Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 5 (Showing 1-5)

Page 1 of 1
Set Bookmark
RJW
Fri, Jan 1, 2016, 10:32pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

One last comment, I think Issac Asimov said "Good science fiction has good science in it" or words to that effect.

J.J. Abrams could care less about any scientific rationale for the science fiction he is portraying. Everything becomes magic. Tribble/Khan blood that brings the dead back to life; transporters that were always malfunctioning are now capable of transporting people across the galaxy without limitation; planet-sized death stars that absorb suns; Really?
Set Bookmark
RJW
Fri, Jan 1, 2016, 6:39pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I hate being right about JJ Abrams. He took the easy route. AGAIN. He made a bad remake of the Wrath of Khan. Now, he has made a good remake of Star Wars Episode VI.

I don't know if you can call that progress. The fact that he's getting better at copying other people is not something to be proud of. However, he's going to make a billion dollars doing it.

Therefore, there is never going to be anything innovative.
Set Bookmark
RJW
Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 7:49am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I agree with Dom. Although you could see the time paradox trick coming a mile away, it was a clever way to reboot the series. That is why the sequel so disappointing. The director successfully washed away all the baggage. So why just dust off Kahn as a convenient villain? Why not go for a fresh story line that pushes the envelope a wee bit.

Simon Pegg is funny, clever and more than a little irreverent. His take on the next sequel might be refreshing.
Set Bookmark
RJW
Fri, Jan 16, 2015, 12:45pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I am also very concerned about J.J. Abrams work on the latest "Star Wars" sequel. The last three movies were so disappointing that they actually hurt the reputation of the first three movies (George Lucas...you have ruined my childhood!!!).

My concern is that the director has no incentive to make a decent flick. If J.J. Abrams takes the same safe bet for Part VII, he will still make the studio money. We will see the damn thing anyway no matter how bad the reviews are. I remember seeing Parts I, II and III and every time thinking... "Hang in there. It just has to get better."

It did not.

We would prefer to give your our money for a good movie.

P.S. If J.J. can some how kill of the Jar Jar Binks character in the first ten minutes, that would go a long way with the fan base. If J.J. could make his death particularly cruel and unusual, that would be even better. If somehow J.J. was able to get Wil Weaton to do the deed, there would be a certain poetic justice to the whole thing.
Set Bookmark
RJW
Fri, Jan 16, 2015, 12:29pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I thought that J.J. Abrams did a very good job with the reboot of the series in "Star Trek" and a very poor job with the 1st sequel in "Star Trek into darkness".

The first movie took a sci-fi cliche that has been beaten to death (i.e., the old time travel routine) and used it to great advantage by wiping the slate clean for the new cast. Let's face it, the old series has a lot of baggage and the reboot allowed the audience to hope for new story lines. There were some clumsy moments (i.e., the Captain and crew breathlessly running around the corridors; the weird lights flashing into the camera; Checkov's accent), however it was a fun action adventure movie.

The sequel very quickly jumped the shark. Instead of going down a new path with new ideas, the producers played it safe and did a revised version of the "Wrath of Khan". This course required no imagination, no courage.

I can see why Jammer has still not bothered to review the movie. If the director cannot take the effort to make something interesting, why bother reviewing it.
Page 1 of 1
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2021 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. Terms of use.