Star Wars - The Force Awakens

[SoulBiter]

Teaser number 2 is out.... Im pumped to see this movie in December!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngElkyQ6Rhs

[dlbpharmd]

I remain cautiously optimistic.

[Cail]

I remain cautiously optimistic.

This. Abrams completely screwed up Star Trek, so I can't get excited about this.

[Zarathustra]

I love what Abrams did with ST. I thought most everyone agreed.

This looks freakin cool. I love the retro SW look.

[SoulBiter]

I love what Abrams did with ST. I thought most everyone agreed.

This looks freakin cool. I love the retro SW look.

I did as well. I love the reboot he did with ST!!! It was brilliant to make a different timeline in the first one which could explain the differences in characters.

I am looking forward to seeing what he does with Star Wars.

[wayfriend]

This is undeniably cool though. (And real.)

All Hail The Roll-Tastic Wonder Of BB-8!!

[Cail]

I love what Abrams did with ST. I thought most everyone agreed.

You know what credence I give consensus.

Abrams took Star Trek and turned it into a gaudy and stylized, yet utterly generic action film. The names are the same, but there's nothing of the feel of the old Trek.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

This is undeniably cool though. (And real.)

All Hail The Roll-Tastic Wonder Of BB-8!!

The head has to be magnetically floating about the circular body with gyroscopic stabilizers inside the head to keep it upright.

The first trailer was "meh" but this second one was amazing.

I liked the crashed, now-derelict Super Star Destroyer on Tatooine, clearly a victim of regional fighting after the collapse of the Empire as star system governors immediately tightened their local control.

A shiny new Fett? Recall that Boba was a clone of his "father" so it makes sense that there could be more Fetts--he had a contingency clone (or several) made in the event of his death.

Are they keeping the "official" story line where Luke fully converts to the Dark Side after the defeat of the Emperor only to return to the Light later?

[Orlion]

I love what Abrams did with ST. I thought most everyone agreed.

You know what credence I give consensus.

Abrams took Star Trek and turned it into a gaudy and stylized, yet utterly generic action film. The names are the same, but there's nothing of the feel of the old Trek.

They way I look at it, he was essentially trying to make a Star Wars film. Now that he has experience in it, this one should be just fine.

The head has to be magnetically floating about the circular body with gyroscopic stabilizers inside the head to keep it upright.

Wouldn't magnets be kinda really bad for droids? At the least it might turn them into folk singers...

Are they keeping the "official" story line where Luke fully converts to the Dark Side after the defeat of the Emperor only to return to the Light later?

Nobody knows, but I imagine not.

[Zarathustra]

I love what Abrams did with ST. I thought most everyone agreed.

You know what credence I give consensus.

Abrams took Star Trek and turned it into a gaudy and stylized, yet utterly generic action film. The names are the same, but there's nothing of the feel of the old Trek.

They way I look at it, he was essentially trying to make a Star Wars film. Now that he has experience in it, this one should be just fine.

I thought he did a good job retaining or even updating the characters for younger versions of themselves. Their interactions still felt true to those characters. It did feel more "action-y," but again maybe it's just the difference in characters being at a more rash, impulsive age. Given a younger Shatner and better effects, I could easily see the original ST movies being just like this.

To me, SW wasn't as much about action--which any good s.f. movie with good guys/bad guys should have--but a melding of mysticism with technology, s.f. and fantasy. Star Trek has none of that, not even Abrams' version. So I still see a clear dividing line.

[Cail]

You know what credence I give consensus.

Abrams took Star Trek and turned it into a gaudy and stylized, yet utterly generic action film. The names are the same, but there's nothing of the feel of the old Trek.

They way I look at it, he was essentially trying to make a Star Wars film. Now that he has experience in it, this one should be just fine.

I thought he did a good job retaining or even updating the characters for younger versions of themselves. Their interactions still felt true to those characters. It did feel more "action-y," but again maybe it's just the difference in characters being at a more rash, impulsive age. Given a younger Shatner and better effects, I could easily see the original ST movies being just like this.

There was a younger Shatner on the TV series, and it wasn't like that.

I love what Abrams did with Fringe, and I liked Cloverfield quite a bit. The rest of his repertoire is either "meh" or "pah".

[JIkj fjds j]

All the trailers come up as Lucasfilm Ltd. So without having to chase this down and just assume for the present that Lucas still has a mighty big input, then there's plenty of hope they'll remain tip top movies.

It's Abrams cutting that I'm not too keen on. Pushing the limits to as many frames per minute might work for Star Trek but not, hopefully, in Star Wars.

[Sorus]

I love what Abrams did with ST. I thought most everyone agreed.

You know what credence I give consensus.

Abrams took Star Trek and turned it into a gaudy and stylized, yet utterly generic action film. The names are the same, but there's nothing of the feel of the old Trek.

Agreed. All that potential, and that's what they came up with? Imagine what Ronald D. Moore could have done.

[I'm Murrin]

All the trailers come up as Lucasfilm Ltd. So without having to chase this down and just assume for the present that Lucas still has a mighty big input, then there's plenty of hope they'll remain tip top movies.

Lucas sold the whole company to Disney. He's no longer involved, which is regarded by most people as a very good thing.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I have nothing against Mr. Abrams but, truth be told, I would rather see Mr. Bekmambetov in the director's chair, which would give Star Wars the look and feel that it needs. If you want to see what I mean then go see Night Watch then Day Watch. What? You haven't seen those two movies? Why not? If you have to, then see Wanted as well (but try to ignore the plot and focus only on the visual aspect of the movie).

[Cail]

I love what Abrams did with ST. I thought most everyone agreed.

You know what credence I give consensus.

Abrams took Star Trek and turned it into a gaudy and stylized, yet utterly generic action film. The names are the same, but there's nothing of the feel of the old Trek.

Agreed. All that potential, and that's what they came up with? Imagine what Ronald D. Moore could have done.

I am once again reminded what a damn shame it is that we live on opposite coasts.

[Zarathustra]

They way I look at it, he was essentially trying to make a Star Wars film. Now that he has experience in it, this one should be just fine.

I thought he did a good job retaining or even updating the characters for younger versions of themselves. Their interactions still felt true to those characters. It did feel more "action-y," but again maybe it's just the difference in characters being at a more rash, impulsive age. Given a younger Shatner and better effects, I could easily see the original ST movies being just like this.

There was a younger Shatner on the TV series, and it wasn't like that.

You left off the point about effects. There was plenty of action in the original Trek show, it just sucked. Trek has always had space battles and fisticuffs.

The TV show may have been more "intellectual," but that doesn't mean the movies should be like that. All the Trek movies were different from the show. People don't go to the cinema to see something they can watch on TV. They want more spectacle.

Look how different Wrath of Khan was from the original TV episode with Khan. Is Into Darkness really that far off the trajectory traced by that evolution?

[Cail]

The series and the original 6 films had plenty of space battles and fisticuffs (that could be a great album title). But what they also had was well-developed characters and really, really compelling stories - things both of the new films lacked.

Sorus makes an excellent point. BSG managed to create a fascinating world with amazing characters and some of the best space battles and fisticuffs (love it, gotta find a way to work this into my regular speaking) that have ever been committed to film.

Don't get me wrong, I love big, dumb action movies. But the action sequences in the Abrams Trek movies weren't all that, and the stories were flatter than flat.

At its best, Star Trek was a thought-provoking human drama that happened to be set in space. The new films abandoned that for pretty faces and flash.....All style, no substance.

[Sorus]

Exactly. The action scenes were repetitive to the point of annoyance, and it never felt like the characters were in any real peril. Plot points that should have been incredibly powerful (such as the destruction of Vulcan) were indeed flatter than flat. I'd love to see a 'gritty reboot' of Star Trek done the right way, but that wasn't it.

[SoulBiter]

BSG re-imagined was a TV series, not a movie and there is a heck of a lot of difference. They could spend time doing Character development and introducing new characters. A 2 hour movie doesn't have that kind of time.

Adjusted for inflation, the rebooted Trek did better than any previous ST movie. Most of the films did amazingly awful in the box office after TMP. Two of the Original series movies added together still didn't make as much as TMP or the Voyage Home.

Yet both of the rebooted movies (ST) are in the top 4 of gross box office (adjusted for inflation) of ALL the ST movies.

For myself, I enjoyed the First reboot much better than the second. At least the first reboot had a new story whereas the second was trying to recreate what made The Wrath of Khan such a good movie.