heisenberg
Earl Grey
HAHAHAHA
LOL JJ Abrams
- Thread starter heisenberg
- Start date
HAHAHAHA
heisenberg
Earl Grey
NSFW warning.
Last edited:
The first video (on the business aspects) has it essentially correct. Kennedy and Johnson made a movie that literally insulted and thumbed its nose at the actual Star Wars fans - a.k.a the people who pay the proverbial freight. The tanking of Last Jedi and also of toy sales is completely unsurprising. And the funniest part is (as he says in his other video where he reviews TLJ)...
The Last Jedi should have been a layup. I know some here may not like to hear it but the vast majority of Star Wars fans did like The Force Awakens, and forgave it the derivative plot because it did get the Star Wars feel and tone correct, told a legit Star Wars story and set up new characters for the next film to develop. The story almost could write itself. Alas Rian Johnson had other ideas....
The Last Jedi should have been a layup. I know some here may not like to hear it but the vast majority of Star Wars fans did like The Force Awakens, and forgave it the derivative plot because it did get the Star Wars feel and tone correct, told a legit Star Wars story and set up new characters for the next film to develop. The story almost could write itself. Alas Rian Johnson had other ideas....
HAHAHAHA
Ah HAHAHAHAHA! So, haven't we heard this sort of vitriol before from another well-known space-based fanbase?
The only common factor is JarJar Abrams. I do not for the life of me understand why there seems to be NO ONE in the production offices who sees what a hack he is. They keep hiring him!The tanking of TLJ indeed should have been a layup, but The Force Awakens was really not that great. The majority of those who saw it did like it. But when TLJ came out, many of those same fans decided after seeing it that they no longer like The Force Awakens. Much like the 2009 Star Trek movie. I liked it myself, that is until Into Darkness and Beyond came out. Now, I don't like any of the new Star Trek movies because of the later films. However Rogue One, seems to be loved by Star Wars fans and was spared the hate being thrown at Abrams. It looks like the OT much more than either TFA or TLJ, and was FAR more original and Star Wars.
Respectfully, I have more ties in to the Star Wars fan community (while you have more into Star Trek). The SW fans still like The Force Awakens but despise The Last Jedi. They generally like Rogue One but (at least the ones I have spoken to) do wish the characters were a bit more fleshed out. The BIG factor nowadays is they DESPISE The Last Jedi.
Good point.
I suspect it goes back to the fundamental difference between the two fanbases. SW fans value tone, feel and characterization the most. The also want a logical story but don't necessarily get hung up on the details.
Trek fans on the other hand value canonical accuracy, at least general adherence to reality based science and tightly written stories. Then comes character and even there part of it is the character needs to be true to Trek (a big reason no one likes Sybok for example).
I suspect it goes back to the fundamental difference between the two fanbases. SW fans value tone, feel and characterization the most. The also want a logical story but don't necessarily get hung up on the details.
Trek fans on the other hand value canonical accuracy, at least general adherence to reality based science and tightly written stories. Then comes character and even there part of it is the character needs to be true to Trek (a big reason no one likes Sybok for example).
You can say that again! But I think Michael Burnham has taken that spot now. Did you see The Last Jedi yet?
Rogue One is pure Star Wars in the vein and level of the OT. To me, it is the only real new Star Wars they have made yet. I have even rewatched it, but it does not really have standalone capability without the framework of the other films. We need a film that comes between The Return of the Jedi and the The Force Awakens to explain what happened after Han and Leia brought peace, and the Sith were driven out. We need to see the birth of Ben and what made Luke spin out and become a recluse and even go as far as to hide his location by messing with the Jedi database. We need to see where Snoke came from and why Ben turned to the Dark Side. I want to know how they got away with building the Starkiller after RoTJ.
Last edited:
PussyGalore
Meow
I believe this is why "A New Hope" was so successful originally. It was simple and easy to understand. There weren't a lot of details to digest and remember. You knew who was good, you knew who was bad. Rogue One was well received because it pretty much used the same template.
And I think this is why the other movies suffer. They are overly detailed and chock-a-block full of weird story tangents put in there by these new producers. It seems that instead of wanting to hone true to the original "soul" of SW everyone wants to put their personal stamp on it; a conceit to tell the story their way cuz their version is super special.
*To digress a bit I think this is why a lot of contemporary cinema is flawed. There has been a trend in Hollywood, started decades ago by the likes of Joe Esterhas and his ilk, to write screenplays in a novel format. This is done so that the studio drones will find the screenplay interesting and engaging and therefore will produce it. The problem with adding a lot of detailed exposition in the screenplay is that it doesn't translate to the screen. The director/producer who wrote the script understands the characters motivations and so does the studio exec because he/she has read the exposition. But when it makes it to the screen the viewers won't know what is happening because we're watching a movie, not reading a novel.
Quite simply, writing screenplays this way is lazy and a cop out and it shows in the end product. This may sound weird but think about it for a moment: If it doesn't happen on the screen it shouldn't happen on the page. The only things that should happen on the page of a screenplay are:
#1. the occasional Camera direction: (EXT. VIEW OF SUNRISE FROM BALCONY, CUT TO: INT. JACK and SALLY waking up in bed)
#2. Stage direction: (JACK WALKS FROM THE DOOR TO HIS DESK)
#3. Dialogue --
JACK: "Sally, you're a drunk!"
SALLY: "Jack, you're a cad!"
JACK: "Well Sally, I can stop being a cad but you can't stop being a drunk."
SALLY: "How dare you! I'm going home to mother!"
JACK: "Your mother is dead, Sally. You ran her over when you were driving drunk
just last week you fool!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what I'm saying is, next time you find yourself underwhelmed by a movie or just plain confused chances are the stuff that's missing from your viewing experience is still on the page in some producer's office.
Good points.
The Last Jedi felt like it was written by a committee. In fact, it felt less like a movie and more like a series of vignettes. And it very much felt like Rian Johnson was indulging his inner SJW as well as doing just just for the sake of doing them.
The Last Jedi felt like it was written by a committee. In fact, it felt less like a movie and more like a series of vignettes. And it very much felt like Rian Johnson was indulging his inner SJW as well as doing just just for the sake of doing them.
heisenberg
Earl Grey
Jar Jar Abrams seems to wreck whatever franchise he touches, but it seems that he doesn't seem to give a shit what people on the internet think of him or what he does with star wars or trek. He gets a big paycheck and tells the way he wants trek/wars to be shown. He knows that we are powerless to influence to change his view point but then again, we could boycott his movie all together, but that's a little difficult given that a lot of people will go out and watch the movie.Ah HAHAHAHAHA! So, haven't we heard this sort of vitriol before from another well-known space-based fanbase?
The tanking of TLJ indeed should have been a layup, but The Force Awakens was really not that great. The majority of those who saw it did like it. But when TLJ came out, many of those same fans decided after seeing it that they no longer like The Force Awakens. Much like the 2009 Star Trek movie. I liked it myself, that is until Into Darkness and Beyond came out. Now, I don't like any of the new Star Trek movies because of the later films. However Rogue One, seems to be loved by Star Wars fans and was spared the hate being thrown at Abrams. It looks like the OT much more than either TFA or TLJ, and was FAR more original and Star Wars.
PussyGalore
Meow
I don't think this was posted before. It pretty much says it all.
Lord Ba'al
Well Known GateFan
Lol!
Why would any Star Trek fan behind the camera ever even THINK of blowing up Vulcan? NuTrek will never be canon to me.
PussyGalore
Meow
The key thing Abrams said was he found Star Trek "too philosophical". He literally said that he didn't like the show because it required the viewers to think. Now mind you, we're not talking about having to engage in university level philosophical cognition when watching TOS, TNG, etc. The writers always kept the philosophical questions simple and pedestrian. Even children could understand the moral dilemmas most episodes tackled. Yes, you had to pay attention and think, but you were never overwhelmed in the process. That's what made the shows interesting -- unless you're a lazy twit like Abrams, then you find engaging your brain while watching TV to be hard work.
Abrams is right about one thing, Star Trek was philosophical, but that's because it was scifi. Science fiction is the philosophical examination of futuristic technology [science] via its ethical/moral impact upon the human race. ST was all about ethical and moral situations involving futuristic technology. That was the whole point of the story, be it in the TV shows or the pre-Abrams movies. Quite simply you can't have a science fiction story without it requiring you to think, i.e. without requiring you to philosophically examine the story.
And this is why Abrams went off the rails with his version of ST. He eschewed the philosophical backbone of the ST universe in favor of pew pew phaser fights and exploding Vulcan planets. Sure there were ethical questions in his movies (that popped up organically, not by design) but those questions didn't inform the story as much as the lens flares and melodramatic relationships did, go figure.
Last edited:
heisenberg
Earl Grey
I don't think this was posted before. It pretty much says it all.
Sadly this is actually true and not a joke
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/d6lpc8/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-j-j--abrams
I can't watch the video because it's blocked here but here is the video in its entirety. How this moron got to touch star trek is beyond me but my guess is that cbs wanted money and the greedy executives felt like butchering an iconic franchise, well karma bit you in the ass.
Why did they hand over Star Trek AND Star Wars to this man? He did deliver what he most likely promised them, which was that the movies would turn a handsome profit, and even if TLJ is being considered a bomb, it still made millions of dollars in profit. Same with Star Trek 2009, Into Darkness and even Beyond. But the profits did not double the investment in Beyond, which makes future Trek movies a risky decision.
PussyGalore
Meow
You're right, it was a financial decision to give JJ the reins of both ST and SW. TPTB at Paramount might have had reason to believe that Abrams would bring fidelity to the story when it came to Trek, but I suspect the folks at Disney didn't care as much about that as they did the projected box office numbers for SW.