Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

UPDATED!!! 'Do Not Speak Of This!!' Find out What SUPER 8 is!!! What's this lil SUPER 8 piece?


Nordling here.


And with that, J.J. Abrams won the Super Bowl.
If this is what we're getting with SUPER 8, as an avowed 80s Spielberg freak, this has become the most anticipated film of the year for me.  Well, that and THE MUPPETS.  I felt those old goosebumps that I hadn't felt since I saw E.T. or CLOSE ENCOUNTERS.  And yeah, I know that's massive hyperbole.  Can't help it.  In 30 seconds, J.J. Abrams nailed the Spielberg aesthetic.  I must see this film as soon as possible.  Now, Mr. Abrams.  Pretty please?



Nordling, out.





Find the new Super Bowl “Super 8” spot here.





Hey folks, Harry here...

While we wait for the SUPER 8 Super Bowl spot - Hero Complex has an exclusive look on SUPER 8 - great little piece.   Now where's the spot?




Here's a little bit of SUPER 8 flash- goodness...  doesn't tell us much, a bus goes up on one side it looks like.  The mystery continues - how much will be revealed during the SUPER BOWL?  We'll see soon enough...  right?  A twitter friend found this at SUPER8NEWS.Com

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Feb. 6, 2011, 2:34 p.m. CST

    I can't wait...

    by vettebro

    Looking forward to this one.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 2:37 p.m. CST

    I'll tell you...

    by phifty2

    ...I think the Puppy Bowl is fixed. I really do.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Hack alert

    by kwisatzhaderach

    JJ Abrams is back

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 2:45 p.m. CST

    Abrams hasn't really nailed a film quite yet

    by IndustryKiller!

    He has a certain je ne sais quoi to his style I suppose, it's a vague sort of fun, but he drops the ball big and often when it comes to story and plot mechanics. I liked watching the characters going through the motions in Star Trek, but that is literally one of the most over the top plot hole ridden movies I've ever seen. Seriously just story flaw after story flaw. And hi action in close quarters gets awfully choppy. Hopefully he can improve.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 2:47 p.m. CST

    "It's alive and it's Huge!"

    by aphextwin

    There are 5 possibilities: 1. Cthulhu 2. Giant worm theory 3. Voltron 4. Giant Lion 5. Godzilla

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Mystery Box...

    by vettebro

    That's what I like about JJ.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 2:54 p.m. CST

    It's Voltron! It's a Lion! It's making my eyes hurt.

    by OnO

    Seriously Simon Pegg should've begged JJ Abrams to use that Super 8 Teaser. When the train door smashes open they should have Paul emerge with some morinic tag line.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Gee thanks, more aliens?

    by ZackyBoy

    This needs to stop already.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 2:57 p.m. CST

    and yes I did spell moronic incorrectly. The irony.

    by OnO


  • Feb. 6, 2011, 3:06 p.m. CST

    Goonies+Close Encounters+Jurassic Park=?

    by BradZuhl

    Curious to see what this mash-up of JJ Abrams and Spielberg yields. So far it doesn't look too interesting.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 3:15 p.m. CST

    I'll be seeing this...

    by ChickenStu

    JJ Abrams is the new Spielberg. Seriously. I have faith in the guy.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 3:17 p.m. CST

    Okay, so...

    by L.H.Puttgrass

    1. A kid's windy and dirty face... 2. A schoolbus on two wheels... 3. A knocked over camera on a tripod as many feet run by... 4. Oh yeah... no sound. I realize J.J. doesn't want to give anything away concerning this movie, but somehow this is just annoying to me. In the "good old days", some ads would only give you hints about a movie without giving you the plot in a nutshell. This thing, whatever it's supposed to be, is coy to the point of exasperation. Try again J.J.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 3:24 p.m. CST


    by tommyleespenis

    I want to believe

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 3:40 p.m. CST

    MI:3 was great - Star Trek pretty good - looking forward to this

    by Swordfleece

    2011 going to be damn good for Alien invasion eye candy

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST

    MI3 was a great action film in all respects

    by A G

    Especially for this modern age when Americans usually harp on excessively about Iraq and their government any chance they can get in an action film. MI3 kicked buttocks.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST

    I love JJ Abrams

    by Dharma4

    He makes fun movies. And I love his admiration for mystery and refusal to spoil everything like half the shit nowadays.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 3:47 p.m. CST

    It's Cthulhu!

    by Yeti

    Or a baby Cthulhu.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 3:48 p.m. CST

    I forgot all about this movie

    by rev_skarekroe

    I bet it's not as good as Monsters.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Too many genre movies in 2011

    by SmokingRobot

    It's going to be a bloodbath at the box office. No way there's enough demand for ALL these films.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 3:55 p.m. CST

    I've grown kind of tired of Abrams' mystery box crap

    by SilentP

    I agree mysteries are cool, but so far he's been like 0 for 100 on actually delivering great answers to them. And I'm sorry, but claiming the mystery is all that really matters just doesn't fly for me. I don't know about the rest of you, but to me a great mystery is only any good if the answer is also shocking and interesting. So, while I don't HATE Abrams, and figure I'll see Super 8 when it comes out, I don't really feel much excitement for this.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 4:04 p.m. CST

    is this the prequel to 8mm?


  • Feb. 6, 2011, 4:11 p.m. CST

    I hear a Brit has been cast as the 8


    Fucking Anti-American assholes!!! Don't you know that the number 8 is an American icon??? Fuck everyone involved in this movie.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 4:20 p.m. CST

    Another piece of Cloverfield ad marketing BS!

    by HollywoodHellraiser

    So sick of this BS way of conning the retards into thinking your film is worth seeing. If your movie was any good you shouldn't have to hit the FAST FWD button to sell it!

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 4:50 p.m. CST

    So is this the Cloverfield sequel?

    by jsarnold513

    Not with the same monster, but it sure seems to be tapping into the same ideas.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 4:54 p.m. CST

    JJ is the new M.Knight.

    by HollywoodHellraiser

    Same basic ideas and same silly endings. Tell me I'm wrong.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 5:11 p.m. CST

    by pat p.

    what if Super 8 isn't a reference to a type of film camera but rather a reference to a superpowered 8 year old? i only say that because that kid's face seems to come up in all the teasers...he could be a gov't created being w/ powers or a captured mutant that escapes. this could be JJ's way of doing a "Superman" type movie since he never got his shot with that script he wrote years ago. just wondering out loud...

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 5:12 p.m. CST

    While this has an intriguing premise...

    by atan0669

    It does seem like this could be one too many trips to the same well.I suspect this is a re-imagining of the home movie Spielberg made when he was a kid; Night Skies I believe. Throughout his career, he is always involved with a number of projects with intriguing ideas but when brought to fruition, the results often seem shallow and forced. However, his body of work even at its worst provided at least one or two elements which have been universally memorable. This has all the potential to either nuke the fridge or conversely, need a bigger boat. We will see...

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 5:17 p.m. CST


    by MotherPussBucket

    Lens flare effects on Super 8 film! Like Bieber singing for Godspeed You Black Emperor! That's art motherhumpers.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 5:20 p.m. CST

    Totally agree SilentP

    by dastickboy

    Abram's marketing campaigns are getting a bit long in the tooth now, I've yet to see one of his mystery tours result in a destination other than "meh".

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 5:35 p.m. CST

    I've yet to see one of his mystery tours

    by HollywoodHellraiser

    result in a destination other than "meh". Hilarious! Cobra--Kai still has the QUOTE OF THE DAY over at the Cowboys And Aliens thread. "Now I know the aliens fly in a CGI rack-of-ribs spaceship i'm not so fussed about buying that ticket." LOL!!!

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 6:30 p.m. CST

    Pretty sure...

    by JackalofBane

    ...that Super 8 is supposed to be JJ Abrams doing E.T. Still, not sure how much room he'll have to not reveal things, but I'm interested.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Whoa... looks like an 80s Spielberg movie...

    by MaliceHighload

    Cautiously hopeful... though this super secretive Cloverfield routine gets a little tiresome...

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 6:53 p.m. CST

    Transformers 3 link...

    by teddy_duchamp

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:17 p.m. CST

    Super 8 is Super G8!!!!!!

    by wackybantha

    That's the official Tagline.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Well, almost.

    by wackybantha


  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:19 p.m. CST

    Oh, Christ...

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    it looks like shit. Ever notice how even the extras in a JJ Abrams production are obnoxious-looking? It's like he casts all his films/television series at Wal-Mart.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:19 p.m. CST

    I'm not sure the wondrous E.T. style music...

    by rev_skarekroe

    ...fits the image of trains exploding and people being dragged off to their deaths.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:20 p.m. CST

    Looks like classic 80s Speilberg

    by ATARI

    But will it be?

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:22 p.m. CST

    2002 mini-series "Taken"

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    if "Taken" were directed by a fucking hemorrhoid. <p> It even stars the younger sister of Dakota Fanning, who appeared in the last couple of episodes of the 2002 version...

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:22 p.m. CST

    we were told COWBOYS ANBD ALIENS was

    by CountryBoy

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:23 p.m. CST

    wow, what did I just accidentally hit?

    by CountryBoy

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:24 p.m. CST

    It doesn't look like Spielberg

    by Yaroh_Meringue

    it looks like Roland Emmerich.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:25 p.m. CST

    anyway, we were told C&A was "classic 80's Spielberg"

    by CountryBoy

    And it doesn't look remotely Spielbergian. Maybe we can't go back; or at least, maybe these directors can't go back.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:25 p.m. CST

    I've got news for all of you...

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    Spielberg has Alzheimer's. So do Lucas, Cameron, and Zemeckis for that matter.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:26 p.m. CST

    Doesn't look like anything I want to see so far

    by _Venkman

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:33 p.m. CST

    Wow, that looks great.

    by blackwood

    I really liked the 'wonder strings' music. Definitely the right vibe to me.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:33 p.m. CST

    i get it...its the mirror image of et

    by john


  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:38 p.m. CST

    Teaser didn't tease at all...

    by ThePorkChopExpress

    You need to give SOMETHING atleast. A bunch of strung together images don't cut it.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:38 p.m. CST

    Is that music Giacchino's Score?

    by Zac Oldenburg

    Seems to be nailing the 80's Williams/Amblin vibe

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:38 p.m. CST

    I'm sort of surprised at the vitriol here.

    by blackwood

    But then, I also think this being anathema to the majority of the TB crowd is probably the best thing for it. Because the triumph of romance over cynicism, or something.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:46 p.m. CST

    The music is from...

    by Sinistron

    Cocoon (1985). An 80's movie about extra-terrestrials visiting earth. It's almost in the same vein as E.T. or Close Encounters.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:50 p.m. CST

    JJ Abrams

    by kwisatzhaderach

    is Spielberg without the talent, churning out endless copies and reboots, with no personal vision or anything to say. He deals in soulless, vacuous crud.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:51 p.m. CST

    Cap WON hands down. But this is also SWEET.

    by Se7en

    Is that John Williams scoring ?

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:51 p.m. CST

    sinistron, thank you sir

    by Zac Oldenburg

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:52 p.m. CST

    The music from the trailer is from....

    by Jimmy Chonga

    The 1985 movie " Cocoon" directed by Ron Howard. It's not even from a 80's Spielberg flick. At least they should have used music from a Spielberg movie. geez!!

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:52 p.m. CST

    It's a Super 8 year old boy that's in the boxcar

    by tphile2

    That or Elliot with a much bigger ET

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 7:59 p.m. CST

    Super 8 looks Super GREAT!!

    by BradM73

    LoL, yea, I said it.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8 p.m. CST

    Wow. Finally we might have a true Spielberg successor.

    by DrPain

    Awesome trailer. Agree 100% with Harry's comments about it. omg I can't wait.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8:02 p.m. CST

    Oh good, push in to people looking.

    by Phloton

    Way to have your own style J.J.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8:03 p.m. CST

    There will never be another Spielberg...

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    Spielberg isn't even Spielberg anymore. <p> So stop dubbing every flash-in-the-pan, briefly break-out director as "the next Spielberg".

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8:05 p.m. CST

    is that Giacchino's score with the trailer?

    by DrPain

    because it sounded really good.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8:05 p.m. CST

    Yeah, Spielberg mastered the "people look awed" shot...

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    I think if you strung together all the shots of people looking up/down/into the distance/straight ahead in awe in Spielberg's films, you have enough to make a feature-length movie!

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8:16 p.m. CST

    Feels M Night Shyamalany to me

    by alienindisguise

    along the lines of The Happening

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8:17 p.m. CST

    Spielberg is PRODUCING not exec producing

    by Proman1984

    Time to get really excited boys.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8:21 p.m. CST

    To all the Speilberg haters...uhm...

    by BubbaDestructo

    Jaws Close Encounters Raiders of the Lost Ark Even if he just made Jaws and nothing else, the guy is (was, if you want) a brilliant director. I know his more recent films don't quite hold up to his past works, but give the man some slack, please. Thanks.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8:30 p.m. CST

    You forgot Jurassic Park

    by _Venkman

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8:32 p.m. CST

    "Our generation is sophisticated. We're tired of imitations.

    by Subtitles_Off

    Give us some more warmed over, thirty year-old clichés, please."

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8:32 p.m. CST

    Actually you also forgot

    by _Venkman

    Saving Private Ryan Amistad Schindler's List and I happened to like Hook as a child.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8:33 p.m. CST

    Sure, Jurrasic Park if you want

    by BubbaDestructo

    But to me, the 'holy trinity' of his films, if you had to choose, would be Jaws, Close Encounters, and Raiders. Maybe put E.T. in 4th place just for the historical/sentimental/'lightning in a bottle' factor.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8:34 p.m. CST

    Well is one Monster or a swarm of somethings?

    by OnO

    Well I'm torn. It's either a feel good bullshit Steven Spielberg kid infested Alien movie. Or it will skull fuck my eyes out with Awesome... Or jittery camera angles and a Monster you never see. I'm excited either way. Well except for option 1.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8:39 p.m. CST

    Private Ryan, Schindler's List - absolutely

    by BubbaDestructo

    Definitely in his top 6. Amistad, not so sure (but an excellent film - I would put it on the level of Empire of the Sun). I was thinking of the more 'general audience' (i.e. not adult-rated) films. The man made some truly impressive films.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 8:56 p.m. CST

    I still get shiver when I see this:

    by BubbaDestructo Imagine receiving Best Director at the Academy Awards from those three.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:13 p.m. CST

    Looks like it good be good

    by KevinMuller

    I am getting a very ET/young adventure from this.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:15 p.m. CST

    Looked and felt like a classic, old-school, Spielberg

    by D.Vader

    And I'm shocked I felt what they were trying to sell. Looking forward to this now. (this was also my very first look at Super 8- I never saw the teaser)

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:19 p.m. CST


    by insightman

    But this one fits into a box car.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:29 p.m. CST

    I don't know if I have a favourite Spielberg.

    by blackwood

    I've loved a lot of his later stuff. WAR OF THE WORLDS aged well -- it's still 2/3rds of a classic film but those two thirds are as good as all get out. I loved MINORITY REPORT and A.I., and that they felt like they took place in the same world at different times. JURASSIC PARK was my JAWS, being that Spielberg film I saw when I was exactly the right age to be dazzled, awed and terrified by it. His 'prestige' pics are all good, but my personal favourite is THE COLOR PURPLE. POLTERGEIST, I guess. I've seen other Tobe Hooper films and there is very little of Tobe Hooper in that movie. It feels like majority Spielberg. A lot of people rag on Spielberg for being overly sentimental. I say those people are cynical assholes. Because the quality of a thing isn't tied to how dark it is. As for Abrams... haters gonna hate. I really liked STAR TREK. But there are two types of geek -- those who get super excited about things and live a perpetual state of optimism about them until proven wrong, and those who invest in hating everything and everyone for petty, incomprehensible reasons -- and invest in the things they hate with incredible depth of passion. I think that's a mental illness of some sort, but I don't know what kind. I'm sure there's a suppository for it.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Stop the Lens flare...

    by GeorgieBoy

    This guy just cannot help himself!

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:37 p.m. CST

    This movie is to War of the Worlds...

    by MagicJesus

    What Cruel Intentions Deux is to Cruel Intentions...

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:37 p.m. CST

    "Teaser didn't tease at all..."- horseshit

    by D.Vader

    "You need to give SOMETHING atleast. A bunch of strung together images don't cut it." Sorry porkchopexpress, but that's what a teaser today constitutes- a bunch of strung together images. I'm not quite sure what you were expecting out of a *teaser*.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:40 p.m. CST

    For four movies in a row, Spielberg was on a fucking role

    by D.Vader

    JAWS- his horror movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind- his spiritual movie Raiders of the Lost Ark- his adventure movie E.T.- his movie about love and friendship And then he went on to produce classics like The Goonies, Gremlins, and Back to the Future. That was the prime-time my friends.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:46 p.m. CST


    by Yaroh_Meringue

    People like to forget about 1941.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:46 p.m. CST

    Blackwood- AI and Minority Report

    by D.Vader

    "I loved MINORITY REPORT and A.I., and that they felt like they took place in the same world at different times." I always felt that way too.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:46 p.m. CST

    D.Vader, you left out 1941...

    by Phloton

    which was between CETK and Raiders.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:46 p.m. CST

    What d.vader said.

    by montessaurus

    How can ANYONE that posts on Ain't It Cool be at all cynical in the face of that teaser? This movie wasn't even on my radar, but that was some magic on display. The score, the kid, the setting - all of it. Definitely gave me "Close Encounters.." goosebumps.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:48 p.m. CST

    Ok... I think I see a glimpse of some spiky tentacles.

    by Adam

    Download the 1080p version and go to the closeup/zoomout of the lens thing at the end at around the 27 second mark, but before the "Number 19, 1962" thing." OK. I get that it's random crap in flashes, but one scene looks a lot like a couple organic, spiky armlike things grabbing a car, traincar or truck... could be Indy's flying refrigerator though... Of course I could be dead wrong...

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:53 p.m. CST


    by bastian1138

    Yes! You totally said how I felt about it too. This is my most anticipated movie of the year.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:53 p.m. CST


    by montessaurus

    LOLOL way to hop on the OMG LENSFLAREZ!!! bandwagon- but after about 3 viewings I still have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:55 p.m. CST

    Definitely has an E.T.-ish quality to it

    by Teddy Artery

    I'm interested.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:56 p.m. CST

    Cloverfield2:The Box Car Edition

    by Thanos0145

    Silly to compare JJ Abrams with Steven Spielberg.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:57 p.m. CST


    by Kammich

    But I was never drawn to Spielberg's sentimental works. Maybe you had to be a child of the times... being born in '89, I never had a fondness for E.T. Found it to be a sugary coming-of-age that just didn't appeal to me. However, if Abrams reels back the sentimentality and injects the vibe of the old proposed Spielberg "Night Skies" flick, then all I can say is... HELL YES. Just because it has a child cast doesn't mean it has to be another E.T. I want Abrams to give us a mean film thats hard sci-fi.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:59 p.m. CST

    phloton- was it really?

    by D.Vader

    Holy crap I totally forgot that. As did everyone else, of course... (but you). Damn.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 9:59 p.m. CST

    Definitely felt like Close Encounters meets Goonies

    by D.Vader

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 10:02 p.m. CST


    by bastian1138

    That's the word I think of when seeing this teaser. It's the word I think describes best films such as E.T. and the anthology show Amazing Stories. That's the style of story-telling I am hoping for in Super 8.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 10:04 p.m. CST

    nice dangling modifier, Nordling

    by Daniel_S_Duvall

    " an avowed 80s Spielberg freak, this has become the most anticipated film..." Your sentence structure implies that "this" (not you) is the avowed 80s Spielberg freak. It's a grammatical error known as a dangling modifier. Don't make a similar error in the future. Carry on.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 10:10 p.m. CST

    I want Neutral Aliens...

    by Zurge

    You know, not cute like E.T. or shoved-down-our-throats-mistreated PRAWNS. Nor evil like Borgs or Xenomorphs from the Alien Franchise. But you know, no one wants Neutrality in Xenophobia popcorn movie, that's non-profit endeavor.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 10:13 p.m. CST


    by montessaurus

    Kudos, dude. I guess I just have no idea what all this LOLOLJARJARABRAMS HERP DERP shit is all about. I fuckin LOVED the new Star Trek. And before I catch any shit for that, this is from someone that owns about 15 Star Trek novels, the entire original series - loves ALMOST every series post TNG (sorry Enterprise) and even (fuck....) owns all the original Star Trek micro-machines. Just don't tell my fiancee. Or anyone else. So - no shit about how I can't appreciate what the real RODDENBERRY VISION is because well... just fuck you. The new movie treated the original canon with respect - as well as crafting something entirely new from the already beatdown timeline. What the fuck is the problem?

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 10:26 p.m. CST

    That was the greatest Super Bowl teaser since INDEPENDENCE DAY

    by zillabeast

    JJ, take my money. Take it all!!!!

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 10:26 p.m. CST

    Yeah, that was no found footage

    by montessaurus

    that was a goddamn movie ya'll! THE SUITS LIED.

  • But this may be the balls to the wall, no bullshit, cussing-and-violence kids movie we haven't had for children since I was young. That genre - the one where the Goonies cursed like sailors and Noah Hathaway got the shit kicked out of him in The Neverending Story - needs to come back.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 10:44 p.m. CST


    by bastian1138

    That's exactly what I thought regarding Star Trek. It was exactly what I wanted from a new Trek film and more. I think rebooting the franchise and thus proviywhat I hope will be the beginning of a new version of the Trek history was the smartest thing they did.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 10:49 p.m. CST

    It's 70's not 80's Spielberg that's gold!

    by ufoclub1977

    What is all this talk of 80's? Jaws, CE3K, and sure E.T. and Poltergeist (yes, I know Tobe Hooper directed it) were released in mid '82, meaning they were probably conceived in 80, filmed in '81. Past '82, we didn't have any fantasy scifi oriented Spielberg that holds a candle to his 70's work. It wasn't until Jurassic Park in 1993 with it's Tyrannosaur scene that he got back into that serious genre groove. The anamorphic flares etc... that's 70's style. Who here is actually a film geek?

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 11:02 p.m. CST

    montessaurus ...

    by filmakr1

    The problem is ... you JUST can't understand at all what the real RODDENBERRY/COON/JUSTMAN/FONTANA/JEFFRIES VISION was because ... If you think Kirk- described by Roddenberry as a walking-stack-of-books-with-legs- should be fighting in a bar, then brawl his way to the Enterprise bridge... If you think that Spock- who was told by his mother face to face that while other kids made fun of him, he took it all in silently with a stiff upper lip- should instead throw a tantrum and beat up those who teased him 'bout being a half-breed, then ... You have no idea what real Trek is ... even if you really do own (as if that justifies it) the TOS DVD's and own TOS micro machines. What you THINK you know, is most likely the movies' Kirk and Spock Trek, which never was and never will be, real Trek. So... just fuck you.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 11:03 p.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    You're basically ignoring the films he produced- Goonies, Gremlins, Back to the Future, etc. I'd say that fits the "fantasy scifi" criteria you were looking for. And no matter what you say, Poltergeist and ET and Raiders are 80's flicks.

  • And whoever said walking-stacks-of-books couldn't engage in bar fights from time to time too?

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 11:11 p.m. CST

    Here is a link to an HD trailer of Super 8

    by islander Can't wait to see it!

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 11:13 p.m. CST


    by montessaurus

    Great name btw! Okay, I don't know what the fuck you read in my post that insinuates that I ingested Trek post-JJ Abrams movie - but grow a goddamn attention span. I'm pretty sure I posted that I appreciate all of the original canon, dipshit. The true Roddenberry Trek is closer to "City On The Edge Of Forever" and The Original Motion Picture than Nu-Trek. No shit. I covered that already. My advice, change your handle to "wordrdr1 and start doing exactly that.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 11:15 p.m. CST


    by montessaurus

    miss ya already. also - "wordrdr1"

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 11:20 p.m. CST

    Trailer Music

    by Nate

    The trailer music was from "Cocoon". 80's Sci-Fi feeling definitley.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 11:32 p.m. CST

    D. Vader

    by ufoclub1977

    I personally feel like Back to the Future, Goonies, and Gremlins (none of which he seemed too particularly commited too or even directed) are relatively worthless films compared to his 70's to early 80's genre films. I think the 80's in general past '82 was really bad for genre films, they took a huge step backwards conceptually and in terms of coolness. Spielberg biggest mid to late 80's films were The Color Purple and Empire Under the Sun, with The Color Purple really being a great audience experience, but it's still not a scifi/horror/fantasy film. I actually dislike The Goonies and Gremlins. Me and my friends were disappointed in those films along with other genre films like Star Trek 3,4,5... Dune....the action-ifying of ALIEN into ALIENS... etc, etc. mid to late 80's was mostly bad in my opinion for serious scifi/fantasy/horror.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 11:38 p.m. CST

    Good trailer

    by jsarnold513

    But Cloverfield had great trailers and it was an annoying piece of shit at the theatres. I'm excited about seeing this, but so far the only thing JJ Abrams has done that I enjoyed was Star Trek. I don't get the geek worship for the guy. I thought he did a great job with Star Trek, but Cloverfield was such a letdown and this trailer shows so little that I can't go ahead and call it another Close Encounters or E.T. If anything, this looks like a horror movie in the same vein as Cloverfield.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 11:39 p.m. CST

    Cmon' DVader ...

    by filmakr1

    Real Kirk got into many fights, and I'm sure a few bar brawls from time to time ... but not the sake of just getting into a fight like that clown Kirk imposter from the Abrams flick. Quoted from TOS, "in Kirk's class, you either think or sink". Everything written and dramatized about Kirk suggests he was a VERY serious cadet, disciplined, hardworking, respectful. Nothing AT ALL like what was portrayed in the new flick. Oh yeah, but that was a different time line, so fuck all previous characterization ... Fuck that film up its ass. I only post here on this board like once every three years, and maybe I should have stayed silent now as well, especially since Asimov Lives can handle you all anyway, but I'm sick of the dudes out there being puzzled that some of us think the new movie was shit. Abrams had such an opportunity to make a great Trek movie in THE ORIGINAL time line, and still keeping it fresh, and he blew it.

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 11:43 p.m. CST

    It's up on Apple's site.

    by torgosPizza

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 11:43 p.m. CST

    montessaurus ...

    by filmakr1

    You talk in circles, so there's no need to further argue ...

  • Feb. 6, 2011, 11:43 p.m. CST

    It's up on Apple's site

    by torgosPizza

    Sorry for the doublepost, meant to post a link. Much better quality than the YouTube shaky-cam.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 12:03 a.m. CST

    Man crush on Kyle Chandler

    by Raymar

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 12:06 a.m. CST


    by montessaurus

    Good copout, prick.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 12:12 a.m. CST

    Why use recycled music?

    by BirdieNumNum

    Of course the Cocoon soundtrack is gonna create that sense of wonder it worked 25 years ago. Kind of disappointed they did that.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 12:29 a.m. CST


    by J-Dizzle

    The trailer's focus on the kid pretty much says it all.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 12:46 a.m. CST

    Horner's Cocoon music

    by justmyluck

    SUPER-8 is Paramount/Amblin, COCOON was Fox, so I guess they actually paid to use Horner's "Through the window" in that spot. First impression: looks like the same big budget zero-subtext JJ Abrams fluff-stuff to stick asses in seats and move on to the next flick. I'd also guess it's framed as a 'what happened' in a period-piece government cover-up of some entity that started blowing the shit out of everything. I suppose the kid is the lead, following the mayhem around with his Super-8 camera. Next.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 1:39 a.m. CST

    To all the naysayers.

    by BradM73

    This is the first trailer in years that has come close to the magic that was created in movies like ET, Close Encounters, Goonies, Explorers, and others. There is something about those films that you can't deny, and this 30 second trailer gave me that feeling again. If JJ comes through and delivers on that feeling, this movie is going to go down in the books! Movies these days have missed out on such a delivery. Here's hoping Super 8 does.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 1:56 a.m. CST

    Super 8 looked, well Super! Made me feel like a kid

    by The Founder

    I like the mystery and not revealing to much is great and much like they did in the 80's.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 1:57 a.m. CST

    JJ is one of my favorite directors.

    by The Founder

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 2:18 a.m. CST

    You guys arguing about that Star Trek movie

    by macheesmo3

    need lives..... Like seriously....... I'm no JJ apologist, I think he's ambitious with his ideas and at times is skilled enough to pull them off.... But isn't a supreme talent. However, he pretty much said he was taking the Star Trek characters and making them his own..... Spouting off the names of some screenwriter from the original series and Roddenberry and thinking that it's some sort of bastard evil movie Abrams made..... Well, that's beyond being a geek and just makes you a fucking dork....

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 3:18 a.m. CST

    COCOON does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    Hmm.. I was going to praise the 'wonder music' for nailing the vibe until I heard it was ripped from COCOON. Don't know how those sweet old people in that sweet 80's sci-fi would have felt about having their music played over the top of this 'things explode and everyone runs in terror' trailer.<p>

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 3:22 a.m. CST

    Just saw this... Don't know what you think is so great

    by V'Shael

    There's nothing in that trailer that would look out of place in a Syfy movie of the week.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 3:27 a.m. CST

    Plot does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    (POTENTIAL SPOILERS - GUESSED!)<p> justmyluck, I think together we can now reveal the plot...<p> -In a sleepy small town a kid likes to ride around with his Super 8 camera. However nothing exciting ever happens for him to film.<p> -Then one day a goverment top secret experiment being carried on a train derails nearby.<p> -The 'thing' inside hammers its way out.<p> -The 'thing' wreaks havoc around the town, before Govt clean-up force arrive with flamethrowers, etc and create even more havoc.<p> -Thanks to the ingenuity of the townspeople, rather than the govt cronies, the 'thing' is defeated.<p> -The govt cover up ensures word of the event never reaches the outside world.<p> -However... the reels of footage the kid with the camera took are safely stashed away in his Super 8 box. (The End).

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 3:28 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    There you go - you don't have to bother seeing the movie now!

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 3:30 a.m. CST

    Music: The Wrath of Khan

    by TheJudger

    When Spock is capping the core. Is that where this music comes from? I have heard this before. I love it, but I want to know where it comes from, because my childhood memory recalls it.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 3:31 a.m. CST


    by TheJudger

    Thats it!!!!!!! I remember. I remember!

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 3:55 a.m. CST


    by ChickenStu

    Reminds me of my Spielberg influenced childhood. Shivers went up my spine. I've got a feeling this is going to be stunning.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 3:57 a.m. CST

    Btw.. I think the music MIGHT be from "Cocoon"

    by ChickenStu

    but don't hold me to that...

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:05 a.m. CST


    by TheJudger

    are making a movie near the train tracks. They witness the train accident. It nearly kills them. The Elliot character witnesses the alien escape. He tells his father what happened. I'm willing to bet that these kids were not supposed to be out there- That they snuck out to make this scene for their homemade film. The Elliot characters father is a police officer. The government comes in says the train that derailed was carrying a deadly chemical. They use helicopters to gas out an area very close to the accident- killing some people and animals in that area. The government sets up an evac and safe-zone game, so they can have an abandoned town to hunt the escaped alien down in. Our kids who where there and know better, decide to sneak back into the town, that or the government finds out about them and the film evidence they have. Everyone else in the town falls in line, but the kids stay back, or sneak back in. The Elliot kid's father "the police officer" goes back for his son. Where it goes from there is anyone's guess. But this is how I suspect it plays out.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:07 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    viggeo, Asi isn't brittish. He's not even British.<p> He's Portugese.<p> Who looks the cunt now?

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:17 a.m. CST

    Viggeo, don't hold me to the Cocoon thing...

    by ChickenStu

    Just a guess... I think it might be the music where the spaceship leaves Earth at the end.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:18 a.m. CST

    I'm back treading on one thing though

    by TheJudger

    After reviewing the trailer. I suspect that the camera was left at the scene- After all those kids just witnessed a traumatic event that nearly killed them and then they saw a strange creature escape from the train. The camera has footage of the train accident, and footage on the camera before this features the kids home made film with them in it. Does the government find it, or do the kids go back out to get it? If the government finds it they will know about these kids witnessing this event and what the train really had in it. If the kids are seeking it out, they would be doing so to retrieve the evidence to destroy the lie. Cant wait to know for sure.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:32 a.m. CST

    J.J Abrams is the new M. Night Shyamalan.

    by Johnny Wishbone

    This is probably about killer plants that fart poison.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:42 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Viggeo, yes Asi and I get along fine.<p> Not sure i'll be asking you out on a second date though.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:48 a.m. CST

    This looks fucking awesome

    by theblackvegtable

    So does captain America, but being an 80's nut this is to good to ignore

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 5:15 a.m. CST

    Here's what I reckon

    by ChickenStu

    OK. So the kids are out making amatuer films with a Super 8 camera, and film the train getting derailed. The train is either on it's way TOO or FROM Area 51, and has an extra terrestrial inside. The government come and lock down the town as the alien is loose. But the kids find it and it turns out to be friendly. So they carry on making the Super 8 movie with the alien as the star, but little do they know the government is hot on their trail. That's what I think.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 5:24 a.m. CST

    Here's What Super 8 Is About (Sorta)

    by MakNeil

    Here's what's Super 8 is about (sorta) from J.J. Abrams own mouth. He plays it close to the vest, but it's sounding an awful lot like 'Stand By Me,' though I am not sure that J.J can nail the vibe of childhood transitioning into adulthood as effortlessly as Rob Reiner.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 5:27 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Viggeo says: "im surprised at all the vitriol"<p> Viggeo does: proceeds to spew out the most vitriolic comments in the thread.<p> Viggeo says: "this site has become infested with whiny, vapid, unobjective fanboys"<p> Viggeo does: proceeds to whine, make vapid comments and rant unobjectively.<p> Viggeo says: "Brittish... Portugese.. whatever. It's all the fuckin' same."<p> Viggeo does: Embarasses every true American reading this.<p> Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!<p> Just to be clear shit-for-brains - i'm laughing at you, not with you.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 5:28 a.m. CST

    Malick's "The Tree of Life" is the best trailer

    by tritium

    for an upcoming film, hands down, no contest. Maybe one of the best trailers ever made.

  • I was born when Disney films had become unfashionable, and when they came back into vogue, I was too old for them. So for me growing up, it was "E.T. The Extra Terrestrial" (which was the first film I ever saw at a cinema... fucking blinding way to start innit?), the Indiana Jones films, Jaws, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, the first Jurassic Park movie... and Schindler's List was the first "grown up" movie I went to see. Not only those either, I loved the Spielberg produced stuff too. Back to the Future, The Goonies, Gremlins, and the vastly under-rated Innerspace. As well as non Spielberg stuff like Star Wars, Superman, the James Bond films, Ghostbusters, the television of Kenneth Johnson (V, The Incredible Hulk)... shit man, that was all fucking quality stuff right there! I really loved all that stuff man, and I still do. And I show it all to my four year old daughter (who's too young to be put off by the fact that a lot of it is like, 30 years old - some Bond films even older!) I think people of my age are really the luckiest generation for stuff like that. The 80's seem to be making a comeback, first with some belated sequels (Wall Street, Indiana Jones, Rambo, Ghostbusters, Tron to name a few) and now it seems they are trying to bring back that unmistakeable STYLE of 80's magic. Spielberg being a producer here is VERY telling. Nostaligia seems to be in. Is that a good thing or bad? Personally I would. Cause I'm approaching my mid-30's. They need to get rid of all this Harry Potter and Twilight bullshit - and get REAL magic back into cinemas.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 5:38 a.m. CST

    Still Feeling 'Meh.'

    by MakNeil

    I don't know; Super 8 may be a surprise hit, but based upon what little I have seen I don't expect it. It doesn't look bad, but there's so much stuff that I actually care about (particularly Thor and Captain America) that this one is more than likely going to slip under my radar. If you're going to tease, in the end you hopefully have something to back it up; and I am not quite feeling it here.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 5:52 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Viggeo, jeez you're spamming this thread. I do like how your posts have big blank spaces in them tho.<p> Reflects what's going on in your brain... long... ...retarded.... pauses.<p> Drool dribbles out your mouth during those gaps doesnt it?

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 6:06 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Cobra vs Viggeo<p> I hope readers are getting some amusement out of this because for me it's too one-sided to enjoy.<p> Feels like i'm 1972 Ali beating up on 2011 Ali.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 6:08 a.m. CST


    by Johnny Wishbone

    You forgot... Howard The Duck.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 6:27 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    "i'm done with you now. "<p> ...and then back for another post...HAHAHA... schoolboy error viggeo.<p> Stay on the canvas spammer. It's a war or words and you're an unarmed man.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 6:32 a.m. CST


    by Johnny Wishbone

    My mistake.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 6:33 a.m. CST

    This movie represents the next stage of the 80's revival....

    by ChickenStu

    Sequels to Tron, Wall Street, Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, among others... Big budget movies of The A-Team and Transformers... They've stopped going for the names. They are now going for the magic.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 6:34 a.m. CST

    Biggles: Adventures In Time. My 80's guilty pleasure...

    by ChickenStu

    What's yours?

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 6:49 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Viggeo, you think im linguistically raping you - and you're enjoying it?!<p> I'm flattered but that's not my scene.<p> In truth you're flailing around the ring like a cartwheeling cripple, not hitting a goddamn thing.<p> Every punch I throw is putting you down. Bring out the gimp because you are some kind of sado masochist.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 6:50 a.m. CST

    Even if this ends up sucking

    by Truxton Spangler

    I hope Kyle Chandler gets some good movie roles out of it. He's a fine actor who's been toiling in relative obscurity for the past five years on FNL.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 6:57 a.m. CST

    viggeo_morgenstein, I think...

    by ufoclub1977

    viggeo_morgenstein… I think and feel some of these movies you listed were a bit mediocre for sometimes complex reasons (and in all honeslty this is how we felt at the time which was high school for us). None of them hold a candle to the paradigm shift in thinking that was Jaws, CE3K, Star Wars, Superman, The Exorcist, Invasion of the Body Snatchers… or beyond that Apocolypse Now, The Godfather, Taxi Driver… do you see how much of the 80's was half assed, pandering, cutsie, or just simplistic in comparison? I'm pointing at: ROTJ, Ghostbusters, Secret of Nimh, Goonies, Aliens, Predator, Terminator, Batteries Not Included, Cocoon, Flight of the Navigator, The Explorers, Back to the Future, Neverending Story, The Burbs, Total Recall, The Black Hole, Labyrinth, Howard the Duck, Clash of the Titans on the whole I think 83-92 was a bad year for genre films. Batman was horrible too, compared to the emotions that Superman tapped into. Last Crusade actually made my crowd depressed. The first seasons of Star Trek Next Generation are unwatchable in comparison to the last few seasons... what a shift that show had! And as far as pop music... really? Like there wasn't horrible pop music during the 90's, or now? Black Eyed Peas? Shit, even during the 60's and 70's if you check the top 40 charts, there was tons of forgettable, horrible, pop music.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 7 a.m. CST

    oh yeah add...

    by ufoclub1977

    add Halloween, and Texas Chain Saw Massacre to the 70's roster of game changing cool genre cinema. Halloween (1978) also has the anamorphic light flare and focus style that is mimicked in this new flick "Super 8"

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 7:01 a.m. CST

    "In 30 seconds, J.J. Abrams nailed the Spielberg aesthetic."

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Hey Nordling, what shots in particular were worthy of being put on the same cinematic plateaux as CE3K and E.T.?

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 7:04 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    "His take on Mission Impossible 3 was pretty fucking great. Much better than it had any right to be... and Star Trek was pretty "meh", but certainly not awful. And Super 8 looks and sounds awesome." <p> Yep. That's a pretty stellar filmography right there. One film you thought was great (even though it was shit), one you thought was meh, and one you haven't seen yet.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 7:37 a.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    Kirk didn't start the bar fight you know. Just playing Devil's advocate.

  • Somebody correct me if i'm wrong, but i though that ripping off was not considered a virtue but something to be criticsed. Does rip off now ussemed a different meaning then i used to know? I'd like to know. As for Jar Jar Abrams being spot on on some other filmmaker's style, he all he ever does, all the time. It's all he can do. Business as usual. Unless overabuse of lens flares can be considered a personal style. And he's not even the first filmmaker to use them as a stylistic choice, that goes way back to EASY RIDER.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 7:40 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Apologies to any readers who are enjoying seeing this witless spammer recieve the beating of his life... But i've come to suspect that viggeo is masturbating while reading my posts, and I don't play that way.<p> So viggeo I am done with you, and when 'I' say it I mean it. I leave you with the word 'pwned' forever tatooed on your talkback handle.<p> You may resume your inane spamming now.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 7:42 a.m. CST

    braindrain, you flipped the I with the M

    by AsimovLives

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 7:53 a.m. CST

    "how anyone can call James Horner a hack..."

    by D.Vader

    Well, when he keeps reusing that exact same cue for the villain in Willow in every one of his other movies (like Troy for instance), he makes it easy for himself. That said, I really enjoy a LOT of his music but man does he crib from himself far too often.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 7:55 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "what if Super 8 isn't a reference to a type of film camera but rather a reference to a superpowered 8 year old?" That would make this movie a remake/rip off of the 80s movie D.A.R.Y.L. ... set in the 1970s!

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 7:59 a.m. CST

    Gotta side with Cobra-Kai on this one

    by D.Vader

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 8:08 a.m. CST

    Yeah, I know he just produced it, braindrain

    by BubbaDestructo

    But I believe Abrams is trying to emulate Spielberg's classic 80's style in this film. And I just couldn't handle the snarky comments from people about Sielberg's other work.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 8:37 a.m. CST

    Dating rich

    by lily

    I just met my real love on a a millionaire dating site we had our first drink about 4 hours after the initial contact. We have just enough in common to get along but just enough differences to make it awesome fun! Ohhh and He is awesomely Wealthy!!!so i want to share u this nice place!!

  • He called you out on your error in an ironic way and I thought you responded rather viciously about it, that's all.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 8:55 a.m. CST

    Viggeo, check my comments up above for my reaction

    by D.Vader

    Also, I responded to your assessment of me in the last talkback a week or two ago, but I never saw a response. I think we had all moved on by the time I got around to it, sadly.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 8:58 a.m. CST

    why hate?

    by Norman Colson

    jj abhrams, or jar jar for which yall call him, lol. has given us lost (hated the ending), alias, the new star trek which i liked. give this guy a chance, when and if him and cameron ever do that mass effect movie im right there!!!

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 9:01 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "the triumph of romance over cynicism" That's THE ENGLISH PACIENT, a movie i'm a fan. You know what's the triumph of cynicism over ormance? The entire career of Jar Jar Abrams.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 9:01 a.m. CST


    by ufoclub1977

    Yes many of those are not "bad" films. Let's take Aliens for example, it was great storytelling, expertly paced. But in comparison to ALIEN, it was just appropriating and simplifying the concept, dumbing down the characters, and amping up the action for more base mass appeal. And throwing on the late 80's blue gels. In fact, I'd say it kind of treaded backwards (as Cameron always does in a retro made for tv way) conceptually. But, I'll admit, you are right, and I must include the first fourth of the 80's as the height of this type of "Super 8" nostalgic ideal. '83 onward) was the glossy, cute, watering down death of it for me and my friends. 1980-1882 was still great shit. Conan, Excalibur, E.T. Tron, The Thing, Bladerunner, Poltergeist, Star Trek 2, Altered States, American Werewolf in London, The Howling... these are all serious heavyweights. Shit, I'll even throw in Scarface as a fantasy genre movie. But starting with Return of the Jedi (which I cannot stand more than any Star Wars film) it mostly goes kind of shitty. Batman, Last Crusade, Legend, Dune... all failures but with great details.

  • None of these movies made me want to see them repeatedly, or delve into the making of. Out of all of those, I'd say Predator is the most 70's worthy because it has this harsh on location feel, but it is still a retro monster movie and design that 1979's Alien already went beyond. It's a retro step back towards the 50's with it's very human like alien that could have sprung out of an old pulp scifi novel. Alien and Invasion of the Body Snatchers already had taken the invader type alien genre to a further place. I'd say the main late 80's horror genre movie that comes to mind that was truly STRONG was the left field surprise that still influences shit today... Jacob's Ladder. The visual concepts of horror there are genius and forward. The problem with Goonies (that movie was just not exciting or convincing to me!) or Gremlins (again, not a movie that drew me in. It's the kind of movie hat keeps you at a comfortable laughing distance) is they just don't have weight. Ghostbusters I just didn't find that exciting or funny either. I mean in comparison to Caddyshack, Vacation, Animal House, or Blues Brothers? Not a candle (according my personal funny bone). But that's my opinion! I might be a bit older than you, I started high school when Return of the Jedi hit and ruined my godlike image of George Lucas. Well the Christmas Special really confused me in 4th grade.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Aliens?? WTF that was awesome.

    by Norman Colson

    Riply, Space Marines, big ass guns, kick ass music, loveable characters and a sense of dread. and a big ass end fight scene, Whats not to love???

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 9:39 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Your definitions of the two type of geeks is very naive, to say the least.

  • Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. I've not lost any respect for you. But this is still a dissapointment! ;-)

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 9:45 a.m. CST

    Oh great, asimovlives is here...

    by ChickenStu

    Time to leave this thread I think...

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 10:03 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "hat's what a teaser today constitutes- a bunch of strung together images. I'm not quite sure what you were expecting out of a *teaser*." What A SERIOUS MAN trailer and learn. The fact that the vast majority of the trailers made for Holywood movies are badly made doesn't make it how they should be.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 10:03 a.m. CST


    by frank cotton

    ya'll know, the aliens are, like, commin' for real, right? no? STOP LAUGHING! i don't, make, ALL, of this up, ya know? i got sources, i'm, tellin' ya, seriously! anyone here ever see MOTHER NIGHT? well, maybe you should. could be IMPORTANT! REALLY IMPORTANT! at the very least, you, shoul, uh, check to see, what, it, was, about! i'll, be back, uh, later, uh...he he he

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 10:25 a.m. CST

    Spielberg hires Abrams to remake his own movie...

    by Dan Halen

    Spielberg and Lucas made careers off rehashing Saturday Serials.... Now Abrams is making a Spielberg 80s movie? Just seems to be an odd artistic choice for JJ. Could be great, just feels unnatural. I'm assuming the only reason the story takes place in the late 70s early 80s is because people have a nostalgia for close encounters and E.T. Odd.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 10:26 a.m. CST

    Highly Interested Now

    by Wcwlkr

    I can honestly say I had no desire whatsoever to see this movie. That spot hands down won the Movie previews contest, with Captain America while good a distant second. But seeing that did make me flashback to when I saw Indiana Jones as a kid.

  • Really. Nothing he's done has been half as enjoyable as the marketing leading up to the film/tv series.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 10:35 a.m. CST

    Mac and Me 2011

    by silverdog

    J.J. Abrams mysteries = M. Night Shyamalan's plot twists.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 10:42 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Didn't the movie MONSTERS provived neutral aliens? In some ways the alien in ALIEN could also be considered as such, it doesn't look like he's killing just because he's some evil Ming The Merciless that deliberatly targets humans because he hates them.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 10:55 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Since you loved JAR JAR TREK so much, let me offer this for thoughs: The basic plot that movies that movie is about the villain character Nero. Nero drives the whole plot, he's the story's determinator. And basically, he's in a quest to not only to rvenge on spock but on the whole Federation for failing to save his home planet Romulus. Riht? that's basically the plot, correct? Allow me to present that plot as a parabol: Imagine that you saw your mother getting killed because a huge glass window panel fell on her. Now imagine that, before the glass hit her, there had been some people who saw what would happen and tried to save her but got to her too and failed. Imagine that for some magical reason the very event that killed your mother would make you travel back in time half a minute before your mother's death. Abram's movie is if you, instead of running toward your mother and save her, instead you would run toward the people who tried to save her and try to kill them because they hadn't saved her before, even though now she is still alive, though the glass panel will still hit her. Doesn't that sound completly stupid and absurd to you? Doen't it make you think that the people who make this plot are either high on drugged, completly clueless or untalented morons? I does, doesn't it? That's the plot of Abram's JAR JAR TREK. It doesn't look so cool now, does it?

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 11:04 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "And whoever said walking-stacks-of-books couldn't engage in bar fights from time to time too?" Says the TOS episode SHORE LEAVE. Watch that episode again and learn how was Kirk's time at the academy. The fights he had with Fennigham was because he was buillied, not because he went to redneck bars that sold beers that should exist in ST's future (Budweiser? Brands? In the Star Trek future time?), bothered desinterested girls and stupidly picked up fights with people twice his size... a group of them, to make it even more stupid! I'm not recognizing you, man. I really don't. You used to be more observant and rational.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Zero interest in this

    by jimmy_009

    Here's what I thought of when I saw this spot: Invader's from Mars -- you know, where a ship lands in the kids back yard and starts taking over the town? And even if it's a good alien then it's just E.T. or Mac and Me. I know his whole thing is to have a hook and then disappoint with execution, but this doesn't even have a hook.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 11:48 a.m. CST

    Asi wise up

    by D.Vader

    Ive never pretended to be an expert on Star Trek: TOS. If you read my comments you'll see they are quite observant and rational and have only been replies to statements made by others, pointing out the flaws in their argument.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 11:53 a.m. CST


    by IamZardoz

    That preview looked ok but not nearly as cool as Thor, Cowboys or the Los Angeles one.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 11:55 a.m. CST

    The movie is

    by NoahTall

    The movie is an attempted combination of Short Circuit, Robocop and Iron Giant. The government created Humanoid Biomechanical Soldiers or HuBSs are being transported. The crash causes soldier #8 to activate. The damage to the units electronic systems allows the human brain (which was taken from a dead soldier) to assume control of the body. The boy convinces the unit that it is a superhero hunted by the government. He even shows him a copy of Doom Patrol to make the comparison with Robotman. You can guess the rest.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Asi I don't Need to learn shit

    by D.Vader

    So don't pretend you're giving me a lesson on what makes a *good* teaser and how teasers *should*be made when I've said nothing on the subject other than "yes, that was a teaser, not a full trailer."

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 12:14 p.m. CST

    If this movie is truly going to be retro Spielbergian...

    by ufoclub1977

    Than the alien will not be a simply malevolent monster, but rather a sentient being that's in the wrong place at the wrong time, or a more naturally acting animal of extraterrestrial origin that brings in other "keepers".

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 12:42 p.m. CST


    by montessaurus

    Interesting points, to be sure. But your description of the plot is missing something KEY. The "mother" part of your analogy. Romulus, of course - Nero and his men aren't trying to restore THEIR Romulus. That's done. It's dead. What they were trying to do was destroy any enemy of the Romulans in THIS timeline so that way the Empire spans the galaxy, uncontested. All out of vengeance, and yes a suicide mission for sure.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 12:48 p.m. CST


    by montessaurus

    In the original timeline, sure Kirk was more tempered. He also didn't have that chip on his shoulder from never getting to know his father and living with a stepdad that he hates and rebels against every chance he gets. In the original timeline, Kirk DID get to know his dad. He instilled in him the importance of being a Starfleet officer, and also...discipline. Original George Kirk lived to see his son become Captain. So yeah, Nu-Kirk is brash and reckless. What's the problem here?

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 12:59 p.m. CST

    I wish...

    by Beaverduck

    ...Abrams would start being his own filmmaker. While I LOVE 80's Spielberg, and would love for this film to mirror the magic of those early films, I'm tired of Abrams trying to be Spielberg. And give me a break, the bicycle shot was straight out of E.T. Cool, but start making your own movies dude. All of that said, this does look good. I just hope it's not as underwhelming as his other films have been.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Asimovlives, Star Trek has moved on...

    by ChickenStu

    So either move along with it, or learn to live with it. Either way, stop whining about in here, cause everyone's bored shitless of reading it. It was two years ago now for fuck's sake.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 1:16 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Am I watching a different clip, because I have no clue what y'all are spooging over.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 1:22 p.m. CST

    bsg, it's because it really looks Speilbergian

    by CountryBoy

    But that'd easy to emulate when he's your producer. You can even pick out the elements that give it that effect: the small town, the numerous dolly shots into people/things, the 80's movie music on the soundtrack, the mysterious unseen creature... Not that the movie won't be good -- and not that the trailer isn't effective, for that matter -- but it's sort of plugging into a formula that looks/feels like Spielberg at his height. I'm still unsold on Abrams, who remains sort of like a skilled, but hollow, technician to me.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 1:27 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Looks more like 80s Donner and Tobe Hooper to me?

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 1:38 p.m. CST

    Here's what's Spielbergy to me:

    by CountryBoy

    The COCCOON music (I know, but it sounds like his movies too) dolly shot on the fallen camera ditto on the kids with their camera ditto on Kyle Chandler [maybe that association is peculiar to me; I think the first time I ever "noticed" a shot in a movie was when they dollied in on the idol in RAIDERS; I may have imprinted that as "SPIELBERG!" in my mind] cop car's lights flashing, a la CLOSE ENCOUNTERS 70's/80's small town Kid gazing into the light as wind blows his hair, a la ET Again, all this is easily aped by anyone who's seen Spielberg's movies. I haven't seen many of Hooper's or Donner's movies, but these are all Spielberg touches, to me...

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 1:54 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Hooper did Poltergeist and Donner, of course, did The Goonies and both embody the Spielberg style. Also because SS produced them ...

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 2:04 p.m. CST

    I forgot Donner did Goonies!

    by CountryBoy

    I was thinking Superman. And I was like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Really?"

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 2:37 p.m. CST

    chickenstu & viggeo...

    by RockHardTobascoSlimJim

    You guys get it. Fuck the rest of em if they don't. I honestly sometimes wonder if the shit that gets spewed by a lot of the TBers around here are honest, true opinions or if it's simply just troll shit pumped from the collective anus' of broken, sad souls with nothing better to do than to camp out here in the hopes of a bitter back and forth or two that might fill the worthless hours of their existences until the next feeding. The 80's were the tits, Spielberg was our celluloid Father and Abrams is simply a lucky ass kid who has chosen to try and bring a bit of that old magic back to those of us appreciative enough to welcome it. Those who don't can fuck right the hell off.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 3:09 p.m. CST

    I'm gonna try this again with a bit more detail ...

    by filmakr1

    First of all, I don't think Abrams is a hack by any means. He's obviously got some real talent and chops. I really dig this super 8 trailer. I hope the flick rocks. But he should have fucking stayed away from Trek, period, cause he doesn't know understand it. Again, my point is, WHY did he have to give us an academy days' alternate timeline, when he could have with such a massive budget and resources, given us what the REAL FANS would have loved to see within the real timeline. Things like: 1- I wanted to see a bit of Kirk’s relationship with his father … 2- I wanted to see a bit of Kirk’s relationship with Sam, his brother … 3- I wanted to see a bit of what Kirk was like as a boy. Not some punk drag racing over a cliff, that wasn’t Kirk, that was just a punk. 4- I REALLY wanted to see Kirk on Tarsus 4 as a teenager in the midst of Kodos’ genocide … 5- I wanted to see a bit more (than what we saw in Yesteryear, and in live action, of course) of Spock’s being teased as a boy and of how he dealt with it, coming home to his mother, the anguish in his eyes and face, but always keeping a stiff upper lip about it. Seeing that anguish and not giving in is SO much more powerful than just wailing off on the bully’s as a kid like we saw in this damn Abrams flick. The way Amanda describes the moment in Babel is SO sad and heart wrenching- but we’ll never get that now. 6- I wanted to see Spock meet Pike for the first time when their mission began. In addition to how their relationship developed during the many years they served together. 7- I REALLY wanted to see McCoy with his wife and maybe how that relationship ended leading up to his decision to entering Starfleet … 8- I ALSO REALLY wanted (doesn’t EVERYONE?) to see McCoy WITH Joanna, his daughter, and what the hell that relationship might have been … 9- I wanted to see Kirk enter Starfleet as a midshipman at 17 years old … 10- I SO REALLY wanted to see Kirk and Finnegan’s combative days together! … 11- I maybe wanted to see a bit of Kirk studying under the great men of that era, John Gill or Garth of Izar. This new nuckelhead Kirk imposter studied getting drunk and fighting in a bar in Iowa. 12- I wanted to see how Gary Mitchell met Kirk and how their relationship came to be … and that little blonde lab technician (no, that wasn’t Carol Marcus, ‘cause she nor her son ever existed in the canon I adhere to) 13- I really wanted to see a bit of any of Kirk’s real past relationships, when he may have been in love! Ruth! Areel Shaw! Janet Wallace! Janice Lester! (that one must have been a trainwreck!) 14- I maybe wanted to see Kirk meeting Ben Finney and what the hell that friendship might have been like … 15- Who wouldn’t have wanted to see Kirk’s peace mission to Axanar and his subsequent medaling of the Palm Leaf! 16- I really wanted to see Lieutenant Kirk aboard the Farragut under Captain Garrovick … 17- Would have loved to see Kirk’s 1st meeting with Tyree … 18- One of the most important moment’s in trek history: Kirk taking command from Pike and how he and Spock REALLY first met … 19- How Kirk and McCoy really first met … 20- … And Scotty … and the rest, plus a good half dozen more incidents from the rest of the senior crew … Wouldn't a new academy story with THESE things in it kicked ass? This is what went through my head after I left the theatre. WHY did Paramount have to make this film – and reboot it - this way? Oh, I know why, because it was about money as usual, try to pinpoint and target the largest demographic possible. But that’s just it – Star Trek was never about a wide demographic. I wish it was, bit it wasn’t. It’s Sci-fi adventure and that ain’t everyone’s bag. Abrams has changed it to try and please everyone, but in changing it, he’s changed the essense of what it was and why we all loved it in the first place. All right, lemme just say out of the gate here, I’m a pretty strict purist. I acknowledge NONE of the TOS movies whatsoever as canon. To me, it’s just the three seasons and TAS, that’s it. I’ve never understood why fans who grew up with TOS just simply accepted everything the movies gave us. They were all full of ridiculous nonsense, most especially the characterizations of those we all knew so well. I felt that way on Decmeber 7, 1979 and here I am feeling the same way all these years later. Yet THIS time I really went in feeling good about the flick, that for the first time I was gonna dig this, because it was all these characters when they were young, and quite frankly because it WAS a new cast, I thought the freshness factor would ring true. One of the prime reasons (among many others I’d better save for other posts) ) I’ve felt the movies never worked in terms of character was because the actors themselves had lost their perspective due to the sudden and overwhelming fame that the conventions and and all hubbub of the 70’s. Yeah, I know ... I should have posted this two years ago ... well better late than never ...

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 3:14 p.m. CST

    I like Abrams

    by Shaner Jedi

    the guy is a great moviemaker. No he's not a great filmmaker. But so what? He makes movies for the masses and the kind of films Spielberg used to direct before he became all self-important. Looks great.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 3:27 p.m. CST

    rockhardtobascoslimjim, thanx for your kind words...

    by ChickenStu

    Nice to know I'm being heard amongst a lot of the bullshit here.

  • But this trailer is giving me the kind of vibe I ain't had since I was a kid. And I'm in love. "Super 8" - I'm really feeling it.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 3:39 p.m. CST

    The bit in this teaser that gets me...

    by ChickenStu

    Is the cops in the kitchen looking around in awe when the lights start going on and off... with thier 70's tasches and bad hair. That's when I was hooked.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Ah, whiny talkbalkers

    by Saracen1

    Nothing will make you worthless bitches happy. We could have a perfect, two and a half minute trailer shown during the superbowl of the greatest film ever made and you idiots would still find something to whine about.

  • It's about a kid who makes films with a Super 8 camera, right? Well, it's quite a well known fact that Spielberg used to do that himself when HE was a kid. So I think in a way, this movie is like one big love letter to Spielberg. It's sort of about him, and the plot of the movie is being delivered in a style which is reminiscent of him. And I think when J.J Abrams and co told Spielberg about this movie, he was so flattered - he decided to produce it. Not EXECUTIVE produce, but actually produce HANDS ON. And I can't remember the last time he did that for a film. Sure, he's co-produced his own stuff, but this is different. Oh man, I really cannot wait to see this.

  • Feel the love man. Ignore the haters.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:09 p.m. CST

    They Know Monster Movies Are Overdone

    by kesoze4

    What's going to be Speilbergianesque with the requisite emotional payoff? Bonding with the alien or whatever it is. How can this be done without making it an instant ET clone? Make the alien a human child. Switch the roles of ET and Elliott. I say whoever posted above that "Super 8" refers to a "Super" 8-year-old may be right. What if it is just about an alien who comes off like an out-of-control kid with superpowers? And he has to stop something even worse? ET meets Dean Koontz' Watchers? I'd watch that.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:19 p.m. CST

    Oh man, chickenstu, that's brilliant!!

    by D.Vader

    A Spielberg-esque movie about a Spielberg-esque kid who makes movies and experiences a fantastic event that inspires him to make the movies we all love and become one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. A spielberian movie that shows us the source of Spielberg. Very very interesting!

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:22 p.m. CST

    "We're ordinary! Someone's attacking! Who could they be?!"

    by BurnHollywood

    Yeah, that's really new and fresh.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:28 p.m. CST

    d.vader - errr... thanks?

    by ChickenStu

    Sorry dude... I have trouble telling the difference between when you're being funny or genuine? I sure hope you're being genuine man...

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:32 p.m. CST

    007 Ralph Fiennes = Ernst Stavro Blofeld

    by NADO

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:33 p.m. CST

    "This movie is like one big love letter to Spielberg"

    by BurnHollywood

    If I want to see Hollywood copiously kiss the ass of one of their cash-cows, I'll just tune in for the Oscars...

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:33 p.m. CST



    Nothing new or overly interesting to see in this teaser.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:46 p.m. CST

    Chickenstu I'm being genuine

    by D.Vader

    I think that's a really rad idea. Also, I don't tend to ridicule someone else's idea unless it's really really asinine and they think they're being brilliant. Like McG's ideas for the next Terminator flick for instance. Terrible!

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 4:49 p.m. CST

    Chickenstu, more

    by D.Vader

    I love the idea of making a Spielbergian movie in the same vein as all those wonderful movies that inspired us, but having it also be about Spielberg himself goes one level deeper; that's why I like it.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 5:05 p.m. CST

    Thanks d.vader!

    by ChickenStu

    Sorry for being a doubter there... :-( Please bear in mind I could be wrong though... but I hope I'm not! I didn't know there was going to be another Terminator btw... must've missed that...

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 5:07 p.m. CST

    I love the feel of it

    by SithMenace

    Feels like watching a trailer for a 1980 sequel to Close Encounters.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 5:24 p.m. CST

    Spielberg producer or executive producer?

    by bastian1138

    IMDb says Executive Producer. Anyone know the facts on this one? Not a big deal for me, but it seems to have become a distinction which others are discussing.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 7:04 p.m. CST

    Zombie, 20 seconds in....

    by Dhaemon

    Anyone else standing next to the bow and girl in the daytime scene.... Red circles around the eyes and looks to be blood on the chest area....

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 7:46 p.m. CST

    Great imagery and music

    by MattmanReturns

    Good marketing. But is it a good movie?

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 7:48 p.m. CST

    bottomsup, I give a shit about sports

    by MattmanReturns

    And that game sucked until the 4th quarter. Yes, just about every TV spot was better. Deal with it.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 8:10 p.m. CST

    At least one good thing will come of this movie:

    by MattmanReturns

    It has inspired me to finally throw in my Close Encounters blu-ray tonight.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 10:51 p.m. CST

    At 26 seconds there is a strange face in the shutter lense...

    by BirdieNumNum

    It's upside down and looks like a troll doll! Check it. It don't look like no E.T.

  • Feb. 7, 2011, 11:17 p.m. CST

    More Lens Flares

    by conspiracy

    JJ finally found his visual calling card...and I'm sick of it already. Was originally interested in, not so much.

  • Came To Reclaim Me

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 3:34 a.m. CST

    Just kidding, this looks good so far, pretty excited

    by Smack_Teddy

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 7:14 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You made a coment that you think that the NuKirk version of JAR JAR TREK nailed who Kirk was and all that. Now you go defensive and claim to not being an expect of Star Trek? If you are not, then how can you make such coments that Jar Jar Abrams nailed the essence of Star Trek and that his movie is so sucessful as a Star Trek story? And you know what's even fuinnier? You don't need to be an expect of Star Trek to know that Jar Jar Abrams fucked up beyond all possible recognition, FUBAR in short. And you need to learn shit. You do, specially since you returned from the banhammer half the person you used to be. I'm hurting, man!

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 7:17 a.m. CST

    And this fucking trailer is making you guys excited?

    by AsimovLives

    You know what, i hope the hypes really builds. I hope the hype really builds to very high heights. I hope it will ballon all your expectations for the movie. I really fuckign hope so. so that when the movie doens't match your espectations, you will finally see that Jar Jar Abrams for what he is: a con man. The best way to bring down Jar Jar Abrams is to play on your own expectations of him.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 7:34 a.m. CST

    Asi, you show me where I said that

    by D.Vader

    You show me where I said NuKirk nailed the essence of old Kirk and JJ nailed Star Trek. I want you to find where I said that- because I didn't. Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time trying to think of ridiculous nicknames, making wrong assumptions, and contradicting yourself, then just maybe you'd have an idea of what you're talking about instead of once again being wrong. And also, tell me what about my comment about "teasers" up above suggests I'd have anything to learn from you.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 8:56 a.m. CST


    by riggs_and_murtaghs_love_child

    I mean, There is still talk about Star Trek in here....that just boggles the fucking mind to no end. Fucking retards need to get a life and move on already. NO ONE FUCKING CARES ABOUT WHY YOU THINK TREK SUCKS....NO ONE!!!!!! You really crack me up have always said how you are NOT a Trekkie, not an expert on TOS, that you admire it. Yet you present yourself as THE authority about the characters and how they should act. You contradict yourself constantly. The problem is you don't see it and when people prove you wrong you call them ignorant assholes. Oh and seriously? They could not possibly have brand names that exist today in the future? Are you seriously presenting that as an argument? So your saying there is no possible way that Anhieser Bush, the company that makes Budweiser, could not possibly be in business in the future? You can see the future, and they won't be around. It's the #1 beer producer in the United States and have been in business since 1876, so yea I guess there's no way they could possibly last. Your ignorance is staggering, and you have never been rational.

  • So in essence what you are saying is that if someone who is an expert on Trek likes the movie, they are just an ignorant fool? Yet you, who is no expert, is right...all the time. Again, staggering ignorance.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 9:20 a.m. CST

    Trek fans knowledge > Asimov's Trek knowledge

    by riggs_and_murtaghs_love_child

    Fact. But you still know more than everyone, don't you?

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 9:52 a.m. CST

    Budweiser has been in business for 135 years

    by riggs_and_murtaghs_love_child

    So yea, it's just sooooo far fetched to think they will still be around for another century or two.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 10:27 a.m. CST

    Another Alien End of the World Movie

    by Joe Nica

    In Super 8! Yay!

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 10:46 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Friend, are you being deliberatly obtuse? That Budweisser coment, was that a joke? All this tears when you watched Star Trek, what part of it telling us for decades now that the future presented in Star Trek no longer has capitalism or commercialism of any kind, where money doens't exist anymore in the Federation. What part of "no commercialism future" you do not understand? What part of the Star Trek future in whch is a civilization that raised from a terrible nuclear war that destroyed everything and where the humans recreated civilization anew on different guideleines then the one that existed before, which is, ours? What par tof all that you did not understand? And what part of this makes you think that, wiht all that, makes the existence of FUCKING BUDWEISSER logical?

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 11:07 a.m. CST

    I know what's fucking up that town in the teaser. It's Abrams's EGO!

    by AsimovLives

    Jar Jar Abrams's ego was let lose and is causing extensive destruction. I heard the name of that town shown in the teaser is "Star Trek". Abrams's ego, over-inflated by all the mindless blind gushing he gets, is now on the lose. Who will save us from the evilness of Abrams's giant ego? Who to save us?

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 11:39 a.m. CST

    It's just more of the same from Speilberg

    by Gidney

    humans are a bloodthirsty, thoughtless lot and only the love of a child can save us. And remember, only carry walkie talkies around the kid. Speilberg lost his pair when he found Hollywood political consciousness. War of the Worlds proves the point: while the original movie was about humans trying to fight back (and failing) his was about the wisdom of running away and hiding.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Now that's funny

    by riggs_and_murtaghs_love_child

    Out of all the things I said, the Budweiser comment is all he could respond to. Thus proving my point. Honestly, I figured he would only respond to that anyways. He always takes the bait, the easy response. Rock on, you are at the very least, somewhat entertaining in your ignorance.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Let me guess......

    by riggs_and_murtaghs_love_child

    It's cause my other comments are not worth responding to, right. Cause the truth hurts.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 12:43 p.m. CST

    So no Budweiser in the future

    by riggs_and_murtaghs_love_child

    But I am sure Batman will still be able to fall from a penthouse carrying someone else and land on a car and just get up and walk away, not a scratch. Yea that's believable. Oh and before you go off on some rant, I loved TDK. But perfect it isn't.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 1:15 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    What does future Bud has anything to do with big falls from a top building? Your logic is escaping me. If you are to draw comparisons, do it on comparable things. The nonsens eof brands showing up in JAR JAR TREK would be immediatly understoodby anybody with even the minimum knowledge of Star Trek. It's basic to the very background of the show and the Federation, the society where the ST heroes came from. You didn't made all that many coments, and i pratically answered them all. You don't need to be upset or gloat about a fictional victory over me that isn't there. Freankly, i sfind all the arguments in support of Jar Jar Abram's lame. They are not arguments, they are mere appologetics. They all resume to "Just Because" and "Because Abrams did it". And constant deliberate handwaving of the movie's flaws when they are pointed out. It's like talking to christian fundies and creationists.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 1:16 p.m. CST

    "TDK (...) perfect it isn't"

    by AsimovLives

    For what it's humanly possible, TDK is as perfect a movie as it can be. Far easier to defend that movie then Jar Jar Trek, that's for sure.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 1:20 p.m. CST

    While we're ragging on Batman...

    by kesoze4

    What did the Joker do with all those people in the same scene? Just say "Oh, sorry to bother you all, see ya?"

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 2:04 p.m. CST

    If you can rag on Trek

    by riggs_and_murtaghs_love_child

    I can rag on TDK....this is not a TDK or Trek thread but as usual, you make it all about you and Trek. Fist off I never claimed any great victory over you. Second off, "I practically answered the all". You About Budweiser. Let's see what you didn't answer.... " have always said how you are NOT a Trekkie, not an expert on TOS, that you admire it. Yet you present yourself as THE authority about the characters and how they should act." Didn't answer that one. "what you are saying is that if someone who is an expert on Trek likes the movie, they are just an ignorant fool? Yet you, who is no expert, is right...all the time." Yea, you answered one out of three. I guess that could be seen by some as practically all. It's ok, your ignorance of them is actually an answer in itself. The defenses (not all, but most of them) of Trek are not apologies, I have read many defenses of the movie, and they are legitimate. Many of the criticisms are legitimate as well. The problem is you. YOU see them as apologies, because that's how you want to see them. Oh and my bringing up TDK is perfectly legitimate. If you can sit and bash a movie and director you hate, let's see you analyze a movie and director you love with the same rationale you use on Trek. The problem is, you can't, you have stated in the past that the flaws in TDK are so minute that they don't exist. That's not rational, it's pure ignorance. The beauty of TDK is that it is a movie with flaws that still manages to be amazing. You can over look the flaws because the overall movie is great. Overlook, NOT ignore. See, as much as you sit and bash Trek for every little detail, you don't use that same microscopic analysis on TDK, because you admire Nolan so you give him a pass. The movie is perfect to you, but that does not erase that fact that it has flaws. So, much in the same way that you ignore the flaws of TDK, there are those who like Trek who overlook some of the flaws. You see, not everyone sees Trek as heavily flawed as you do. Many long time Trek fans, including people I know who are even bigger Trek fans than I am, have praised the movie. They also acknowledge the flaws in a film made by someone unfamiliar with Trek lore. Are you going to sit therre and tell me that long time Trek fans are idiots? Just because you say it is a heavily flawed film, does not mean that it is and that's it end of story. As much as you want to think film is not subject to different opinions, it is. Just because you see a film as bad, does not mean that the entire world should see it that way, and don't insult me by saying that's not what you do. You have been ranting on and on about this film for 2 years, because you so want everyone to see it as the abomination you do. You sit back and accuse critics of being "paid off" to give the movie a good review. That is hilarious. While I am not ignorant to the fact that something like that, that probably does happen on a small scale, it didn't happen on as large a scale as you are trying to say it did. For one simple reason....people cannot keep quiet. If a large scale "purchasing" of good reviews was taking place, someone would have talked. It would have gotten out. It's human nature. So that argument is null and void. Have you changed people's minds about the film? I seriously doubt you have. All of your words over the past two years are nothing more than your own personal opinion. It is no more right than anyone else's opinion. You think your opinion is the correct one and that's fine, we all think our opinion is the correct one. So why don't you practice the old saying of live and let live. Stop letting the opinions of total strangers bother you so much. You hate the film. Other people like it. You have expressed your opinion, now move on. But you can't, because you are so convinced you are right, you are not going to stop. You could not stop talking about Trek if you tried. I am sure your pal JJ is oh so grateful for keeping his name and film in the spotlight. You sure do a lot of advertising for a guy you supposedly hate. Maybe instead of always talking about what you hate, you should talk about things you like. If such things other than TDK even exist, cause you would never know. I am done with this discussion because quite frankly, I am certain it has been a waste of my time. Now I just need to see if I am going to get the reaction I am expecting.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 2:31 p.m. CST

    This debate is still going on?

    by rogueleader66

    Wow, I have not been here regularly for some time, and I feel like I stepped into a time machine cause all I see is TREK ARGUMENTS. Damn give it a rest already. Whats up Asi, long time no talk dude.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 3:38 p.m. CST

    At the 9 second mark the premise becomes quite clear....

    by spidar40

    ...a super 8 camera falls. You see it and headphones for recording. The kids were obviously making a home movie near the tracks when ''shit went down'' So then they come back the next day and get their movie camera and sent it away to Kodak to get exposed. A couple weeks later they get the footage back, set up their projector and have their little minds blown when they discover THEY'VE CAUGHT THE ALIEN ON FILM! ( there's 'yer found footage ) .....the rest is just a series of by-the-numbers pissed off alien scenes.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 4:52 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "You show me where I said NuKirk nailed the essence of old Kirk and JJ nailed Star Trek. I want you to find where I said that- because I didn't." OK, fair enough, friend, you didn't said that. But consider that you sure put a fight indefense of Jar Jar Abram's SHIT TREK. You made this coment then a previous talkback described how Kirk was in Roddenbery's vision: "And whoever said walking-stacks-of-books couldn't engage in bar fights from time to time too?" Those are your words. It's a defense of the presentation of NuKirk as seen in Abram's movie. Your first instinct was to defend the movie, instead of saying "yeah, that doesn't sound much like ol' Kirk". I don't know why people like you defend that movie, why you can't be convinced of it's crapness with the evidence shown. Many of you for some reason are convinced that Kirk is an arrogant ass, and when he was younger he should be a smart-ass even more arrogant fool. Where does this idea come from? My theory is that many of you are msitaking Kirk's youth with Picard's. It was Picard who was an unsufferable reckless ass when he was young, to the point he got stabbed in the heart for his troubles. Kirk was the opoposide, as the other fellow said, and as was told in the episode SHORE LEAVE, Kirk was a timid bookworm guy who took a level in badass then he had to defend from the constant bullying of fellow cadete. also, i think most of you mistake Kirk for the actor who played him. It was William Shartner who was the jerkass, not Kirk. Truly, i see so many crass mistakes from the people who defend Jar Jar Trek, it's like they have been brainwashed into idioticy, for the sake of enjoying a chessy dumb ass movie. Who can understands that shit?

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 5:32 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I'm not an authority on Star Trek, and that'asa THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT! I don't need to be an authority on Star Trek to see the bullshit that Jar Jar Abrams did. That's the whole point! Jar Jar Abrams doesn't give a shit about ST! I never saw such disrespect from a filmamker about the sourse material then what Abrams did with his so-called ST movie. It's sickning! I have yet to see a smart and well founded defense of Jar Jar Trek! Not a single one! Never! They are all just blind gushings. they all say the same, and it'sall repetition from the movie's own advertizement, all of them to a fault. It's scary! You call what i say ramblings and rants because you don't care to know and udnerstand. Because, like all of the Jar Jar Trek gfanboys, you made your mind to love the movie no matter what, regardles of all logical arguments agaisnt it. You act like christian fundies, you don't want to have your faith tainted by proof and reason. It's weird like hell! Have i changed other's minds about Jar Jar Trek? I don't know, i'm not keeping scores. And i'm not in her eto make people's minds. that' waht Jar Jar Abrams do, to make people watch his fucking movies, and he's doign a one hell of a good job, as evidenced by you, for instance. Changing people's minds is not my deal. But i have notiticed that i have helped some people, some smart people, to notice the flaws in the movie. If they change their mind about the movie, that's not my business. Why cna't i stop talkign about Jar Jar Trek? The same way, m guess, why AICN and many of you fanboys can't stop thinking it's a great movie, i guess. I have talked a lot about the things i like. If you haven't payed attention and noticed them, that's not my problem. I'm retty done with this discussion too, sicne there is no way in hell one can open the mind of a Jar Jar Trek fanboy. You can't make fundies reason.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 5:33 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    This debate will only eend when the second FUBAR TREK movie cames along. Then, the subject will be FUBAR TREK 2: FUCKED HARDER. I have been alright, thanks for asking. And how have you been, friend? Long time nos ee ya, where have you been? Last time we talk, you were job hunting, i think. Any luck?

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 5:35 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I agree with you, the SUPER 8 title doesn't seem to make an whole lot of sense, so far as we can tell about the movie. Euitehr it's a very obscure reference to some shenighan that happens in the movie, or it's just one of those nonsensical title that sounds cool but has little to do with the actual movie.

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 5:36 p.m. CST

    As fo the supposedly vintage Spielbergian visual look of SUPER 8...

    by AsimovLives

    ... it looks like like vintage Roland Ememrich. Which is another hack who constantly rips off Spielberg's visual style. Grweat, now we are getting two Roland Emmerichs, as if one wasn't bad enough!

  • Feb. 8, 2011, 8:35 p.m. CST

    So a terrible film for most people here is one

    by Larry Sellers

    that has a good story but fails to abide by the rules of physics and logic? Pleeeeeaaaaaase. And Super 8 looks okay. It's the same I felt about Cloverfield (for obvious reasons): they're selling the MYSTERY. If they had revealed that monster and his little crab creatures in the first trailer, the audience would've yawned and moved on. I'm not sure if I felt a little cheated or just dissatisfied.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 2:32 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You have never read my "rants", have you? Call me emotional, call me relentless, call me even obstructuve, but idiot is the last thing you would had any reason to call me. Because i can offer many ideas and arguments why the Jar Jar Trek is a bad movie. The idiot vball i have seen too many times on the other side. You know why cobra-kai defended me? Becasue he knows quite well many of the arguments i havepresented all this time. He doesn't need to agree with me to know i'm no blind gushing dumb fanboy who accepts bullshit at face value. He knows i have reasons behind my opinions. He doesn't need to think like me to respect and understands me. And you can you do that? Better yet, can you even bother to read my reasons and at least udnerstand them? I'm not even asking you to agree, but to understand. Or would that be too much to ask and would ruin your already pre-defined opinions about me and Abram's movie? Your call.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 2:35 a.m. CST

    larry sellers

    by AsimovLives

    What good story movie you are talking about? Abrams's Trek? If i were to bash St for lack of adherence to the laws of physics, then we would trash everything made in ST, all series and movies, everything. No, what Abrams Trek fails is basic storytelling. It's not about the laws, it's about the lack of intelligence, it's about the stupidiy that went to it. Well, that is if your coment is about Abrams Trek. As for SUPER 8, the trailer just shows stuff blowing up. Nothing less, nothing more. to have an orgasmic reaction just from that is also a bit absurd and too over eager. It tells more about the predispositionthat some people have about Abrams then anything else.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 2:44 a.m. CST

    Abrams is a divisive filmmaker... AND IT'S ABOUT TIME!

    by AsimovLives

    It's about time that there is now divisive opinions about Abrams, instead of the universal gushing that used to exist about him. And this is as it should. There's still the rabid fans, and there are now more harsh critics like me (we used to be far fewer). But the best thing about this is not the people on the extremes of the opinion about him, but the new thing that came and, it seems, composed the majority of even the people in here: the people in the middle. Those who now see that Abrams is a flawed creative person in which in al his work he shows some questionable decisions. But who also have some interest and curiosity to see his latest movie because they mostly see it as a new movie, with it being made by Abrams as not the centerpiece of their opinion. And thisis good. That this middle ground exists. That there ar epeople who know about Abrams,a re aware of his perceived strenghs and weakness as a filmmaker, and who are going to SUPER 8 more out of curiosity about the movie itself then the filmmaker. This is good. It's great to see this midle ground growin up. That so much of the blind gushing about Abrams has dioed out and now a more balanced opinion spectrum is going about him and his movies. This moderation makes me even more happy then if everybody had suddently became Abrams's bashers. In fact, it would even be suspicious. As people were gushing about him for the wrong reasons when his Star Trek mvoie was released, a suddent change of general opinion about him to the contrary would mean people were bashing him for the wrong reasons as well. Nobody should be praised or bashed for the wrong reasons.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 7:16 a.m. CST

    See, Asi, this is what you do- ALL the time

    by D.Vader

    "OK, fair enough, friend, you didn't said that. " Finally, you admit you were wrong, albeit in a backsided kind of way. But this is something you do all the time- you make WRONG assumptions about what someone has said, and then you arrogantly try to correct them or educate them. If you were a real friend, you wouldn't constantly do this. You wouldn't misread what someone has said and then jump to ridiculous conclusions like putting words in my mouth about how I felt about "NuKirk". You have a lot to learn Asi, because this is a real bad habit with you. It happened in the Capt. America talkback (with me and with YourStepDaddy, someone who was actually defending you and you went and jumped down his throat insulting him when he was on your side the whole time). And it happened here (another example is the discussion on teasers in which you presume to educate me on what a good teaser should be). You're not reading clearly enough and so you are *failing* in your arguments. But you will never admit you are wrong, and that's a very annoying trait as well. But instead you *still* insist on twisting the facts around to make it look like you were right. You then continue to make INCORRECT assumptions. For instance, you said this: ""And whoever said walking-stacks-of-books couldn't engage in bar fights from time to time too?" Those are your words. It's a defense of the presentation of NuKirk as seen in Abram's movie. Your first instinct was to defend the movie, instead of saying "yeah, that doesn't sound much like ol' Kirk". " No. No, no, no, no, no. That's not defending NuKirk. That's called pointing out a flaw in someone's argument. That previous person's attack on Kirk's characterization was based on a quote by Roddenberry about Kirk being a stack of books. But just because one is a stack of books doesn't mean that stack of books can't fight. Do you see the logic there? I like playing Devil's Advocate because it sometimes forces people to put out stronger defenses and better thought out posts. But sometimes, as in your case, someone gets what I said COMPLETELY wrong and makes an ass of himself by believing its an instinctual defense of Abram's Kirk (when in reality I've said absolutely NOTHING on whether or not it was a good characterization). You've got to do better Asi. You're wrong entirely too often and what's worse is that you could easily prevent it if you stopped arrogantly assuming your positions are correct. Because they're not.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 8:09 a.m. CST

    I just want to know

    by riggs_and_murtaghs_love_child

    How I blindly defended Trek, or how I was a gushing fanboy..... Oh right....I didn't, and was not. You are the WORST kind of fanboy Asimov. You will blindlt defend what you like, and you will micor analyze movies you hate, but you won't do the same to a movie you love. You think you addressed my points in my last post? You did nothing of the kind, as usual you were quite selective in your responses. That's what you do, you respond to things only when you can apply a generalization, when it comes to specific arguments, especially ones that prove you wrong, you ignore them. You say you have never seen a good argument in defense of Trek....of course you haven't. because you are not open to such things. I have seen people give well thought out posts in defense of the movie and you simply respond by calling them blind fanboy Abrams dick suckers. I have read just about all of your posts and understand them quite well. You have made some good points about the movie, I never said you didn't. So don't you sit there and tell me how I don't "understand" like you are some intellectual giant whose words are above all of us dumb schmucks. Your problem is you think everyone else doesn't know as much about film as you do. You know no more or less than anyone, even though you THINK you do. Again, you profess to be a non authority on Trek, so how is it you profess to know so much about it? Before I get on another pointless tirade, I am stopping. I got the exact response I expected, loaded with ignorance. The only reason discussion of this movie keeps happening is NOT because people who like it keep gushing about it, it's because YOU, at every opportunity, make TB's all about it, and you never ever stop. It's actually pretty sad. Move on, it's over. Stop hating, start enjoying life instead of living on hate. Either that or go suck JJ off, cause you have such a hard on for him that may be the only thing that cures you.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 8:26 a.m. CST

    Thanks Viggeo

    by riggs_and_murtaghs_love_child

    I honestly don't know why i waste my time, cause it seems rational thought and well made points are wasted on some people. Ok, now I await the inevitable "Where did you make good points or rational thoughts??? Where???" Those who cannot see rational thoughts are those who have very little themselves.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 8:27 a.m. CST

    Ok I just read my last post to Asimov

    by riggs_and_murtaghs_love_child

    and it's loaded with grammatical apologies, in my haste I had to forgo basic editing.

  • You've obviously never read any of my past rants against McG, Brett Ratner, or the terrible Clash of the Titans remake. I've also railed hard against AICN and it's moderators in the past (after bannings I've tempered many of my comments, though the last one that got me banned isn't close to the kind I'm referencing). All this may have been before your time, though. But trust me, the passion, the conviction- it's there.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 11:19 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    i don't think you should appologise for your grammatical mistakes, specially if your message comes across fine. I detest grammars nazis. And as someone like myself who is both a foreigner/non-english language native and who also has the infortunate habit of writing in a hurry as well, i don't think i have any right to put down an argument just becaus eof a few grammaticla slippages. I tell you, friend, i'll never dismiss any argument form you due to grammar. It's your ideas that matters.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 11:22 a.m. CST

    d.vader, i'll always admit when i'm wrong when i'm wrong.

    by AsimovLives

    But i'm not wrong just because some other say i'm wrong. That's the difference.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 11:28 a.m. CST

    d.vader, i'll be back to you soon...

    by AsimovLives

    ... but about the fucked up characterization of Nu-Kirk as Kirk was established in TOS, the stack of books with legs description actually happens in two different episodes of the show: SHORE LEAVE and WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE. In the later the description is said by the character played by Gary Lockwood (Frank Poole of 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY) and the former by kirk himself in SHORE LEAVE. And to hammer the point home, in WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE Gary's character tells Kirk that his Kirk's first girlfriend came his way because Gary pushed her his way. So, Kirk during his Academy years was not only a bookworm but a shy nerd. The people who say that NuKirk is totally a different person from TOS Kirk are right. Kirk was a nerd who man up and took a level in badass. NuKirk is an arrogant ass from the get go, he's an imitation of Tom Cruise's Maverick character from TOP GUN. no matter how muich you kick and scream about this subject, there it is. go watch WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE and SHORE LEAVE. Don't take my word for it, see it for yourself.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 11:32 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Youc an find all those Spielberg throwback images from Roland Emmerich movies as well. Should i start to praise the shit out of Emmerich because he does that too? The fuck i'll. And allow me to repeat this point again: People in here are praising Abrams for RIPPING OFF spielberg! Surely i'm not the only one here who sees the absurdity of that. AICN findsl all kind of manners to pull a prais eon Abrams, regardless. Even if it make sno sense. How am i not to believe that Abrams owns's AICN's ass? AICN should be renamed AINT WE ABRAMS GROUPIES.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 11:33 a.m. CST

    "no matter how muich you kick and scream about this subject"

    by D.Vader

    Asi the only person kicking and screaming here is you buddy. And you're still kicking and screaming about incorrect assumptions. Again, I haven't said ANYTHING regarding old Kirk's characterization. Again, you're wrong but you won't admit it.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 11:39 a.m. CST

    also, viggeo_morgenstein....

    by AsimovLives

    ... i have lots to say in defense of TDK. Don't you make the mistake of thinking that i cannot defend my opinions about that movie. don't you think that my love for that movie is mere gushing, Abrams's fanboys style. And i don't need to micro-analise Abrams's TREK to find faults with it. and that's exactly the point: Abram's Trek fucks ups are VERY OBVIOUS. They are immediatly apparent. You don't need to even look for most of them, they are obvious like sore thumbs. That's the whole bloody point. The istake you ar emaking is a long explanation for the move's fucks ups for "micro-analizing". Some things demand a longer explanation, but that doens't mean one needed to dig up to find it. You don't neeed to do archeology to find ABRAMS TREK's mistakes and fuck ups, you kick them all over the ground.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 12:02 p.m. CST

    And i'll never stop calling Abrams as Jar Jar

    by AsimovLives

    Most until he becomes a proper filmmaker instead of a glorified studio executive with a film crew. Until then, Jar Jar sticks.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 12:04 p.m. CST

    viggeo_morgenstein, you respect me or "respect" me.

    by AsimovLives

    Because there's a world of difference in that. Clue me in. I respect you, but don't make me start to "respect" you.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 12:17 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Sorry for the multi-posting, but let me jsut make somethign clear to you, so we can understand each other, and you cna understand me: - I don't claim to be an expert on Star Trek. And that's part of the point about Abrams Trek. One doesn't need to be an expect on St to nitice the blatant mistakes and fuck ups that Abrams did in his so-called Star Trek movie. As that reviewer Plinkett said, the mvoie should had been called SPACE ADVENTURE: THE MOVIE, because it has little to do with St except for some vague superficialities and repetition of names for characters and a ship. - You say that i don't see the arguments for the otehr side, that i blind myself to them. In fact, it's the opposite. I have been reading them, since the movie came out. I took notice of them. and all of them are vasically variations of two ideas: Abrams movie is good because everyody saus so, and Abrams mvoie is good because Abrams says so. And it doesn't go much deeper then that. Every positive review of Abrams Trek is just a continuous repetition of the same thing said again and again. I don't think that's a valid argument, either for Abrams Tek or for any other movie, TDK included. Specially TDK. - If anything, it's the fans of Abrams Trek who seem quite unwilling to udnerstand the opposite camp,a nd who deliberatly close on whenever there's a contrary argument. It's all just about the fun and nothing else. What they perceive is fun is, well... how to put it? - I actually don't care about micro-analizing much the movie Abrams Trek, because i don't need to. All it's problems are on the surface, they are immediate. If you have read Plinkett's review, you will notice he took his sweet time pointing out how the elevator shaft in Abrams Trek wa all wrong that it took spock form the Egine room to the bridge in mere seconds, and then he spent 3 fucking minutes point out how how long it actually it would take, IN REAL TIME! Me, man, i don'ty a fuck about such nickpicking! i don't give a shit about how long the turbolift takes form engine room to the birdge. Who gives a fuck about that shit? I sure don't. It doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is the obvious structural mistakes the story has, the idiotic way the plot advance,d the lack of logic in the plotting and characterizations, how it makes no sense in regard to what was established in TOS in regard to the setting and the characters as created, and the fucking odd creative and aestetic choices like the lens flares and the brewery engine room. Those are what matters to me. - If you have any doubt that i can argument my points, just throw at me anything. Ask me anything about the movie and what i think of it, why i think it's bad or good. If you will, i do that for you. and unlike Braindrain, i'll give you an explanation,and not just a mere quip. It's the least i can do for you.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 12:19 p.m. CST

    viggeo_morgenstein, see the post above...

    by AsimovLives

    ... and if you will, i'll also reply to any questions you have to me about my position about Abrams Trek. Don't presume that you know me already, clean slate and ask away anything. Anything. I'm game for anything. And i vow to be corteous and considerate and unjudgemental to you. Your call, friend.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 12:21 p.m. CST

    d.vader, i extend my invitation to you as well.

    by AsimovLives

    You are feed to ask me anything regarding my position about Abrams Trek.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 12:22 p.m. CST

    feed = free. sorry

    by AsimovLives

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 12:26 p.m. CST

    Im not debating Trek, Asi

    by D.Vader

    I know your position on it. All I did was use the Socratic method on someone *else's* assertion that Kirk wouldn't fight because he was described as being a walking stack of books. I'm not sure how you got confused.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Thanks Asimov, but...

    by riggs_and_murtaghs_love_child

    I have zero desire to get into a debate about Trek. I have read your posts, I have read posts defending it, and despite what you claim, I have read many posts that go into great detail in their defense of the film, and are not just "it's a great movie because I say so" or "because Abrams says so". I have also seen you ignore the detailed posts. I know your going to sit there and say "there never have been any detailed defenses" of the film, but there has been, you just never seem to acknowledge them and if you ever did, you basically told the person why they were wrong. I'm not imagining any of this, I am not making things up just to argue. I don't do that. Oh and I have no doubt you can argue your points, I have seen you do that way more than I care to see, so really, there's no need to do it yet again. I see both sides of the good/bad argument concerning the film, and both sides have their valid points, as well as their invalid ones. That's all I am going to say on the subject. Because honestly, after two years of this futile nonsense, there really is no point in it anymore.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Ok I will say this

    by riggs_and_murtaghs_love_child

    There is a thing called character evolution. Concerning Kirk, we see him in the movie BEFORE the academy, we don't see him during the academy, we only see him before and after. There was NEVER anything in TOS that talked about Kirk pre Starfleet Academy. Your making statements about the character that do not apply. Had Kirk behaved the way he did in the bar during his academy years, you would have a valid point. We didn't see that, so your statement on how Kirk would not act like he did is really not valid. You are assuming his behavior continued that way during his year at Starfleet, but you cannot know that it did because it was never shown. He starts off as a cocky arrogant ass to be sure. But we never see him during his academy years. I know your gonna say he was still cocky and arrogant after he get out of the academy, like how he deifies the rules during the Kobyashi Maru test and getting on the Enterprise....but anyone who knows Kirk knows he never plays by the rules very well. Let's count how many times during TOS he violated the Prime Directive, it's more than a few I can tell you that. Going into the military changes people. Case in point, I know a young man who not long ago was a cocky, smart ass trouble maker. He is in the Marines now and is disciplined, still tough, but he is a changed person. Ok that's it, feel free to respond if you like Asimov, but this is the only thing I am going to say on the subject because I am not getting into a debate on this. Good day.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 12:52 p.m. CST


    by riggs_and_murtaghs_love_child

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 1:25 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    If somebody said that Kirk wouldn't fight, that's not exactly right. Kirk did fight, even in his nerd days. He was forced into it to defend hismelf form the bullying of a fellow classmate. In the Shore Leave episode, we learnthat the bully was actually trying to help out Kirk to leave his nerd shell, which he did to spectacular results. NuKirk is in no way a representation of Kirk. It's not accurate. All those that said that the Abrams's NuKirk was a great presentation of Kirk as a young man got it all wrong. I suspect that notion started out by Paramount advertizement department itself, to help sell the movie as part of the Star Trek we all already known. and i have to say, they did a good job, considering how many actually fell for that. Of all the things i have to criticse Abrams Trek, ihave to admit that the advertizement was brillant. Misleading but brillant. Abrams is a master salesman.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 1:27 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I didn't invited you to a debate, i invited you to ask me anything about what i think of the movie. Think a topic and i'll answer it honestly. and do not presume you do know what i think of the movie, find out. Ask me. It will be my pleasure to answer anything you ask. Anything.

  • Feb. 9, 2011, 2 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Thanks for sharing the story about your friend who went to the military. It is important for the subject of Kirk's character development. THe military life does change people. Gene Roddenbery knew it too well, because he served during WWII. And if one watched TOS, it's quite clear he understood how the military operate. TOS shows a more humanist form of military completly builded around an extreme case of meritocracy. But it is a recognizable military institution. In Abrams Trek, the Federation is not a military institution. The best way to describe it is like a mixture of high school with Holywood film studio. Kirk in TOS is repsented to us as an already developed character. His character development happened before the show started. There's hints of who Kirk was in the past whenever any episode entions his past years. The most fither we got was mentiosn of his childhood on Earth, where he was born, of his early teens in a colony where he witness a mass murder by the local governor, and his early days in the academy as a nerd boy who man up, as told in SHORE LEAVE and WHERE NO MAN AS GONE BEFORE. About NuKirk, i didn't see that much grown. and what happeend is stright from The Big Book Of Cliches. NuKir's growns, i saw it befoe 25 years ago in TOP GUN. It's the same exact thing. The Jerkass that starts as a total Jerkass, who gets through because he's helped by people in power who got a shine on him because they used to know his dead father, and lots of imposible coicidences help his way to vindication. Basically, both TOP GUN and ABRAMS TREK has an asshole as maincharacter who acts like an asshole throughout the movie, eats a bit of humble pie but in the end has his own asshole ways justified. Nukierk is not just cocky, he's an asshole, a total jerkass. We were not privy to much of his years in the Academy, only his last years stuff, but we don't really need it to know he kept being a total jerkass. The Kobiashi Maru sequence is bafflingbeyond belief. They took a mention from THE WRATH OF KAHN and turned it into the Jerkass Show. In WOK, he must have done a subtle and stelthy job with his cheating, because the Academy ended up awarding Kirk for inovative iniciative. In Abrams Trek, NuKirk is rally just acting like a punkass, not even hiding his cheating. Either that or the asshole though nobody would ever notice. The funny thingis, had Abrams Trek gone with what was stated in WOK, it could had made for a humourous sequence. Instead, Abrams went for false drama to create this strange draamtic notionthat Kirk and Spock needed to clash befroe they would became friends. Why? In the TOS, we know they were fast friends right from the bat. In fact, Kirk inhered Spock from Pike, spock was already a crew member of the ship before Kirk took comand of the Enterprise. In Abrams Trek, we witness Enterprise's maiden voyage. And let me just add this: In Abrams Trek, the Enterpise is the newest ship of the Starfleet. And who crews it? a whole bunch of cadets right after the Academy. Should i point out the absurdity of this? Try looking for any school ships inany navy, and try to find which one is a newly build ship. Thing is, you do not put the new ship in the hands of rookies. It's the most experience people who get to crew it. Like in the airplanes when they are first tested by test pilot, who are all veterans and crop of the crop (think Chuck Yeager), the same thing is inthe navy. New ships are untested, they can have problems which would need a veteran experience crew to solve them in travel. This will be as true to our seagoing ships as it would for a space craft in a future space navy. Specially in a space navy. Things are like this because they work, things figured out from centuries of trial and error and learning. So, what is NuKirk and all his newly arrived from Academy buddies doing in the Enterprise? No rasonother then "well, they have to be there becaus,e like, that was what happened in the show". Except in the show, they were all already veterans from other services, with only Spock and Scotty being the ones who came form the former captain crew. The ony newbie in the show was Chekov. a newbie surrounded by veterans. In Abrams Trek, it's one veteran surrounded by newbies. Does this makes any sense? And later, what happens? After NuKirk took temporaly comand of the ship for the movie's own convulted and unbelievable reasons, in the end he's given the comamnd of the newest ship of the Federation as a prize. And which means, he went from Cadete to Commander in mere days. This is absurd beyond stupidity. Even with NuKirk's action, he would only be promoted to the next rank, Lieutenant. Saving the world wouldmerit him a medal and comendation. But immediate jump of 3 or 4 ranks up and command of a ship? Never! Certainly not in the ST Federation as we know it. Or else kirk in TOS would had been made Admiral right after WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE, because he actually saves the whole galaxy from a mad god creature. The only time such spped promotionjs to migher ranks ever happned in the military was in the dayswhen kings had absolute power and if you fell into the good graces of a king, he could apoint you top dog of anything just because he liked you. But you know where a person can go direvtly from the low ranks to the top in record time just because you befriends the right people? In an Holywood Film Studio. OK, tis is just one aspect of where the movie gets it all wrong and is absurd and illogical. The whole movie is made of such things. The movie makes no sense.

  • Feb. 10, 2011, 9:44 a.m. CST

    Sheep....all of you


    Stop, just stop, and admit that Asi is correct. Because he is. Try as I might have, I just cannot wrap myself up in the love for that fucking movie. I tried, I really did. Karl Urban channeled his inner DeForest Kelly to perfection. But that's about it. A villain so freaking lame if he had a brain in his head he would have been an ACTUAL menace. Instead he is a brain dead idiot who decides to kill people instead of actually saving his home planet. He is like a little schoolboy, whining and crying about being bullied instead of taking steps to change it. Kirk...asshole. Uhura...whore. Scotty...well Simon Pegg gave it his best, and was actually ok, but had as much screen time as his he man reject companion, so...FAIL. Pike...he was actually great, but again, not enough screen time. Chekov...WTF? The ship looked good, but a pretty film don't make a good one. Watch a fucking episode of Star Trek will you please Abrams? Maybe next time you will come a little bit closer to getting it right, but I doubt it. CHOPPED

  • Feb. 10, 2011, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Regarding Michael Bay


    He makes movies for men. Hot babes. Hot cars. Hot action. You want a testosterone fueled night out with the boys? Go see a Bay film. Explosions. Chases. Destruction. Devoid of story and substance. Nothing but mindless man fodder. JJ Abrams is a little bitch who makes movies for sci fi nerds who can't leave their mommies. Bay makes movies for men. Chest thumping, beer chugging men. Bay is the mother fucking man.

  • Feb. 10, 2011, 12:44 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I agree with you about Abrams, disagree about Bay. Bay makes movies for Men wannabes. For weaklings who imagine themselves to be men, but who are in fact as much nerds as the Abrams fans are. You want to see a real man's man movie? Watch VALHALLA RISING. That how a real man makes a real man's man movie for real men. You cannot go more badass this side of Lee Marvin then VALHALLA RISING.