Cool News
Why STAR TREK Fans In L.A. Are Bastards At The Moment!! Movies # 2-6 In 70mm Starting Immediately!!
Merrick here...
Elston Gunn passed this along to me and wanted to make sure ya'll found out about it.
Seems the Laemmle Royal Theater is West L.A. is running a marathon of STAR TREK movies. The upcoming titles are presented in 70mm (my god that’s beautiful and cool), with special guests discussing each film.
Evidently, they’ve already shown STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE - but we didn’t know about it in time to share the details with you. However, screenings of THE WRATH OF KHAN, THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK, THE VOYAGE HOME, THE FINAL FRONTIER, and THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY are still coming up – starting this weekend.
If these screenings are nicely attended and go well, organizers say they’ll bring along the next batch of movies, i.e. THE NEXT GENERATION films, as well as Abrams’ sequelprequelboot.
A list of dates, screenings, and guests appears below – and you can find more info about the theater HERE.
I’ve been blessed to see every one of these films in 70mm. If you’ve never had the chance to do so and are able to attend the Laemmle events, I can’t encourage you strongly enough. Their texture on the big screen, especially in 70mm, is unlike any of the DVD or Blu-Ray transfers you may’ve seen.
If you've never seen 'em embiggened like this, 'tis a surprising and rich experience.
I am quite jealous.
Here's more...
June 19
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (70mm)
Plus short feature "Hardware Wars"
in Person Director Nicholas Meyer
June 26
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (70mm)
Plus short feature Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2th Century
In person Nichelle Nichols and Producer Ralph Winter
July 3
NO SHOW
July 10
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (70mm)
Plus short feature Star Trek IV Bloopers
In Person Catherine Hicks
July 17
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (70mm)
Plus short feature Russian Misconceptions
In Person Walter Koenig
July 24
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (70mm)
Plus short feature Don't Deport Me Scotty
In Person George Takei
If anyone out there attends any of these screenings, especially if it's your first time seeing the pictures on the big screen, drop us a write-up with your perceptions of the films, their presentation, and the whole experience. We'd love to hear from you.
Enjoy!
--- Follow Merrick on Twitter! ---
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (70mm)
Plus short feature "Hardware Wars"
in Person Director Nicholas Meyer
June 26
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (70mm)
Plus short feature Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2th Century
In person Nichelle Nichols and Producer Ralph Winter
July 3
NO SHOW
July 10
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (70mm)
Plus short feature Star Trek IV Bloopers
In Person Catherine Hicks
July 17
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (70mm)
Plus short feature Russian Misconceptions
In Person Walter Koenig
July 24
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (70mm)
Plus short feature Don't Deport Me Scotty
In Person George Takei
-
+ Expand All
-
What the hell's that?
-
wasted my first "FIRST!" Opportunity.
-
She was in Seventh Heaven.
-
Totally agree that they look different 70mm style. Especially any of the "big" scenes (space shots, long shots on the ships, etc). I've only seen a few of them that way and the difference is hugely apparent. It even fooled me into liking Nemesis more upon first viewing.Random aside, I found this article http://tinyurl.com/34bj7ox where it says they couldn't find TMP in 70mm, so it was shown in 35mm. The 70mm showings start this weekend.
-
But DAMN would I love to see Wrath with Nicholas Meyer in attendance. Don't think it would be possible for him to tell any stories or deliver information that I don't already know. But it would be a damn cool experience all the same.
-
Space was red, everything covered in dirt. Ugh. Was a crime against ST2.
-
...while calling out "Captain Kirk!"????
-
was also in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. She was the woman i charge of the whales Kirk et al need to kidnap to save the future...oh, sorry. Spoiler alert.
I'm not saying I give a crap to see her in person, but it's not like they grabbed some has been at random either.
Hicks gives one of the worst line readings in the history of film, when she discusses what will happen to the whales if they can't find a new home and ends with "that, as they say, is that." Gives me hacky douche chills. -
I can remember when he came in to audition for the Chekov role, Gene wasn't sure but i insisted this was our guy
-
At a theater grand opening. Free drinks and popcorn. Good times
-
Now Jett's been around long enough to be involved with the hiring of Chekov! I love this Jett guy. Best stand-up I've ever seen typed online.
-
It looked better on TV.
-
Please!
Pretty Please!!! In honor of Big Hair Month!!! Come on, Abrams. Stop sucking Spielberg's cock and cast Pat Benetar! -
Many years ago in Edinburgh (Scotland). A great, if ass numbing, day.
-
an episode of 7th Heaven for the first time and recognizing the Mom and Dad as Cmdr. Decker and Dr. Taylor.
-
Jun 18, 2010 2:47:36 PM CDT
Nothing beats Nimoy's middle age voice. It is un-imitatable
by ultratron
His old gravelly denture's voice- not so much
-
aged. That guy's the original Wesley Crusher.
-
they sucked.
-
sounds similar to what i got to do back in 1991 when Part 6 had just come out. a theater did a full day marathon and played Parts 2 through 6. It was my first time seeing Part 2 in a theater but i've seen Part 3 and on as they were released. but yeah it was a cool, fun day except for the fact it was a super old theater with terrible seats. thank god they did 10-15min breaks in between movies so we could save our asses. :p
-
...and not let anybody out, just to make sure the house is full?
-
http://img.trekmovie.com/images/merchandise/stvpostert.jpg
Why? So the audience can't escape, that's why... -
The movies went on such a wrong turn with STIII.......and they never got back. And the NG movies were just a total fucking catastrophe, and yet they KEPT MAKING THEM.
-
The scene with Kirk, McCoy and Spock facing their fears is the sort of soulful, genuine drama JJ Abrams could never come up with. JJ's effort is empty, hollow and soulless. No wonder it did well at the US box office.
-
Looking forward to 70mm goodness for part VI, and some Q&A with Takei.
-
Yes, and about the Sulu Excelsior series.
-
Can't they throw that one out and (maybe) show Space Seed ahead of II instead?
-
Jun 18, 2010 4:31:46 PM CDT
They should show First Contact instead of Trek V
by bp_drills_america_a_new_asshole
I could happily live to a hundred and not see a second from Trek V again. First Contact, on the other hand, is all kinds of awesome.
-
The whole James Kirk as an arrogant bad boy concept was ill-conceived and rang hollow from the start of the movie. We saw that Jim's parents were loving, caring people from the first scene. Then we are lead to believe Kirk is turned into a rebellious youth by his car-loving asshole stepfather. But we KNOW the loving caring Winona Kirk married the Uber boy scout George Kirk, and loved him dearly. How could that woman, in any situation, fall in love with a possesion loving, obviously uncaring man and marry him, and mess up her son by doing so. Not beleivable for one second. The only thing that makes the whole mess barely watchable was that they nailed Spock and McCoy.
-
All this plus "Hardware Wars," AND "Duck Dodgers?" ... luckyyyyy!
-
You're wrong James Kirk DID care about people. He was just a cockey kid that thought he had to live up to his fathers rep.
-
I enjoyed First Contact as well. It's amazing how much of a nosedive those TNG flicks took after that promising start.
-
... cos of the same old faces who just show up to trash Trek '09. Which was FUCKING AWESOME. As was the original series, some of TNG, most of the original movies (yeah, Search For Spock is great, ok? Final Frontier, notsomuch). Loving NEW Trek doesn't mean you never "got" Original Trek.
-
was exactly what Star Trek needed. It had the effects and action to bring in the Michael Bay crowd, the fun to bring in the kids, and the heart and respect for the original series to bring in the fans. I love the TOS movie series, but i think they can co-exist nicely with JJs' new take on it. It's a good time to be a Star Trek fan, and for many years i never thought that could ever happen.
-
I didn't say Jim Kirk was uncaring, I said his stepfather had to be uncaring to make Jim rebel like that. JJ obviously tried to balance Jim's bad boy arogance with his care for his crewmates and friends. I guess it's the trying to make Kirk edgy and hip that bothers me. I can see that they had to go that way to bring in a new generation of Trek fans, but in TOS Kirk was pretty straight laced and reluctant to break regulations unless the situation absolutely called for it.
-
He stole the Enterprise to recover Spock's body. He always broke the rules, but he saw the bigger picture while Starfleet never did.
-
If I can swing it.
-
Maybe some of you punks can now go and see these flicks as they were made to be seen instead of never having seen them and then daring to lecture us and patronize us about JJ's Trek and how "true" it was. Bloody amateurs.
-
Lol, what a dipshit.
-
...Catherine Hicks? Child's Play. Okay, maybe her full frontal in Laguna Heat, but Child's Play is second, I swear!
-
a classic. haven't seen that in almost thirty years.
-
That's actually the only "Trek" movie I'd be remotely interested in seeing in 70mm. That movie's gorgeous, and to watch it on a huge screen in crisp resolution would be fantastic. The other films? They're all pretty good, but visually, none of them are quite as accomplished-- even "Khan" has a pretty cheap, TV-production look to it, really.
Granted, I'm a SW fan first and foremost, but I'd rather see TMP than any of these. -
They put Koenig, who has a LOT to talk to fans about what with Trek, B5 and his very controversial Phase II ep ('To Serve All My Days') on the day they show ST V, which let's face it, was an abomination most Trekkers would rather not talk about.
Except the whinge squad around here of course, who could presumably fill entire Galaxy-class starships with bile about it before saying it was better than the new one.. oh wait, someone already has. -
as a traveling film series so all the daft cunts who love that late term abortion called "Star Trek" could understand what the entire franchise was really about when these films were released in the 80s.
-
Jun 18, 2010 7:25:18 PM CDT
I'd kill to watch STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE in a theater
by asimovlives
-
... you can go gay on Star Trek.
-
"Space was red, everything covered in dirt. Ugh"Sounds like the look of JJ Abrams's SO-CALLED STAR TREK movie. Only it was done so on porpose.
-
If there are any cute,bookish yet smouldering,temptress/succubus types who want to sit next to me- I'll be the incredibly good looking guy with no girl next to me. I'm going to a wine tasting Thursday and I'll probably have better luck there but still- because I'm single I can't accept going to see this on a Saturday night without at least the fantasy image of ms startrek miniskirt USA approaching me and being very agressive. The password to know it's me is 'sanctuary'.
-
The inferior theatrical cut or the improved director's cut? And why they hell can't they have showings like this in NY?
-
Kirk lived up to his fatehr rep by being a malcontent punk ass asshole? What kind of fucking logic is that? It's as the other guy said, kirk mommy first marries a great guy and the marries a complete usless stepfather will suited to raise a kid? She became retard after her first hubby died? Give me a break! The stupid incompetent jerks responsible for that movie couldn't even concieve of the notion that Winona, as a widow, would attach herself to the best man after her huasband, which would non other then Commander Pike himself. It would make dramatic sense. they missed an oportunity to have com. Pike as young Kirk's stepfather,and thus, Kirk would still be raised by a great guy that would inbue in Kirk the same moral values his father would had he lived to see his son grow. And then, Kirk would had TWO FATHER FIGURES to live up to. And he would live up to those fine gentleman by being A FINE GENTLEMAN AS WELL. Instead of the retardnes sthat JJ Abrams and his writing miniosn come up with. I guess the reason making Kirk into an asshole came naturally to them is because they are assholes themselves. That's all they know.
-
I don't think JJ Abrams's SO-CALLED STAR TREK nailed Spock and bones. They turned Spock into an emotional mommy boy, little different from a human except he has pointed ears. As for Bones, well, making him paraphrase dialogue from the TOS for most of his dialogue is an easy way to "nail" him. It's like copy and paste instead of real effort. I was not impressed. And the least said about Kirk and Uhura the better.
-
It's about time that poor movie starts to get the good rep it deserves. It's about time people start giving it's rightly due. It's about time people stop acting like mind slaves and regurgitating past bullshit about the perceived awfullness of the movie, which ia all dogmatic bullshit based on complete nonsense, and start seeing the movie for what it is, a damn fine movie that puts ST into the silver screen with style, elegaqnce and magesty becoming the creation of Gene Roddenberry.
-
I liked Generations, LOVED First Contact. Anything after that....meh. Loved JJ's take on Trek as well.
-
Jun 18, 2010 7:50:36 PM CDT
Yes I watch the original motion picture all the fucking time.
by ultratron
And yes I hope they burn in hell for not telling me it was playing 70mil
-
So Trek '09 was "covered in dirt", huh? Strange, seeing as many of previous tirades have been about how clean and "shiny" and slick it was. You dick.
-
... and yet somehow hates Trek '09 entirely misses the point, and is simply jealous that "their" favourite toy was taken and re-tooled for everyone else to enjoy. That viral video about Trekkies expressing outrage about a "really successful" Trek movie was so bang on the money. The original crew and the reboot crew CAN co-exist. The exact spirit of the original show was present and correct in Trek '09, and it still holds up as one of the best sci-fi flicks of the last few years. I ADORE TOS, the first four movies, Undiscovered Country and snatches here and there of TNG and DS9. And I still think the reboot was the BEST thing that has happened to Trek in YEARS. (... FUCK everything post-DS9 - tepid, moralising, soulless, pompous nonsense - with a few small exceptions here and there.) Are the original show/movies and the reboot the same? No. Are they both really quite wonderful in their own ways? Fuckin' A, they are.
-
.. by opining that The Motion Picture is a massive pile of shit. A noble-intentioned, complete misfire. With lovely visuals. But essentially a film about several people staring intently out of a window. With Kirk re-cast as a massive dickhead who blatantly usurps command of someone else's ship out of jealousy. A reticent Spock who plainly doesn't want to be around his best friend. If any film betrays the characters and relationships of the original show, it's TMP. Sorry. As you were.
-
to remake it. I ran out of ultra-vivid but if you polish that blueray with some industrial plastic cleaner 3 times in the manner prescribed in the ultra-vivid instructions.. Talk about see every optical flaw in trumbull's best work. Never really noticed the bluescreen bleed in the nacelles before
-
Shiny and clean? You mean shitty and sick, right?
-
"not telling me it was playing 70mil"That's some mean shit right there! Somebody has to pay for that malfeasance. Pure evil right there!
-
"Anyone who LOVES original era Trek and the movies and yet somehow hates Trek '09 entirely misses the point"Completly incorrect. It's the exact opposite. Anybody who who loves original era Trek and the movies and yet somehow loves Trek '09 entirely misses the point. They miss the point as much as Michael Bay missed the mark with Pearl Harbor, and that's a lot, girl! Yeah, i guess i'm trying to say Pearl Harbor sucked and Abram's movie too.
-
"I probably lose credibility by opining that The Motion Picture is a massive pile of shit"No, you already have lost it way before, but that is just the cherry on top of the cake.
-
but I think your bizarre semi-autistic hate for the reboot (coupled with your clear, understandable, and admirable love for the original crew and series - which by definition have no logic together) is making you a bit presumptuous. If we're going into things about Kirk's mom which WEREN'T IN THE MOVIE - the years between his birth and enlistment - who's to say she DIDN'T try her best to find a noble upstanding gentleman to be her husband? Maybe she failed. Maybe she fell on hard times. Maybe she ended up just needing someone who could help her raise an impetuous, impulsive, adventurous young James Kirk. All of which EXACTLY DESCRIBE KIRK AS CONCEIVED BY RODDENBERRY. I mean, as long as we're making shit up. Also, Kirk was a "fine upstanding gentleman"? Please. He was a loose cannon, rule-breaking, directive-flouting, skirt-chasing, swashbuckling, command-usurping, Enterprise-stealing, swashbuckling hero. As defined by the original series in ALMOST EVERY EPISODE AND MOST OF THE MOVIES. And exactly as presented in the reboot. And please - have Pike as Kirk's stepdad? You of ALL the people here would have thrown a SHIT FIT if they'd dared attempt that, for further muddying and changing the canon. You're grasping for reasons to hate that simply aren't there.
-
PLEASE SHUT UP ABOUT STAR TREK 2009! You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I think we've got the point by now: you weren't the movie's biggest fan; You won't be buying it on BluRay; You're not that keen on JJ Abrams.
-
That's the word for having any rational discussion of Star Trek. Fans here are too polarized one way or the other to see any shades of grey. The "it rules or it sucks, period" crowd here seems to perceive any element of these films they don't like as some sort of personal attack. There are things I like and dislike about all the films, and there are elements in all of them that are even considered to be good cinema by those who know and practice the craft. Apart from knowledgeable critique, however, we're left with just our opinions. Sadly, opinions here tend to run all or nothing, killing any real discourse.
-
Only if you ask nicely.
-
Well, better then to be the autists who liked Jar Jar Abrams's SO-CALLED START TREK. This is what is called small mercies.
-
... I was deliberately exaggerating just to dangle the bait! But I did say it's a noble attempt. But it fails. And it DID fail. Hence it being followed up with a meatier, ballsier, more action-oriented relaunch, with characters drawn more broadly and identifiably, speeding from point A-to-B-to-C of a tightly wound, linear, purposeful plot, throwing in some humour and more visceral thrills. The Wrath Of Khan was the Star Trek reboot of 1982, when the franchise had very nearly been killed stone dead.
-
and as that movie teached us, you never go full retard. Look at what it did for Jar Jar Abrams's SO-CALLED START TREK. Full retard in movie shape. It even looks like a Michael Bay movie, for fuck's sake! You can't get worst then that!
-
I would, but I think I'd be wasting my breath.
-
... and it suceed admirably. Stop enjoying shit like Jar Jar Abrams's SO-CALLED STAR TREK, it's fuckign up your perception of good proper cinema. You can't frollic in the trash and hope to come off smelling of roses, you know?
-
Then mommy and daddy never did teached you the awesome power of politeness.
-
Nope, they never did teached me nothing. Anyway, I don't want to be the one responsible for depriving AICN of your Star Trek views. I'd never be able to live with myself! I'm going offline now, so, since my customary farewell would seem oddly self-serving, I shall simply say, 'Good luck’
-
looked FUCK ALL like a Bay movie. It looked a bit Spielbergian at times, if anything. Asimov - you're grasping at straws. Go kiss your Deanna Troi posters.
-
filmed. I'm just bursting at the seams with ideas that push the envelope of this franchise toward it's promiss. To boldly go where no one.. That's the promiss. Ok so what trek movies have done that besides the first film? Ok well I have the absolute end-all for that promiss. It is so fuckin great that I'm going to have to make a screenplay of it and shop it. I'm going to become one of those nerds who write trek screenplays just for you guys. I hope you appreciate the ridicule I'll endure while doing this. In the end we will at least have a screenplay for the best trek ever. Ok as for asimov's hate for the latest trek- true enough we all cringe at the sound of nimoy's dentures' VoiceOver- i'm with him there. We all despise the budweiser factory inside the enterprise- true. We all hate the vette scene- true. We cannot abide the absense of the villain's motivation properly established- true. We fester with brain rot when Spock comes out of nowhere to shoo away a fucking vicious giant Dinospider pussy monster- true. But my god there is much to love. I just goggle out the shit. The score is supurb for one thing. All the other scores describe middle age but we finally got the score for the young badasses. And how about that fucking deep Roy in a rubber costume- who doesn't love that?!!
-
It almost buried the franchise. It doesn't work as a three act screenplay. It undermined and tries to badly redefine the central triumvirate of characters. It went vastly overbudget and performed terribly. Hardened Trekkies abhorred it for ruining what made Trek wonderful. It regurgitated a plot used in the series. It led to a miraculous much-needed reboot. At the time, the whole reason for TWoK wad to ostensibly ERASE THE MOTION PICTURE FROM CANON. Thems the facts, Asimov. Now I certainly 'appreciate' TMP and think it has several things very much in it's favour - but don't be so blinded to insist it was a complete success. Along with Rhe Final Frontier, it is far and away the weakest lowest watermark of the Kirk era.
-
anywhere. The others all boldly play around with the same old toybox filled with aliens you've already met. 4 had an unknown alien thingy at least.
-
Nothing in TWoK negated the first film, except maybe the uniforms..which the military can change all the time anyway.
-
or Enterprise. You fans who diss it are in denial.
-
So there. :-P
-
The problem is that it's re-writing history. Worse, it's making it up on the fly. There is an established history that exists within ST canon for both Kirk and Spock. JJ completely ignored it Trek 09. They could have told the same story while staying true to the origins of the characters, especially since they don't yet exist on screen. What they came up with is lazy, common and uninspiring.
-
It's the shameful re-writing of an already existing history. Yes I understand that it's fiction, thank you. But how many of you would be, or are, all up in arms when a book you love is changed for no apparent reason when adapted to film. And Voyager is far better than the shit it takes. It suffered from Trek burn out for sure. But upon re-watching it it's just not as bad as I thought it was back then. It's really pretty solid, actually.
-
They WERE rewriting history. It was a new timeline. Kirk grew up without his Dad around unlike the Kirk from our timeline. They didn't screw up Kirk at all since we never saw Kirk at the academy in our timeline. Get over yourself.
-
Seriously dude, I don't know what you're problem is with me. You constantly attempt to call me out and talk shit. Was it really necessary to add "Get over yourself"? Is that the way you expect to start a conversation or discussion. And now you'll tell me how I have a bad attitude, right? Well all I see you doing is bouncing from column to column posting one or two line negative comments waiting for somebody to respond so you can talk shit. I've even seen you post completely contradictory statements at different times in one talkback more than once lately. All of which have been ignored. Your last statement is factually wrong. If you had any idea of the history I'm referring to you wouldn't have posted such a ridiculous comment. Have a nice night. I won't be responding to any more of your nonsense in this talkback.
-
...to even remotely care about seeing in a 70mm projection. Don't get me wrong, the other original-cast movies are fun, and some are downright classic. But their productions pale in comparison to the scale and scope of Wise's direction and Trumbull's effect-work on the original film. Meyer did a fantastic job injecting some much needed pulse to the franchise with "Khan", and ILM was no slouch throughout the series, as well. But TMP is visually one of the most beautiful sci-fi films I know of. Yeah, it doesn't work 100% as a movie, but it'd still benefit the most from a bigger-than-big screen projection. And it's my favorite of the bunch.
And hey-- it's the only one of the "Trek" movies where Nimoy's Spock wasn't phoned in. Occasionally there's even hints of the same conflicted emotional human side that he showed in... um... that episode where he fights Kirk (being a SW fan, I don't know the title of the episode or care to look it up, but you know what I mean). -
In the future they've all seen starwars so they say punch it when they go into hyperdrive. Possibly the best thing about the new trek. That and Pike actually embodies leadership personified. He even gives chekov a little spirit lift by getting his name right
-
Jaka, I don't have a problem with you. I'm saying your wrong about the new Trek movie. Really wrong. We don't know what Spock or Kirk were like at the academy. The books aren't canon.
-
he wont spend eternity with the hot blonde inside the cages of the ESP scrotum headed guys. He was supposed to encounter that world on his first mission, but stupid Nero showed up instead.
-
That wasn't the first mission of the Enterprise. It was the first ST episode, but it wasn't the first Enterprise mission. And how do you know the planet isn't still out there.
-
....you'd never see this much bitching in a Doctor Who talkback...
*Blue touchpaper suitably lit* -
...that Neil Blomkamp is directing "The Hobbit"
-
http://www.jordaner.com
Discount activity 40%discount
Supply . Air Jordan Shoes.
Safe Payment.Paypal
Fast Shipment.5-7 days you can receive your order product.
No min order request.You can order only one product
Free Shipping.The price on our website are including everything. -
My name is Reddy Kilowatt reporting a dangerous overload in the Octopus connection in sector FIIIIVE!
-
IMAX and mini-max are nice, but I'll never forget the experience of seeing something like Outland in 70mm, as well as with sound so good I have yet to hear its equal. And Blade Runner? FUCK! I'm not terribly nostalgic, but those were the days. Back when we still had one or two theaters in town that hadn't been dismantled into 5 tiny screens.
-
It succeeded because it made a shitload of money. The most of any ST flick until the 2009 one named "Star Trek" unless you adjust for inflation then TMP is still king.
That most ADHD afflicted people seem to hate it means zip when it made mad bank. TMP is the reason Star Trek still lives and fans of the new series should show proper respect. -
Out of curiosity... since all of the Trek movies were filmed in 35mm, what is being gained by showing them in 70mm? It's essentially just the 35mm print reprinted onto larger film, with maybe a sharpen filter thrown on there. Even with whatever upres process they may have used, it certainly won't be near the quality of something that was filmed in 70mm originally.
I don't see the big deal. In fact, most films (aside from science-center docs) you see in imax are just 35mm films reprinted on 70mm... and that's including animated & CG movies. CG movies are very rarely rendered out higher than 2048 pixels wide, even for imax viewing. -
If it wasn't shot in 70mm, like, say Laurence Of Arabia, with that great big negative, I don't think a blow-up will do a lot for you.
-
Critics HATED TMP when it first came out and audiences were bored by it. It made money only because it was Star Trek and it hadn't been seen since the TV series went off the air. Oh, and a little movie called Star Wars helped.
-
This is what i love about you Gays For JayJay, you are so brainwashed by that used cars salesman JJ Abrams you can't even see the extremely fucking obvious anymore. Next time when JJ tells you that water is not wet, you will believe him unquestionably. The cult of personality about JJ Abrams is unbelievable!
-
The new movie is based on TOS, and it's only with that that should be compared. All else is cheap dust to the eyes tactics used by bullshiters to try to get away with their shit. small wonde rit's being extensively used to support JJ's SO-CALLED STAR TREK, since it was made by a con-man salesman. It's the oldest trick in the book, one that creationists never stop using to spread their bullshit. and likewise, Jar Jar Abrams and his dedicated acolytes.
-
And i know all you Jar Jar Abrams fans, who are all at heart souless accountats, you all should know that if you account for inflaction, STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURES costed half as much as Jar Jar Abram's movie and made as much money at the box office has his piece of retard shit movie did. Half as much costs with the same box office numbers means twice as sucessful. Eat shit with that, JarJarHeads. I hate to use accouting to support a movie, because that shit is jsut nonsnese because a movie's quality is not what it's box office is, but since that's all you JarJarHeads care, you souless accountants, there it is then. Jar Jar Abrams spent ungodley amounts of money in a fucking movie that looks 1/10th the spectacle that STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE provided. And shall i bring back again the fucking beer distellary engine room of the Enterprise? It does explain everybody must had been drunk when they made the fucking movie.
-
The irony is that even Jar Jar Abrams likes the movie, even Jar Jar Abrams likes STAR TREK THE MOTION PCITURE. This means Jar Jar Abram's fanboys, the JarJarHeads, they are even lower inthe evolutionary ladder then that fucking mindless hack.
-
Actually, the books are cannon. You migth just ignore them, as i do too, i rather go withthe notion of if it's not in the Tv show and the movies, it's not what i think of Star Trek. But that just our attitude, our own preferences, the stuff in the books are considered actual ST cannon.
-
So what? It still made starships full of moola. And I like it. In my solipsistic world, that's all that matters.
-
Right on, Jaka. Let me just add this notion to you: how many people were inspired to became scientists or carrer militarymen based on the examples of of officer and gentlemanship showed by Spock and Kirk all throughout the TOS TV show? And much of that still transpires in their later big screen incarnation. How many people you think tha,t whatching Jar Jar Abrams' version, they will think "I want to be like that guy, he embidies what a man should be, what an officer and a gentleman should be like, to know as much as he does, to be as morally responsible and be morally fortutude as he is?" How many people you think the new Kirk or the new Spock will inspire to be better persons? The only thing the new Kirk and Spock will isnpire is punk ass assholeness and uncontrollable emo-ness. How fucking inspiring that shit is!Nu Kirk and Nu Spock, the poster boys of the Nu Emo generation?
-
Recognizing ST:TMP as a proper good movie is not an exercise of solypcism. Liking JJ's NOT-STAR TREK unquestionably, however, is another matter.The geekdom is now like the people in the novel "1984", they have a big prother cvalled JJ Abrams tellingthem how to think and compeltly rewriting Star Trek,adn they alla cept it unquestionably and indulge themselves in double-think to find way to pretend the flaws and mistakes are not there at the expense of much, much better movies made in the series. And AICN is, sadly, acting like the Ministry Of Truth in all this business, helping spread the lie and the deception.
-
I agree and you are correct in saying that TMP made the most money... after decades in release. At the time it was a disappointment in that regard. But I also agree that bank doesn't equal quality, so fair enough to you. But seriously, go look up how disappointing a reception it received from hardcore fans such as yourself. I don't hate the movie, I just think, despite its themes and grandeur, it is very anti-Trek in it's characterisations and overall tone. Kirk is more a dick in TMP than he ever was in the new movie. And for the record, I'm by no means an Abrams fanboy. I take his stuff as I find it. I think he has an eye for producing slick, quick, involving, audience-friendly entertainment (and I mean that in a good bay - to me, he's the antithesis of Bay in that he UNDERSTANDS populist entertainment but doesn't COMPLETELY FUCK IT UP to a point the audience couldn't care even if they wanted to). I never saw much of Alias; I know he had nothing much to with Lost after the pilot; I did like Mission Impossible III (it was the only one of those films that actually WAS a Mission Impossible film, rather than Tom Cruise Is A Bond-Knockoff) ; and I'm interested to see where he goes next. It blows my mind how you think there's some Cult Of JJ, and that AICN is his Ministry Of Truth. You do need to get out more, my friend.
-
No, not decades after release, THAT THE YEAR OF RELEASE. Theatrical box office year of the release. That's the numbers. The notion of Jar Jar Abrams's CRAP TERK being the most sucessfuil St movie ever made is bullshit. It's propaganda crap to boast "credibility" to him. Thing is, even Paramount admited that the box office was lower then expectations. Yes, the movie made money, and it can be considered sucessful enough that merits a sequel made, that much is true. The movie did bank. But it isn't the hugh box office juggernaut it was hailed at. That was bullshit. For budget to box office ratio, TMP, Wrath Of Kahn, Search Of Spock and The Voyage Home are more, much sucessful movies at he box office. And better movie too, that should go without saying.And here's the thing, which it seems many like you do not understand: I'M NOT A ST FANBOY! I'm not a trekkie! I do admire the TOS, but that's it, I don't know details. Most episodes i only watched once. My knowledge and interest in ST bascially resumes to
-
No, not decades after release, THAT THE YEAR OF RELEASE. Theatrical box office year of the release. That's the numbers. The notion of Jar Jar Abrams's CRAP TERK being the most sucessfuil St movie ever made is bullshit. It's propaganda crap to boast "credibility" to him. Thing is, even Paramount admited that the box office was lower then expectations. Yes, the movie made money, and it can be considered sucessful enough that merits a sequel made, that much is true. The movie did bank. But it isn't the hugh box office juggernaut it was hailed at. That was bullshit. For budget to box office ratio, TMP, Wrath Of Kahn, Search Of Spock and The Voyage Home are more, much sucessful movies at he box office. And better movie too, that should go without saying.And here's the thing, which it seems many like you do not understand: I'M NOT A ST FANBOY! I'm not a trekkie! I do admire the TOS, but that's it, I don't know details. Most episodes i only watched once. My knowledge and interest in ST bascially resumes to
-
No, not decades after release, THAT THE YEAR OF RELEASE. Theatrical box office year of the release. That's the numbers. The notion of Jar Jar Abrams's CRAP TERK being the most sucessfuil St movie ever made is bullshit. It's propaganda crap to boast "credibility" to him. Thing is, even Paramount admited that the box office was lower then expectations. Yes, the movie made money, and it can be considered sucessful enough that merits a sequel made, that much is true. The movie did bank. But it isn't the hugh box office juggernaut it was hailed at. That was bullshit. For budget to box office ratio, TMP, Wrath Of Kahn, Search Of Spock and The Voyage Home are more, much sucessful movies at he box office. And better movie too, that should go without saying.And here's the thing, which it seems many like you do not understand: I'M NOT A ST FANBOY! I'm not a trekkie! I do admire the TOS, but that's it, I don't know details. Most episodes i only watched once. My knowledge and interest in ST bascially resumes to
-
OK, sorry for what happened above, i don't know how it happened. And beleive it, it was still incomplete, allow me to finish.As i was saying, my knowledge of ST, which is hardly encyclopedic, resumes to TOS. but the point is, i don't need to be a trekiie to see what kidn of bullshit the Abrams movie is. I don't need much insight into ST to know what a travestry Abrams made. And the fact i watched Star Wars and Top Gun makes it easy to see where Abrams's major influences were for his so-called Star Trek movie. The movie is a lot of things,but Star Trek certainly is not it's primary goal. Nor it's secondary goal, for that matter. Take away the name of the characters, of the ship, planets and teleports, and all you get is some other completly different beast whose accurate name should had been FELICITY'S STAR WARS.And there is the thing, the most important thing of all: remove all the notions of Star trek, and you get is a terrible dumb stupid unimaginative, badly mad,e badly constructed illogically ploted filled with anoying cliched character piece of crap. The movie is an epic failure of galactic proportions. It is one of the worst dumbest stupid scripts i ever seen filmed. It's Michael Bay stupid. It puts the retard on retard. The failure of the movie as a movie, as a story, is collosal! Epic fail indeed! The whoel mvoie is the victory of the advertizement department and blind cult of personality that a salesman build on himself among the geekry then anythign else. Certainly there's little to call cinema to that crap.
-
I would love to go to some of these events but alas I don't live there. Sucks that the studios don't realize that they might make as much money now as they did when some of these movies originally released if they would just create pristine prints and show them in great theaters, but alas there are hardly any great theaters left, all are now chopped up theaters or built from the ground up to have too many screens with too little soundproofing. I remember seeing No Country for Old Men and some dumb ass movie was playing next door with WAY TOO LOUD of a soundtrack so much that it was almost too distracting.
-
that is a fact.
-
But if you are complaining about Abrams trek then you are indeed a Fan Boy. Give it up, get over it, and stop your whining. You don't like it, don't watch it. Apparently you watched it. There was tons of information about it before it came out to show whether or not you would like it or not. I haven't read all of your posts but to be honest, I'm mortal so trim it down there captain length. And if your gonna type that many posts then at least try not to have 3 to 4 misspelled words and bad grammar in each sentence huh. The majority believe that Abrams did something pretty impressive, he restarted the franchise using everybody's favorite characters and set the stage for what could be a complete renaissance of many of the stories we all know. The movie was Fun, and with few exceptions treated the characters and story with respect. Far more so than Nemesis or Star Trek 5 did I might add. So just deal with it, k?
-
I still think this is the best one . Got it on DVD and still enjoy watching it. I think they tweaked some of the special effects. But it only improved it.
-
Roddenberry himself said what is on screen is fact what is in books is fiction. That made it easier for the writers.
-
... even thought I think (hope!) you were addressing Asimov and not myself!
-
A bald villain you didn't care much about and his tribal brothers and their connection to Romulans...Pointless action sequences piled on top of pointless action sequences...melodrama that sits uneasily with the rest of the film (for different reasons, though).
Almost any episode of TNG was better than Nemesis or Trek 09. And Insurrection was bad too, but not quite. It at least felt like TNG. -
Otherwise it wouldn't be an ALTERNATE TIMELINE. Beyond that I'm not even going to bother to explain it to you. You're just wrong. Period.
-
I totally agree that JJTrek was very similar to Nemesis. In fact if I'm not careful I often type Shinzon when I meant to type Nero. They were both unconvincing villains with extremely weak motivations for wanting to destroy Earth.
-
1. Star Trek The Wrath of Khan
2. Star Trek 2009
3. Star Trek The Motion Picture
3. Star Trek First Contact
4. Star Trek The Undiscovered Country
5. Star Trek The Search for Spock
6. Star Trek The Voyage Home
7. Star Trek Generations
8. Star Trek Insurrection
9. Star Trek The Final Frontier
10. Star Trek Nemesis
-
I am not getting into WHY I liked ST 09, and I take offense if you lump me into the group of "retards" who liked the movie, we have spoken on this before and thats as far as I am going with that.Now, the one thing I am gonna say, is that the idea of Kirk's mother being with Captain Pike, is, a horrible idea. You talk about all the convenient coincidences in ST 09, well, that is exactly what that would be, and it would be cheesy and stupid. Oh he loses his dad at birth and his mom just happens to wind up being with the captain of the enterprise, which he becomes captain of? So in a sense he would become captain because of who his daddy is. Stupid, really stupid my friend. Oh and btw, I dont know where you got the notion from the original series that kirk is a gentleman, but you really missed the mark there. At times I will agree he was, but for the most part he was a brash, rule breaking, fuck anything that movies, almost renegade commander. He STOLE the fucking Enterprise for christ's sake (in ST III) were it not for the fact that he saved the planet in ST IV he would have been court martialed. Starfleet puts up with him because he is the best at what he does, but a gentleman? Not by a longshot, and this is coming from a person who IS a Trekkie.
-
Jun 19, 2010 3:51:16 PM CDT
Successful Star Trek Movies - Attendance numbers, NOT Box Office
by rogueleader66
I am only going to do the top 5, too lazy to do them all#1 Star Trek 09 - 32,868,245#2 Star Trek TMP - 32,772,293#3 Star Trek IV:TVH - 29572,273#4 Star Trek II:TWOK - 26,841,144#5 Star Trek III:TSFS - 22,759,240If you adjust for inflation, then the highest grossing Trek movie is indeed TMP, but that is international numbers. Domestically it is Trek 09. But in the end, Trek 09 beats out TMP, because more people saw it.The preceding was not a statement of quality, merely numbers.
-
If you calculate for inflation, ST II, III, IV, V and VI, all did not make as much as ST 09. Again, not a statement of quality, simple numbers.BTW I am a Trekkie, and loved (most of) the first 6 films. Just tired of seeing the banter back and forth of what movie was more successful (See post above).Asimov, sorry my friend, but as much as you would have liked ST 09 to NOT be the success it actually was, it was bigger than you would like it to be. This isn't even a matter open to debate, the numbers don't lie my friend.
-
We're STILL in a recession, and not all of us can afford to get in. LOL.
Ain't that a BITCH !? -
If you hate New Trek so much, why waste so much time bashing it? You're just a typical hater. Trek 09 was rated very highly on RT and did well at the box office. Can't say the same for Nemesis.
-
The new CG effects were only rendered in standard definition. Only the original theatrical release is available in HD, never mind any film prints. Daren Dochterman, who worked on the digital effects and also did the title sequence and other effects for the fan series Star Trek Phase II (formerly New Voyages), has said he'd be interested in working on a proper HD version if Paramount would pony up. The film needs a proper restoration for HD, because if you look at that DVD they clearly didn't use a Lowry-type dust/scratch clean-up process. Paramount let Robert Wise do a director's edition, which is great, but they only saw it as a DVD release and didn't future-proof it, which is lame.
-
and Blue Ray in the Star Trek movie collections box set.
-
If you calculate for inflation, ST II, III, IV, V and VI, all did not make as much as ST 09. Again, not a statement of quality, simple numbers.BTW I am a Trekkie, and loved (most of) the first 6 films. Just tired of seeing the banter back and forth of what movie was more successful (See post above).Asimov, sorry my friend, but as much as you would have liked ST 09 to NOT be the success it actually was, it was bigger than you would like it to be. This isn't even a matter open to debate, the numbers don't lie my friend.
-
Thanks for the info. One of the things I enjoy most about the Director's Cut is the addition of more character footage...something which should NEVER have been cut from the theatrical version in the first place, as it is the characters we love more than anything. I personally feel the director's cut is the definitve version (just as I feel the same way about the Final Cut editionb of BLADE RUNNER). I do hope Paramount revisits the films, as that is the only version I'd ever buy on Blu-Ray. (Although I probably WOULD go see the theatrical cut if it were playing in 70mm on the east coast.)
-
it is the highest grossing one of the bunch. Kind of hard to dispute that no mater how much ya twist it.
-
and it's rated very highly at RT. That's the God of movie rating sites according to Toy Story 3.
-
That was a bygone era, Asimov. The majority of kids these days don't take inspiration from television or movies to make themselves better, even if the material is made to be inspiring. They're more worried about their iPhone and their Facebook account, or playing World of Warcraft and OMFG and ad nauseum.
But I agree, TOS was a bright light. Look at Wrath of Khan and Kirk's showdown with Khan, back and forth over comm channels, ship to ship... no hand-to-hand in-person fisticuffs crap you'd see in, say, Nemesis. TNG the series, like TOS, was incredible in so many ways... it's a shame the TNG movies, and now the JJ reboot, just equates to whiz-bang SFX. -
Post-production was notoriously rushed because a lot of production problems didn't get solved till it was too late, so the theatrical version is really the rough cut, and not the way George Lucas retroactively says that about Star Wars but for real, with an incomplete sound mix and scenes that would have been fine tuned if there had been time for preview screenings.
-
The new Trek movie had great visuals AND a good story. The opening sequence ends with two people talking from ship to ship, and it's very emotional. They also can't see each other.
-
I actually enjoyed JJ Abrams Star Trek as purely a popcorn flick. What some here have said is correct, Nero reminded me too much of Shinzon in that they both were so angry, so full of rage and wanted revenge against people who did absofuckinglutely nothing to them. As I said here before, what the fuck did Picard do to deserve such hate from Shinzon, he didn't even know Shinzon existed.He should've been mad at the people that cloned his ass! And Nero, dumb, dumb fuck that he was, that motherfucker could've saved his people by warning them of what was coming or even ASKING Spock to to get there quicker. In The Voyage Home, at least Kirk went back, got the whales and saved future Earth from destruction. Why would you choose revenge over saving your whole planet from being destroyed, which would eliminate your reason for revenge. At least Khan had a good reason to be pissed off to no end at Kirk.
-
Nero wasn't a Vulcan. He was Romulan. I don't get what your saying at all.
-
If my message got a little jumbled up, I apologize. I'm just saying that maybe Nero should've just asked Spock to try and foligure out a way to get back where they were from and save Romulus, or mabe he could've warned his people of their possible future destruction, and they would've had over a century to prepare for what might come. I know their wouldn't have been a movie, lol, but it would at least make more sense. I don't think I said that Nero was a Vulcan anywhere in my post, but perhaps I should have put the first sentence of my second paragraph at the end of the first one.
-
Nero hated Spock because he felt Spock was responsible for destroying his planet in the future. That's why he waited to capture Spock when he came through the wormhole.Spock was trapped on the ice planet right before Nero went to attack Vulcan.
-
...I was there the day Gene hired him. Gene wasn't convinced, but I told him this is our guy.
-
Look at how much ST1-6 cost to make then compare the profits adjusted for inflation or otherwise to see how little money ST11 actually returned to the Paramount mothership.....
Whatever money a film makes only approx 55% ever makes it back to the studio who made it.Not that it means much as ST11 was by far the worst movie in the series & lacked any sense of story telling, science, humantiy or any other quality you care to mention that Roddenberry was so passionate about!!! -
Nicholas Meyer talked a bit at the beginning, interviewed by a guy from a Star Trek website. No huge revelations, obviously, but (in response to a question about AICN) he talked a little about how he sees the current process of making big blockbuster movies as passionless and disconnected from the story--the story is just some necessary thing you have to have. When he was asked if he would consider directing the next ST movie, he said, "I'd have to see the script." He seemed like a nice enough guy, although he is clearly used to being worshipped in crowds like this.
Speaking of the crowd, it was pretty good sized. It wasn't sold out by any means (the theater was maybe 2/3 to 3/4 full?) but there were definitely quite a few people there. There was a line in front an hour before it started. The crowd definitely went crazy at all the expected parts: lots of cheering and applause, laughter at all the jokes. You could tell everyone there had seen the movie a million times.
The print of the film was a mixed bag. Someone came out at the beginning and explained that this was the only remaining 70 mm print in existence, and it was done by a company that is notorious for using a process that fades over time. As a result, the color on the film was pretty bad. Blacks were quite red, and overall the look was extremely warm and washed out. Some parts were worse than others. On the other hand, it was for the most part unscratched, sharp and clear. I haven't seen ST2 on blu-ray, but I know there is a tendency for restorations of old movies to crank the sharpness way up artificially. It was nice to see such a natural looking, clean print with an appropriate amount of grain and texture. If it weren't for the color problems, it would have been a great experience--and they promised that next week's print of ST 3 wouldn't have these issues. I should also mention that the sound was a little shrill: the highest tones of the noises of the phaser fire and the transporters were actually painful to listen to. But of course this is an old print of a 28 year old movie.
I won't say much about the film itself: we've all seen it. It's certainly a little cheesier than I remember it being when I was 15, but overall it's a great time--it knows when to be whimsical, when to be serious, when to pull the emotional strings, and when to build the dramatic tension. Montalban and Shatner are both great at chewing scenery and going over the top.
Overall I had a great time, and will definitely be going back next week for ST 3 (which I'll maybe give a similar report on). I only wish I'd known about TMP last week! -
... of geting ass raped by Jar Jar Abrams, and asks for seconds, because that's what slaves do.
-
I'm certain that what is considered the Star Trek universe also includes the stuff in the books. Certainly the TV show and the movies don't adress detailed info about the characters, the races and the planets that you can find. They even created an encyclopadia about Star Trek, so much stuff was invented for that universe.And i'm sure you can make a Star Trek movie telling the story of young Kirk and spock without resorting to such cheap tricks and the "paralele universe2 nonsense that Abrams and Co pule dout of their asses to cover up their complete disinterest and disrespect for Roddenberry's creation. Nolan mannaged that quite well, he did his own thing while still being respectful to the Batman mythos in his movies without needing to pull such cheapm tricks as Jar Jar Abrams did. And Nolan's movies sghow proper and actual respect for Batman, while Abram's movie only shows respect for Star Wars, with some lip service to Wrath Of Kahn so not to alienate too much the audiences. And as for the majority, well, it's as if majorities have enver been wrong before. Need i bring up George W. Bush as example of that? There's a quote atributed to Hitler that says it's easlier to fool the masses of millions then the individuals. Jar Jar Abram's CRAP TREK seems to help prove that as true.
-
And what did Spock do other than try to save Romulus? And I thought it was made clear that Romulus was destroyed by a Supernova that Spock tried to stop. Also, once Nero was in the past, he had all the tools to change the history of his planet, by alerting the Romulan Empire of what would happen, he never had to see Spock again if he didn't want to, and he could've at least made sure his people had a shot to survive, without all the revenge stuff.
-
Playing by the Jar Jar Abrams's WHATEVER TREK movie it sets itself, Winona endign up with Commander Pake makes in fact a lot of sense. The movie takes pains to show that both George Kirk and Pike are the most honourable men in the whole movie. They are the move's paradong of virtues. And the movie states, Pike was a very old time friend of Kirk dad, back from the time of the academy. It's fair to say them, that Pike would had been a family friend of the Kirks. And after Kirk dad dies, Pike would certainly be the closest person for Winona. And if Winona once choces well with Kirk dad, and Pike being the next hounarable men, hios euql in all respect, wouldn't winona also fall for such a gentleman of high calliber as Pike is? Wouldn't that make much more sense then to have Winona marry some materialistic bastard that woud constantly get into fights with Lil Kirk? with her hubby death, she would lose all capacity for reasoning and her choice in men? I call that bullshit. Again, Bob Orci, the other clown and Jar Jar Abrams are so stupid, they couldn't even understand the consequences of the universe they themselves created. they are so locked up in following the cliches they can't even see the obvious and logical narrative route for their own created world.The idea of making a Star Trek movie set during the Starfleet Academy days is great. An imaginative writer and filmmaker could had gone to town with it. But what Jar Jar Abrams and his assclowns did was pile it up with the most obnoxious obvvious cliches imaginable and then shove as much Star Wars they could into their movie, which is, in fac,t and as many have pointed out, nothing more then a remake of STAR TREK: NEMESIS. Which was in itself a less then brillant remake of THE WRATH OF KAHN, but which had to good taste of at least not shove Star Wars into it.And thenthere is the biggest betrayal of it all: in Jar Jar Abram's version, the characters are defeatists. Ther eis nevet once an atempt to correct thw wrong done by Nero when he created or plunged in into that paralel universe. In the TOS, the Enterprise crew would never rest until they would fix the problem, but in this Jar Jar Abrams's imaginionless version, they just content in killing Nero and that's it. They don't even taempt to bring him to justice, they just ask him for his surrendal, instead of teleporting his ass to the brig and tthen send him to trial. They try nothing but kill his ass, just like what Nero was doing, killing everybody's ass. Actually, Nero soemtiems showed some mercy, he didn't outright killed Pike after torture, not he just thrown Kirk to the pit instead he just punched him for his pleasure.Really, the movie is a big ol' mess. What's onscreen is nothing less then a first draft shoved without revision to the screen. a filemd first draft writen on a napkin. Well, actually, it's better that it's jsut that, because if that is the result of several rewerites, then the incompetents that wrote and made that movie are even worst then i think they are. And i don't think too highly of them to begin with.The movie is just whoel wrong. Whole of it is wrong. There's not a single minute of screentime where i can't find a minor of major problem in it. And i don't evne need to be a trekkie to feel that way. And that's the whole point. Even as a movie in itself it's just wrong.
-
you obviously don't come from or know any of the millions apon millions of women who marry a great guy and then for whatever reason end up with a fucking asshole in thier second marriage. There are many reasons for it, but unltimately they think they are doing the right thing when they marry them and the fear of being alone for the rest of your life can have strange effects on people. Your comments show you have no idea what it's like. It's one of the most beliveable parts of the movie. It's very common for sons to become angry, unruley and lost souls just like Kirk when losing a father or not having a father figure. This is what makes Pike such an important person in Kirk's life and future. You are both wrong on this "problem" you have with the movie. If you like it or not, that's a fact.
-
The Brewrie will always beone of my favorite retard moments in Jar Jar Abram's movie. This guy, this Abrams guy, he had 160 million dollars to play with. This is the largest budget ever allocated to a Star Trek movie ever, even counting inflaction. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, the movie which in the minds of many is this huge bloated mage budget epic movie, even that costed less then Abrams' movies, and yet looks 100 biggers bigger and epic. And without even needing to explode a supernova and two planets!But the thing that makes me laugh is that with all the fucking money he had, Abrams still neeed to go to a beer brewrie to film the engine room?? Every other TOS Star Teek movie made, made with the such small budget compared to JJ's, and still they mananged to build their own engine room set and make it look futuristic, as if it's really inside a futuristic spaceship. In Abrams' movie, we ever see the beer vats!! They didn't even bothered to diguise the fuckign beer vats!! how more clueles can you get? What the fuck did they do with the money? What the fuck did they do with whole that money? and i don't evne want to ear about the CGI, because STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, WRATH OF KAHN and SEARCH FOR SPOCK, mannaged to show a lot of very impressive and eye popping special effect by making them the hard way: models and photographic composition. Everything in Abram's movie was done inside a computer. And aren't computers to have supposedly made the special effects cheapper? So, where the fuck the money went? The cast and crew drank the whole beer in that brewrie and had to pay it up from the productions money? They they spent in on cocaine and expensive swedish whore? Whenever i read that JJ Abram's WHATEVER TREK cost 160 million dollars to produce (and that's jsut production money not counting advertizement), all i can think is EPIC MISMANAGEMENT! Made worst by the fact that mostly TV directors are known for being frugal and budget conscious. JJ Abrams is the new Michael Bay, the fucker who overspends on shit that is useless to the story and still looks cheapper then the huge monety spent on. Even Roland Emmerich, untalented hack that he is, can make his buck counts. Bay and Abrams are the worst wasters i ever seen making movies!
-
That's not a great woman who marries a trash guy. If the saying goes that behind a great men there is a great woman, the inverse is true, only a great women marry great men. There is no great women who marry trash fucks. Those are not great women, only ones that play ther part without being so.And about Winona Kirk, this is suppsoed to be Star Trek, where mankind is more cultured and advanced,a nd where a real honest and intelligent woman would never make such a fucking mistake because the good guys would not be too hard to find, and right next to her she would had Pike, a guy in all ways an equal to her dearly departed George. So, no, you can try, but defend Jar Jar Abrams and Bob roci and othe other clown's dramatic decision is not good, it doesn't work. The truth of the matter is, those 3 assclwons didn't though things throught. They just made characters who, time and again, act like retards. For in their quest for melodrama, they forget to create real drama.
-
... STAR TREK: A TIME FOR QUITTERS.
-
and intelligence? Fuck all judging by you biasing your whole argument on a cute (but unture) saying. But let's go with that for a moment. Even great, intelligent women (and men) make mistakes. I'd love to see how great your judgement is when you lose someone you are married to and loved dearly or live in a family where step parent and child don't get along. You are totally detatched from reality as it is. I feel sorry for you, man. You clearly have either mental health issues or are stupid as fuck. Good luck on even getting a wife, let alone a great and/or intelligent one.
-
...when a gila monster bit something it wouldn't let go until sundown. Just putting that out there.
-
And i would say you know nothing of great women, if you think a great one would marry a shit. What is it, you are tal,ing out of your own hopes and expectations? You dream a great woman will chose you, like some dumb movie from Disney? I'm fucking up your dream?And really, you tell me i'm detatched from reality? Well, i am, from WHITE TRASH REALITY. You got that right, buddy.Really, you calling me mental? Get yourself a mirror, friend!
-
And to rest your worries, i call retards to those who totally loved Jar Jar Abrams's NOT TREK and think there's no flaws and problems with the movie and believ eit a great movie and a great achievement in filmmaking. You have constantly affirmed, that evne tohuhg you ended up enjoying the movie, you are well aware that the movie has many problems you cannot be blind to. As such, you don't belong to the party fo retards. Those ar ejust the idiots who think the movie is great and filled to the grills with great things and there's nothing problematic or wrong with it. You are not one of those.Satisfied? Now, i don't want you ever caugh you making that same mistake again, OK? Whenever i'm talkign about the Jar Jar Abrams' SHIT TREK fanboy retards, it's not you, so there's no inference from you have about, ok? Got that clear, friend? If i catch you making that same mistake again, you will get a shellacking to teach you right to doubt yourself again.
-
The physical therapy must be working - we all wish you a speedy recovery from whatever the fuck happened to you.
-
...comes to mind. Can't really say why. Oh wait, yes I can.
-
that didn't even make any sense! "What is it, you are tal,ing out of your own hopes and expectations? You dream a great woman will chose you, like some dumb movie from Disney? I'm fucking up your dream?". That has nothing to do with what we are even talking about.
Ok, I get english is not your first language, but you so have the time on your hands it seems to get better so we can at least understand you. While I'm here, what's with all this great women stuff anyway? What makes you think she was even a great and intelligent woman? Where was that in the movie? Oh yeah that's right. You are baising it all on a saying you heard once. Then again you did use a Hitler quote above in a previous post to defend your argument. I'm mind boggled, maaaan. We are done here. -
...you remind me most of Lady and the Tramp. With a single strand of spaghetti you could charm the world. Me, I'm like Dumbo, just a little elephant. But I got ears, man. I can fly.
-
yours and Bob Orci's post made me laugh, man. Wanna be the lady to my tramp? xxx
-
...it's what Walt always wanted.
-
Stop giving advise to others and get yourself to film school and learn scriptwriting.Really, your CRAP TREK script, in five minutes anybody can come up with a better way to tell that story then what you come up with while spending months writing it. You movie is stupid, stupid, stupid!
-
Oh, you want to pretent it doesn't make any sense? You know what's that called? A defense mechanism.Hey, look who's here, it's Bob Orci! It's your oportunity to suck his dick, what are you waiting for?
-
Jun 20, 2010 12:39:28 PM CDT
"From Napkin To The Screen Without Bothering With A Script:
by asimovlives
Writing for The Movies" by Roberto Orci.
-
... about what i perceive as problems in the story of Abram's latest movie. And for my trouble,s i never got an answer. It figures, though. All that Orci bothers to do here is this haiku bullshit posts he does. He must think it's the height of wit or something like that. Too cool for two phrases, he is. Which shows in his fucking scrips. Yeah, you are very witty, Bob! You are a veritable Gore Vidal. You are so Truman Capote!Witless coward!
-
...that the gila monster would only let loose its bite at the sound of thunder.
-
Is that a real indian legend?
-
...but my favorite legend about the gila monster is of more recent (though still very old) vintage. It was believed that the gila monster had no anus, and because of that and the fact that it ate a diet primarily composed of rotted meat, that its poison was in its breath. By the way there has never been a confirmed death related to the bite of a gila monster, except for a number of teens who were devoured by a giant gila monster in 1959 before a budding rock singer killed the beast while rescuing his French girlfriend and handicapped little sister.
-
I answered your question, and referred u to the extensive q&a I did at trekmovie.com, but u can't be blamed for not remembering. Was it a boating accident, or autoerotic asphyxiation?
-
Please shut up.
-
Your answers, if one could call that haiku bullshit you wrote, were not answers at all. Adn what does "trekmovie.com" has to do with this? The asnwers should be here. You posted nothing of interes,t insight or even as answer. All you did was your usual "i'm so witty" crap. If that is what you call answers, then there's no doubt why your scripts are so bad and dumb.And fuck's sakes, stop projeting into others your own kinky shit. "autoerotic asphyxiation" is the shit that automatially popoed to your mind? I knw many of you Holywood types are a bunch of degenerates, but you didn't need to advertize yours so readly here. Thanks for ruining my appetite on my dinner time, hackboy! First he fucks up intelligent SF fiction twice (THE ISLAND and STAR TREK) and now he ruins my appetite! You are a walking cancer, hackboy!
-
"No one reads your posts"You just disproved that, haven't you?
-
Spock Prime tells Kirk that the supernova is threatening Romulus. They spend weeks putting together a plan to stop the supernova. Then he says something like: "As I was traveling to the star, the unthinkable happened." Unthinkable? Hadn't they been expecting it?
-
... to my query in "trekmovie.com", just so i can acccertain if that is not another one of your own created non-existing mythical creatures, like your talent for scriptwriting. Where should i find your reply? In that saction for syncophancy called "Fan Reviews" or someplace elese? Give me a link if what you say is true. Provide me mroe of way of asnwwers to what i asked before other then the haiku bullshit you posted back then at AICN. Dazzle me with your insights and metodical argumentation.
-
did you trip with a lollipop in your mouth, or dd the toilet seat fall on your head while you were getting a drink?
-
or did you fall asleep face first in your kiddie pool?
-
just have your nurse search the site for my name, and all the articles in which I answer questions will come up.
-
You know what is even wrost? The mechanics of why a supernova happens is very well cunderstaood today. Imagine how much so it will be in the 23rd century. It's like comparing what was understood of electricity at the time of Benjamin Franklyn and today. The supernova stuff in the 09's TREK is again the same usual stuff in the rest of the movie's script, it's just random stuff thrown in to advance to plot without any rhyme or reason. They just pulled some stuff in a hurry and run with it. It alsos shows, in a spectacular fashion, how little this two clowns who wrote the movie know of astronomy. Star Trek always had a lot of silly mind-boggling technobabble, but the astronomy shownj in the movies were consistent to what was known at the time when the shows were produced. Hell, TOS was evne oneof the first to show, with the knolwedge of the time, a convincing black hole in a fictional presentation. In 09's TREKa, god only knows what the writers want to say when they say stuff such as wormholes, supernova, or even planet!
-
I don't see your better story -- but, c'mon, you the suspense is killing us -- did an airplane you were on depressurize and nobody helped you with your mask?
-
Was it wormhole or black hole in the movie? I'm confused. But so was the movie, for that matter. A black hole that acted as a wormhole that then changed back to a black hole, depending on what was needed for the plot to move on.
-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11745-could-black-holes-be-portals-to-other-universes.html
-
Save your "wit" for your syncophants who lap it al up. People with the intelligence supeior of an amoeba will find your shit lacking.Andwhere's your replies to my previous query? You said it's in the "trekmovie.com", so where is it? You can't provide a link from your own site? You can't evnen do that cortesy? Or you can't because you are unable? And what's the deal with the sissors, dude? Another of your kinky fantasies? You really need to stop projecting your kinky shit to others, man, it's disturbing!OK, dude, simple answer: can you provide with a link or not?
-
Let me see if i can be really clear: WHERE IN "trekmovie.com"? Link would help, thank you very much.
-
type a T, then an R, then an E, then a K, then you repeat the process with the word MOVIE and then you type a period and the word COM. GET IT?
-
go read them
-
you injured your spinal chord trying to blow yourself?
-
Dude, trekthemovie is a whole website with lots of pages within. I find the syncophants plac,e the fan reviews, and there's other stuff about news, and etc. Whrre SPECIFICALLY did you post your reply to my answers? You should know, you them there. The specific place too hard for you tom tell me where it is? You can't even do that kindness? I mean, if it's there, why wouildn't you give the direct link already? I would, if i was so proud of my answers.
-
under the search box, your rehab therapists types my name, and then you click through the twenty or so pages. You seem to have no trouble wasting time with idiotic post after idiotic post here, so now go use that unharnessed energy over there if you really have questions.
-
"i did scores of Q&A's go read them"Oh yeah, i did lots of stuff, it's somewhere there, look the needdle in the haystack! Yeah, i shall call that the needle inthe haystack argument, where you claim you did something, but it's in some remote place hard to find, and it's the other guy's fault if he can't find it.Again i'm reminded that you wrote Star Trek '09.
-
... and i'm still puzzled at what that has to do with your movie, because frankly, that stuff in the movie that made taime travel, you guys call it black hole but treat it as a wormhole which is then a black hole again. The NewScientist article is about real science, not about what yoyu guys put in the mvie, so again i'm puzzled why you even bother showing that. It certainly helps none of your arguments.
-
so what does the article say? Black hole could be wormholes. You're puzzled because you are recovering nicely. Did you stand up on a roller coaster?
-
"I'm not gonna go search the site for you"Of course you are not. You are using a old trick, the "i did this it's out there, soemwhere in the middle of that whoel pile". It's the neddle in the haystack strategy. You claimed you did something, but it's in some place very hard to find, so the fault is the one who can't find it instead of the one who claims he did.Tell me another one, friend. But you know what, i'm willing to start anew, so that all this can be fresh. I'll do this, i'll, ask one question per post, and i'll wait for your reply. One question, one reply. OK? I'll try to go for more direct and simple questions. What say you? And i'm going to be civil, for now. The least i can do.
-
You used the NewScience article to go for a mixed nature of the black holes/worholes. but in the movie they are specifically mentioend as black holes. Why did you go with that instead of, say, creating a new whole phenomenum? Since red matter is your own created substance, it could create a new phenomenum which had been unobserved beforehand. Why did you do with the more common and better know and understood black holes instead?
-
in their various amazing articles and books on the matter speculate that it might be possible to avoid the singularity at the center of a black hole if the hole itself is rotating, but you would not be able to come out into the universe you left, but could possibly arrive at another.
-
was more interesting.
-
... so you had total control over it's properties. Thus, it could create a whoel new phenomemum which you could do anythignwith it, and create something which could called, say, Red Hole. The Red hole could be whatever you wanted, it could merge the properties of wormholes and black holes. Instead, you went with somethign which is already well established in real astronomy and in Star Trek's astronomy. Why didn't you do a Red Hole instead?
-
to make the most successful well reviewed Trek ever.
-
I'm asking politely.
-
why not use as much genuine theoretical physics as possible. Even red matter was inspired by the concept called "dark" matter.
-
You can say that, man. Right now, i'm not here to judge, just to get answers, just to understand.
-
Jun 20, 2010 4:33:44 PM CDT
Boborci, believe me, i never had a problem with red matter
by asimovlives
;any people have complaiend aobut that, but i never did that about Red Matter. It's fail game in SGF that this impossible stuff is used in Sf narratives. Red matter is your movie's mcguffin. That's cool. Accepting it or not is the audience's problems, not yours. The problem in your movie, though, is the inconsistency of it's properties.As for te use of fringue science, that's fine and dandy, but you need at least a cursory explanation put into the narrative, or else it's al just magic happening without any reason. Don't you agree?
-
then every time Kirk fired a phaser or beamed down to a planet, I'd have to explain that, too. That is why sticking closely to known speculation is preferable.
-
... because phasers are already estabilshed not only in ST canon but in Sf canon for decades already. Everybody, even nonSF fans know what a phaser is. Red matter, however, is your entire new invention, it's your own original creation, you would need to have at least a miniumum explanation to it. I'll remind you how they pulled the Genesis Device thing in Star Trek 2, at least they provided a cursory explanation, because it weas the thing invented specifically for their movie. Like red matter was for yours. A little considtency, soem rules for your own red matter creation would had gone a long way. You know what i mean?
-
which scientist currently speculate may provide most of the mass of the universe. A black hole is considered one of the densest objects in the universe ( much like yourself), so if you were to go
-
you'd actually be able to piece together our thinking, because those, too, are established concepts.
-
The question is: why didn't widow Winona married with Pike?In your movie, Geroge Kirk is shown as a great upstanding man. Winona chosed well for her husband such a godo man. The other really good man in the movie is Commander Pike, who was a long time friend of George since the academy, so you said. He must had been a friend of the Kirk family. Thus, being he such a great guy and an equal to Geroge and already well known by Winona, why then she became dumb and married a good for nothing materialistic jerk who was such a poor stepfather to Kirk he turned him into a rebelious punk ass? Why did Winona chosed so poorly when befroe she chosed so well? Adn why didn't she chosed well again and went with Pike?
-
Jun 20, 2010 4:47:17 PM CDT
Boborci, and please, as i refrain from bashign comentaries for t
by asimovlives
... i'd like you mirror my attiture and stop with the smart-arsery. I keep this civil, why not you too?
-
"Pike is gay."Cute. Now, a real answer, please?
-
no where is it stated that she re-married. For all you know, that's Kirk's uncle's car.
-
I think I'm playing along rather nicely. And this is called a talk-back, right?
-
... that's Kirk's stepfather. So why didn't Winona chosed better? It's not like she didn't had chosed better before, right?
-
therefore, unknown if voice in the car is stepfather. Those are the rules. I didn't make them up.
-
... you didn't though of that, just say so. Please, just say so. Being direct is better then an atempt at a smart ass coment. At least it's honest, and honesty always makes you look good. I'd rather respect an honest "we never though of that" asnwer then some atempt at being witty and a quipster.
-
what evidence is there that he is no good? After all, the only time you hear the man is when young kirk is STEALING HIS CAR?
-
Jun 20, 2010 4:54:18 PM CDT
Boborci, so of the owner of the car is not Kirk's stepfather....
by asimovlives
... then Kirk as a 12 years old he indulged in grand theft auto of stranger's cars?
-
What's the point of that?
-
Explain.
-
I don't know. Kirk seems like the kind of guy, that no matter what age he was, he might do something like, I don't know, steal the enterprise (like he did in Trek 3).
-
In ST3 he stole the enterpeise to do a greater god and when other opetiosn failed. What was the greater good he would achive by stealing a car as a young deliquent?
-
... when in fact you ar enot even bothering to give hoenst asnwers. Again, i ask you to give honest truthful answers, instead of atempts at quips. Honest replies would make you look good. Honesty goes a long way. Believe it, lots of people are reading this, not just the talkbackers who reply.
-
Kirk got his son killed to save a man who gave his life willingly.
-
The death of the son was accidental, it wasn't planed and premeditated, was it?
-
Kirk in your movie borders on the obnoxious. In fact, it's the actor who plays the character that avoids Kirk from being a complete unsufferable asshole. But as writen, he's unsufferable. If the poitn was to make Kirk as a rebelious type, couldn't his rebelious steak not been shown in another way that wouldn't make kirk look like a slacker?
-
the result of irresponsible behavior on Kirk's part, which did not lead to a greater good but instead to an even trade.
-
"the result of irresponsible behavior on Kirk's part, which did not lead to a greater good but instead to an even trade."The drama in the movie does play that way, no doubt about that.
-
before he was the man we all knew him to be, as many great men are when they were young.
-
"as many great men are when they were young."I'm not too sure about that. all great men alsways show somethign in their early years a hint of their greatness which seperates from others. You can't grown magically from a slacker into great men. The seeds are always there, and they would need to be telegraphed in the story, because it's a story. there had to be an hint of kirk's future greatness. And in your story, Kirk is just a punk ass. He didn't need to be a punk ass. So, why really, why is he such a punk ass? You feared that otherwise, you wouldn't get a character arc?
-
through "only genius level offender..."
-
RECKLESS YOUTH
-
i got another five minutes in me and then my TV show that I'm watching with one eye is over.
-
"Reckless youth", sure, the classic Prince Hal thing, yeah. but even for all Prince Hals who later became Henry Vs, there's always a hint of their greatness, of who they will became. Not much is shown in your movie. Kirk in your movie seems more a fortune's favorite and a senator's son, who got away and raised fast ebcasue heknew the right people and you put coincidences that helped him a lot. Why was that so?
-
that produced him, and partly you are just wrong that there's no sign of his greatness as mentioned above.
-
If Spock was the top best at the vulcan academy, when why is he alsways shown as emotional and making illogical decisions? Why not make him always logical and always detached and unemotional? Wouldn't that reinforce his alieness? Go the other route, make spock ttoally logical, and then by teh end, he gains some "human-like" characteristics, like, as seen in TOS, his wit and sneer? Why not go with that, and instead, you went with the very emotional direction?
-
Vulcan's adopt logic to control their passions. So it seems that you don't start controlled. You learn control. Again, you are meeting all of these characters BEFORE they became the people you knew (or think you knew). now your turn to finally tell us. Did your mom leave you in the car with the windows rolled up on a hot summer day? See you next time!
-
Jun 20, 2010 5:22:49 PM CDT
Boborci, well, the St future is supopsoed to be this bright futu
by asimovlives
... where a Bush would never get produced. don't you think it's wrogn to try to make Kirk into a Bush that done good figure, then? Kirk as Bush, that doesn't sound too right, does it?
-
You just couldn't resist, could you? your lowlife steak transpired, and not for the first time. Too bad everybody to talk to are not your syncophants.
-
It makes sense, actually. To tie in with the constant theme of the movie: complete dumbness.
-
...fucking priceless.
-
1- Bob Orci thinks George W. Bush is the prototypical GREAT MAN that had a rocky start;2- He's superior to provice answers and justification to one of his paying public and geek, unless he happens to a syncophant who kisses his ass;3- He mistakes weaks atempt at witticism for valid replies, and thus create his attitude shown at 2.
-
I'm not suprised that's your conclusion. You were always a very dedicated Orci's syncophant. You would kiss his ass after the takes a dump. The words of a slave (such as you) have no weight.
-
... there was trolling going on, and it was done by Bob Orci. Hollywood big shot trolls! Wow!
-
Portugal abolished slavery in 1761.Slavery was only completly abolished in USA in 1865, more then 100 years afterwards.So, what were youn saying about who was an expert on what?That's the price of ignorance, you make a fool of yourself when you try to play smart-ass. Fucking ass!
-
... and shove it up your fucking ass!
-
Why would i do such a stupid thing?
-
At least learn how to spell Brewery.
-
COMEDY GOLD!!!That little back-n-forth was long overdue, Bob. Glad to see you finally took the opportunity to address your biggest fan.
-
You still yammering on? Dickhead. By the way, now we're even you fucktard.
-
http://www.jordaner.com
Discount activity 40%discount
Supply . Air Jordan Shoes.
Safe Payment.Paypal
Fast Shipment.5-7 days you can receive your order product.
No min order request.You can order only one product
Free Shipping.The price on our website are including everything.
Jordaner,Inc. We are the best online dealer,about all kinds of jordan.run retailing and wholesale trade wordwidely for years. Free Shipping And Customs,Super Sale Off Retailing,With 1Week Delivery to your door.
Thank you for your support.
-
This person which entitles himself "boborci" is as fake as that other one called JettL who claims to be Hollywood's busiest scriptdoctor. None of them are the real thing.
-
He addressed nothing. He offered no replay whatsoever. All he did was an atempt at bad quips. And you know why? He's not real. Erase your illusions, he's as real as JettL.
-
Now you try the grammar nazi tactic? You know how old that shit is, and how desperate? How many other languages besides your native do you know? Smart-ass!
-
I kinda like to think that it was "Q's" Ass Hole that got opend up with Red Matter, and he Shit them out in a Way that Lean Luc could not repair the damage.
-
Star trek Movie when adjusted for inflation. It simply is not. I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but it's not even second.
Rank Title (click to view) Studio Gross / Theaters Opening / Theaters Date
1 Star Trek Par. $257,730,019 4,053 $75,204,289 3,849 5/8/09
2 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Par. $109,713,132 1,956 $16,881,888 1,349 11/26/86
3 Star Trek: First Contact Par. $92,027,888 2,812 $30,716,131 2,812 11/22/96
4 Star Trek: The Motion Picture Par. $82,258,456 1,002 $11,926,421 857 12/7/79
5 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Par. $78,912,963 1,621 $14,347,221 1,621 6/4/82
6 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock Par. $76,471,046 1,966 $16,673,295 1,966 6/1/84
7 Star Trek: Generations Par. $75,671,125 2,681 $23,116,394 2,659 11/18/94
8 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Par. $74,888,996 2,147 $18,162,837 1,804 12/6/91
9 Star Trek: Insurrection Par. $70,187,658 2,677 $22,052,836 2,620 12/11/98
10 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier Par. $52,210,049 2,202 $17,375,648 2,202 6/9/89
11 Star Trek: Nemesis Par. $43,254,409 2,711 $18,513,305 2,711 12/13/02
TOTAL: $1,013,325,741 - - - -
AVERAGE: $92,120,522 2,348 $24,088,206 2,223 -
It comes in third place. -
This will prove it to you
http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm -
An edit option would be nice.
-
Jun 21, 2010 1:55:41 AM CDT
Asimov and Boborci Q+A. this is fucking gold!
by talkbacker with no name
Asimov, I found loads of Q+A's at trekmovie.com in about 1 minute of seraching. You are such a fucking goof haha
-
flattering
-
Jun 21, 2010 3:32:05 AM CDT
All we need now is a video sit down with Asimov and J.J.
by talkbacker with no name
You gotta make it happen, Bob. I'd pay good money to see little Asi keep reffering to a bemused Abrams as "jar jar" throughout his insane questioning while Kurtzman is refraining from smacking him right in his kisser.
-
Because he isn't here. Never was, matter of fact.
-
I would had been cool if it had happened. It didn't. All we got was this Pseudo-Orci giving lame atempts as witticism with his non-replies. Pseudo-Orci should had done his homework bette,r because he doens't act at all liemthe real Orci does. Orci is an hack, no doubt about tha,t but he is far more self-deprecating an dsef-aware of his own limitations, and not much the attention seeking whore that Pseudo-Orci is in here. The real orci is actually a friendly guy, with Pseudo-Orci here is just some attention seeking whore who creates a persona based on more important people, just like JettL.
-
... i would call him Abrams or Mr Abrams, or Jeffrey or Jeff is so chosed. i wouldn't call him JJ because i didn't went to school with him, and i would refrain from calling Jar Jar out of cortesy and as long he would play cool... which i think he would. Well, until he had not exausted all his salesman trick, probably. Though i'm not sure Abrams knows or remembers how to properly dabate an argument nowdays, given the amoutn of syncophancy he has been subjected he might now take it for granted and forgot how to deal with somebody with an opposiing view.
-
... boborci is laughing at you. Because he is not the real roberto Orci. He's just another dude liek you and me, but convinced a bunch of geeks in here he's somebody he isn't. You are just playing on his seeking for attention actions. You have been played. He's laughing at you. Don't give him that satisfaction.
-
This trek fest is all kinds of cool! Cunts!
-
"because I wanted
to make the most successful well reviewed Trek ever."
Congrats on reinvigorating the franchise. But you didn't write Wrath of Khan, bro.
-
"boborci" is not the real Orci, man. Don't feed the troll.
-
Indeed! I'd love to have the oportunity to watch STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, WRATH OF KAHN and SEARCH FOR SPOCK on the big screen, since i never have. I'm envious of those guys who are participating in this feasts. I did watched VOYAGE HOME, THE FINAL FRONTIER and THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY in the theater on their release, though.
-
Indeed! I'd love to have the oportunity to watch STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, WRATH OF KAHN and SEARCH FOR SPOCK on the big screen, since i never have. I'm envious of those guys who are participating in this feasts. I did watched VOYAGE HOME, THE FINAL FRONTIER and THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY in the theater on their release, though.
-
or should i call you psycho-orci?
-
if it makes you feel better to tell your nurse that you were owned on aicn by someone pretending to be me, I'm with ya!
-
Sounds like you need to go back through some old Talkbacks and reacquaint yourself with Boborci's appearances on these boards. Not to mention the fact that Orci has long since confirmed his TB prescence to AICN staff.As for erasing my "illusions", who cares! Watching you two go at it was comedy gold!
-
Are there any movies you like? Because your standards seem awfully high... its Star Trek for crying out loud.
-
Sure he does. All Bay films and he loves, loves, loves Trek '09. Don't let all the mockery of it above fool you: it's constantly in his dvd player.
-
What's this about retiring from AICN? You can always pull a Jet Li and retire from these talkbacks but make your way over to Werewolves on the Moon...Doc P shows up from time to time on Jarv's schlock reviews...
-
Orcus could not resist that one
-
boborci's clueless responses to Asimov's questions explain once and for all why Trek 09 was the dumbest Trek ever made.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 209 total posts 207 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 97 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 144 total posts 77 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 64 total posts 60 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 480 total posts 55 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 53 total posts 50 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 118 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 182 total posts 27 posts