Reply
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 01/19/2004
Online
36065 posts
 

Re: Is Disney going to ruin Star Wars?

Mar 8, 2014

CaptainAlbator wrote:

Brink-2-Chaos wrote:

CaptainAlbator wrote:

Brink-2-Chaos wrote:

lucas already butcherd his auidence with the prequel trilogy And JJ has really jeopordized Star trek with that Alternate timeline Khan B.S


I don't know if you're aware of this, but Star Trek was dead in the water until J. J. Abrams made that first movie. I think Activision had at one time sued Paramount for letting the franchise stagnate. Abrams made Star Trek cool, and made it acceptable to like as a mainstream movie. Those Star Trek movies were pretty much test reels for Star Wars.

 

As for "ruining Star Wars', I wouldn't worry about that too much. George Lucas damaged the brand enough on his own by casting Hayden Christensen.


idk alternative timeline Sci fi always comes off as lazy writing and Into darkness came off as a total rip off of Wrath of khan, JJ seems to be turning it into a visceral series witch star trek has never been Star trek is supposed to be more intellectual Seriously i have never seen that many lens flares 

Star-Trek-2009-Lens-Flare.jpg


 

Well, would you rather have an 80 year old Captain Kirk played by William Shatner in Star Trek Episode 30: The Search for Relevance? Star Trek was a stagnating brand. Enterprise had been canceled due low ratings a number of years before. No series other than the original, had been canceled. Voyager wasn't strong enough to make movies around, and Paramount had shot their load with the Next Generation cast. They had no choice but to reivent the series.  Even though it was a rip off of Wrath of Khan (and one of the worst kept secrets as far as plot twists goes), Into Darkness was still better than most of the Star Trek output over the last number of series.

 

There's nothing wrong with Star Trek finding a mainstream audience and presenting itself as a more modern series. In case you haven't noticed, Star Trek became a punch line of sorts. It needed to be overhauled, and a more modern look to stay relevant.


There are a whole lot of options in between using an 80 year old Capt. Kirk and going all Twilight: We Shimmer In Space.  They could have chosen option 3.

 

Enterprise was a boring craptastic prequel show.  It was the Phantom Menace of Star Trek shows.  I tried watching it several times because I wanted to like it.  But it was just so very, very, very, very, very bad.

 

In one episode they interfered with the normal progress of this planet's social/technological advancement and there were severe problems.  In the regular Star Trek shows, they wouldn't do this because it's a violation of the Prime Directive.  But Enterprise takes place before the Prime Directive.  So we were treated to this round of gold-pressed latinum:  Someone said beforehand, "We shouldn't be doing this."  The other says, "Why not?  It's not like there's a directive telling us not to."  First person, "Yeah well maybe in the future there SHOULD be a directive telling us not to interfere with a planet's development.  Maybe a really important directive."

 

Gag me.  Enterprise was not real Star Trek.  They were always meeting alien races that wouldn't be encountered for another couple hundred years, like the Ferengi.  Really?  Such awful writing.  But at least they all did it as boring as possible.  Chronologically, Enterprise takes place before TOS.  But if this really was the first series they made, it would have been the last.  Nobody cares about Capt. Archer.  Nobody is racing to make an Enterprise movie.  Notice JJ Abrams went the whole way back to Kirk.  Why not Archer?  Um... who?

 

And let's not even pretend that the Vulcan chick on Enterprise was hot.  That's what everyone says when I go down the list of what all was wrong with Enterprise.

a. I don't watch otherwise worthless shows just because there's a hot chick in tights.

b. She's not that hot.  She's definitely no Caprica 6 or Seven of Nine.  Not even close.  Even that one episode where they had to strip down and rub oil on each other (to "decontaminate" yeah right) was a snore.  They clearly thought this would boost ratings.

c. She never did anything especially awesome like Caprica 6 or Seven of Nine either.  She just stood around like a cold fish.

Message 41 of 49 (131 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
VP of Gaming
Registered: 12/08/2000
Online
28552 posts
 

Re: Is Disney going to ruin Star Wars?

[ Edited ]
Mar 8, 2014

DrGadget wrote:

CaptainAlbator wrote:

Brink-2-Chaos wrote:

CaptainAlbator wrote:

Brink-2-Chaos wrote:

lucas already butcherd his auidence with the prequel trilogy And JJ has really jeopordized Star trek with that Alternate timeline Khan B.S


I don't know if you're aware of this, but Star Trek was dead in the water until J. J. Abrams made that first movie. I think Activision had at one time sued Paramount for letting the franchise stagnate. Abrams made Star Trek cool, and made it acceptable to like as a mainstream movie. Those Star Trek movies were pretty much test reels for Star Wars.

 

As for "ruining Star Wars', I wouldn't worry about that too much. George Lucas damaged the brand enough on his own by casting Hayden Christensen.


idk alternative timeline Sci fi always comes off as lazy writing and Into darkness came off as a total rip off of Wrath of khan, JJ seems to be turning it into a visceral series witch star trek has never been Star trek is supposed to be more intellectual Seriously i have never seen that many lens flares 

Star-Trek-2009-Lens-Flare.jpg


 

Well, would you rather have an 80 year old Captain Kirk played by William Shatner in Star Trek Episode 30: The Search for Relevance? Star Trek was a stagnating brand. Enterprise had been canceled due low ratings a number of years before. No series other than the original, had been canceled. Voyager wasn't strong enough to make movies around, and Paramount had shot their load with the Next Generation cast. They had no choice but to reivent the series.  Even though it was a rip off of Wrath of Khan (and one of the worst kept secrets as far as plot twists goes), Into Darkness was still better than most of the Star Trek output over the last number of series.

 

There's nothing wrong with Star Trek finding a mainstream audience and presenting itself as a more modern series. In case you haven't noticed, Star Trek became a punch line of sorts. It needed to be overhauled, and a more modern look to stay relevant.


There are a whole lot of options in between using an 80 year old Capt. Kirk and going all Twilight: We Shimmer In Space.  They could have chosen option 3.

 

(Voyager was not universally well liked by a lot Star Trek fans, and I wouldn't exactly call the J. J. Abrams movies "Twlight". Yes, it's a younger cast, but that's where the similarities end. And once again, if Voyager was a strong enough series to build a film off of, we would have seen it already)

 

Enterprise was a boring craptastic prequel show.  It was the Phantom Menace of Star Trek shows.  I tried watching it several times because I wanted to like it.  But it was just so very, very, very, very, very bad.

(No argument there)

 

In one episode they interfered with the normal progress of this planet's social/technological advancement and there were severe problems.  In the regular Star Trek shows, they wouldn't do this because it's a violation of the Prime Directive.  But Enterprise takes place before the Prime Directive.  So we were treated to this round of gold-pressed latinum:  Someone said beforehand, "We shouldn't be doing this."  The other says, "Why not?  It's not like there's a directive telling us not to."  First person, "Yeah well maybe in the future there SHOULD be a directive telling us not to interfere with a planet's development.  Maybe a really important directive."

 

(... and you pretty much summed up why the old continuity was discarded)

 

Gag me.  Enterprise was not real Star Trek.  They were always meeting alien races that wouldn't be encountered for another couple hundred years, like the Ferengi.  Really?  Such awful writing.  But at least they all did it as boring as possible.  Chronologically, Enterprise takes place before TOS.  But if this really was the first series they made, it would have been the last.  Nobody cares about Capt. Archer.  Nobody is racing to make an Enterprise movie.  Notice JJ Abrams went the whole way back to Kirk.  Why not Archer?  Um... who?

 

And let's not even pretend that the Vulcan chick on Enterprise was hot.  That's what everyone says when I go down the list of what all was wrong with Enterprise.

 

(I can't post them here, but there was that shoot in Maxim a number of years back. Unfortuantely she looks like she's had bad plastic surgery since)

 

a. I don't watch otherwise worthless shows just because there's a hot chick in tights.

b. She's not that hot.  She's definitely no Caprica 6 or Seven of Nine.  Not even close.  Even that one episode where they had to strip down and rub oil on each other (to "decontaminate" yeah right) was a snore.  They clearly thought this would boost ratings.

c. She never did anything especially awesome like Caprica 6 or Seven of Nine either.  She just stood around like a cold fish.

 

(I think the real problem is not the new continuity or the new cast, but the attempt to make it "mainstream", which feeds into the whole hipster "I used to like it before it got popular" mantra. If they continued down the same path Star Trek would become irrelevant, and the series would be relegated to late night re-runs. I like the new continuity, and effort to bring it from the realm of "excessive geekiness" to something that is more accessible to modern audiences, while retaining some of the feel of the original. Not all change is bad, and this certainly wasn't).

 

 


 

Message 42 of 49 (104 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 12/17/2008
Online
3360 posts
 

Re: Is Disney going to ruin Star Wars?

Mar 8, 2014

I feel like the new Star Trek movies did one thing right.

 

The cast. I really like Leonard Mccoy and Montgomery Scott.

 

Spock's actor is okay, but really, you can't replace leonard Nemoy.

 

Let's hope the Star Wars movies get the cast right.

 

As long as Mark Hamil plays luke, and Ford plays Solo, I just don't see how this new movie could be unenjoyable!

 

Do you think George Lucas was stunted by his experience, and stuck in the past when he made the prequels? Thus explaining the lack of appeal to fans? 

 

Maybe Abrams can get better acting jobs from these actors. Anakin in the prequels sounded totally weak, whenever he was trying to sound the most strong.

guitar guru 2012
Message 43 of 49 (92 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 08/02/2013
Offline
312 posts
 

Re: Is Disney going to ruin Star Wars?

Mar 8, 2014

Disney has already ruined Star Wars 1313, that game deserved to be finished.Smiley Sad

Message 44 of 49 (87 Views)
Shinra Executive
Registered: 06/15/2006
Online
42076 posts
 

Re: Is Disney going to ruin Star Wars?

Mar 8, 2014
^^^ Disney really wants as little as possible to do with gaming. They'd rather license their IPs out which is what they're doing with the Marvel stuff and now the LucasArts stuff since they shuttered the studio/publisher as soon as they got them. I think it's kind of sad that the most we can expect in standalone Marvel games are movie tie ins (or crossovers like MvC although I would love to see a sole Marvel fighter counterpart to Injustice) instead of something in the vain of DC's Arkham games with a studio that really wants to go the source material justice and that's because DC is under WB who does want to do something with gaming.

As for the Star Wars license, we'll see how that goes over with EA having it right now. Battlefront is going to be under watchful eyes after such a long wait but also after the horrendous outing of BF4 as far as issues. I'm sure there is also still a vocal group wanting another KOTOR that's single player and not a **bleep** MMO. Hell, I'd love to see a new Republic Commando after watching the Clone Wars movie (?) on Netflix and enjoying the first game. I imagine Battlefront is going to have a slopped together campaign and mainly focus on MP if the past/current trend/BF is anything to go by which is opposite of RC.

Message 45 of 49 (82 Views)
VP of Gaming
Registered: 12/08/2000
Online
28552 posts
 

Re: Is Disney going to ruin Star Wars?

Mar 8, 2014

DMMGY1969 wrote:

Disney has already ruined Star Wars 1313, that game deserved to be finished.Smiley Sad


There was absolutely no guaruntee that game was going to be good. Yes, it looked interesting, but how many times have we said that before?

Message 46 of 49 (76 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 05/09/2013
Offline
3590 posts
 

Re: Is Disney going to ruin Star Wars?

Mar 8, 2014
I feel like all Disney would do is give a larger budget to like with Marvel. They did almost nothing to ruin Marvel. Almost. Why would it be any different with this?
I can here hurtful. I can be purple. I can be anything you like.
Message 47 of 49 (72 Views)
Fender Bender
Registered: 12/17/2008
Online
3360 posts
 

Re: Is Disney going to ruin Star Wars?

Mar 9, 2014
Hard logic to argue with right there^
guitar guru 2012
Message 48 of 49 (62 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Highlighted
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 07/18/2012
Offline
4354 posts
 

Re: Is Disney going to ruin Star Wars?

Mar 9, 2014

Toy Story 3 was nominated for Best Picture in 2010, your argument is invalid.

Marvel wasn't ruined by Disney, your argument is invalid.

J. J. Abrams has much experience in the Sci-fi department, your argument is invalid.

Star Wars has already been ruined, your argument is invalid.

 

Oh, and third time's a charm Smiley Wink

 


KawaiiChiu wrote:
I feel like all Disney would do is give a larger budget to like with Marvel. They did almost nothing to ruin Marvel. Almost. Why would it be any different with this?

Slow Clap

 

Message 49 of 49 (63 Views)
Reply
0 Likes