


I'm trying to understand this because the only character that I found not to be grounded was Nero-but I expect that because he is insane.


I thought the characters, save for a few, were immature and impulsive but that doesn't make them unbelievable. One of the reasons that I like them (and am anticipating in Into Darkness) is that they are not perfect people and make mistakes. I think that they are growing and developing in to the crew we are more familiar with, but the journey is not an easy one.

b'elana

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9

Report this May. 17 2013, 5:00 pm



To me, this just further confirms that Abrams, “just isn’t that into it.” You know, like the guy who isn’t coming up after the date is over?

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum