Star Wars Episode VII - The Force Awakens discussion thread NOW WITH SPOILERS NOW THE FILM IS OUT.

[inflatable dalek]

EDIT: And seriously, they're doing another X-Treme Star Trek? Why? Paramount have a properly popular franchise to be dealing with, why are they wasting time on that rubbish?

Apparently they decided to do another based on the box office rather than what you thought of the first one.

[Cliffjumper]

But didn't the second one really not make much money? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek ... Box_office sounds like a qualified success rather than "OMFG must make more to continue minting money!". In a climate where any old rope makes much more than that it's hard to see why they're rushing, though I do like the "yeh, 50th Anniversary" thing, which is decent spin for "there's no way we're stupid enough to put it out anywhere near Star Wars".

[inflatable dalek]

According to that it surpassed the "Lifetime international earnings" of its predecessor, which presumably means the Chinese have justified the new one.

Whilst Star Wars may be a factor (IIRC Patrick Stewart was keen for TNG3 to not go up against Phantom Menace, though I don't think there waa a chance of a three year gap at that point anyway), if they were hugely worried there'd be delaying it for a decade.

I would imagine the bigger reason for making it a 50th anniversary film is the 50th Bond made a billion dollars and is currently in the top 20 grossing films of all time (and was even top ten at one point), an insane increase on previous films in the series. It may not do that well, but there's clearly an advantage in a year of free promotion.

I also suspect the Trek people are kicking themselves their abandoned plan for a Shatner cameo in the first one was basically used for the very well received Tom Baker's showing in Day of the Doctor (a token handwave for the fans who demand sych things and then basically having Tom Baker/William Shatner there with their current successor as themselves to all intents and purposes. I can't see most people caring that Shatner is visibly too old to be a hologram from before he died anymore than the general audience cared that at some point in the future the Doctor will use regeneration to revisit old faces is an unlikely contrivance), that would have kicked ass if just reused for the next film. Especially, as harsh as it sounds, without the weight of Nimoy as well--which is of course why they cut it.

EDIT: And anniversary films fo seem to be a thing for Paramount. Since the Trek film started, the 40th is the only major anniversary not to have one, and the 20th/25th/30th (the last two with TV pushes as well) were heavily promoted as such.

[Warcry]

As part of announcing the new films they denounced the while EU as non canon so at least they feel the same way about it.

And with good cause! I mean even if the bulk of it was good, how in the world do you make a movie in a universe with so much world-changing backstory spread across hundreds of different bits of source material that nobody is going to read between the new movie and the old one? Especially since (lets be honest) what everyone wants to see is lightsaber fights, scrappy Rebels, evil-but-cool Imperials and space dogfights that defy the laws of physics. Not a primer on those self-mutilating aliens from another galaxy who committed space-genocide and crashed moons into their planets or that one time those bugs mind-raped everyone or how they turned Han and Leia's son into Space Hitler because some fanboys were mad about that book Matt Stover wrote about him because it had moral relativism in it and that made them uncomfortable.

Plus 90% of the EU was ass. I mean I loved Grand Admiral Thrawn and the X-Wing books rocked, but did anyone really want The Crystal Star or the Yuuzhan Vong (aka Edgy Teen Fanfiction: the Species) to be canon for the new films?

I'm hoping the old guard are only going to be appearing in the Obi-Wan kind of role, rather than as the main focus.

Based on the bits of promo I've seen, I'm not entirely sure I believe that there are any new characters. Well, other than that one guy who the internet immediately decided to hate because he was black.

Whilst Star Wars may be a factor (IIRC Patrick Stewart was keen for TNG3 to not go up against Phantom Menace, though I don't think there waa a chance of a three year gap at that point anyway), if they were hugely worried there'd be delaying it for a decade.

They probably want to avoid the immediate embarrassment of being blown out of the water within a month or two of Star Wars coming out, but beyond that I think you're right that they don't care all that much. Trek has never been a hugely successful film franchise anyway. Pre-reboot they made a good niche for themselves by keeping the budget down and turning a tidy profit on a slower-paced, less flashy film than your standard sci-fi fare. Which makes perfect sense to me, because given their TV roots that's what Star Trek is supposed to be to most of its fanbase.

(Personally I'm just waiting for the movie series to die off so we can get another Trek TV series...)

[inflatable dalek]

I see a lot of "Trek works best on TV!" claims, but I'd take even the worst of the 12 films over all of Voyager and Enterprise.

Mind, I'd also say the last film comes in for an ludicrously unfair level of criticism. Not liking the film is fine, saying it's a total rip-off of Wrath of Khan as per the received internet wisdom is just plain wrong. It has one scene and one line of dialogue nicked from Khan, otherwise the plots of the two films are totally different. Having the same villain doesn't count unless you also consider The Dark Knight is a rip off the Adam West Batman film just because the Joker is in both.

Hell, considering Into Darkness is about a secret cable within Star Fleet trying to start a war with the Klingons and both films end with Kirk giving a "Current right wing American politics is shit, just be excellent to one another!" speech it's far more like Undiscovered Country.

It also amused me how there was a big fan reaction of "Robocop told Kirk about Section 31! They're supposed to be secret! THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!!!!!!!".

Which ignores:

A: We know about Section 31 at all because Sloan told Bashir about it.

And

B: Robocop was sending Kirk to die, what he knew or didn't know didn't matter.

Oh,
And

C: Section 31's headquarters in London was blown up by Mikey from Doctor Who. Hard to keep that a secret.

[Warcry]

I see a lot of "Trek works best on TV!" claims, but I'd take even the worst of the 12 films over all of Voyager and Enterprise.

Most of the last season of Enterprise was comfortably better than all but a few episodes of TOS and TNG (if not quite up to DS9's standards). I just wish they'd figured out sooner that they should actually make use of the premise of the series instead of actively working against it.

I don't mean this as a slight against the older Trek movies, but Star Trek would definitely work better on the small screen right now. The big-budget sci-fi genre is nothing but CGI oneupmanship and hollow action today, and there's absolutely no way any of the good Trek movies would ever get made in today's Hollywood. Can you imagine The Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country getting anywhere near release without massive rewrites to slap in more action sequences? Even First Contact, which has all the trappings of a big action blockbuster, would be far too slow-paced for modern filmmakers.

Meanwhile character-driven, arc-based storytelling is at its peak on TV, and that's the sort of stuff that has characterized Trek at its finest (i.e. not Voyager).

Mind, I'd also say the last film comes in for an ludicrously unfair level of criticism. Not liking the film is fine, saying it's a total rip-off of Wrath of Khan as per the received internet wisdom is just plain wrong. It has one scene and one line of dialogue nicked from Khan, otherwise the plots of the two films are totally different. Having the same villain doesn't count unless you also consider The Dark Knight is a rip off the Adam West Batman film just because the Joker is in both.

You're absolutely right. It's not a rip-off at all, it's just a poor movie all around.

My favourite part is how they cast a blue-eyed Englishman as a guy named Khan Noonien Singh. I mean, shit, even in the 60s they knew enough to least cast a passably brown guy in the role.

[Clay]

I want to be excited about it, but I just can't muster it. Like some other people have expressed, I know a lot about the franchise but just can't get enthusiastic about it anymore. I suppose the anticipation and subsequent letdown from the first prequel still stings me.

I will say that the prequels were the coal that yielded the diamonds that are the Red Letter Media reviews, and those are worthwhile thing unto themselves.

For all the people that are excited for Episode 7, I'm happy for you. Hope it turns out alright, and I'm sure I'll see it at some point.

[Cliffjumper]

Well, Clay's just made me look mental. Everyone add him to your ignore lists so this post makes sense.

Yup... that was actually part of my big problem with the first Abrams film (not seen the second as I tend to avoid wasting time on follow-ups to shit films when there hasn't been some big upheaval) is that it was so generic, really. Quips replace chemistry and characterisation, CGI replaces excitement and holy **** we'd better make this epic. A lot felt shoe-horned in to compete with other stuff whereas the TOS movies always pottered along in their own little sub-genre as did the two TNG ones I've watched (this is my to-watch list; every film on there has potential to be more stimulating than the best-possible "Hey, that was an alright episode of TNG" reaction Insurrection and Nemesis can hope for). ST08 was just a generic dumber-than-most blockbuster and another reason why Simon Pegg should only be allowed to work with Edgar Wright.

[inflatable dalek]

Most of the last season of Enterprise was comfortably better than all but a few episodes of TOS and TNG (if not quite up to DS9's standards). I just wish they'd figured out sooner that they should actually make use of the premise of the series instead of actively working against it.

If so then fair enough, but I made an effort to watch the "No honest, it's good now!" shows in season 4 and if that's what fandom was promoting as the good stuff then "Good stuff" boils down to "We've given up on every one but the hardcore fans...let's make lots of references and hope that counts!". Having a faithfully recreated constitution class ship is smart. Having it be anything other than the Enterprise will only excite two people, only one of who won't go "This contradicts The Tholian Web!"

Idon't mean this as a slight against the older Trek movies, but Star Trek would definitely work better on the small screen right now. The big-budget sci-fi genre is nothing but CGI oneupmanship and hollow action today, and there's absolutely no way any of the good Trek movies would ever get made in today's Hollywood. Can you imagine The Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country getting anywhere near release without massive rewrites to slap in more action sequences? Even First Contact, which has all the trappings of a big action blockbuster, would be far too slow-paced for modern filmmakers.

Oh sure, but both those films are big visual epics by the standard of the time. It's a credit to Khan people can view it now as a successful claustrophobic thriller and still enjoy it. The standard for action films should keep moving though (and it will be hard for Star Wars not to feel reactionary now. Guardians of the Galaxy basically treated Star Wars like the first Star Wars treated Flash Gordon: "Here's a love letter to our childhood brought up to date for today's kids!" So where does that leave actual Star Wars? Especially from the same studio?), equally the original Star Wars looks like a cheap TV film compared to even the Prequels.

Meanwhile character-driven, arc-based storytelling is at its peak on TV, and that's the sort of stuff that has characterized Trek at its finest (i.e. not Voyager).

I'd agree DS9 is character/arc driven and is brilliant. But the Star Trek people remember is the original and (very much in second place despite being the most popular Trek show on first broadcast, I think the films have made the difference here) TNG. The ones that did great self contained "hour" episodes that could be shown in any order and at thieir best could make a great film. City on the Edge of Forever could be a brilliant film (anyone who complains how compressed modern storytelling is should be forced to list what a ridiculous amount of plot is in that one. It's so packed Hitler winning world war 2 is an aside! ), Yesterday's Enterprise would be a brilliant film
Best of Both Worlds is literally a brilliant film. The big problrm with the TNG films is they're not as cinematic as many episodes! Which isn't the same as saying Trek can't do cinematic. Even the worst/cheapest of the Tos films have Proper Blockbuster ideas behind them, however poor the execution (Kirk fights God!") or dated they look now (a lot of Khan's effects were groundbreaking. The Genesis simulation made Pixar didn't it?).

ou're absolutely right. It's not a rip-off at all, it's just a poor movie all around.

And if you think that, that's cool. My issue is only with the aspects of the fandom who treat it like the G1ers treat Bay. But...


[

My favourite part is how they cast a blue-eyed Englishman as a guy named Khan Noonien Singh. I mean, shit, even in the 60s they knew enough to least cast a passably brown guy in the role.

Cumberbatch is as close to being an Indian Shiek as Ricardo was. Both are horribly racist casting. I'd agree Cumberbatch was horrific casting, but then the entire character is appalling if you apply the same standard.

FWIW I accept Ricardo by going "He's only called an Indian once by one clearly mentally vulnerable character who just looked at him". Cumberbatch I can forgive as an acceptable retcon so as not to have what is now a cliché as a terrorist.

The name I forgive by Khan presumably being a genetic mish mash. Plus Data's creator is named after the same friend of Roddenbery's with the pronunciation shifted and I've never seen anyone complain Noonian Soong is a white guy (despite them having a Japanese American actor in reserve if Spiner couldn't cope with three roles in one show).

[Sades]

Almost everyone is probably going to be some shade of brown by then, so it doesn't matter!

Star Wars: Haven't gotten on the hype train yet. Might not. But then, I might!

Is generally how things go nowadays. I'm a "bad nerd".

Auntie S, I had no idea you had such a deep hatred for such things on the internet. Sorry for past and future postings of mine you might at some point pass over, I suppose, as that sort of garbage is pretty much my bag.

GoT: I've stopped caring about spoilers. Can't avoid them, not even going to try. I'm like three-four years behind the curve, anyway, who gives a ****.

(Except where Hound's hint-dropping about the books I haven't finished is concerned, that shit still presses aaaaaall the wrong buttons for some reason)

[inflatable dalek]

Almost everyone is probably going to be some shade of brown by then, so it doesn't matter!

Khan is from 1996!

I've always been mildly surprised Wrath kept that date when it was so much closer and as a film it was likely to still be on TV when that year rolled past. Mind, Into Darkness is odd in that it'll cheerfully change Khan's ethnicity but jump through hoops not to properly explain his backstory so as not to make a potential fanboy irritating decision about the idea of a world war in the 90's.

I would say Into Darkness isn't as good as the first and is a very odd film in places (Carol Marcus and Robocop feel like two people who've never met, let alone a father and daughter), but it's still enjoyable and as unsubtle as it is the straight up anger at the use of military drones in war is both very Trek and a fresh thing the franchise hasn't done before (indeed, had any big film addressed the ethics of drones by that point?)

In terms of the old guard coming back for Star Wars, to an extent I'd agree with Warcry that it's playing it too safe (mind, I've a feeling The Phantom Menace must have about the same number of characters from the original trilogy in it). But as long as they're treated right, one film at least should be a good old romp. I'm assuming it'll basically be passing the torch to the noobs to carry the rest of the trilogy with reduced roles at best for them in the next two. I'm also pretty much convinced Ford is going to get the heroic death for Solo he was keen on during the originals.

[Summerhayes]

the straight up anger at the use of military drones in war is both very Trek and a fresh thing the franchise hasn't done before (indeed, had any big film addressed the ethics of drones by that point?)

I literally watched this the other day at my parents' house (my dad bought a new TV and wanted something Ultra HD) and I didn't pick up on anything that served as a drone analogue. What am I missing?

[inflatable dalek]

Robocop wants the Enterprise to bomb Khan from the edge of the neutral zone with the new super super super remote control torpedoes. Scotty basically gives a speech about how wrong this is to camera about this being a bad thing and is ultimately vindicated as Robocop is a war mongering loon who doesn't care about casualties. Kirk's final speech is basically "Just because we're scared of Klingon's/foreigners doesn't mean we should bloe them up from a distance" as well.

[Summerhayes]

Ah, I got that they were against illegally killing a terrorist without trial who was hiding in a foreign location (had they killed Bin Laden when this came out) and that Scotty was against having weapons he was unfamiliar with on board but I never really associated them with drones.

[inflatable dalek]

Well how does the US Government deal with threats to freedom hidden in other countries these days? I'd say the "New Torpedo"=Drone thing is pretty much a direct, intentional analogy.

[Summerhayes]

No, you're probably right. I certainly understood it as a deliberate reference to preemptive strike foreign policy.

So, that Star Wars hey? The bad lad has a cool looking sword.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

EDIT: And seriously, they're doing another X-Treme Star Trek? Why? Paramount have a properly popular franchise to be dealing with, why are they wasting time on that rubbish?

To be fair Simon Pegg is co-writing it and he wants it to go back to roots of TOS mixed with GotG style fun. Justin Lin who directed one of the better Fast and Furious films knows how to deal with action that you can actual understand what is going on and knows how to show a multi-racial cast coming together.

I don't know if it'll work but it sounds a lot better than Abrams' crap.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

I see a lot of "Trek works best on TV!" claims, but I'd take even the worst of the 12 films over all of Voyager and Enterprise.

Honestly I will take the worst episodes of Voyager and Enterprise (which thanks to the reboot is now the only TV show in the new canon) over 11 and 12 any day of the week.

[Rack 'n Ruin]

No, you're probably right. I certainly understood it as a deliberate reference to preemptive strike foreign policy.

So, that Star Wars hey? The bad lad has a cool looking sword.

Indeed he does, though the crossguard looks likely to cut off the hand of a careless wielder! The lightsaber I'm more interested in, though, is the one Finn is seen holding ignited in one of the trailers. Rumour has it that it is

SPOILER! (select to read)

Anakin Skywalker's old lightsaber, taken from him by Obi-Wan following their duel in III, and then passed down to Luke in IV. It was lost at Bespin (along with Luke's right hand, of course) in V, so if online scuttlebutt is proven right, how did it come to reappear and come into Finn's possession? Is Finn a Jedi (or potential Jedi), or is he just using whatever weapon he has on him to defend himself in the trailer?

[Summerhayes]

If nobody gets stabbed by one of the little cross - guard beams on that light saber by the end, I'll be very surprised.