|
06-22-2021, 12:14 PM | #2 |
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2019
|
I agree that his Star Trek movies are better, but only because his Star Wars movies are so bad. They make the Transformers movies seem well-written and clever.
|
Posts: 0
|
06-22-2021, 12:20 PM | #3 |
sorta mod-ish
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: KC North
|
The Force Awakens was just a carbon copy of A New Hope, only with flashier graphics. The Rise of Skywalker was just a disaster, but that wasn't all necessarily his fault as he was trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit by then.
I can probably agree with his Star Trek being much better than his Star Wars. Bruce Greenwood as Admiral Pike is severely underappreciated in both films - he lends a gravitas to both stories in that role. |
Posts: 101,089
|
06-22-2021, 12:44 PM | #4 |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
|
For me, The Force Awakens and Rise of Skywalker were far better films overall as compared to the 2009 reboot of Star Trek and the sequel, Into Darkness.
2009 Star Trek changed canon far too much for my taste and had far too many coincidences (Kirk dumped off the ship, only to find an older Spock and a young Montgomery Scott for starters), although it was a fairly enjoyable popcorn film. Into Darkness was an epic disaster, IMO. Replacing a Sikh warlord with a British man was absolutely ridiculous and the overall plot had nothing original to it, other than the father of Carol Marcus being a traitor to the Federation. Blech. |
Posts: 88,960
|
06-22-2021, 12:55 PM | #5 |
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS
Join Date: Aug 2000
|
The bad Star Trek movies were better than the bad Star Wars movies, but at the end of the day they all pretty much sucked. Jar Jar Abrams needs to ****ing die.
|
Posts: 119,531
|
1 0 |
06-22-2021, 12:55 PM | #6 |
I'll be back.
Join Date: Nov 2002
|
They're both piles of entertaining shit. One slightly smellier than the other.
That's what JJ specializes in. |
Posts: 278,739
|
1 0 |
06-22-2021, 01:08 PM | #7 |
Here We Go Again
Join Date: May 2002
|
If forced to choose one of the four to watch, it is definitely the 2009 Star Trek. Sure it is flawed as hell, but still loads better than the other three.
|
Posts: 14,494
|
06-22-2021, 01:21 PM | #8 |
I'll be back.
Join Date: Nov 2002
|
|
Posts: 278,739
|
06-22-2021, 01:22 PM | #9 |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2016
|
I think both franchises need some new blood to get them back to representing a positive future instead of a bleak and darker version of the present times.
|
Posts: 4,377
|
06-22-2021, 01:23 PM | #10 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
|
Quote:
I also think that another 10-15 minutes of run time focusing on the individual characters would have made the film much stronger. I understand that it's a reboot but for first time Trek viewers, the film just didn't provide much in terms of backstory for characters such as Uhuru, Sulu, Chekov, Montgomery Scott, Spock and so on. It's like Abrams just assumed everyone was already familiar with their backstories. |
|
Posts: 88,960
|
06-22-2021, 01:31 PM | #11 | |
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS
Join Date: Aug 2000
|
Quote:
Nero hating Spock, the Federation, and basically everybody else that had exactly dick to do with the supernova - dumb. A mining vessel (even if it is from the future) being able to take out a fleet of warships - dumb. Red matter - dumb. Spock stranded on the moon of Vulcan, which never before had a moon - dumb. Spock and Scotty just happening to be on the same non-existent moon - dumb. Transwarp beaming - dumb. The interior of the Enterprise being some giant open air factory looking thing - dumb. Uhura basically being the linguistic equivalent to Data - dumb. In Star Trek VI she had to fumble through actual books to fake speaking Klingon. Uhura and Spock being a couple - dumb. The only saving grace was a good, likeable cast that had excellent chemistry. It certainly had its moments. But overall, silly and sad. |
|
Posts: 119,531
|
06-22-2021, 01:41 PM | #12 |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Antonio Tx.
|
When his Star Trek 2009 came out everyone was head over heels for it. Even the critics.
Probably his best received movie so far in his career. |
Posts: 66,914
|
06-22-2021, 02:31 PM | #13 |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Baka Laka Daka street
|
Appreciate all the feedback so far folks!
Another thing I liked about JJ's Star Trek reboot was the casting of Karl Urban as Bones. Urban flat out rules in pretty much everything I've seen him in and he had great comedic timing in those Star Trek films. |
Posts: 2,682
|
06-22-2021, 02:41 PM | #14 | |
sorta mod-ish
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: KC North
|
Quote:
And just because you brought it up - if a single drop of Red Matter could create a black hole that could swallow Vulcan, how come the entire beach ball sized glob of it didn't create a supermassive blackhole that swallowed the entire galaxy? Absolute bullshit. Lol |
|
Posts: 101,089
|
1 0 |
06-22-2021, 02:42 PM | #15 |
sorta mod-ish
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: KC North
|
Another bonus, he was nails as Bones. Hell I thought Chris Pine did great as a young and brash Kirk. They all hit their roles.
|
Posts: 101,089
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|