I don't get the whole "lucas is bad for star wars" thing some people have. HE CREATED STAR WARS!!! That's like saying Tolkien is bad for lord of the rings, Rowling is bad for Harry Potter, etc.

You can not like certain aspects, but to act like others know how to do star wars better than the creator makes no sense to me. Maybe that's the type of star wars you prefer, but it's not the definitive version.

Tolkien didn't go on to create a trilogy of extensions for LotR that had comparatively awful dialogue, though. And Rowling just made HP up as she went, which puts her firmly in the Lucas category (personally I'd say HP was mediocre from the start but that's just me).

And honestly, Abrams may turn out to be worse than Lucas in some regards. I get a wierd feeling that the new trilogy will have the same quality swing as the OT did, with VIII being the best (I'd rate Rian Johnson over Abrams any day of the week, just for The Brothers Bloom).

Quality swing? Dude. Implying IV isn't as good as V is cray-cray.

A New Hope Rotten Tomatoes: 93%

The Empire Strikes Back Rotten Tomatoes: 96%

I will fight you on this. Empire is perfect.

IMDB top 250. Empire Ranked Higher.

Yup it is like the Terminator vs Terminator 2: Judgement Day thing.

The Empire Strikes Back is the best STAR WARS film of all time... for now.

Long winded post incoming.

Abbrams helming this Disney movie fills me with very mixed feelings. That being said, lets get two things out of the way first.....

1. This is Star Wars, and like some James Bond movies sucking....more movies is a good thing regardless. Let's keep it alive gentlemen, for better or for worse. Star Trek, James Bond, Star Wars...these are all movie series now (since we know Disney's intent with Star Wars) that have infinite sequal possibilities. If you're on this forum, these series' have had an influence on you on some level throughout your lifetime. None of us WANT to see any of them die.

2. Speaking of Disney. I'm glad they acquired the rights to this IP. I think it's in much better hands at Disney than it would be with MGM, Universal, Sony, or any of the other studios that don't really seem to 'get' what we want. Disney proves over and over again, that while they may be a corperate monster....sometimes they want to give the illusion that they have an artistic branch. That illusion generally comes across as if a master wizard cast it...and we are glued to the screen and feel like total children again. (I'm in my 40's and was amazed by the first Pirates movie AND Avengers....SOOO good!)

Now, with all that out of the way, on the subject of Abbrams....

On one hand he skewered Star Trek. The first movie was passable....even good at points. It followed the typical "Hero's Journey" hence it's constant comparisons to Star Wars:ANH. A decent enough reboot. Killing Vulcan though? Insane coincidental meetings on far away planets with just the right people? Sometimes he seemed to want to make huge changes just for the sake of doing it. Bottom line....the movie wasn't really TREK. Nothing was explored, no real mysteries solved....it was an action flick. Star Trek HAS action...but should not BE action.

The second movie was an abortion. Shoehorning Carol Marcus in, horribly done parallels with the best Trek movie ever, and absolutely RUINING the best villain IN Star Trek....that was NOT Khan. Not in any sense. Why make this insane parallel version....horribly done. Done for the sake of possibly drawing in old fans along with the younger viewing base that will be satisfied by seeing things blow up and Carol Marcus in her underwear for no apparent reason. BLEH!

....but then Abbrams is self admittedly a Star Wars fan. This gives me 'A New Hope'.

Problems with the Trek movies that I may have aside. Dialogue is great, scenes are shot well (I'd like a little less lens flare though)...the man at least knows what he is doing. Also Fantastical situations, coincidence, and characters are MUCH more suited to Star Wars than Star Trek. Trek=Science Fiction, Wars=Science Fantasy.

I think the man is more in his element here. Also, SINCE he is a fan of Star Wars, why wouldn't he want to give us the movie that we all want to see? The movie HE wants to see? There will probably be things that certain people don't care for, soccer ball droids, laser sword cross hilts, trooper armour changed for the sake of change...but I don't think we're going to get a movie that ISNT STAR WARS. Oh, and Disney is bankrolling it for him? #noholdsbarred

I'm hopeful. I'm trying not to sit on the edge of my seat for a year because I thought the second Trilogy previews were great too...and I was a 'little' disappointed. (like I said...I was just glad for more Star Wars movies) I don't want to be disappointed so I won't expect anything in particular.

At the end of the day...come December 2015...I'm taking my 12 year old son to see this movie. One of two things will happen.

1. We will see a movie that is 'alright'. Was sort of neat but will be forgotten eventually.

or

2. My son and I build a memory that will last his entire lifetime. The time we went and saw a movie that helped shape a portion of his life. Something very important to him. The same happened to me back in 1977 when I was 6 and my 13 year old brother saw a little movie called Star Wars together with our father. That is a memory I'll never forget and has influenced my life in the form of hobbies, books, and media in what I would call a positive way for 37 years.

....I'm not going to pass up the CHANCE to do the exact same thing for my son. Giving him that gift would be something massive. I hope it's coming.

....and that's why I'm trying to be optimistic.

We are getting like six films in the next ten years... gloriuoseness!

I hope Lucas doesn't break out of his straight jacket and ball gag I remember him saying that he thought the empire strikes back was the weakest of all the star wars movie that pretty much explains why the prequels were soo terrible.

Long winded post incoming.

Abbrams helming this Disney movie fills me with very mixed feelings. That being said, lets get two things out of the way first.....

1. This is Star Wars, and like some James Bond movies sucking....more movies is a good thing regardless. Let's keep it alive gentlemen, for better or for worse. Star Trek, James Bond, Star Wars...these are all movie series now (since we know Disney's intent with Star Wars) that have infinite sequal possibilities. If you're on this forum, these series' have had an influence on you on some level throughout your lifetime. None of us WANT to see any of them die.

2. Speaking of Disney. I'm glad they acquired the rights to this IP. I think it's in much better hands at Disney than it would be with MGM, Universal, Sony, or any of the other studios that don't really seem to 'get' what we want. Disney proves over and over again, that while they may be a corperate monster....sometimes they want to give the illusion that they have an artistic branch. That illusion generally comes across as if a master wizard cast it...and we are glued to the screen and feel like total children again. (I'm in my 40's and was amazed by the first Pirates movie AND Avengers....SOOO good!)

Now, with all that out of the way, on the subject of Abbrams....

On one hand he skewered Star Trek. The first movie was passable....even good at points. It followed the typical "Hero's Journey" hence it's constant comparisons to Star Wars:ANH. A decent enough reboot. Killing Vulcan though? Insane coincidental meetings on far away planets with just the right people? Sometimes he seemed to want to make huge changes just for the sake of doing it. Bottom line....the movie wasn't really TREK. Nothing was explored, no real mysteries solved....it was an action flick. Star Trek HAS action...but should not BE action.

The second movie was an abortion. Shoehorning Carol Marcus in, horribly done parallels with the best Trek movie ever, and absolutely RUINING the best villain IN Star Trek....that was NOT Khan. Not in any sense. Why make this insane parallel version....horribly done. Done for the sake of possibly drawing in old fans along with the younger viewing base that will be satisfied by seeing things blow up and Carol Marcus in her underwear for no apparent reason. BLEH!

....but then Abbrams is self admittedly a Star Wars fan. This gives me 'A New Hope'.

Problems with the Trek movies that I may have aside. Dialogue is great, scenes are shot well (I'd like a little less lens flare though)...the man at least knows what he is doing. Also Fantastical situations, coincidence, and characters are MUCH more suited to Star Wars than Star Trek. Trek=Science Fiction, Wars=Science Fantasy.

I think the man is more in his element here. Also, SINCE he is a fan of Star Wars, why wouldn't he want to give us the movie that we all want to see? The movie HE wants to see? There will probably be things that certain people don't care for, soccer ball droids, laser sword cross hilts, trooper armour changed for the sake of change...but I don't think we're going to get a movie that ISNT STAR WARS. Oh, and Disney is bankrolling it for him? #noholdsbarred

I'm hopeful. I'm trying not to sit on the edge of my seat for a year because I thought the second Trilogy previews were great too...and I was a 'little' disappointed. (like I said...I was just glad for more Star Wars movies) I don't want to be disappointed so I won't expect anything in particular.

At the end of the day...come December 2015...I'm taking my 12 year old son to see this movie. One of two things will happen.

1. We will see a movie that is 'alright'. Was sort of neat but will be forgotten eventually.

or

2. My son and I build a memory that will last his entire lifetime. The time we went and saw a movie that helped shape a portion of his life. Something very important to him. The same happened to me back in 1977 when I was 6 and my 13 year old brother saw a little movie called Star Wars together with our father. That is a memory I'll never forget and has influenced my life in the form of hobbies, books, and media in what I would call a positive way for 37 years.

....I'm not going to pass up the CHANCE to do the exact same thing for my son. Giving him that gift would be something massive. I hope it's coming.

....and that's why I'm trying to be optimistic.

That is a fantastic post. Reminds me of how my dad thinks of Star Wars and how it's kind of the one big thing we share.

You're a good father, shane.

George Lucas was put into a straight jacket and ball gag, and locked into a dark padded cell before pre-production even started. If only this had happened prior to TPM.

He was creative consultant throughout.

George Lucas was put into a straight jacket and ball gag, and locked into a dark padded cell before pre-production even started. If only this had happened prior to TPM.

He was creative consultant throughout.

Lucas is great with Ideas and universe building its script/dialogue/directing where he is weaker with the SWU

Lucas is dangerously creative. He's exactly the kind of guy I want thinking up ideas, but never the kind of guy I want thinking up those ideas and having none of them restricted.

Really, he's got a fantastic imagination.

High praise from Captain Lackwit.

Thanks.

Funny thing...it's also a bit selfish of me. Bonding with my son over nerd stuff.

One shotting a starbase with a Torpedo b/c of a silly design flaw though...

Totally acceptable!

My problem with the new star trek was less the silly stuff, more that the repetition of the 2nd one made it impossible to give a **** about.

Kirk goes through the same character arc and the plot is recycled from Wrath of Kahn only without any of the character building or epic Shakespearean tone (which sucks cause I'm sure Benedick would have leapt at the chance)

The first one was slightly enjoyable, but also complete fluff imo. There was just so little focus on the characters as opposed to just getting them from one place to another for more lens flare (oh ****, marooned on a deserted planet...oh hai old spock! Ah...you're just here for exposition, aren't you?)

Not to say Star Wars is classic literature or anything, but all of the movies took time to slow the hell down and give us some world and character building. We get Luke's origins, Han & Leah (almost) bonding in the falcon, the scenes in Dagobah with the lovable Yoda who introduced the all-encompassing enormity of the force etc.

It'll be good to have something of interest to form the context around all the pewpew, is what I'm saying

I loved both Star Trek films, and simply don't get why anyone would criticize them. I have a good friend who "likes" them but loves to be overly critical of every little detail.... I mean he literally comments on everyone's quality of facial "shave" - IE he'll count it against the film because one actor didn't have that close of a shave, or Zachary Quinto's 5 oclock shadow... I just think some folks set expectations way too high.

I didn't mind the prequels. In fact I liked them. There were obviously some issues, like Jar Jar, midicloriens, pod racing, and Anakin's too-fast conversion to the dark side... but the movies were still good. You shouldn't expect it to be a "Masterpiece"... I mean look at episode 4... it had so many flaws it's crazy! Fact is - no new film is ever going to provide the nostalgia that the films of your youth did.

I really liked the first Abrams Trek, but the second one screwed the pooch and really left a sour taste in my mouth. Having Spock yell "khaaaaaaaaaaaan" like that was such over the top cheese meant to invoke feelings of Wrath of Khan. It felt really forced and it didn't even come close to the gravity of Wrath of Khan. At the end of the original, the audience thought Spock was DEAD (he kinda sorta really was)--that **** was heavy. The end of that film, I think, was Shatner's magnum opus.

I wish they would have gone another direction with that film if they insisted on having Khan in it--scratch that, I wish they didn't have Khan at all. It instantly makes me compare the film to Wrath of Khan, and that's a comparison that JJ is going to lose with most people who grew up on the original Trek movies.

the ONE thing I liked about Into Darkness:

[*spoilers?*]

Ignoring the sheer silliness of setting the fight between Kahn and Spock (really guys, if you're protagonist vs antagonist clash needs to be set on top an improbable location for the sake of artificial tension, are you sure you just didn't make them interesting enough characters?") I thought it was incredibly clever how they had Spock fight.

Since Kahn was established as a super human, I had no idea what Spock was thinking when he tried to chase him down, but Spock was freaking angry and, turns out, he knows how to fight dirty Using the mind-meld to escape getting throttled to death was an incredibly clever moment, imo, that I wish had more character build-up (great parralel between Kahn's rogue and uncaring attitude towards the death of his enemies versus Spock's adherence to Starflight rules, which still seems to stress sanctity of life as established by the movie's opening scene) but was still awesome enough to enjoy

But then there was the head-scratcher of "WE CAN"T BEAM THEM UP?" "can you beam me down?" "SOMEHOW, YES!" and I was thrown out of the moment

Still, stuff like that makes me ecstatic for the possibility of old Han versus Sith Lord (haughty by demand, ready to be taken down a peg or two by good ol' Ford)

Same here with my kids as well. The Star Wars obsession runs deep in my little family.

We are getting like six films in the next ten years... gloriuoseness!

That's exactly why I'm optimistic. Let's say that Episode 7 is only as good as Iron Man 2, and a couple of the movies are as good as Iron Man 1, with (I hope!) at least one movie as good as The Avengers, we'll all be pretty happy.

But if the best is only as good as Iron Man 2, with the worst being down with (say) XMen 3, we're probably in for a rough decade. But that's Disney's problem, not mine.

I can say that I am _very_ much looking forward to the Darth Vader comics, as the writer of those is kind of amazing. So at least there's that...

George Lucas was put into a straight jacket and ball gag, and locked into a dark padded cell before pre-production even started. If only this had happened prior to TPM.

He was creative consultant throughout.

That's a really good place for him, actually. Listen to his commentary in the DVD of Episode 4, specifically the Battle of Yavin sequence. He talks about the need to give each craft a specific pitch of engine noise and... you know what? Just watch/listen.

Dude knows how to make the small touches _shine_, and that creates some amazing amounts of verisimilitude. But he can't direct for beans.

We are getting like six films in the next ten years... gloriuoseness!

That's exactly why I'm optimistic. Let's say that Episode 7 is only as good as Iron Man 2, and a couple of the movies are as good as Iron Man 1, with (I hope!) at least one movie as good as The Avengers, we'll all be pretty happy.

But if the best is only as good as Iron Man 2, with the worst being down with (say) XMen 3, we're probably in for a rough decade. But that's Disney's problem, not mine.

I can say that I am _very_ much looking forward to the Darth Vader comics, as the writer of those is kind of amazing. So at least there's that...

I Have A Good Feeling About It.

I loved both Star Trek films, and simply don't get why anyone would criticize them. I have a good friend who "likes" them but loves to be overly critical of every little detail.... I mean he literally comments on everyone's quality of facial "shave" - IE he'll count it against the film because one actor didn't have that close of a shave, or Zachary Quinto's 5 oclock shadow... I just think some folks set expectations way too high.

I didn't mind the prequels. In fact I liked them. There were obviously some issues, like Jar Jar, midicloriens, pod racing, and Anakin's too-fast conversion to the dark side... but the movies were still good. You shouldn't expect it to be a "Masterpiece"... I mean look at episode 4... it had so many flaws it's crazy! Fact is - no new film is ever going to provide the nostalgia that the films of your youth did.

I really liked the first Abrams Trek, but the second one screwed the pooch and really left a sour taste in my mouth. Having Spock yell "khaaaaaaaaaaaan" like that was such over the top cheese meant to invoke feelings of Wrath of Khan. It felt really forced and it didn't even come close to the gravity of Wrath of Khan. At the end of the original, the audience thought Spock was DEAD (he kinda sorta really was)--that **** was heavy. The end of that film, I think, was Shatner's magnum opus.

I wish they would have gone another direction with that film if they insisted on having Khan in it--scratch that, I wish they didn't have Khan at all. It instantly makes me compare the film to Wrath of Khan, and that's a comparison that JJ is going to lose with most people who grew up on the original Trek movies.

I am much more of a Trek nerd than a Star Wars nerd, so I tend to be a little more hands-off in my commentary about Trek- it's far too easy for me to get wrapped up in the passion.

I actually liked the Trek movies, but I do think Abrams had an essential... let me say "misunderstanding" of what Trek is all about. At its core, Trek is about a humanity is that flawed, but striving for improvement. The movie hints at this theme several times, but acts toward it in a way that makes me think Abrams misses the point entirely.

The Prime Directive exists as a recognition that the Federation isn't wise enough to make decisions for other cultures. Kirk's actions at the beginning of the movie are _entirely_ defensible on the grounds that a pre-literate society having a weird image of something in the sky won't actually change the direction of their culture. At some point it will just be "remember when Granddad used to talk about the day he saw a Dragon?" Instead, JJ talks about the prime directive in terms of it being an inconvenient bit of rule.

Also: Kahn was launched into space after having ruled roughly 1/4 of Earth, and engaging in a Eugenics program that Hitler never quite dreamed about. An awareness of that history never quite makes its way into the script. When face to face with someone who- in the cannon of Star Trek history- might have been the most evil human ever to have lived, Kirk is surprised that he's alive, and upset that Kahn killed Kirk's mentor. That reaction sort of underplays how most people would react to being in a room with someone we know is literally worse than Hitler. Again, seemed like bad directing and script writing.

And finally, what made Wrath of Kahn so good- and such classic Trek- is that Kirk was able to out think someone who had long been thought of as one of the smartest humans ever to live. Kirk found Kahn's mental blind spots, and ruthlessly exploited them. This created the lesson that humanity's striving to overcome it's warlike nature, and easy Otherization created a species that was actually more fit to survive than the aggressive and racist past that we'd left behind. By out thinking Kahn, Kirk proved that Kahn's ideology was wrong.

In Into Darkness, Spock punches Kahn until Kahn loses consciousness, and thus proves that... um, might makes right? The winners write the history books? Spock is awesome? I dunno. Something.

Don't get me wrong! I enjoyed the movie. Both Trek movies, actually. I just don't think Abrams added much to the Trek side of "good sci fi movie". With luck, he'll have a better understanding of Star Wars, and we'll get some awesome movies out of the deal.

I loved both Star Trek films, and simply don't get why anyone would criticize them. I have a good friend who "likes" them but loves to be overly critical of every little detail.... I mean he literally comments on everyone's quality of facial "shave" - IE he'll count it against the film because one actor didn't have that close of a shave, or Zachary Quinto's 5 oclock shadow... I just think some folks set expectations way too high.

I didn't mind the prequels. In fact I liked them. There were obviously some issues, like Jar Jar, midicloriens, pod racing, and Anakin's too-fast conversion to the dark side... but the movies were still good. You shouldn't expect it to be a "Masterpiece"... I mean look at episode 4... it had so many flaws it's crazy! Fact is - no new film is ever going to provide the nostalgia that the films of your youth did.

I really liked the first Abrams Trek, but the second one screwed the pooch and really left a sour taste in my mouth. Having Spock yell "khaaaaaaaaaaaan" like that was such over the top cheese meant to invoke feelings of Wrath of Khan. It felt really forced and it didn't even come close to the gravity of Wrath of Khan. At the end of the original, the audience thought Spock was DEAD (he kinda sorta really was)--that **** was heavy. The end of that film, I think, was Shatner's magnum opus.

I wish they would have gone another direction with that film if they insisted on having Khan in it--scratch that, I wish they didn't have Khan at all. It instantly makes me compare the film to Wrath of Khan, and that's a comparison that JJ is going to lose with most people who grew up on the original Trek movies.

I am much more of a Trek nerd than a Star Wars nerd, so I tend to be a little more hands-off in my commentary about Trek- it's far too easy for me to get wrapped up in the passion.

I actually liked the Trek movies, but I do think Abrams had an essential... let me say "misunderstanding" of what Trek is all about. At its core, Trek is about a humanity is that flawed, but striving for improvement. The movie hints at this theme several times, but acts toward it in a way that makes me think Abrams misses the point entirely.

The Prime Directive exists as a recognition that the Federation isn't wise enough to make decisions for other cultures. Kirk's actions at the beginning of the movie are _entirely_ defensible on the grounds that a pre-literate society having a weird image of something in the sky won't actually change the direction of their culture. At some point it will just be "remember when Granddad used to talk about the day he saw a Dragon?" Instead, JJ talks about the prime directive in terms of it being an inconvenient bit of rule.

Also: Kahn was launched into space after having ruled roughly 1/4 of Earth, and engaging in a Eugenics program that Hitler never quite dreamed about. An awareness of that history never quite makes its way into the script. When face to face with someone who- in the cannon of Star Trek history- might have been the most evil human ever to have lived, Kirk is surprised that he's alive, and upset that Kahn killed Kirk's mentor. That reaction sort of underplays how most people would react to being in a room with someone we know is literally worse than Hitler. Again, seemed like bad directing and script writing.

And finally, what made Wrath of Kahn so good- and such classic Trek- is that Kirk was able to out think someone who had long been thought of as one of the smartest humans ever to live. Kirk found Kahn's mental blind spots, and ruthlessly exploited them. This created the lesson that humanity's striving to overcome it's warlike nature, and easy Otherization created a species that was actually more fit to survive than the aggressive and racist past that we'd left behind. By out thinking Kahn, Kirk proved that Kahn's ideology was wrong.

In Into Darkness, Spock punches Kahn until Kahn loses consciousness, and thus proves that... um, might makes right? The winners write the history books? Spock is awesome? I dunno. Something.

Don't get me wrong! I enjoyed the movie. Both Trek movies, actually. I just don't think Abrams added much to the Trek side of "good sci fi movie". With luck, he'll have a better understanding of Star Wars, and we'll get some awesome movies out of the deal.

All you said... yeah!

But 2001 is a great film that nobody likes (cept us) because it is *****ing boring. I re-watched a lot of the Star Trek shows on Netflix this year since I am setting up to do crazy Attack Wing stuff. You know much of the content of these shows is downright lame.

JJ knows peoples want fun... Bah-Moo! Want;Funny-Sexy-Actiony! Moo-Bah!

Plus it ain't boringgg...

The best reason to be optimistic Kasdan

The best reason to be optimistic Kasdan

Here's hoping he hasn't followed Ridley Scott's example.

George Lucas was put into a straight jacket and ball gag, and locked into a dark padded cell before pre-production even started. If only this had happened prior to TPM.

He was creative consultant throughout.

That's a really good place for him, actually. Listen to his commentary in the DVD of Episode 4, specifically the Battle of Yavin sequence. He talks about the need to give each craft a specific pitch of engine noise and... you know what? Just watch/listen.

Dude knows how to make the small touches _shine_, and that creates some amazing amounts of verisimilitude. But he can't direct for beans.

Spot on.

I loved both Star Trek films, and simply don't get why anyone would criticize them.

They flew in a shuttle craft from the federation edge of the neutral zone to Kronos.

That's ridiculous.

Khan beaming to Kronos from a magic duffelbag on Earth was even worse.

Cumberbatch is an acting titan, but I think he was miscast. Even someone approaching the look and bearing of Montalban's original Khan would have been good.

The hardest part for me was the design of the Evil Enterprise; totally uninspired. Let's make the bad guy ship an impossibly larger version of the good guy ship. Okay. Make it dark and give it more guns. Okay, that's good. Whatever!

I liked both of those movies for the most part and there's reason for hope here. The time travel approach to the reboot sort of eased the pain, helped keep it distinct from Star Trek Prime. The 30 year generation after ROTJ and the fact that JJ is plainly taking a different style approach [and is also a SW fan] should help with SWTFA.