Silly padawans. We make Star Wars awesome. Not Disney. It is our love of a thing that makes it worthwhile, not the evaluations of another.

I didn't like the prequels either. I have my reasons. But I also like a lot if the stuff in them. I hated Anakin pretty passionately, terrible choice of actors. But you know what? I don't dwell on it. They were not as fun for me as the originals and I'd much rather read a comic portraying those events if I'd like to brush up on it than watch the films. Does it kill Star Wars for me? I think the answer is obvious. Besides, no Phantom Menace, no Pod Racers! And that would just be lame. Pod Racer for the N64 was one of the greatest titles in the whole **** franchise!

Also, thanks, first reply calling me brainless. I guess everyone can have an opinion right? Even if its a brainless one. Everyone's opinion has value in my books.

How's that for sarcasm font?

Anyways, Star Wars is awesome and I'm glad to be a part of keeping the story alive, even if it gets messed up again. I do a pretty alright Threepio voice. I'll just have to retell the entire tri-trilogy Ewok village campfire style.

These are just off the top of my head but those terrible movies are riddled with errors and inconsistencies that make them bad as movies and terrible as star trek films.

It's a show based on science theoretical but still actual science and those movies crap all over that.

It's star trek in name only.

Every movie is its own animal. Differences in interpretation and depiction are only relevant to consistency in a wider canon. The time mechanics used to reset the Star Trek universe for the latest films have nerfed any previous canon in the same way as Disney disavowing the EU of Star Wars. It gives them free reign to change things and make a new narrative.

Science theoritical? Like pan galactic super beings holding court on lesser life forms, or phasers that stun. Star Trek is science fiction in every meaning. If it was fact the entire crew of the Enterprise would be suffering a range of maladies from their 5 years in deep space. It is a fantasy, admittedly with a few theoritical science technologies thrown in.

Star Trek is a name only. A trademark owned and profited on by large media corporations, as is Star Wars. There is no purism for ongoing franchises, ever. That would be the end of them if definitive boundaries are set that new product cannot cross.

I found both new Star Trek films engaing enough to watch more than 6 times each. I enjoyed the suspense of not knowing how the timeline changes were going to play out in the story. Of course they are not without fault. No film is ever perfect. The only requirement is that they entertain, and perhaps educate.

They predicted plenty of technology:

Laptops

Tablets

Touch screens

Rna resequencing

Cloning

Exo skeletons

Geordies visor is close to being a reality and giving blind people back their sight

Sure some of it is outlandish and improbable but there were always scientific advisors helping the writers.

There is a reasonable expectation of plausibility that jj utterly failed to meet, and on top of that he disregarded well established rules of the universe.

Sure some of it is outlandish and improbable but there were always scientific advisors helping the writers.

There is a reasonable expectation of plausibility that jj utterly failed to meet, and on top of that he disregarded well established rules of the universe.

Good that such things are of little concern in the Star Wars universe Nonesensical ship designs, space wizards - I know why Star Wars appeals to me.

I'm only happy if the Darth jarjar theories pan out.

I think Disney has spent too much money on the franchise to kill it. They will be extremely cautious. Also, Lucas isn't involved, so what killed Ep 1-3 is not there.

The movie only has to be mediocre to be a success. I'll be happy with an OK movie.

JJ movies are the only Star Trek ones I like.

If you go into it with the idea that you will hate it, you will hate it.

I've found the "Fall of the Jedi I-III" fan edits do a lot to redeem the prequels.

I'm only happy if the Darth jarjar theories pan out.

sadly, they won't

the jarjar theories put far more credit on the theorist than on Lucas, because only one of those individuals is worth it

It's not a new film.

Disney just announced it will be ∞ films.

I've found the "Fall of the Jedi I-III" fan edits do a lot to redeem the prequels.

do they cut everything that's not a fighting scene?

ep2 and 3 had their moments, but oh so many others that completely ruined what little good was given in notime. the good stuff can be cut to 20min per film, easily - not that you'd have a good movie then, but at least you got rid of everything that's bothering you.

ep1? unsalvagable. has good parts too, but memories from back in cinema.. there. I'm depressed again.

These are just off the top of my head but those terrible movies are riddled with errors and inconsistencies that make them bad as movies and terrible as star trek films.

It's a show based on science theoretical but still actual science and those movies crap all over that.

It's star trek in name only.

Every movie is its own animal. Differences in interpretation and depiction are only relevant to consistency in a wider canon. The time mechanics used to reset the Star Trek universe for the latest films have nerfed any previous canon in the same way as Disney disavowing the EU of Star Wars. It gives them free reign to change things and make a new narrative.

Science theoritical? Like pan galactic super beings holding court on lesser life forms, or phasers that stun. Star Trek is science fiction in every meaning. If it was fact the entire crew of the Enterprise would be suffering a range of maladies from their 5 years in deep space. It is a fantasy, admittedly with a few theoritical science technologies thrown in.

Star Trek is a name only. A trademark owned and profited on by large media corporations, as is Star Wars. There is no purism for ongoing franchises, ever. That would be the end of them if definitive boundaries are set that new product cannot cross.

I found both new Star Trek films engaing enough to watch more than 6 times each. I enjoyed the suspense of not knowing how the timeline changes were going to play out in the story. Of course they are not without fault. No film is ever perfect. The only requirement is that they entertain, and perhaps educate.

They predicted plenty of technology:

Laptops

Tablets

Touch screens

Rna resequencing

Cloning

Exo skeletons

Geordies visor is close to being a reality and giving blind people back their sight

Sure some of it is outlandish and improbable but there were always scientific advisors helping the writers.

There is a reasonable expectation of plausibility that jj utterly failed to meet, and on top of that he disregarded well established rules of the universe.

There's a difference between predicting and inspiring.

I've found the "Fall of the Jedi I-III" fan edits do a lot to redeem the prequels.

do they cut everything that's not a fighting scene?

ep2 and 3 had their moments, but oh so many others that completely ruined what little good was given in notime. the good stuff can be cut to 20min per film, easily - not that you'd have a good movie then, but at least you got rid of everything that's bothering you.

ep1? unsalvagable. has good parts too, but memories from back in cinema.. there. I'm depressed again.

I will say that even my 60-something year old Dad hated the prequels, but really enjoyed that fan edit. Some things that were edited:

-Everything Jarjar says that is dumb or annoying (90% of his scenes)

-C-3PO and R2D2 being in Ep 1.

-The worst offending bits of the romance scenes

-Added in a cut romance scene that wasn't that bad.

-cut extra scenes that just didn't add to the story, like half the pod race and the trip through the underwater planet on Naboo.

-little things like the fact that Selbulba messed with Anakin's pod. So...it really is just a kid who built a crappy pod.

My wife and kids enjoyed the fan edit, too.

Regarding Vulcan's moon...sure looks like a moon in that mat painting in Star Ttek: The Motion Picture.

Or maybe it's the often forgotten fact that Vulcan was a double planet, similar to Romulus and Remus. Maybe that's Vulcan's 'twin' planet we are seeing in the movies.

Or maybe the continuity has been messed up since the 60s and 70s.

And...this is SWXWM, not Attack Wing

Also also, the mention of the Bayformers movies helped me realize that Mikey Bay didn't ruiny childhood, the first Transformers movie did. You know the one, where the characters you shared 2 years of awesome and silly adventures die in gruesome and horrible ways. And then they kill Optimus Prime, complete with hospital bedside scene. After that we get Star Wars with giant transforming robots (and a robot Leia with honey buns!) so, yeah, Star Wars related!

Back in 2005 it was all over, the final Star Wars had arrived, the series was done. I was there, seeing it at the midnight release. The final Star Wars. It was the end of an era. It was a little sad that there wouldn't be any more. A few years back, I started to re-watch the hexalogy at least once a year.

10 years later we get more Star Wars, not just continuing the story of the Skywalkers but also of other events in that beloved galaxy far, far away. I can't begin to describe how awesome it is. I've grown up watching Star Wars. I don't even remember the first time I saw it; to me, it's always been there, I've always known it.

I think the new film will be great...as long as there's no Gungans! Please, oh please no Gungans, not even in the background casually walking by.

I'm totally OK with Gungans in the new movies, as long as their appearance is immediately followed by their horrible (and hilarious) demise. Field testing Starkiller Base on the Naboo system would not be amiss...

Some people have their preferences that other people would rather not put up with. Surprisingly as it sounds there are those who like the prequels. Now do the rest of us have to love them too, of course not.

And I don't see why I have to put up with the constant assbaggery concerning the prequels from people who still haven't gotten over them ten+ years after the fact. As much as you don't have to like them, I don't have to dislike them, but apparently any talk about TFA has to be about how awful the last three Star Wars movies were. A lot of the talk about the prequels makes me wish those same people are thoroughly disappointed by the new films. Chances are I won't be, and pissed off douches are only a bonus as far as I am concerned.

The thing is that the prequels are already out and we know how good or bad they are.

The new Star Wars movie is not out and people are already praising it as a masterpiece. Now how in the universe does that make sense? As far as dissing the prequels I wasn't talking bad about them but only bringing up a point when someone said they liked The Lone Ranger and other movies put out by Disney after acquiring the rights for them. The Lone Ranger of all things, a movie that is considered worse than Attack of the Clones.

Either way there are plenty of reasons not to get hopes up. For one we've been here before and in a strange case deja-vu is happening all over again. Will history repeat itself, probably not because Disney is Disney. However that is another concern that Disney is Disney and JJ is JJ, they both do okay movies when they stay within their comfort zone but that is the thing they have to stay within their comfort zone. JJ's Star Trek really was nothing about Star trek and all about the special effects demo. Also Disney can do a great Good Vs Evil story, but anything outside of that tends to be hit or miss and with the audience appetite of more complexity in plots the movie seems to be caving in to those demands.

So you want to see me disappointed, well sorry to tell you this but I'm keeping my expectations low so I don't get disappointed. The disappointed douchebags you are going to see are all those people that gave into the hype and have ridiculously high expectations of this film, and more often high expectations are never met than they are satisfied.

Regarding Vulcan's moon...sure looks like a moon in that mat painting in Star Ttek: The Motion Picture.

Or maybe it's the often forgotten fact that Vulcan was a double planet, similar to Romulus and Remus. Maybe that's Vulcan's 'twin' planet we are seeing in the movies.

It was just an incorrect matte painting in the original cut. This is addressed in the director's cut w/ remastered effects to be consistent w/ Spock saying Vulcan has no moons

I still don't get why anyone is interested in Vulcans not-moons, do they ever have any significance?

Regarding Vulcan's moon...sure looks like a moon in that mat painting in Star Ttek: The Motion Picture.

Or maybe it's the often forgotten fact that Vulcan was a double planet, similar to Romulus and Remus. Maybe that's Vulcan's 'twin' planet we are seeing in the movies.

It was just an incorrect matte painting in the original cut. This is addressed in the director's cut w/ remastered effects to be consistent w/ Spock saying Vulcan has no moons

I guess the directors cut of Star Trek: the Star Trek will have old Spock looking through a telescope or viewscreen or something then.

How do we know Spock was lying back in the original series? Wasn't he under he influence of some alien plant spores?

I still don't get why anyone is interested in Vulcans not-moons, do they ever have any significance?

To be a trekker or Trekkie or whatever has more to do with the nit picking details of hundreds of episodes spread out over 40 years that it does examining character development or sociopolitical affairs of running massive interstellar governments.

I've found the "Fall of the Jedi I-III" fan edits do a lot to redeem the prequels.

do they cut everything that's not a fighting scene?

ep2 and 3 had their moments, but oh so many others that completely ruined what little good was given in notime. the good stuff can be cut to 20min per film, easily - not that you'd have a good movie then, but at least you got rid of everything that's bothering you.

ep1? unsalvagable. has good parts too, but memories from back in cinema.. there. I'm depressed again.

I will say that even my 60-something year old Dad hated the prequels, but really enjoyed that fan edit. Some things that were edited:

-Everything Jarjar says that is dumb or annoying (90% of his scenes)

-C-3PO and R2D2 being in Ep 1.

-The worst offending bits of the romance scenes

-Added in a cut romance scene that wasn't that bad.

-cut extra scenes that just didn't add to the story, like half the pod race and the trip through the underwater planet on Naboo.

-little things like the fact that Selbulba messed with Anakin's pod. So...it really is just a kid who built a crappy pod.

My wife and kids enjoyed the fan edit, too.

Ugh.

Fan edits.

_______________________________________________________________________

So, can we stop going on and on about how bad 15 year old movies are and look at the force awakens objecively already

I've found the "Fall of the Jedi I-III" fan edits do a lot to redeem the prequels.

do they cut everything that's not a fighting scene?

ep2 and 3 had their moments, but oh so many others that completely ruined what little good was given in notime. the good stuff can be cut to 20min per film, easily - not that you'd have a good movie then, but at least you got rid of everything that's bothering you.

ep1? unsalvagable. has good parts too, but memories from back in cinema.. there. I'm depressed again.

I will say that even my 60-something year old Dad hated the prequels, but really enjoyed that fan edit. Some things that were edited:

-Everything Jarjar says that is dumb or annoying (90% of his scenes)

-C-3PO and R2D2 being in Ep 1.

-The worst offending bits of the romance scenes

-Added in a cut romance scene that wasn't that bad.

-cut extra scenes that just didn't add to the story, like half the pod race and the trip through the underwater planet on Naboo.

-little things like the fact that Selbulba messed with Anakin's pod. So...it really is just a kid who built a crappy pod.

My wife and kids enjoyed the fan edit, too.

Ugh.Fan edits.

_______________________________________________________________________

So, can we stop going on and on about how bad 15 year old movies are and look at the force awakens objecively already

OK! See you in a month!

I don't get it.

I do not understand the preemptive hate for this film. Nothing here we've seen looks even remotely bad.

I don't get it.

I do not understand the preemptive hate for this film. Nothing here we've seen looks even remotely bad.

We haven't really seen anything for it, just the basic visual style, which does look good. The so called hate your seeing isn't for the movie, it is for the director who hasn't done a decent film in his career and so people are trying to keep expectations in check.

So far, the only thing we really know about the movie is that it has a "BIGGER, MORE EVIL DEATH STAR. YEAH, THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE SOMETHING COOL, MAKE IT BIGGER AND MORE EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

So, basically, the one thing we actually know about the movie is that it seems to be falling into the "super weapon of the week" trope that the least imaginative and most derivative of the old EU suffered from. Combined with a hack director who is known for shallow hype and setting up unfulfillable conundrums and you get a recipe for caution.

Oh, and for everyone that is saying "Disney won't take chances with this", the most basic way for them to not take chances is to file the serial numbers off of a new hope and remake the original movie with just enough changed so that they hope we won't notice. That might be an enjoyable movie, but I don't think it is the continuation of the saga that we all are hoping for.

So.... Cautious optimism, not unrestrained fanboy nerdgasm a month before we see the movie.

>Hack Director

that's not unbiased or anything

I still don't get why anyone is interested in Vulcans not-moons, do they ever have any significance?

It is basically there to highlight JJ Abrams habit of wiping the entire story clean and making his own movie. Now is JJ the first person to have inconsistencies in his movie with Star Trek OS? Of course not, but lets face it as far as story arc goes JJ's Star Trek had nothing to do with Gene Roddenbery Star Trek.

Now what does this have to do with Star Wars? Well since the direction is one in the same, I'm certain that you are going to see JJ's interpretation on Star Wars. I am not talking about lenses flare saturation (we all hope he learned his lesson by now) but still rebooting of stories focus on the visual spectacle rather than coherence with chronology and pacing. Seemingly pointless scenes added in which serve no purpose and was not even absurd enough to be comic relief. That might creep up on the new film.

>Hack Director

that's not unbiased or anything

Never claimed to not be biased against him, just explaining to you that people aren't "preemptively hating" on the new Star Wars movie, they're just worried because so far the only information we have about the movie is that the visual style (the only thing JJ seems to care about) looks good, but the actual meat of the movie (what JJ seems to not care about) is apparently just a rehash of the original film.