Just have to say what JJ and Paramount did was awesome-- giving Star Trek fan Daniel Craft his dying wish... remarkable.
FA4
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden
That last trailer didn't tell us anything about the movie. How can Bio "that trailer doesn't tell me anything about the movie" Hazard say that this movie looks better with every trailer?
That last trailer didn't tell us anything about the movie. How can Bio "that trailer doesn't tell me anything about the movie" Hazard say that this movie looks better with every trailer?
I had no idea Bio was a Trekkie.
Haha, far from it.
The trailer promises cool stuff happening. I'm down with that. And I trust Abrams.
Look at the Fast and Furious 6 trailer. No idea what the story will be in that one, but it looks cool as hell. It made me *want* to see it, and that's what trailers are for.
In both examples, the previous films in the series were very good, so I expect the same level of competence. I don't believe I'll get it, but I know the film-makers cared somewhat recently, and that's comforting.
Iron Man 3, however...no cool stuff in the trailer. Oh, a bunch of Iron Mans? Way to make the hero ordinary and not special anymore. Plus, the last film in the series was grotesque. I'm staying home that day.
Sure, Lost was ridiculous, but that was the point. It was intentional.
When the day comes that nolan writes something as coherent as Star Trek, I'll eat my shoe.
Star Trek coherent?? Start boiling the leather, baby.
I'll take Nolan's "I'm really really trying to shoehorn my comic book sensibilities into an actual philosophy" over Abrams' "Yeah, in the first Star Trek I did, my Kirk didn't actually win any fight or battle, but c'mon! there was a huge giant monster on an ice planet, nevermind how it got that big on a planet with no other form of animal or vegetation anywhere on that thing".
Of course, I'm still gonna see the damn thing just so I can make fun of it and die of slow asphyxiation by a theater full of malodorous Trekkie's.
Star Trek coherent?? Start boiling the leather, baby.
I'll take Nolan's "I'm really really trying to shoehorn my comic book sensibilities into an actual philosophy" over Abrams' "Yeah, in the first Star Trek I did, my Kirk didn't actually win any fight or battle, but c'mon! there was a huge giant monster on an ice planet, nevermind how it got that big on a planet with no other form of animal or vegetation anywhere on that thing".
Of course, I'm still gonna see the damn thing just so I can make fun of it and die of slow asphyxiation by a theater full of malodorous Trekkie's.
Star Trek coherent?? Start boiling the leather, baby.
I'll take Nolan's "I'm really really trying to shoehorn my comic book sensibilities into an actual philosophy" over Abrams' "Yeah, in the first Star Trek I did, my Kirk didn't actually win any fight or battle, but c'mon! there was a huge giant monster on an ice planet, nevermind how it got that big on a planet with no other form of animal or vegetation anywhere on that thing".
Of course, I'm still gonna see the damn thing just so I can make fun of it and die of slow asphyxiation by a theater full of malodorous Trekkie's.
Allow me to lace up my steel-toes, because that's how wrong you are.
How the flip do you know how an ice monster on another planet sustains itself? That's just you applying real-world logic to that of a science fiction film, which is about the dumbest thing you can do. It's much different than filling a movie with characters that (gasp!) have no character, someone whose only job is to ask questions, and someone else whose only job is to answer those questions with the most boring exposition known to man and ice monsters alike. And it's definitely not the same thing as the alleged hero of the story wasting valuable time, energy, and resources hauling thousands of gallons of precious fuel up to the top of a bridge by himself without the aid of cranes or scaffolding just so the character based around stealth and subterfuge can ignite a giant flaming symbol to alert the enemies of his presence and thus allow them to formulate a strategy and prepare for his arrival. Surely the best use of the time, with a nuke counting down and all.
How the flip do you know how an ice monster on another planet sustains itself? That's just you applying real-world logic to that of a science fiction film, which is about the dumbest thing you can do.
Look, I'm all for dumb entertainment, and we'll forever disagree about Nolan (I haven't seen the third Batman flick so I'm assuming that's what you were alluding to), but I'm absolutely right in saying that Abrams' work doesn't make sense in any logical way 'cause he's trying to ground his stories in a very real world (see SUPER 8's train crash, and, in STAR TREK, building the Enterprise--a vessel not designed to escape Earth's gravity--in an Iowa cornfield, for example).
And if you say that doesn't matter to you, then fine. I'm not really going to argue one popcorn flick's superiority over another, 'cause it doesn't really matter. You liked it, I didn't. Done.
But don't say stuff like real world logic doesn't apply in a science fiction film. It does. And it should certainly matter to writers.
it's definitely not the same thing as the alleged hero of the story wasting valuable time, energy, and resources hauling thousands of gallons of precious fuel up to the top of a bridge by himself without the aid of cranes or scaffolding just so the character based around stealth and subterfuge can ignite a giant flaming symbol to alert the enemies of his presence and thus allow them to formulate a strategy and prepare for his arrival. Surely the best use of the time, with a nuke counting down and all.
Actually one could argue that it's very much in keeping with who the character is and how he operates: theatricality, symbolism, and all that. Anyway the signal was meant for the citizens, not the bad guys; in fact Nolan (if I remember correctly) cuts right to the head cop, who sees the signal and changes his mind about not fighting Bane's army. For another film hero it'd be dumb and out-of-character, but it works for Batman.
As for Nolan vs. Abrams, Nolan is objectively the better filmmaker. I honestly can't see how anyone can make the case otherwise. Nolan's films may be heavy on exposition but that's only because his films are typically multi-layered and more plot-heavy than most other mainstream films. If Inception hadn't had the Ariadne character asking the same questions the audience was asking, no one would have been able to follow the film.
Comment