Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

The SUPER 8 Trailer Is Here!

Nordling here.

You have to understand something about how I am about Steven Spielberg.  If you haven't read this yet, and you're interested, E.T. may be one of the most important films of my life.  And watching this trailer, I'm getting much of the same feeling.  Of all the films coming out this summer, this is the one I have to take my child to.

This is it.  This is the summer movie for me.  I don't give a damn if it's all nostalgia, or what.  Everything else fades.

That Amblin logo gave me goosebumps.  SUPER 8 opens on June 10, 2011, not soon enough.  I'm probably too hyped for this one beyond rational thought.

Nordling, out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Huh?

  • March 11, 2011, 6:30 a.m. CST

    "I'm probably too hyped for this one beyond rational thought"

    by Bobo_Vision

    "Hype" sums up most of J.J Abrams stuff, from Lost and Cloverfield to this.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:33 a.m. CST

    the only original blockbuster this summer

    by Rindain

    can't wait...i'm more of a 90s kid but ET, Close Encounters, etc were still defining movies growing up

  • March 11, 2011, 6:34 a.m. CST

    Unleash the asimovlives!

    by Bobo_Vision's your time to shine, baby. Go get 'em.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:34 a.m. CST

    Super 8

    by DJEagles11

    ...even though Jar Jar directed this, it feels like a vintage Spielberg flick to me! I definite summer, must-see! Plus it has Coach Taylor....a win for me!!!

  • March 11, 2011, 6:34 a.m. CST

    You have a child?

    by fpuk99

    I always assumed you were 15, or somesuch.* *I know that doesn't preclude you having a sprog.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:41 a.m. CST


    by GroolDemon

    This is actually a little bit refreshing. I really can't tell what the overall story is about aside from there being a train accident and that someone or something is running amok in the town. I am officially intrigued. It is like old school trailer making at its finest.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:45 a.m. CST


    by Bob

    Ok, few movie trailers actually give me goosebumps anymore. They are few and far between. The last major one was for Iron Man. Before that, Batman Begins. Well before that, The Matrix. THIS gave me goosebumps. Can't wait! Yes, I felt like a kid watching that too.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:46 a.m. CST

    Looks good, but Abrams hasnt quite done a project with real soul yet

    by IndustryKiller!

    And I'm worried this is going to be too fetishistic in it's Spielbergian qualities for this to be it. But I'm completely ready to be proven wrong. It looks very well made, and if Abrams can tone down the shaky cam that plagued parts of Star Trek then it's a step in the right direction. Stuff like Cloverfield though....yeesh.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:47 a.m. CST

    "It is like old school trailer making at its finest. "

    by Bob


  • March 11, 2011, 6:48 a.m. CST


    by GroolDemon

    Abrams' track record has been pretty so so, but this looks like its going in the right direction. I'll save further opinion on it till this summer though. So far, this summer at least seems to be shaping up to be better than last year. Here's to hoping at least.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:48 a.m. CST

    Looks amazing

    by cool_britannia79

    You're free to disagree, but that would make you retarded. That is all.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:49 a.m. CST

    It's like the anti-E.T. Kudos, Spielberg.

    by tylerzero

  • March 11, 2011, 6:50 a.m. CST

    Looks good. I love that we still don't know what to expect

    by David Cloverfield

  • March 11, 2011, 6:51 a.m. CST


    by alan_poon

    It has that Spielberg vibe about it for sure and the cast looks far more likeable than those Cloverfield idiots.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:55 a.m. CST

    More blue lens flair?

    by ClayMatthews

    I like Abrams a lot and this looks really promising but ENOUGH with the blue flair. I loved STAR TREK but you can’t even see half of it. That being said, bring this on.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:56 a.m. CST

    not the film you think it is

    by wiseguy100

    love how the trailer has duped you all. it's so obvious the creature will be misunderstood and the kid will end up helping the alien get home or whatever.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:58 a.m. CST

    Totally raped the 'Empire of the Sun' theme at the start there...

    by hiperaktiv

  • March 11, 2011, 7 a.m. CST

    wiseguy100, you're right

    by Bobo_Vision

    The alien monster is just scared and wants to get out of that train compartment it's been imprisoned in. And in this film, instead of touching fingers like Elliot and ET....there's going to be a pee pee touch. You heard it here first.

  • March 11, 2011, 7 a.m. CST

    What was that theme at the beginning?

    by jwhj2007

    It sounded like Alan Silvestri's theme to "Mac and Me," the E.T. clone.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:01 a.m. CST

    I am...

    by Pawprint

    ... quietly intrigued. Abrams is a competent director who actually managed to make an interesting and exciting Star Trek film that wasn't called 'Wrath of Khan', so I remain quietly intrigued.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:01 a.m. CST

    JJ is 2 for 2

    by David Ortiz

    All JJ does is make smart popcorn, which is frankly a rare feat these days. M:I3 still holds up really well and is by far the best of that bunch, while Star Trek was pure fun and really a miracle that he pulled it off when you think about what he was up against. The list of directors who killed it on their first two features like he did has got to be tiny.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:02 a.m. CST

    Look's decent enough

    by UGG

    I have a feeling we won't see the alien until the end and it will be a real let down when we do though sadly. Hopefully if it's a good enough movie then that won't really matter. I just get a feeling they will fuck this up somehow.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:02 a.m. CST

    The reason all the dogs have gone missing....

    by Bobo_Vision because the alien is Poochie, and he has returned from his intergalactic travels and all the dogs went to attend his cosmic hip hop concert for canines.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:07 a.m. CST


    by theblackvegtable

    Something I can look forward to!!

  • March 11, 2011, 7:11 a.m. CST

    The music

    by joliet_jake1978

    Is from Cocoon. As for the trailer, looks great...

  • March 11, 2011, 7:12 a.m. CST

    With you on this one. Feel like a kid again. Simply amazing.

    by Se7en

    Channeling Spielberg at his best form.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:14 a.m. CST

    Hey, Asimov, did you see that?


    Hahaha. Will you finally shut the fuck up and get off Abrams dick when this movie turns out to be great?

  • March 11, 2011, 7:15 a.m. CST

    At the end of the movie....

    by Bobo_Vision

    ...the kid's will attend Poochie's cosmic hip hop concert, and there will be big banners advertising Coca Cola and Mcdonald's, and they will sit down with Poochie and have a Big Mac and large fries and Cokes, and then Bill Cosby will peek his head out of the bushes behind them and say "Coke is it! And I love Jello Pudding Pops! Zzrbrt!"...and they will all laugh while tilting their heads. THE END.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:16 a.m. CST

    Abrams will never be Spielberg

    by kwisatzhaderach

    He doesn't have Spielberg's mastery of form. This looks like somebody ripping off Spielberg, which is exactly what it is. I'll wait for Tintin, War Horse, Robopocalypse and Lincoln for the real thing.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:17 a.m. CST

    And, as China Miéville rightfully says:

    by kwisatzhaderach

    "I disliked Star Trek intensely. I thought it was terrible. And I think part of my problem is that I feel like the relationship between JJ Abrams' projects and geek culture is one of relatively unloving repackaging - sort of cynical. I taste contempt in the air. Now I'm not a child - I know that all big scifi projects are suffused with the contempt of big money for its own target audience. But there's something about [JJ's projects] that makes me particularly uncomfortable. As compared to somebody like Joss Whedon, who - even when there are misfires - I feel likes me and loves me and is on some cultural level my brother and comrade. And I don't feel that way about JJ Abrams."

  • March 11, 2011, 7:18 a.m. CST

    It's The IRON GAINT!!

    by Valenni

    I am telling you now kids! This is a live action Iron Gaint movie!! They replaced Hogarths mother with a cop but it's the same!! Your welcome!!

  • March 11, 2011, 7:20 a.m. CST

    Batman cartoon that never was:

    by DJEagles11 show/

  • March 11, 2011, 7:22 a.m. CST

    Stupid fucking delayed UK release dates

    by syn_flood

    Why we have to wait 2 extra months to see this? This is the only summer film I actually want to see!

  • March 11, 2011, 7:23 a.m. CST

    Ah the irony x 2

    by u.k. star

    First of all for commenting on how a film that has a stated purpose of trying to be like a Spielberg movie of the 70s / 80s is being held up as champion of the "original". Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with this film but how is it much more original, being a homage than say Thor, which has not been filmed before either? Secondly the high numbers of people who still insist upon blaming JJ Abrams for films or shows he has neither written, nor directed. His Mission Impossible film is not only the only one we can sit through, but the only one that has any connection to the TV show outside of the theme tune. He also pulled off the trick of resurrecting Star Trek, which many believed next to impossible, got international audiences to watch it in numbers only the 1st movie (when Trek was cool worldwide and before the brave, but dull, motion picture killed of movie Trek in virtually all but about half a dozen countries!). He's trying to make Raiders style "intelligent" popcorn films. Films whose main aim is to thrill and excite, but without having to stoop to the lowest common denominator to do so. Now even if you think he doesn't always reach those Raiders' heights it seems pretty disingenuous to knock him for trying? For the love of God stop harping on about Lost. The show as CO-created by JJ was class, that it fell apart soon after he left when people didn't make good enough use of the show bible surely speak more to how good he is than how bad! Show went downhill at warp speed as soon as season 1 ended for me. Alias as created was a cool show too. Don't remember him writing all the asinine reasons for the Sloan always getting off jail / death penalty just as I don't recall him writing or directing Cloverfield; which is pretty decent unless you were expecting something other than what it was, and was clearly advertised as being.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:29 a.m. CST

    on the nose Valenni

    by wiseguy100

    i couldn't quite place what this trailer reminded me of until reading your post... you're right. The Iron Giant...!

  • March 11, 2011, 7:35 a.m. CST


    by Bruce Leroy

    Looks good. Very old school Spielberg like. The music from Cocoon helps this trailer a lot too. Yeah, i'll go see this in the cinema.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:35 a.m. CST


    by bma2192 E.T. returns for more reeces pieces and gets caught this time, eh? :) ACtually, the kids reminded me of the first Butterfly Effect movie... yeowch, I hope this doesn't go THAT route. Man, Im having a sarcastic morning! --I must have a case of the charliesheens... can I use his name as a VERB at this point? --seriously, though... I have to shift gears on what I think about Super 8, because the vague teasers we got before made it seem like a very serious and very scary movie and now Im getting this whole ET phone home vibe with the kids, so Im not sure WHAT to think now. Either way, it looks good so far... hope the film lives up to the relative hype.

  • I saw a long-interview he did in front of an audience where he pretty much summed up his approach to film-making and films like this. He said that when he was young, he bought a magic kit for $20. It was a box with a big question mark on it. The mystery of what was in this box was far more interesting and exciting to him than what could every have been in the box, so he never opened it. This was his response when discussing the concept behind Lost. <p> It's the notion of building suspense, which he has done quite well, without ever actually delivering anything. The problem is, films need to have endings, and those boxes need to be opened...and that's when you find out that J. J. Abrams's boxes tend to be empty. <p> Now this only applies to films/shows like this that he makes/produces. Star Trek was alright IMHO.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:38 a.m. CST

    Holy Flippin' Awesome

    by DMAGnifier

    This reminds me of the films I saw growing up. I'll be there. (Spielberg/Abrams nerd)

  • March 11, 2011, 7:38 a.m. CST

    wow, a shot of a cop picking up a piece of...

    by Ditko

    ...something, I guess. That´s how you cut a trailer! Jesus, comparing this to anything by Spielberg at his prime is just pathetic.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:39 a.m. CST

    I agree...but--

    by bma2192

    --he seems to STILL be recycling an idea just like all those films that you just complained about. Feels like he's making a really good updated version of E.T., and I agree that it seems to have that fun and wonder and the man does make good films. I "would" like to see film makers go off the beaten path and create something "new" and original though...

  • March 11, 2011, 7:40 a.m. CST


    by Gabe Griffin

    I was not really too excited about this one, but this trailer...changed it for me...looking forward to it!!!

  • March 11, 2011, 7:40 a.m. CST

    ^5 U.K. Star

    by Fawst

    I agree. Abrams "gets it." That's something that the majority of talkbackers here don't do. I remember when this place was filled with people that LIKE THINGS. Now it's just a contest to see who can be the most negative. Well, go fuck yourselves, douchemops. I'm going to enjoy the fuck out of this when it opens, you can keep your negativity.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:48 a.m. CST

    Japan earthquake


    Universal and Legendary have gone too far in their promotion of Pacific Rim. Sick fucks.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:53 a.m. CST

    Let's play a game

    by IrvingForbush

    Try to count how many lens flares are in the preview. I counted 12. Including one on his damn directors credit. Seriously though, this doesn't look half bad. Orci and Kurtzman are nowhere near the script which I'm going to assume accounts for the general terribleness of M:I3 and Star Trek. He also looks like he's dropped the shaky cam, which is more good news. The scene where Kirk is being recruited in the bar was damn near unwatchable because of how much the camera was bouncing about despite the fact that it was shooting two people sitting and talking. No documentary filmmaker would ever be that sloppy. Count me cautiously optimistic.


  • March 11, 2011, 7:58 a.m. CST

    I swear to god almighty if...

    by Darth_Nader

    this thing looks all cute and cuddly, they will rue the day. RUE IT!

  • March 11, 2011, 7:59 a.m. CST


    by notcher

    Looks good, and fuck you to the Abrams haters, just cause Star Trek was a billion times better than the Star Wars prequels, Jesus, let it go! We need more 70's and 80'sesque adventure movies like this, I felt young again watching this trailer!

  • March 11, 2011, 8 a.m. CST

    I admit, I'm not a fan of Abrams...

    by Chewtoy

    Don't really have anything against him, but don't understand the worship of him either. MI3 was decent, but I never really cared about anything that was going on in it. Star Trek was fun, but on a near Michael Bay level of stupidity. (I can't even give him a great deal of credit for "reviving" Trek, seeing how the reboot was neither his idea, nor did he have any of the budget constraints of the previous films, his being the only mega-budget modern Trek film.) I have to give him full credit for fetishistically recreating that early 80's Spielberg vibe. The nostalgia about this project is pretty thick. I'm not really sure that the world needed more 80's nostalgia, nor am I sure how that translates to incredible originality, but again, none of that precludes this from being good.

  • March 11, 2011, 8 a.m. CST

    It would hold more promise if Spielberg had directed it

    by alienindisguise

    imitation is really not all that impressive.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:01 a.m. CST

    Feels like Explorers crossed with ET with some Cloverfield thrown in

    by performingmonkey

    i.e. I'm there. Loved Explorers, ET, Close Encounters. Jesus, even the Cocoon music at the start gave me major goosebumps. This trailer makes Super 8 look like a long lost relative of those but obviously with more explosions and CGI. I want that wonder, the same wonder that, unfortunately, was kind of ruined at the end of Explorers when Dante couldn't finish the movie the way he intended. The studio made him stop production as they just wanted to get the damn thing out. E.T. IS one of the greatest movies ever made - fact. With similar 'bergian vibes going on in Super 8 to all these old movies I saw again and again as a kid it makes me smile where countless trailers recently make me want to rape my own eyesockets.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:03 a.m. CST

    Fringe is crap btw

    by KilliK

    well at least the 4 first episodes which i watched this week here on the greek tv.i really hope it gets better because i like the concept and the lead characters but the execution so far is average at its best.but i want to give it a chance.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:04 a.m. CST

    Help! My Metaphorical Puberty / Adolescence Is On A Rampage!

    by NeonFrisbee

    Ever notice how Spielberg seems abnormally obsessed with children? It's friggin' creepy!

  • March 11, 2011, 8:06 a.m. CST

    Total 80s vibe

    by Dr. Egon Spengler

    I'm a child of the 80s. My ass will be firmly planted in the theatre on opening night for this.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:10 a.m. CST

    Fucking Glorious Trailer

    by cutest_of_borg

    Mr. Abrams, you are the man. I'll gladly have your baby, sir. Cannot wait for this.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:12 a.m. CST

    Spielberg mishmash

    by Franky_Four_Fingers

    Just in the trailer we see pieces of several Spielberg films....the guy being dragged out of frame was Jurassic Park, the people being evacuated on buses (instead of trains) is from Close Encounters, story line as seen through the eyes of a young boy, ET. Shot after shot was like looking back over his filmography. What is the monster in the train car? Must be a shark.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:14 a.m. CST

    I hope.

    by byronical

    I will say, the music and the look of the film have thus far given me goose flesh. But we all know how trailers can be cut to generate massive hype and the film itself can disappoint. Unfortunate experience has taught us this lesson. I hope, I really do, that Super 8 goes beyond that hype and is truly extraordinary.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:14 a.m. CST

    Yeah, to quote the fat kid at the end, "What the hell?"

    by Astronut

    I have almost ZERO desire to see this. This thing has a cool retro vibe and... I'm not sure what else. I mean, I don't get all the hype. Why does anyone give two shits about it? I mean. Huh?

  • March 11, 2011, 8:16 a.m. CST

    franky four fingers

    by Bobo_Vision

    In line with your examples....the monster in the train car is a velociraptor.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Hollywood has invented a new movie cliché...

    by HarryKnowlesNonExistentInceptionReview

    ..."Guy getting dragged away quickly by unseen creature." Let's put it on the list right after Hollywood Cliché #3256 (Girl in spooky place hears noise, open door and is startled by cat jumping out).

  • March 11, 2011, 8:24 a.m. CST


    by Dr. Egon Spengler

    If you really don't get even a tiny bit excited to see this movie, then, you really don't like movies at all, or, you just want to be different in this talkback. I know a lot of us rag on most of the movies coming out these days; it's very hard to find a talkback on AICN that's 90%+ positive. But sweet Jesus, if this trailer doesn't remind you of your childhood (unless you're one of those ME generation types), then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe log off AICN and never come back again? Might be a start.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:26 a.m. CST

    Amen on the No Desire

    by impossibledreamers

    Nothing I've seen about Super 8 has motivated me in anyway at all to see it. Then again, I wasn't that motivated to see Abram's Star Trek either. I enjoyed it when I saw it, but wasn't rushing out the first weekend. I'll probably never see this thing.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:35 a.m. CST

    Actually a nice trailer.

    by cushing1967

    Yeah, I am looking forward to this. Seeing super 8 cameras and rolls of kodachrome film takes me back to 1982 when me and my friends were making a movie called The Visitors. Of course we didn't have any dealings with a supernatural extraterrestrial entity. We were chased by a masturbating tramp once though. Ah, the 80's.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:37 a.m. CST

    Original? Seriously?

    by Amusetrubator

    Y'all are praising what looks to be a Spielberg's Greatest Hits movie as being "original"?

  • March 11, 2011, 8:42 a.m. CST

    Michael Giacchino, has a busy summer.

    by Munro Kelly

    Super 8, John Carter of Mars, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:46 a.m. CST

    All things aside, that's a great trailer

    by Bobo_Vision

  • March 11, 2011, 8:48 a.m. CST

    Theater seat, meet ass. Ass, meet theater seat

    by Clavius

    I hope they get along well on June 10.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:48 a.m. CST

    If you pause the trailer at 1:07....

    by Bobo_Vision

    ...the kid on the left side of the screen has AIDS. That's an interesting direction to go with the film. Very brave.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:50 a.m. CST

    I'm sorry but that looks awesome!

    by NzYme

    This is the kind of movie that takes me back to being a kid and not caring about anything except being locked in a movie theater and losing myself. God I cannot wait for this movie!

  • March 11, 2011, 8:52 a.m. CST

    I can't wait to read Nordling's sad review of this

    by Rupee88

    You know he is setting himself up to be way disappointed if not heartbroken. Dude, it's not's some movie now that you are older and seen lots of other movies and it won't even be that good most likely. Reality check time!

  • March 11, 2011, 8:55 a.m. CST

    Sweet frigging holy candy

    by Smack_Teddy

    can't wait

  • March 11, 2011, 8:56 a.m. CST

    Gief HD trailer

    by syn_flood


  • March 11, 2011, 8:57 a.m. CST

    Somebody in Hollywood has finally got it Right!!!!!!!!

    by MainMan2001

    I just got chills up my spine. That hasn't happened in a long time(the Malick trailer doesn't count). That's how it's done folks. That's how it's done. I'm there opening day

  • March 11, 2011, 8:58 a.m. CST

    My most anticipated film

    by billF

    This is the movie I am looking forward to the most! The trailer looks great!

  • March 11, 2011, 9 a.m. CST


    by Rupee88

    Wow this doesn't look inspired by E.T., this looks like a remake of ET...or about half of it. Same shots and same dialogue and same plot to an after aliens, innocent kids on bikes probably befriend aliens. I guess it's ok to remake ET for a new generation, but it's far from "original". And not even sure how original ET was either but that's another story.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:01 a.m. CST


    by Rupee88

    yes most people aren't too bright and have very short memories

  • March 11, 2011, 9:01 a.m. CST

    Gave me chills

    by Sunhawk7

    That was my childhood on the screen. Watching that trailer reminded me of waiting for and seeing both Close Encounters and E.T. It reminded me of how I felt when seeing them for the first time. I hope this turns out good.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:01 a.m. CST

    "Did you see that Raiders of the Lost Ark trailer?"

    by Josh Acid

    "...What a rip-off of those adventure serials from the 40s. PASS."

  • March 11, 2011, 9:09 a.m. CST

    Here's why I like this

    by RogueWarrior65

    This has all the elements of early Spielberg work e.g. dysfunctional family, kids who are their own person not just ones that live for the likes of Justin Bieber, great camera moves that give the scene depth, big crowd scenes, etc. IMHO, Abrams has learned well.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:11 a.m. CST

    James Horner did Cocoon, and yes that's the music

    by Batutta

  • March 11, 2011, 9:13 a.m. CST

    Could possibly be

    by M6KR564

    the worst movie ever made. In any event, the trailer is unremitting in its awfulness.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:17 a.m. CST


    by cushing1967

    "innocent kids on bikes probably befriend aliens" So you're basing your assumption that this is an ET remake by what you assume might "probably" happen? Tiny wee bit premature isn't it? The military facing aliens in a small town goes way back to well before E.T. The movie unashamedly wears it's 80's influences on its sleeve but it's way too early to write it off as totally unoriginal.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:19 a.m. CST

    Just showed this trailer to my kid...

    by ChickenStu

    Said "We are SO going to see this one boy!"

  • March 11, 2011, 9:19 a.m. CST

    Looks good, but

    by Inadequate Sandwich

    Looks good, in fact it's the best trailer I can remember seeing in a long time and it certainly captures that 70's/80's Spielberg style perfectly. I only worry that I'll go to see the movie and it will end up being predictable as all get out. The trailer is put together well, but I see a lot of hints that the movie itself might be one of those "beat by beat, this happens then this will undoubtedly happen..." kind of movies. I sure hope that the movie is more than that.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:22 a.m. CST

    Written and Directed by JJ?

    by Lerkst

    Ok, this is the man responsible for the best space action film since Star Wars..Star Trek. Anything this man writes and directs, I am in. this is a no brainer, in a summer where we COULD be surrounded by garbage. But I have a good feeling about the Marvel movies.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:23 a.m. CST

    The Kid with the glasses

    by Cobb05

    Go back and watch him screaming. That kid's mouth is huge. He looks like Doug Jones from Legion. That being said, the trailer looks great. I just hope the alien is cool looking. It needs to be tougher than E.T. but not look like a praying mantis like the Cloverfield monster.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:25 a.m. CST


    by NightArrows

    You're a seriously moronic twat. This place is a toilet of fucking retards who will shit on EVERYTHING despite it's potential level of quality. Does this ape ET? Who gives a flying FUCK as long as the story is different enough and the movie itself works. Most of you cynical cunts should just choke yourself off into the great beyond because it's obvious nothing is worth your time at all so why bother watching any films at all? Aside from that, this movie looks like it could be a whole lot of great. I will WAIT TO SEE IT BEFORE PASSING JUDGEMENT.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:26 a.m. CST

    Oh my God I love this trailer...

    by kidicarus

    Even though it's longer, you still don't really get a sense of what's going on. Take note, Hollywood, this is how you get asses in the seats! Don't reveal every plot and money shot in the damn 1 minute trailer! Leave people wanting more! And I'm sure there are loads more money shots that JJ held back. One of the best working directors in Hollywood right now.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:28 a.m. CST


    by kidicarus

    "Daddy why are you yelling at me like that with that crazed look in your eyes?" "Why are you getting out a copy of E.T.????"

  • March 11, 2011, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Music reminded me of John William's E.T. score but

    by gambit7025

    ....that's about it. As it's been said, you can never go back. Steven Spielberg and George Lucas proved that with sub-par sequels to Raiders and Star Wars (the exception being Empire of course). I appreciate the homage and I immensely love J.J. Abrams work. His revisionist Stark Trek was epic and I hope he injects some passion and soul into this movie. It looks very promising.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:38 a.m. CST


    by Darth Valinorean

    Dude - you are right... I got goosebumps too. This is the way to cut a trailer. This is the movie to go watch this summer. Wow.. what a trailer and it looks awesome. Truly a throwback!!!!

  • March 11, 2011, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Yeah, it's got that Goonies vibe

    by Terrence

    I was about 6-7 around the time Goonies and all the other 80s kids flicks were being released, and this actually took me back.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:41 a.m. CST

    First, can't wait fo this . . .

    by Nice Marmot

    . . . Second, its amazing how the people here going out of their way to either hate or love all over J.J. are equally annoying.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:43 a.m. CST


    by Iahael

    OK, this is the most Spielbergian trailer I've seen in decades, including Steve's own stuff. I'm the demographic they're aiming for, I saw CE3K and ET as a kid (around the age of kids in the film). The beats with the kids making a movie are great -- this looks to be part CE3K, ET, Goonies and a little Jaws thrown in as a chaser. T.'.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:47 a.m. CST


    by NightArrows

    Abrams Star Trek is one of the best Sci-Fi space romps ever. Lightyears better than the original pap (films which I adore for the most part, but I can see through the nostalgia for just how incredibly stupid most of them truly are...GOD™ I hope that made most of the old, grumpy fat-assed smelly Trek Fans explode).

  • March 11, 2011, 9:47 a.m. CST

    looks interesting...

    by jpt

    Probably be good if I could hear some fucking sound on my pc, but alas I can only look at the pretty pictures...

  • March 11, 2011, 9:49 a.m. CST


    by M6KR564

    And I think your post could have been a whole lot of great if it had some lens flares in it.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:51 a.m. CST


    by TheMovieLover

    I love when something beautiful comes out, and people feel the need to totally bash on it for no other reason then to be an asshole. It's my favorite/least favorite thing about the AICN boards... oh, and this trailer is amazing, someone grab a screenshot of whatever it was that yells "GO!" like 3/4 of the way through the trailer, please?

  • March 11, 2011, 9:54 a.m. CST

    There is one thing missing from this TB

    by rogueleader66

    My friend Asimov tearing it to shreds.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:54 a.m. CST

    I liked it btw, I will be seeing it.

    by rogueleader66

  • March 11, 2011, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Hole in the wall...Creature?

    by jack Bauer

    When the silver object shoots across the room the camera goes to a hole in the wall and you see something out there, looked very robot like and as the production name is bad robot then it might just be a clue? As for the trailer, liked it, just enough to make us bite, thankfully no real spoilers unless I'm right about the hole in the wall shot and the trailer really had the 80's thing including the Starsky and Hutch mobile at the start. Looks good, hope its way better than Cloverfield tho...

  • March 11, 2011, 10:11 a.m. CST

    about the music, it's...

    by luke_lymon

    ...When You Wish Upon A Star, with a slight change in notes here and there. And, in my opinion, it represents Spielberg's idea that it is time to bring us the ET sequel he thinks we have been waiting for. About time, SS! :)

  • March 11, 2011, 10:12 a.m. CST

    So NOT original

    by Rupee88

    There's nothing wrong with some 12 y/o liking this...and if you are just tripping on the nostalgia, then that's fine too...but this looks TOTALLY UNORIGINAL. It is basically a remake of past films....I haven't seen it yet so can't give a review. Star Trek was a fun ride so maybe this will be too, but just stop saying that is anything more than a remake of sorts. As someone pointed out above, this is like "Spielberg's Greatest Hits"'s just too obvious in this case. It's the lack of subtlety (and originality) that I find slightly offensive.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:13 a.m. CST

    Japan gets wrecked on the day Battle Los Angeles opens

    by HarryBlackPotter

    Good timing

  • March 11, 2011, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Is this another children's movie?

    by kabong

    They all are.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:18 a.m. CST

    I don't like to throw stuff like this around, but....

    by Terrence

    Abrams honestly is this generation's Spielberg. And yes, I know Spielberg is still around.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:19 a.m. CST

    Nobody believes me! I believe you! Ugh.

    by golden tribw

  • Also, I liked that chick's ass.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST

    Is Hollywood at an artistic dead end?

    by Dan Halen

    This could be great and I love Spielberg pics as much as the next guy but what does it say about the industry and Abrams that he has to completely ape the plot, vibe, era, look of E.T. and Close Encounters?

  • March 11, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST

    It's awesome because it has the Amblin logo!!!!!


    lol Trailer is OK. But Abrams obviously gave up on the idea of making an Abrams movie. Why the need to ape Spielberg so shamelessly?

  • March 11, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST

    "Abrams is this generation's Spielberg"

    by Bobo_Vision

    Uh, no. Jaws, CE3K, E.T., Raiders: these are in an entirely different universe than Star Trek, MI:3, and this. People were saying the same thing about M.Night Shyamalan until his formula got tired.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:30 a.m. CST

    Dick-nosed Abrams involvement means it's an auto-skip for me

    by gruntybear

    The man has yet to work on a project that had a coherent, believable plot. Plus, I can never forgive the "Sabotage" scene in that sad fucking excuse for a "Star Trek" movie. Dick-nose killed that franchise, dead. Fuck him.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:30 a.m. CST

    looks good but...

    by lostboytexas

    JJ means it will fucking suck

  • March 11, 2011, 10:31 a.m. CST

    The 60's?

    by Frankenbastard

    If this takes place in the 1960's why is there a Star Wars ship in the kids room? I'm so not seeing this now.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:31 a.m. CST

    It's a remake of Cloverfield

    by Detached

    Well, it looks that way from the trailer. There's a "something" out there (mostly in the dark) that's Tearing Stuff Up Real Good and We Can't See It. Same story told a different way.

  • The less we have to put up with his one-note clucking, the better. (Now, wait for it...)

  • March 11, 2011, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Looks good, like a "what if" story about Spielberg's youth.

    by Royston Lodge

    Like, what if all this shit went down when Spielberg was a kid making Super-8 movies in his backyard. Neat idea. I like it.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:33 a.m. CST

    SUPER 8 takes place in 1979.

    by Nordling

    The haircuts are a little overexaggerated for the time, but it's not any kind of deal breaker.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:33 a.m. CST

    This generation's Spielberg?

    by Detached

    On one hand, I hope not. The Beard has given us some truly historical films. JJA has never IMHO produced anything that will stand the test of time. OTOH... the films we get these days are far flimsier than what we used to get. So maybe, sadly, he is a rough sort of equivalent...

  • March 11, 2011, 10:36 a.m. CST

    This is probably ET part 2

    by Weapon M

    HE"S BACK AND HES MAD!!!!! But he just needs another hug really.. nice and tight.. MMMMMM "ET LOVE YOU- HEY YOUR NOT ELIOT! RRAAARRRR!!!"

  • March 11, 2011, 10:37 a.m. CST

    Great trailer. Takes me back to....

    by thot

    ....the sort of feeling I got when watching E.T., Raiders, Star Wars, etc. This sort of film has, sadly, languished over the years as more cynical forces took over the industry. Hope the success of Super 8 signals a shift in this attitude. I, and my 13 year old self, will be firmly planted in the theater seat come June!

  • March 11, 2011, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Sadly, the truth is...

    by JR

    If they befriended an alien, we'd roll our eyes and say it's been done before. If they're running from evil aliens, we'll roll our eyes and say it's been done before.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:43 a.m. CST

    I love puppies.

    by chadiwack

    Not much else to add.

  • That's more or less what I mean when I say that. You look at movies, you look at tv right now....Spielberg's name would be pretty much in the exec producer credit of every other show/movie back in the day.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:46 a.m. CST

    At 1:54 in the trailer

    by UGG

    the fast edit part at the end. If you pause it, it look's like a mouth piece section on an A.I type robot. Also a hand I think. I think it's a little robot girl. No shit.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:48 a.m. CST

    So, is this going to be like...

    by jasvll

    Cloverfield, where everyone thinks the producer is actually the director? Movie looks good, though. Maybe Spielberg is returning to form.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:49 a.m. CST

    Dear Mr. Abrams: A Mystery is not a Story

    by Amusetrubator

    Given this guy's track record, there's a good possibility that the trailer resolves every bit as many questions as the movie will: i.e., zero. Yes, I am still a little bitter over the end of Lost. Why do you ask? OTOH, Spielberg is also involved, so I'll choose to be optimistic here. You can't say that E.T. or Jaws didn't have closure. (Yeah, I know, not EVERYTHING got answered, but the basics were there.) Best case scenario: Spielberg forces Abrams not to ask more questions than he can think of answers for, and Abrams minimizes Spielberg's cloying sentimentality. Now, THAT might be a movie worth watching.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:49 a.m. CST

    Fluffy things make me happy.

    by chadiwack

    Rainbows too!

  • March 11, 2011, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Now it's 1:55

    by UGG

    just download video and check. Also a creepy little doll like face is in there. If it's that little actress I apologise in advance.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:50 a.m. CST

    I wish our Japanese friends all the strength and luck

    by aphextwin

  • March 11, 2011, 10:52 a.m. CST

    anyone have an HD 1080 link yet?

    by MisterBlue

  • March 11, 2011, 10:55 a.m. CST


    by jasvll

    I don't think Abrams was as hands-on with Lost as you think he was.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Alien films like....

    by vicmackey1268

    ....this are probably really awesome if I took my kid to go see, but for me I'm sort of done watching a bunch of kids go walkin around...I know the train scene is supposed to look cool but I hate it when kids are smarter in movies than in real life. Like the kid in Hostage was a friggin genius even when the psycho guy is sexually harrassing his older sister and put his dad in a coma...any kid who was out late at night and had a train blow up around them would crap their pants and be in shock for years.... So ya the movie looks interesting and the guy from Early Edition is awesome but if this thing is a friendly alien that's just missunderstood I'm gonna hate it.

  • March 11, 2011, 10:59 a.m. CST

    It's a little girl robot

    by UGG

    Make's no sense I know, maybe it turns into a little girl to hide, still could be alien to. I'm putting my money down now.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:01 a.m. CST

    The Spielberg effect

    by solitaire

    First, Abrams is a more than competant filmmaker. The guy has a sense of style, and at least has tried to do original things in a time where the same bullshit seems to be endlessly recycled. Second, Spielberg doesn't have to direct a movie in order for it to be worthy of him. Take Poltergeist, Tobe Hooper was the director (and the guy can direct an effevtive scary movie, see Salem's lot), but he was smart enough to listen to Spielberg and take his advice, and the result is a classic movie with the feel of Spielberg. I take Abrams for one who will do the same. Also, I have to agree, as someone who grew up in the late 70's/80's, there is an appreciation people like me have for that trailer younger people just can't have. That is what movie trailers used to be like, when you looked around the theater and saw everyones jaw drop and exited talking burst out as soon as it was done. That sense of wonder just doesn't happen that much anymore, and that is a damn shame.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:02 a.m. CST

    I don't know much about SUPER 8 plotwise

    by Nordling

    and I don't want to know. But what I suspect that the "alien" if it is one is just an animal. neither friendly or evil, it just does what it does, and the government guys are trying to contain it, and the kids want to document proof it exists. I could be completely wrong as I have no knowledge of anything about the movie and I want to keep it that way.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:03 a.m. CST

    Pointless Ass Shot

    by HarryWhereIsYourInceptionReview


  • March 11, 2011, 11:08 a.m. CST

    That is the real deal

    by Waspo

    I'm ready that this now. ET2: in West Virginia, sign me up.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:09 a.m. CST

    it's evil using James Horner's music from Cocoon to entice us

    by Squinty CGI Flynn

  • At this point, I'm pretty much with Abrams like I have been with PIXAR: I'd follow him off a cliff if he asked me to come along. This is one of several films I intend to see this summer, though it still feels like I only have about 5-7 must-see movies (and I'll even see Cars 2, thank you very much). My one hope is there's going to be some movie that just swoops in off the radar, and blows me away. I'm always on the lookout for my 'favorite movie that mainstream america never sees.'

  • March 11, 2011, 11:11 a.m. CST

    Don't Tease Me Bro! Don't Tease Me!

    by antonphd

    This looks transportive.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:13 a.m. CST


    by UGG

    It say still could be Alien of origin, and a couple of them fast edit shot's at the end show a doll like face (could be a doll I know or it could take a doll form) and what look's to me like a hand maybe holding a robot like mouth piece, like the one's seen in movie's like A.I. Not trying to spoil it or anything I just think guessing is half the fun, particularly with J.J's stuff.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Anyone else notice that chick's ass?

    by DynamixRo

    I mean, how could you not.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:13 a.m. CST

    vicmackey1268 - you dumbshit

    by antonphd

    adults are never as smart or brave in real life as in the movies you dumbshit.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:15 a.m. CST

    I can tell you you movie beginning to end

    by torontoxic

    Don't get mad about being called formulaic when you follow a formula.

  • otherwise I'd be excited. Looks too Michael Bay-ish. Also his persistence at hiring douchebags to write his screenplays. That and getting a composer more appropriated for TV shows to do the music. Looking forward to acquiring a pirated copy.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:15 a.m. CST

    tell you this movie

    by torontoxic

    Sorry I have a new tablet and I'm adjusting...

  • March 11, 2011, 11:16 a.m. CST


    by Nordling

    I'm still going to guess, that's what makes it fun. I just don't want to see anything official yet and the closer we get to release things tend to get out.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:16 a.m. CST

    I do like that it's got the guy from Early Edition

    by Squinty CGI Flynn

  • March 11, 2011, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Looks laughably bad!

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    JJ strikes again...not only can not he not get a decent performance from any of his "child actors", but he can't get one from any of the adults in the film either! <p>But you clueless group-think zombies keep on declaring JJ Abrams to be genius and the "Spielberg of the next generation". If AICN ever needed an eyeroll emoticon...

  • March 11, 2011, 11:19 a.m. CST

    "not only can he not get"

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    Fuck off.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:21 a.m. CST

    You have to admit, it look amazing.

    by Andy Pandy

    I also do not blame Abrams for the tragic unravelling of the final seasons of Lost. I'll always give him the benefit of the doubt

  • March 11, 2011, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Shyamalan was all twist. Abrams is all mystery.

    by knowthyself

    But at least Shyamalan's twists were mostly satisfying. Abrams mysteries are cool until you get his convoluted attempt at an answer. That's why Star Trek worked so well. No stupid mystery.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:27 a.m. CST

    I'm not an Abrams fanboy either

    by Nordling

    Liked MI3, liked STAR TREK a lot, but much of what makes STAR TREK work is that it just plain outcharms you. Plotwise, it's got lots of problems. There's no way I'd claim Abrams is the next Spielberg at this point. I'll admit that this trailer punches all the right buttons. I'm quite sure that's intentional, as there's a ton of people my age who now have kids and remember fondly those halcyon days of youth and this keys right into that. If the movie turns out to be bad, all the sentiment in the world won't save it. But I'm an optimist and from the little I've seen, it looks like Abrams nailed what he was trying to achieve. We'll see in June.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:35 a.m. CST

    THAT '70s (ALIEN) SHOW!

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Seriously -- this looks very cool! I can't wait for this one! FINALLY, a movie that is worth the price of admission!

  • March 11, 2011, 11:39 a.m. CST


    by frakthetoasters

    so it's STAND BY ME plus ET/CLOVERFIELD in a small town???

  • March 11, 2011, 11:42 a.m. CST

    All the haters...

    by TheMovieLover

    After making stupid comments like fa_tass_dinomolester and others make, they should be required to post 3 of their favorite films, just so others can get a good reading on what kind of pretentious film douche they are. people who truly LOVE movies, love practically every movie that they see for some reason or another. they also know their favorite genres, and what types of movies they are drawn to. they respect peoples opinions, unless they're just spurting off hater troll rhetoric, like a lot of the talkbackers. my 3 favorite films? L.A. Confidential, Good Will Hunting, and Jaws. i enjoy specticle, but I also love small character movies, and you people just love to hate on anything and everything. this trailer looks beautiful, and i believe that the film will be one of the best of the summer, if not the year. it has the ability to sneak into the best Picture race, based upon just what we've seen and heard already.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Jesus that was a rambling mess...

    by TheMovieLover

  • March 11, 2011, 11:45 a.m. CST

    "I don't feel good about this." - Fat Kid

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    A nod to Han Solo/Indiana Jones?

  • March 11, 2011, 11:49 a.m. CST


    by FeralAngel

    That does have an E.T. vibe, and in a good way. Wow. I'll keep an eye on this one, even though Spielberg has let me down almost as often as Lucas. Whoa. Good trailer. Huh.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:51 a.m. CST

    its a little baby-teen cloverfield monster

    by Smack_Teddy

  • March 11, 2011, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Yes....VERY good trailer!

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    I'd pay $10 to see the movie!

  • March 11, 2011, 11:52 a.m. CST


    by Dr. Egon Spengler

    So, you think it looks like a bizarro ET movie, but don't understand why others are calling it a Spielberg-like movie? That's EXACTLY why we think it looks like one. It's giving off the vibes of all those great Spielberg flicks like ET, Close Encounters, Goonies, etc, etc.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:52 a.m. CST

    or not hit puberty

    by Smack_Teddy

  • March 11, 2011, 11:53 a.m. CST

    I love the Gratuitous Ass shot of the girl

    by D o o d

    walking through the crowds. HOT!

  • March 11, 2011, 11:55 a.m. CST

    It'll end up being Jacob riding the Smoke Monster.

    by Royston Lodge

    So say we all.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Great moment at the end...

    by YouSunkMyBlankenship

    ...when the film reel stops. Abrams knows everyone's leaning in and squinting to see what the hell is in those frames and then BAM! catches you off guard.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:59 a.m. CST

    The good news is this:

    by JumpinJehosaphat

    Everyone who hates this trailer and J. J. Abrams won't be going to see the film. So, that means when the movie actually comes out, there'll be none of the usual TB trolls from this thread spoiling the fun, right? Because, you know, they have taste and won't be seeing an Abrams film. Right? You fools know who you are. Put your money where your mouth is and stay away.

  • March 11, 2011, 12:01 p.m. CST


    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    Keep drinking the 21st century Hollywood JJ Abrams cool aide, asshole zombie twit!! <p> PS, apparently, you've never seen a movie made before 1975. Big surprise. <p> My three favorite movies: <p> Ivy Manor 6: Pony Girls in Training <p> Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen <p> The Hideous Sun Demon

  • March 11, 2011, 12:04 p.m. CST

    Dr. Egon...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    I felt that same vibe. I felt me some E.T. (overall feel), Close Encounters (the train signal vibrating), The Goonies (nerds on an adventure), Cocoon (music and mystery), Stand by Me (nostalgia), Iron Giant (obvious), and even Star Wars (when the fat kid says, "I don't feel good about this"). I like the fact that the film takes place in the late 1970s -- before I was born and before any of the 30/40-somethings had experienced that sort of 1980s Spielberg magic. It even invokes the sense of wonder from the end of STAR TREK 2 when Kirk says, "I feel...young."

  • March 11, 2011, 12:04 p.m. CST

    BTW, how does this NOT look horrible?

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    Awful performances, derivative "Spielberg-lite" story, typical monosyllabic Abrams dialogue.... <p> But no, IT LOOKS GREAT!! Welcome to 21st Century Hollywood/America/Pop Culture, where if you say something out loud enough times, it magically comes true! Kind-of like how Star Drek 2009 was such a "great" movie. Eyeroll yet again...

  • March 11, 2011, 12:08 p.m. CST

    The movie is probably more related to Abrams' childhood...

    by TiVo1138

    ...than Spielberg's. Seeing as how Abrams was around that age in 1978 and making shorts on super-8.

  • March 11, 2011, 12:10 p.m. CST

    ^^ And how he's an alien that landed in small-town America and ran amok

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

  • March 11, 2011, 12:16 p.m. CST

    fatass molester...

    by Dr. Egon Spengler

    Per the rule 'themovielover' has declared in this talkback, it's now time for you to list your three favorite films so we can all get a read on you and your film expertise. Your time!

  • March 11, 2011, 12:16 p.m. CST

    What I Saw...

    by JohnDeaux

    At 2:06 during the lens flare, I swear I saw a glimpse of the "ET" finger extended out. At the very least, there is a new web addy:

  • March 11, 2011, 12:17 p.m. CST

    I hope this turns out to be great, I really do...

    by WriteForTheEdit

    ...but from that early shot of kids on bikes, I started to worry...

  • March 11, 2011, 12:21 p.m. CST

    dr. egon spengler

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    I have a better idea...why don't you Abrams lovers post your cumulative IQ's so we can get a read on you and your qualifications to live on the Planet Earth. <p> Your time!

  • March 11, 2011, 12:24 p.m. CST

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Click on the films. They are "missing" parts -- but it is obviously an alien film. Listen to the info about a "craft" and "biological" differences.

  • March 11, 2011, 12:25 p.m. CST

    Sad how the dumber

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    and more aimed at the lowest common denominator something looks now, the more praise it receives. <p> No wonder Michael Bay and JJ Abrams, the personifications of creative bankruptcy and intellectual bareness, rake cash in hand over foot.

  • March 11, 2011, 12:28 p.m. CST

    "I like your friends...

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    but hang-out with somebody else". <p>'d don't like his friends, then? <p> Fu <p> ck <p> ing <p> Re <p> tar <p> ded.

  • March 11, 2011, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Recipe for Super 8.

    by Ingeld

    Ingredients Tbs of "Stand by Me" 3 Cups of "Iron Giant" 1/4 of a lb of "War of the Worlds" 1/2 stick of "Cloverfield." Pinch of "E.T." Directions Mix ingredients sifting out all grains of originality. Half-bake in a lukewarm oven, making sure the special effects and open mouth, brightly lit stares of wonder rise to the top. The cloying children will spread evenly throughout. Serve with a warm cup of nostalgia and sentimentality for the 70s. Leftovers can be warmed over and reused as much as needed.

  • March 11, 2011, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Not up for the challenge, eh?

    by Dr. Egon Spengler

    Thought so. You come off just like every other pretentious douche who stains this site. All style, no substance. Move along, move long.

  • March 11, 2011, 12:32 p.m. CST

    dr. egon spengler

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    No, I'm not up for indulging the power trip of embarrassing idiots such as yourself who stain the Planet Earth. <p> Move along, move along, (oh, another putz who holds "Star Wars" to be the end-all-and-be-all of cinema and drops lines of dialogue into random conversations. There's a shocker).

  • March 11, 2011, 12:35 p.m. CST

    BTW, "All Style, no substance"...

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    is the perfect description of JJ Abrams in general and this trailer in particular...except his style sucks. <p>Kirk 2.0 upon meeting Uhura in the bar: YOU FINE, YOU HANDLE ME PENILE, BITCH! <p> Fucking oy...

  • March 11, 2011, 12:40 p.m. CST

    I said move along, douche

    by Dr. Egon Spengler

    You're not wanted here.

  • March 11, 2011, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Wow. That looks amazing.

    by blackwood

    Hits all the right buttons. I was born in '79, grew up in the rise of home video and cable movie channels. Spielberg shaped my childhood cinematic expectations. I am now on official SUPER 8 news blackout.

  • March 11, 2011, 12:41 p.m. CST

    not soon enough / hyped beyond rational thought

    by justmyluck

    Nordling's gotta eat. E.T. is waiting for you for $10 at a drug store.

  • So far most of u are right. Iron Giant, Goonies and E.T. But this movie doesn't look 70s enough. Freaks and Geeks did a better job than that. The main kid is obviously motherless which is opposite of E.T. And whoever mentioned this above the new trailer cliché is being dragged away by an unseen force. Battle La has the exact same shot of a solider being dragged away. Move over "walking away while a slow motion explosion erupts in the background" and new trailer cliché is in town.Very Amblin but i wish the cinematography looked less modern and more like 80s film stock. Fincher in Zodiac did a great job with Zodiac even though it wasn't shot on film but digital HD. SNL should have a parody of the "more cowbell" with Walken instead they should have Abarams saying "more lens flares". And those explosions look fake as shit when that train crashes. Lawrence of Arabia derailed a train in the 60's without CGI what's your excuse? Besides the film look this could be special. Although "Super 8" is a lame title and doesn't have the same ring as "E.T" or CE3K.

  • March 11, 2011, 12:51 p.m. CST

    Feels like I went back in time when I watched that trailer.

    by Ironhelix

    I hope the movie delivers as well as that footage does. This could be something special.

  • March 11, 2011, 12:55 p.m. CST

    adults being smart

    by vicmackey1268

    are most of the time being insanely smart is just lame. It was an opinion asshole, and I said the movie looked great for the pg-13 family movie night crowd, just not for me....idk what you're problem is

  • March 11, 2011, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Super 8 Plot

    by vicmackey1268

    like I said....this is probably going to be a fantastic family movie night for kids over 12...but I'm just worried it's going to be like an ET from a military perspective.

  • March 11, 2011, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Wanna know why they haven't shown the alien?

    by tommyleespenis

    Because it's a CGI turd......On another note if the alien is as powerful as it is shown in the trailer, what in the world was keeping it from easily breaking out of the train before it was derailed? Was it restrained? Was it asleep?

  • March 11, 2011, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Oh and Abrams isn't the new Steven Spielberg, Brad Bird is

    by ndally

    To be the new Steven Spielberg you need to have alliteration in your name like Brad Bird. And with Iron Giant, Incredibles and Ratatouille the man will own live action it's just a shame he's wasting his first lve action film on a mission impossible film. Brad Bird should change his name to Brad Birdberg cause the man is just getting warmed up. Brad Bird is just being unleashed

  • March 11, 2011, 1:05 p.m. CST

    Amblin Logo!

    by LOST_FAN

    Wow, it has been a long time since I've seen that logo in front of a film. Those films were great and I really hope this film has the feel the trailer makes it seem it does.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:08 p.m. CST

    dr. egon spengler

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    You're not waned anywhere, troglodyte.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:11 p.m. CST

    And you're not wanted, either.

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    Why do you get the feeling you "people" might actually be Orcs, hmmmm?

  • March 11, 2011, 1:12 p.m. CST

    this looks like fun.

    by STLost

    I'll see it in the theater.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:14 p.m. CST

    JJ Abrams is the new Steven Spielberg...

    by Arafel

    ...and that isn't open to debate.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:15 p.m. CST

    who the f is this guy?

    by Phategod100

    can we get Vern back?

  • March 11, 2011, 1:17 p.m. CST


    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    you're a contrarian twunt with no taste/brain. <p> What is a "twunt", BTW? Like a combination between a twit and cunt? Much like your girlfriend JJ, then. <p>Anyhoo, I'm stepping away from the wasteland that is the internet right now, so I'll respond in kind to the incoherent drivel that is sure to be you schmucks' responses when I return! <p> Infants.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:18 p.m. CST

    This is how trailers

    by Shaner Jedi

    are supposed to be. Just enough to get you interested but not enough to give away the whole damn story and plot.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:19 p.m. CST


    by vicmackey1268

    I'm not a hater cuz I think for a certain crowd the movie looks really good.....but since I was called a dumbshit by an annoying pos loser I mind as well post my favorite 3 movies to show my personality a little more.. 1) Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut....Ridley Scott should have had his 45 min longer epic released since it's got actual character archs, plotlines that are able to end, and a real ending. Orlando Bloom is no Russle Crowe but the secondary characters around him are perfect. 2) LA Confidential....ya ya it's yours too but this should have won best picture instead of that crapfest Titanic. Perfect storyline, great twist, great character developments, awesome acting, great cinematography. 3) Tie Between Inception/The Rock/Casino Royale.......Inception was the best picture of last year considering it was the most unique story among countless remakes and re-imaginings...the plot might have been full of holes and no actor did a fantastic job but it was a great idea for a story and it rightfully won best editing considering the final 45 minutes are just a van falling off a bridge combined with 3+ levels of action......The Rock is just that fun action film that I never get sick of. It looks amazing on bluray, and even though I own it whenever it's on USA I find myself watching it. Sean Connery is always kick ass and imo this and Face/Off defined action in the 90's.........Casino Royale reinvigorated a character that was slowly dying. Pierce was OK but after Goldeneye it became a gliche'd action movie with no real suspense. The title sequence of Die Another Day with Bond getting tortured was unique but everyone agrees the final 2 Brosnan movies were crap, the latter trying to be a middle-aged XXX. Casino Royale went back to old-school story James Bond, where, as in Dr. No, the viewer watches Bond unfold the plot instead of watching pointless action make the plot. We went on a journey with a young, recklass 007 and the final moments as the familiar theme finally get heard its like watching a brand new genre.... That being said, I balled my eyes out when I was younger watching ET, but that was a rough time for me seeing as every movie I watched had a character dying (Lion King, Bambi, Land Before Time, etc)...I'm not particularly fond of Alien movies but I own the first Alien and Aliens, ID4, and plan on seeing Battle LA cuz it looks fun. JJ did a fantastic job with Mission Impossible 3, Star Trek, which I went into hating cuz its the biggest nerd genre ever, I walked out of thinking it was fantastic, LOST ended crappy but no series can really end the way you want other than The Bob Newhart Show, where it's all a dream from the older show Newhart.... In summary, I hate little kids in movies that are overly genius...Short Round, the Hostage Kid, little Anakin, etc...little super smart kids alone are the most annoying people in movies...however the group of kids in this make the movie look better, like a Goonies meets ET type of thing and thats why I initially said it seems great for a family movie, but not a scary Coverfield-esque Aliens thing.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:21 p.m. CST


    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Nobody loves you. Besides, your attempt to compare your "IQ" with others is pointless. After all, internet IQ tests aren't credible. Besides, I am beginning to wonder whether or not you and your "superior intellect" even have a job. After all, you frequent the TB boards and just ridicule anyone who doesn't agree with your taste in movies. Yours sound like a wasted life.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:23 p.m. CST

    i didnt like it

    by Billy_D_Williams

    weird, bc it seems to be everything i'd like, but i just did not dig this trailer...feels forced

  • March 11, 2011, 1:26 p.m. CST


    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    Thanks for proving me correct with your incoherent drivel! <P> BTW, I post here about once a month. Your inability to comprehend the word "frequent" is quite telling. Yours, undoubtedly, is a sub-mental existence. <P> NOW I'm leaving. Have fun with your defense of the most creatively bankrupt hack this side of Michael Bay.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:27 p.m. CST

    For anyone questioning the OBJECT in the REFLECTION...

    by mattforce7 mark 1:37, its kinda obviously a Water Tower...with light in the far back silhouetting it. My two cents

  • March 11, 2011, 1:29 p.m. CST

    Why do I keep imagining the Y'mir fro 20.million Miles to Earth??

    by the Green Gargantua

    I dunno, I am remote viewing that creatures influence on the design here. If I am right than I am joining the New Earth Army.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Super 8 shows that Spielberg has yet to discover BLACK PEOPLE

    by TheKiller7

    Did you see any blacks in that trailer?

  • March 11, 2011, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Spielberg thinks African Americans weren't around before 2008

    by TheKiller7

    When Obama won the Presidency

  • March 11, 2011, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Can ANYONE find 1 black guy/gal in the Super 8 trailer?

    by TheKiller7


  • March 11, 2011, 1:35 p.m. CST

    No ASIANS or HISPANICS in Spielbergs world

    by TheKiller7

    It figures

  • March 11, 2011, 1:37 p.m. CST

    BLACK PEOPLE are invisible in Speilbergs world apparently

    by TheKiller7

    Super 8 will feature none.... apparently

  • March 11, 2011, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Super 8 takes place in an America without MINORITIES?

    by TheKiller7

    Maybe it takes place in South Africa

  • March 11, 2011, 1:39 p.m. CST

    the government kills the dogs

    by thedarklingthrush

    and people and makes it look like the creature is doing it

  • March 11, 2011, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Nice call teabaggerharry

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Way to go in a direction no one was going, and make a pointless comment with little to no insight. Have you ever been to a rural small town? Depending on where you are, its going to be mostly white. That's not racist, that's just highlighting reality. If this took place in Brooklyn and it was all white, your comments would make sense. As they stand now, you just seem to be a troll with little sense. Glad I could make you happy by responding to your angry little comment.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Who directed Amistad?

    by HeWhoCannotBeNamed

  • March 11, 2011, 1:42 p.m. CST


    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Is that the best you can do? As long as your leaving with your "superior intellect," you might want to try and do something meaningful with your life. Perhaps formal "education" would be something that you are interested in? After all, education has helped many of those "lesser intellects" who didn't succumb to your Nazi/Margarot Sanger views of eugenics succeed quite well life. After all, you obviously take films much too seriously. This is just a movie. J.J. Abrams is just a movie maker. There is no need to try and start a revolution based upon your own particular views of film making. However, you are more than able to fund and create your own films as YOU see fit. This way, we can see the fruit of that "superior intellect" of yours.

  • And I do have a point, junior.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:43 p.m. CST

    mr ahole ramirez - Yeah, Samuel Jackson was in JP -AND HE DIED!

    by TheKiller7

    Not surprisingly

  • March 11, 2011, 1:44 p.m. CST

    Color Purple was Spielberg's way of saying "Hey, I'm not racist!"

    by TheKiller7

  • March 11, 2011, 1:46 p.m. CST

    FACT IS: Super 8 doesn't include BLACKS, ASIANS or Hispanics

    by TheKiller7

  • March 11, 2011, 1:46 p.m. CST

    So in what imaginary land did SUPER 8 take place?

    by TheKiller7

  • March 11, 2011, 1:47 p.m. CST

    Some Southerners recesionist wanna know the answer to that one

    by TheKiller7

  • March 11, 2011, 1:47 p.m. CST

    If this takes place in 1979, the Deputy patches are all wrong.

    by Cletus Van Damme

    The design of his shoulder patches wasn't introduced until 1995-1996. Prior to that, they looked like this:

  • March 11, 2011, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Uh no.

    by Benovite1

    Just no.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:49 p.m. CST


    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Hey Teabagger, are you actually asking a question, or just shouting like a hobo on the street ringing a bell and screaming for all to repent You add nothing to this conversation.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:50 p.m. CST


    by Andy Pandy

    The movie is set in 70's small midwestern town, so it's reasonable that there wouldn't be black people. Besides I hate it when filmmakers shoehorn in a certain demographic to be PC.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:50 p.m. CST

    mel gibsteinberg - didn't I made a legitimate observation of SUPER 8?

    by TheKiller7

    I believe I did. You ass. How come no minorities in Super 8? What's the story behind that move?

  • March 11, 2011, 1:51 p.m. CST

    Really Cletus

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    It amazes me someone would notice that, and care? Are you in local law enforcement. Nothing against you if you are, because I have to believe you would be the only one who might notice this, I would venture that the majority of Americans would never catch this.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Nope teabutt, you didn't

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    You based your comments on a trailer, not the movie. Have you seen the movie? Nope Do you know where this film takes place? Nope Do you know, for sure, the racial demographics of the mythical town in this movie? Nope Looks like you loose. But please feel free to try again asshole, this is lots of fun.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:54 p.m. CST

    "the majority of Americans would never catch this"

    by TheKiller7

    Oh they did. In regards to Spielberg flicks... they did notice. Since long ago they did. That's why he was quick to make The Color Purple, Amistad and throw Samuel Jackson in JP to be chew on by some raptors.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:55 p.m. CST

    mr ahole ramirez - I thought you and Vader had a date?

    by TheKiller7

    You even set up an appointment at the "Hairy Hole"

  • March 11, 2011, 1:56 p.m. CST


    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    As a black man, I will be the first to say that you really need to GET A LIFE. First off, Steven Spielberg has been an ardent supporter of African American causes. He filmed THE COLOR PURPLE and was robbed of several Oscars for that film. AMISTAD was a labor of love as well that he knew just wouldn't make much money. In 1980, blacks represented just over 11% of the US population. Of course, this figure differed from area to area. Rural towns (outside of the south) were far less likely to be populated by African Americans. We aren't talking about Detroit, Washington DC or Pittsburgh. This is a rural town in Ohio. If there are 5% of the extras in this film are black, I think that it will fit the demographic makeup of a small town in Ohio in 1979. But, why do you feel the need to examine everything by race? You are beginning to sound like Eric Holder or Jeremiah Wright.

  • March 11, 2011, 1:56 p.m. CST

    mel gibsteinberg - I was talking about the TRAILER, bitch

    by TheKiller7

    Learn to read

  • March 11, 2011, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Mel Gibsteinberg - I don't care that they're wrong, just pointing it out.

    by Cletus Van Damme

    I figured someone would make a mistake like this if they had limited resources and were making an indie film in their garage...but Speilberg? I'll still see the movie and probably enjoy the hell out of it, but it's a very glaring error, seeing that one of the main characters will be wearing them throughout.

  • "As a black man" he says. Like that adds any weight to his comments. Fact is Super 8 takes place in a whitewashed America that Spielberg loves to go back to.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:01 p.m. CST


    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Teabagg, I will assume your was obstructed by the sagging chode and shriveled testical manwhich that hung in front of your face, as you did not seem to notice that my comments about "the majority of Americans" were directed at Cletus, and his comment about the deputy's shoulder patches, and not your comments on race.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:04 p.m. CST

    No problem Cletus

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    I know that there are things I catch from time to time in films or TV that throw me off so much it can be distracting. So I understand where you are coming from. I just found it interesting you caught something as small as the shoulder patches. It wasn't like he was driving an 85 Toyota Corolla or something glaring, but I guess if you know your patches, it was just as obvious.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:06 p.m. CST


    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    Well, moron, I feel qualified enough to make a determination about whether or not Steven Spielberg is a "racist." Wake up and smell the diversity in his films, fool.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:07 p.m. CST

    billy_d_williams - There is really nothing we havent seen before

    by TheKiller7

    So I agree.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:08 p.m. CST

    ccchhhrrriiisssm - you aren't qualified to say shit

    by TheKiller7

    You can only give out an OPINION like I did. If you can deal with opinions, get off talkback and read a damn book

  • March 11, 2011, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Abrams is a very good Spielberg mimic...

    by WeylandYutani

    at least the classic Spielberg. This film could be great and it pays homage to the Beard's late 70s early 80s work. <P> The addition of Kyle Chandler to the cast is also a very "Spielbergian" choice. He is a fine actor that can emote and has sincerity, but he is not an A-list type that were seldom cast in SS's early work. <P> One quick question: The music in the opening of the trailer... is that originally from Empire of the Sun?

  • March 11, 2011, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Re: Spielberg's "racism..."

    by Cletus Van Damme

    Dude made Amistad.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:10 p.m. CST

    tommyleespenis - They seem to be protecting the CGI "alien" too much

    by TheKiller7

    How revolutionary can the design be? It will probably have a long neck. Spielberg loves that in aliens.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:13 p.m. CST

    teabaggerharry: You represent everything...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    ...that has been wrong with the AICN talkbacks since about, oh, 2002. Only a dick would watch a two minute sci-fi trailer and try to find something "racist" about it.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:13 p.m. CST

    Abrams did it with Star Trek - He simply mimics other ppls styles

    by TheKiller7

    I dunno if thats a virtue or not. With ST it was, though

  • March 11, 2011, 2:13 p.m. CST

    I remember that black air traffic controller in CE3K

    by Tacom

    Then there was that black guy with a mustache in ET who told Elliot's brother to get out of the van.

  • See any minorities in that trailer? Is the movie set in AMERICA IN THE 70'S? Like I said, it was a valid observation

  • March 11, 2011, 2:16 p.m. CST

    Captain Katanga and the Bantu Wind crew

    by Tacom

    I loved that guy: "Dr. Jones! I've heard a lot about you sir. You're exactly the way I imagine! (laughs)"

  • March 11, 2011, 2:17 p.m. CST

    Star Trek was not

    by M6KR564

    a good movie, you unsophisticated buttpirates. And this looks worse.

  • Shows how relevant they were in the plot.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:19 p.m. CST

    Teabagg's clearly a racist!

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    He discounts ccchhhrrriiisssm, who is a black man. Therefore, Teabagg's a racist! THAT'S RACIST!

  • March 11, 2011, 2:19 p.m. CST

    When I watched this trailer,

    by Rob

    I smurfed in my pants! Oh sorry, wrong Talkback...

  • March 11, 2011, 2:19 p.m. CST

    m6kr564 - It was a good movie.... for a Star Trek movie

    by TheKiller7

    I mean, you have to dive back into the 80's to find a good ST movie.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:22 p.m. CST

    where's the fucking little people at in this movie?

    by jpt

    I want my fucking Warwick Davis appearance here. Fucking Speilberg and his hate towards the little man! I want to see an exploding midget dammit!

  • March 11, 2011, 2:22 p.m. CST

    mel gibsteinberg is clearly a RACIST

    by TheKiller7

    He cannot see anything wrong about a trailer of a movie that is set in the 70's that excludes all minorities. Typical

  • March 11, 2011, 2:23 p.m. CST

    Had No Desire Before But Now!!

    by Wcwlkr

    When the first teaser came out I had no desire to see this movie whatsoever. Especially because they tried to present very similar to Cloverfield which SUCKED! But the Super Bowl teaser and now this! Really has me excited to see it. Takes me back to when I first saw Gremilns or Silver Bullet! Looks really GOOD!

  • March 11, 2011, 2:24 p.m. CST

    I like turtles

    by Rob

    and Smurfs!

  • March 11, 2011, 2:24 p.m. CST

    braindrain - I liked the new ST movie and I'm an old school ST fan

    by TheKiller7

    And I admit that there had not been a good one since Search for Spock

  • March 11, 2011, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Teabagg...yup, still a RACIST

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Listen you nut gargling cock licker, just admit that you are a racist, that you hate all minorities, including little people. I mean you didn't even notice that there weren't any dwarves featured, but Pillow Talk did. What does that say about you, that you are a hateful bigot racist.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Does anyone know

    by Rob

    what Harry's wife looks like? I mean, I LOVE me some Asian poon, but is she fat like him? You know he ain't hittin' it right!

  • March 11, 2011, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Warwick Davis should've been in that Smurf movie

    by TheKiller7

    Finally a movie that needs little people and they go and make it CGI Bummer

  • March 11, 2011, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Why 8mm...why don't 35mm & 70mm get a look in?...I'm so annoyed

    by scrote

  • March 11, 2011, 2:26 p.m. CST

    But seriously

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Going back to this trailer, I'm with those who are bringing the love for Coach Taylor. Gotta love Kyle Chandler's solid skills. Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, can't be blown up! Oh, and Teabagg is still a racist!

  • March 11, 2011, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Celluloid conspiracy...

    by scrote

  • March 11, 2011, 2:27 p.m. CST

    mel gibsteinberg + mel gibson = RACIST

    by TheKiller7

    Now beat it, kid. I'm tired of reading your inane shit.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Warwick Davis

    by Rob

    is in the gay porn version of The Smurfs, but he plays the bad guy, Gargle Male.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:28 p.m. CST

    How about "Super Duper 8"

    by TheKiller7

    That was a technical improvement

  • March 11, 2011, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Did anyone read Nordling's

    by Rob

    tender, heart-warming story about how his father made sweet, sweet love to him after they watched E.T. together?

  • March 11, 2011, 2:31 p.m. CST

    I'm tired of you being a racist

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    See how easy that was Teabagg? I start shouting like turd, and now I have all your attention. It's so much fun, isn't it? That's why you're here, right? At any rate, a fun little diversion on the lunch hour, I wish you nothing but the best, and by best I mean that you would contract a disgusting genital fungus and have to take time off from being a troll on this site. Have a good day.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Steven Spielberg's Greatest Movie Hits = Super 8

    by TheKiller7

    Nothing new.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:34 p.m. CST

    An obvious Spielberg rip-off/homage -- why so excited?

    by Dursman2000

    I don't see at all what the excitement is about. It's very clearly, in every way, an attempt to make a Spielberg fantasy cobbling elements out of CE3K (I counted about a half-dozen reproductions of shots from CE3K in that trailer alone) plus GOONIES and E.T. They lay on the thick music from COCOON, which itself was an ET inspired '80s fantasy, and there you have it. It looks like a Spielberg movie for kids who have never seen one. I guess I'll take it over TRANSFORMERS 4, but you can't make a movie that's based on other films and expect the same impact. Harry -- seriously man, you expect this film to be "one of the most important" films of your life because it looks like E.T.? What a sad commentary on where modern cinema has gone.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Oh come on Harrison

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    I liked Nordling's jaunt back to 1982, definitely nostalgic for me. That was back when they were doing that series on movies from the summer of '82, and how glorious it was. I thought those were pretty cool, and we haven't seen a summer like that since, with so many original properties coming out. Now everything is either a sequel, a prequel, or an adapted property.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:34 p.m. CST


    by scrote

    ..he needs genitals first for that...

  • March 11, 2011, 2:35 p.m. CST

    mel gibsteinberg - butt hurt much? Enjoy your lunch (U RACIST)

    by TheKiller7

    LOL I'm gonna have fun with you from now on. Let me write down your name.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:38 p.m. CST

    mel gibsteinberg - Rural towns are all WHITE (that's racist)

    by TheKiller7

    You said it bub, not me. Way to insult all those HISPANICS working on the fields from those RURAL towns.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:39 p.m. CST

    re: teabaggerharry

    by Ingeld

    Your observation about the trailder is valid. Your conclusion, however, is a non sequitur. There are whole arguments you need to address in order to arrive at your conclusion. 1. Does the exclusion of minorities in a movie automatically mean the director is racist? Conversely, does the inclusion of minorities automatically mean the director is not racist? 2. Is it accurate or innacurate to present a rural town in the midwest as racial homegenous? a. Should filmakers strive to recreate historical settings accurately or not? 3. Have you seen the entire movie in order to make the conclusion you have made? The above need to be addressed before you conclusion can be reached. Otherwise, you are just trolling.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:40 p.m. CST

    And to the people wondering how "original" RAIDERS and E.T. were...

    by Dursman2000

    ...that's just an absurd comparison. Taking 30s and 40s Saturday matinees and interpreting them in your own way like STAR WARS and RAIDERS did is one thing. With SUPER 8, it's clear Abrams isn't just making the same "type" of genre film as Spielberg did, he's actually making a SPIELBERG FILM. The hairstyles, the kids, the dialogue, the obvious plot devices which seem as if they're lifted from countless films of its era...that's not interpreting it in his "own way," it's just making a movie out of parts of someone else's. I'd have more respect for Abrams if he set the movie in the here and now, and came up with his own take. Maybe there will be more of it in the movie -- but it's not going to take a genius to figure out from seeing that trailer where the story is going to go. If the aliens are benevolent (which I am sure they will be) then you've got a real case of the recycling blues going on. And IMO that's not great filmmaking. As far as ET goes -- what part of that film WASN'T original? Some of you guys seem to suffering from a serious case of revisionist history. Really.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:41 p.m. CST

    dursman2000: excellent point - SUPER 8 is a Spielberg HOMAGE

    by TheKiller7

    And nothing more. Not totally a negative, though. For fans of Spielberg this could be awesome in their eyes.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:42 p.m. CST

    ingeld - I was ALWAYS talking about the TRAILER

    by TheKiller7

    And that alone. So start from that and get back to me again.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:45 p.m. CST

    Look, the fact that there's no darkies

    by M6KR564

    in this movie is the least of its problems.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:46 p.m. CST

    I understand your complaint Dursman

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    "I 'd have more respect for Abrams if he set the movie in the here and now, and came up with his own take." I thought about this as well. We need more original movies that are for both adults and kids, that are not simply just copy cats of something else. As a dad, I want to enjoy movies with my sons that are fun for both of us. Right now that means Pixar, but as they get older, what is out there for them? Some stupid schlock like Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D, or G-Force? And while super hero flicks can be fun, that's like only eating waffles at a breakfast buffett, sometimes its nice to have some bacon and eggs, or some fruit, ya know?

  • March 11, 2011, 2:46 p.m. CST

    'darkies'!? m6kr564, Why don't you sing "My Old Kentucky Home"

    by TheKiller7

    While you're at it?

  • March 11, 2011, 2:47 p.m. CST

    That trailer was better than most movies lately.

    by ATARI

  • March 11, 2011, 2:48 p.m. CST

    Spielberg homage? If anything, I get a mid-'80s Joe Dante vibe from this.

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    Especially Explorers. The main kid looks like one of the kids (the non Ethan Hawke/River Phoenix kid) from that flick.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:50 p.m. CST

    It's Return of the Living Dead (from another POV)

    by Julius Dithers

    That corny 80s zombie flick ruined the 'spielbergian suburbian mythos' for me as a teen. And Tony Montana. And the Terminator. Thanks DePalma and Cameron.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Yeah, but Openthepodbaydoorshal

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Both the Explorers and Gremlins (Dante) are typically considered to be within the Spielberg lexicon, when we talk about classic 80's Beard. The fact that he only produced, or exec produced doesn't mean he didn't have input on some of those flicks. Some more than others, but there was definitely a style and a mood that he helped create.

  • March 11, 2011, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Joe Dante & Steven Spielberg were somewhat similar in style

    by TheKiller7

    They worked together back in the days too

  • March 11, 2011, 2:52 p.m. CST

    ♪ The sun shines bright in My Old Kentucky home

    by M6KR564

    'Tis summer, and people are gay; The corn-top's ripe and the meadow's in the bloom While the birds make music all the day. ♪

  • That explains the apparent lack of diversity And I said APPARENT

  • March 11, 2011, 2:54 p.m. CST

    m6kr564 - G'wan.... there is more to that song

    by TheKiller7

    Keep going...

  • March 11, 2011, 2:57 p.m. CST


    by Ingeld

    >And that alone. >So start from that and get back to me again. Fine, do you think it is fair to draw a conclusion about the nature of a movie or its director solely from a two minture trailer--particularly if that conlcusion is in some ways an atack on the moral integrity of the director?

  • March 11, 2011, 2:59 p.m. CST

    "This is it. This is the summer movie for me."

    by AsimovLives

    My only question is: are the AICN payed by the word or by the piece? "I'm probably too hyped for this one beyond rational thought." Exactly. How true. It takes total irrationality to fall for the cheap conman tricks of poney Jar Jar Abrams. Or being payed.

  • March 11, 2011, 3 p.m. CST

    ingeld - Giving opinions from a TRAILER is a TALKBACK tradition

    by TheKiller7

    So... what's your point exactly? That I cannot point out stuff from the trailer LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING? To give observations and stuff? If that's your point, then here's my response: Such is life, live with it. Learn to deal with opinions. bla bla bla. Capishe?

  • March 11, 2011, 3:02 p.m. CST

    stupid comments about no black people...

    by vicmackey1268

    you people are the reason I hate listening to topics on racism.....its a friggin MOVIE.....who gives a crap if there aren't any black people..... Black people get their own damn tv channel BET....if I made a White Entertainment Television that had all shows with no black people just the title alone would get me massive NAACP lawsuits and bitching about me being racist. Movies are good with or without minorities and people that stop to think "hmm this movie sucks without black characters" get no respect from me. In I REALLLLLY wanna see the movie just to piss you people off more. JP had Sam Jackson die which was hillarious cuz its Sam Jackson....2nd, black people die first in horror films cuz they are generally loud and obnoxious anyway and when a white person is chased they dont go "awww heeelllzzzz naw dayyymmm g what the f youz chasin me wit dat knife!?"...... My opinion...a lot of the movie is shot at night, so there are prolly a lot of black characters but you just can't see them. btw, im not racist, these idiotic comments are just illustrating how stupid these critiques are.

  • Comparing this to a carbon copy is apt, since it's a movie set in the late 70s. Smart-ass, har har! Maybe they should rename this movie and call it soemthign else instead. Maybe they shoudl call this movie...

  • March 11, 2011, 3:03 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

  • March 11, 2011, 3:04 p.m. CST

    Dante and EXPLORERS

    by Dursman2000

    Dante's films were a lot quirkier than Spielberg's directorial efforts mainly because of his sense of humor and how he applied it to the projects he handled. I don't sense that kind of quirky in this trailer at all. It feels like a Spielberg movie. EXPLORERS also was Dante's real attempt to make a genuine Spielbergian type of fantasy...though Spielberg actually had nothing to do with that one. What's ironic with EXPLORERS is that Dante did Spielberg well -- but his penchant for the offbeat and wacky got the best of him in that movie's last half hour, which sucked compared to everything that came before it. In fact, I still think of all the '80s Spielberg productions (as well as the imitators he had nothing to do with), EXPLORERS' ending really, really hurt. That first hour is so good, Goldsmith's music is so brilliant, and the kids so likeable that when you got to the payoff -- a group of rubber aliens who watched too much American TV -- it was like getting a knife jammed into you. It simply ruined the film, cheapened the drama, and it wasn't funny. You take the journey with these kids and get behind them, only to find a group of ridiculous looking ET's who resembled Sy Sootles from Jedi and overdosed on The Honeymooners! Even today, I can think of few movies with such an unsatisfying, disappointing let down of an ending as EXPLORERS. Pains me to still think about it because there's a lot to like in the rest of it.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:04 p.m. CST

    "See any minorities in that trailer?" Yes, actually.

    by Chewtoy

    The black guy with blood on his face yelling "Go!" I'm pretty sure he counts as a minority still.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:04 p.m. CST

    This is E.T.2 - or a prequel of sorts.

    by gabbygall

    You mark my words...

  • March 11, 2011, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Asimovlives you are one cynical bitch

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Why do you come to a website that is known for hyperbole and extreme hype? That's what this site is about, it's what the writers do. I've followed this site, off and on, since '98 and since that time, a huge part of the mood of this site has always been geeking out and sharing a love of the anticipation for a new film or experience. I can't believe how many people haven't figured that out after all this time. You can't look at this site for honest, unbiased, completely measured news on film, this is a site that captures the schoolyard rules of following film. When, as a kid, you would hang out by the monkey bars and talk about the preview you just saw for Temple of Doom, where one kid swears up and down that the movie is so violent that a dude's heart will be ripped out of his chest and the bad guy will eat it. Some truth mixed with hyperbole and exaggeration. That is what I get from this site, anyone who doesn't understand that will always be frustrated, so why bother?

  • March 11, 2011, 3:05 p.m. CST

    chewtoy - Are you SURE he is black?

    by TheKiller7

    Take a screenshot of it and lets analyze while you sing "Poor Uncle Tome, Good Night".

  • March 11, 2011, 3:06 p.m. CST

    I actually WAS a minority in an 80

    by Batutta

  • March 11, 2011, 3:07 p.m. CST

    asimovlives - but, but Abrams is just giving a HOMAGE to his IDOL

    by TheKiller7

    Nothing wrong with that, bro.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:07 p.m. CST

    A 2 min trailer that does not tell you very much...aweseom

    by thatswhatshesaid

    So sick of seeing an entire movie before I go. Trailers used to be a great tease to peak your interest, now they pretty much tell you the whole story. This is pretty much the only movie I have high hopes for this year.

  • In MI:3 he made a movie looking like a poor's man James Cameron (in his TRUE LIES phase). In STINO, he made a movie looking like a poor's man Michael Bay (in his Armageddon phase). With SUPER 8, he made a movie looking liek a poor's man Steven Spielberg )in his CRYSTAL SKULLFUCK phase). How unimpressive. Jar Jar Abrams, bullshitting his way to fame and fortune.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:08 p.m. CST

    I actually WAS a minority in an 80's suburb

    by Batutta

    And there were very few of us. In my Junior High, there was one other black kid, and he came from the nearby army base. Maybe three our four minorities in a school of 500. I felt Spielberg's film were an accurate depiction, same with John Hughes.

  • Awesome

  • March 11, 2011, 3:09 p.m. CST

    teabaggerharry: Considering it's a close-up of him? Yeah.

    by Chewtoy

    Do you not know what a black man looks like?

  • Also, Matt Reeves is miles away a much better filmmaker then Jar Jar, even if he still hasn't made one that is really really good and that i could say i really enjoyed wholesome (i saw LET ME IN too).

  • How easy. How easy.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:13 p.m. CST

    Thanks god Spielberg preserved

    by M6KR564

    the camera dollies from CE3K so Abrams could use them for his dolly-ins.


  • March 11, 2011, 3:18 p.m. CST

    chewtoy actually found a BLACK GUY IN SUPER 8!

    by TheKiller7

    Too bad that guy will probably die........ typical Just like in Jurassic Park DAMN!

  • In fact, more then anything else, this trailer doesn't remind me of a Spielberg movie, but of a copy of a Ronnie Howard movie of the 80s. And a not too impressive copy at that.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Looks good.

    by imagin78

    It clearly is ripping off many of the shots and ideas of past Spielburg triumphs, but that is no more egregious than Nolan stealing stuff from far superior films(The Matrix, Dark City, Total Recall) for Inception.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:21 p.m. CST

    The music from trailers is usually just there to set the mood

    by TheKiller7

    The music soundtrack is usually one of the things they get done last. So it figures.

  • Not particularly one of observation, but still.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:23 p.m. CST

    re: teabaggery

    by Ingeld

    Don't you know that calling people out for making ridiculous unfounded observations is a also TB tradition? Make all the observations you want, but don't think that simply stating them automatically makes them true or free from legitimate criticism. If you are going to critique something be prepared to get critiqued back and be able to defend it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but not all opinions are equal. Comprende?

  • March 11, 2011, 3:26 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "I remember when this place was filled with people that LIKE THINGS" And then people grew up and stoped being fooled that easily.

  • Unbelievable! Of all the things to call STINO, smart is most definaly not one of them. It's the last thing that movie should even be called, in fact. STINO would be called Henrietta before being called smart.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:31 p.m. CST

    I'll tell you why Playkins

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Because Asimovlives and another douchebag, who I won't bother naming, on this site, want you all to know how much they hate JJ Abrams and this movie, which of course they haven't seen yet. Seriously look at how much they are flooding this TB with posts meant to knock on JJ, Super-8, and anyone who might be interested, oh and Nordling for having the audacity to be excited about it as well.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:31 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "Orci and Kurtzman are nowhere near the script". TRue. But the film is still writen by the writer of ARMAGEDDON, REGARDING HENRY and the most mocked unfilmed Superman script in the history of Hollywood: Jar Jar Abrams himself.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:34 p.m. CST

    The Black Guy...

    by JohnDeaux

    Is driving a bus!!! And he crashes it! You gonna spill your racist jizz on that as well??

  • Which might be really soon with all of the popularity that Abrams has these days...

  • March 11, 2011, 3:36 p.m. CST

    chewtoy - Dude, that guy had more blood on him that Sissy Spacek

    by TheKiller7

    How couldn't he die?

  • Why the surprise?

  • I don't care either way. Just saying...and yes I realize the idea of being "famous" here is extremely lame.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:39 p.m. CST

    ingeld - Calm down junior, we already found a black guy in Super 8

    by TheKiller7

    That was the whole point of my observation. To see if the movie that was apparently set in the 70's was more accurate than the typical suburban Spielbergian crap we usually get. Now go back to stuffing your face with a BK party meal. Sheesh!

  • March 11, 2011, 3:40 p.m. CST

    Because you definitely want to call a movie

    by M6KR564

    "Super 8," and then have the whole thing flow from an incident in which a delicate Super 8 camera falls on concrete and somehow does not break.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Now that's a trailer!

    by BranMakMorn

  • March 11, 2011, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Hey, if you only had a drawing tablet to record an event

    by TheKiller7

    You would use what you got, right?

  • March 11, 2011, 3:44 p.m. CST

    mr. nice gaius, fuck you too, you obnoxious pedantic assclown

    by AsimovLives

  • If this film as an autobiographic element to it, it's it being a kid's fantasy of lil Jar Jar when he saw CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND or ET in his tender years and imagined himself meeting an alien in a Spielberg movie. While at the sam time he had a major bonner of the cute blond kid girl of his class which he never ended up dating because the girl prefered a much cooler kid then the penis nosed bespectacled butt ugly nerdo-boy Jar Jar.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:51 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Maybe you get lucky and the alien in this film just doesn't give a shit if the kids like him or not, so in the end nobody ends up liking the alien nor hating him either. But this would be too sophisticated for Jar Jar.

  • March 11, 2011, 3:54 p.m. CST

    ET 2: PISSED OFF AND ANGRY... and time travels to the 70s.

    by AsimovLives

  • March 11, 2011, 4 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The mystery of Jar Jar Abrams's STINO is how in the bloody hell adults were responsible for that dumb ass shit. By all logic, that movie looks like the result of a bunch of very rich 11 years old tykes who decided to make a Star Trek movie without ever watched any ST show or movie in their life before... or even giving a shit about it. STAR WRECK was a demolishing parody and still managed to be a much much better ST movie then Jar Jar's STINO!

  • Maybe...

  • March 11, 2011, 4:10 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    There's a circle in hell specially for people who lump together the excelent INCEPTION and the very good CASINO ROYALE with the exacrable shit THE ROCK. You have to chose, friend, you canot have INCEPTION or CASINO ROYALE and THE ROCK. You have to chose between INCEPTION/CASINO ROYALE or THE ROCK. Chose wisely.

  • March 11, 2011, 4:12 p.m. CST

    teabaggerharry, Spielberg directed THE PURPLE COLOR is 1986

    by AsimovLives

  • March 11, 2011, 4:13 p.m. CST

    teabaggerharry, in South Africa, the whites are a minority.

    by AsimovLives

  • March 11, 2011, 4:14 p.m. CST

    asimovlives - Is the "Purple Color" related to "the Color Purple"?

    by TheKiller7

  • March 11, 2011, 4:15 p.m. CST

    asimovlives - In South Africa the whites are the majority

    by TheKiller7


  • Jar Jar Abrams parents were both studio executives. He was born INSIDE the Holylwood studio world. He is an insider since birth. There's nothing middle class americana about him. He's the son of previlege, he's a senator's son.

  • March 11, 2011, 4:18 p.m. CST

    asimovlives - You starting to sound like Abram's ex-wife

    by TheKiller7

  • March 11, 2011, 4:21 p.m. CST

    It's a Lion!!

    by Walterego

  • March 11, 2011, 4:21 p.m. CST

    This is why we go to the movies

    by Derek

    The insane amount of feedback on this page is a testament to the amazing mystery and intrigue surrounding this movie. Spielberg and Abrams have crafted something original yet nostalgic, and I think it will prove to be a massive hit this summer. I know I'll be one of the first in line at the ticket kiosk for sure.

  • March 11, 2011, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Asimov and Teabag (the same dude)

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Do something else, this babbling ping pong match between your multiple nerd personalities is boring, and uninspired. Actually multiple personalities would be fun, your just a fat twat on two machines having a conversation with yourself. Stupid.

  • March 11, 2011, 4:41 p.m. CST

    Looks way better than I expected

    by Jaster

    I'm quite surprised I'm actually excited to see this. He's got Spielberg's 80's style down to a T.

  • March 11, 2011, 4:41 p.m. CST

    An homage to AUDITION?!?!?!

    by WriteForTheEdit

    HAHAHAHAHA!!! Impossible. That movie is so fucking raw, no American studio will ever come within 100 miles of it. EVER.

  • March 11, 2011, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Aww shiiit.....and there's asimovlives, right on fucking cue

    by Jaster


  • March 11, 2011, 4:45 p.m. CST

    C. Thomas Howell must be

    by M6KR564

    spinning in his grave.

  • March 11, 2011, 4:49 p.m. CST

    One of the most important films of his life.

    by cushing1967

    If you are talking about the article surrounding the embedded trailer then A) Nordling wrote the article and B) The maybe most important film of his life was E.T. I may be missing some article where Harry says that Super 8 will be one of the most important films of his life but... It may be you're frothing at the mouth with the usual Abrams hate that you didn't really read the article properly? I'm also not 100% convinced that you are right when you say that Abrams was a senators son.

  • March 11, 2011, 4:51 p.m. CST

    Oh shit, braindrain exists!

    by AsimovLives

  • March 11, 2011, 4:53 p.m. CST


    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    It's best to not even try and rationalize with Asimovlives. The stank of gross nerd hangs heavy in this TB cause we have Asi and his alter ego Teabagerharry to deal with. It's like Fat Neil took a steaming shit on the floor, and Asi and Teabagg (same dude) are playing with it like babies and throwing chunks of warm poo on anyone who comes within 2 feet. Why, oh cause they (he/she/it) loves the attention. That's what it craves.

  • March 11, 2011, 4:56 p.m. CST

    mr ahole ramirez

    by AsimovLives

    I detested MI3. More because of Tom Cruise then Jar Jar Abrams, i have to admit.

  • March 11, 2011, 4:57 p.m. CST

    We arenot the same user. You can go back to your bagel

    by TheKiller7

  • March 11, 2011, 4:57 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    But i want Jar Jar Abrams to be famous. To be famous as the shitty retard untalented hack that he is.

  • March 11, 2011, 4:58 p.m. CST

    No Asi, you don't

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    First, your grammar sucks! Second, nope, there's nothing to counter. And even if there was, you would be the last person in the world worthy of countering anyone's point. You're so full of your own jizz, that listening to your garbage is painful, the words come out broken and scattered, and dripping with cum. It's disgusting, you are disgusting, and every TB that includes your pointless meandering thoughts is far worse for it.

  • March 11, 2011, 4:58 p.m. CST

    I loved MI3, mostly because of Tom Cruise jumping on a sofa

    by TheKiller7

  • March 11, 2011, 4:59 p.m. CST

    mel gibsteinberg

    by cushing1967

    Asimov and I have a small and insignificant history of delightful witty, warm conversations. I just like to point out his mistakes every now and again.

  • March 11, 2011, 4:59 p.m. CST

    mel gibsteinberg - Are u still a racist?

    by TheKiller7

    Why the hate, then?

  • March 11, 2011, 4:59 p.m. CST

    teabaggerharry, same movie. Saw it 20 years ago.

    by AsimovLives

  • March 11, 2011, 4:59 p.m. CST

    this movie is gonna own

    by Boborci

  • March 11, 2011, 5 p.m. CST

    Feels like I've already seen this.

    by James Westfall

    I've seen Iron Giant and I've seen Cloverfield. This looks like the two movies had a kid. Feels like I've already seen this.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:01 p.m. CST

    asimovlives - You can't be THAT old - Not with that grammar you can't

    by TheKiller7

    You can't possibly be that old

  • March 11, 2011, 5:02 p.m. CST


    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Warm and witty do not describe Asi. But I'll take your word for it, since you seem far more level headed.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:02 p.m. CST

    Hey look its the train crossing from Close Encounters.

    by Yaroh_Meringue

    I love that train crossing. I'm glad to see it in the movies again. God bless you, J. J. Walker.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:02 p.m. CST

    I meant Abrams

    by Yaroh_Meringue


  • Hmmmm?

  • March 11, 2011, 5:04 p.m. CST

    mattman, Rome wasn't made in one day.

    by AsimovLives

  • March 11, 2011, 5:04 p.m. CST

    I'm Right There with You Nordling!!!!!!!!!!

    by SamShotFirst

    I may have been born after It's 1982 release, but E.T. is the first movie along with Star Wars that truly captured my imagination. I remember when my Dad and my older brothers showed it to me and showed it to me and my 7 year old mind was blown! This trailer did that exact same thing it must have done to you. I am so glad there is going to be another film in the vein E.T. for the new generation. I can NOT wait for this!

  • March 11, 2011, 5:04 p.m. CST

    cocknasty_buttstank - Michael Savage is Jewish AND racist

    by TheKiller7

    True fact.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:05 p.m. CST

    rise_of_fett, tough shit, hem?

    by AsimovLives

  • March 11, 2011, 5:05 p.m. CST

    Seen a rough cut, have you boborci?

    by blakindigo

    Just askin…

  • March 11, 2011, 5:06 p.m. CST

    "Move on with your life." = That's something AssimovLive can't do.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    You see, Assimov has no life. Have you ever seen someone as anally fixated on something as he is on Abrams?! It's an obsession bordering on lunacy. Seriously, it's fucking pathetic.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:06 p.m. CST

    mel gibsteinberg

    by cushing1967

    No, I was using warm and witty in the ironic way - he told me to fuck off and that if he wanted my opinion he'd give it to me and I eventually called him a cunt. So - no warm and witty don't really cover it. However, he's not Teabaggerharry.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:07 p.m. CST

    teabaggerharry, i'm portuguese, what's your excuse?

    by AsimovLives

  • March 11, 2011, 5:09 p.m. CST

    Oh and mel gibsteinberg

    by cushing1967

    Don't bring up his grammar or spelling or he'll call you a dumb ass and remind us all he's Portuguese.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:09 p.m. CST

    mel gibsteinberg

    by AsimovLives

    It's ironic that you said it's impossible to rationalize with me, when the very fact that i despise STINO and got very badly with the STINO fans is that it was impossible to rationalize with them on the very obvious flaws and mistakes that movie has. You ar trying to call water to fire. You got it completly the other way around.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:09 p.m. CST


    by ChickenStu

    lol, you may be more right than you know. I've shown him all the classics, he's not as into all that stuff as I am, but he just rolls his eyes and comes with me to the cinema, just to shut me up. Lol. Now my daughter on the other hand, she LOVES E.T, she LOVES Star Wars, and she ADORES Explorers. Not bad for a girl who's almost 5.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:10 p.m. CST

    True or False? Nolan is to Kubrick as JJ Abrams is to Spielberg?

    by blakindigo

    Winner gets a pizza roll…

  • March 11, 2011, 5:10 p.m. CST

    And there we are.

    by cushing1967

    You just have to know the rules. It's like Gremlins.

  • WOW

  • Was that grammatically good enough for you?

  • March 11, 2011, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Oh Asi already tried to prove he was portuguese

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Telling me he could prove that he wasn't Teabagerharry beyond a shadow of a doubt, and other such drivel. I don't care if he's Portuguese, Spanish, Turkish, Russian, Romulan, or Mon Calamarian. Dumb is dumb in all shapes and sizes, and Asi is pretty damn dumb.

  • True that

  • March 11, 2011, 5:17 p.m. CST

    This JJ Abrams, Spielberg comparison... not quite feeling it.

    by ChickenStu

    I can sort of see it, but I can't. Reason is, Spielberg puts a lot of personal stuff into his movies (broken homes, fractured families, absent fathers, etc etc) which makes him distinctive. Three films into Abrams career as a movie director... as much as I like him and his movies, I'm not feeling that personal touch. Especially since his first two movies were based on 60's TV shows. Now Bryan Singer on the other hand, maybe. That guy puts a lot of personal stuff into his movies, isolation, feeling different, loneliness. In a weird way, he reminds me of Spielberg more. I like Abrams, and feel he has the POTENTIAL to be the new Spielberg, but he needs to get personal and stop navel gazing. Still having said that, "Super 8" still looks the BOMB.

  • True story

  • March 11, 2011, 5:18 p.m. CST

    There is a black guy in the trailer

    by YouSunkMyBlankenship

    It's a split second. He's holding a gun, all bloodied up, pointing it at someone off screen and yelling "GO!" So, I guess we know who dies first.

  • Really true story

  • March 11, 2011, 5:18 p.m. CST

    Nolan = Kubrick? Abrams = Spielberg? Anyone? asimovlives?

    by blakindigo

  • March 11, 2011, 5:19 p.m. CST

    yousunkmyblankenship is a hilarious motherfucker.

    by ChickenStu


  • March 11, 2011, 5:19 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I don't know if he's a racist. But he most certainly is an idiot. Got owned by the language argument, now he pulls a trantrum like a spoiled little brat that didn't got his toy. What an idiot!

  • That's true!

  • Just no.

  • One of those raptors, maybe. He says.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:25 p.m. CST

    Nolan is no Kubrick

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    I love Nolan, I love his stuff. But I don't quite see the comparison between him and Kubrick. What are you basing that on? Kubrick was very political at times, he tackled a myriad of issues and topics, and he explored a lot of very heavy concepts. Nolan, on the other hand, has spent most of his film career structuring very tightly wound plots and story structures. And that is not a knock against him. I think far few film makers would even know how to tell a story in the way that Nolan does, but he has never seemed to really address topical issues, maybe in the very furthest stretches (the Joker is a modern day terrorist?). So I'm not sure I understand the comparison.

  • Kinky that Mel is.

  • Incredible stuff from this fella

  • March 11, 2011, 5:29 p.m. CST

    Super 8 looks far more like a Joe Dante movie

    by cushing1967

    Than a Spielberg movie to be honest. Small town being destroyed - that's more Dante than Spielberg, a gang of friends - that's more Dante than Spielberg. Remember in E.T Eliot is quite isolated, all the kids at the end are his brothers friends if I remember correctly.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:29 p.m. CST

    How to detect a stupid assclown?

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    They scream and shout and rant and rave, cause deep inside they really want the attention. Also, their names are Asimovlives and Teabagerharry.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:30 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "Nolan = Kubrick? Abrams = Spielberg?" I think that's nonsense. Kubrick is Kubrick, Nolan is Nolan, Spielberg is Spielberg and Jar Jar Abrams is shit.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:32 p.m. CST

    mel gibsteinberg sent me a PM that said: "I eat gravy on my knees"

    by TheKiller7

    Good gravy

  • whip it out and he will come to you

  • March 11, 2011, 5:35 p.m. CST

    Mac and Me Reboot

    by fox_mulder

    or is it a live action Iron Giant?

  • Like?

  • March 11, 2011, 5:36 p.m. CST

    Looks like another talkback for the ages...

    by WriteForTheEdit

  • March 11, 2011, 5:36 p.m. CST

    Sorry Cocknasty

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    What would you like, would you like me to start firing off a bunch of non-sensical random posts? Let me know, I'm happy to oblige.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:37 p.m. CST

    mel gibsteinberg, you are the stupid assclown, idiot.

    by AsimovLives

    You should had the common dencency to see that you fucked up with your stupid gramamr nazi ass-pull stunt and you should had had the decency to back down and admit you made a crass mistake. I didn't ned an appology, a simple admission that you fucked up and shouldn't had gone that way would suffice nicely. but like all idiot fucks, you just ten dismissed all the fact that i'm a portugruse speaking english to you as a second languag,e when you are a pathetic assclown fuck you can't speak any other language then your own native english. Your lack of basic decency is tremendous. You got owned, you ignorant clown. Show some decency and grace and back down, idiot.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:38 p.m. CST

    Since it's populated with

    by M6KR564

    C- and D-list nobodies and lathered with creamy dollops of amateur CG, this crapfest will one day fit in nicely on Syfy.

  • Hmmm?

  • March 11, 2011, 5:40 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

  • March 11, 2011, 5:40 p.m. CST

    Aside from the director and his idolized producer

    by TheKiller7

  • March 11, 2011, 5:41 p.m. CST

    asimovlives for the win — actually no, but interesting thoughts…

    by blakindigo

    Actually, the point is about 'hype'. If you noticed, when Inception was on the verge of release, there was constant speculation on whether Nolan was the "new Kubrick". Now, pre-release hype-based comparisons are flying around with Abrams. Is this only a ploy for marketing? Any truth to the comparisons (I agree that this does look closer to Dante's Explorers).

  • March 11, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST


    by cushing1967

    You've not acknowledged the fact that you misread the article surrounding the embedded video and accused Harry of stating that he expected this may be one of the most important films of his life and accused him of being bribed to say that. When Nordling said the quote about E.T. I pointed out your mistake above. Probably the one post you've ignored. So, let's not get all high horse glass house metaphor about some other person not acknowledging their mistakes.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST

    AICN never fails to amaze me!

    by mastes360

    We get a fantastic 2min trailer for Super 8 but instead of talking about that, we are arguing about the film and Spielberg being racist! lol.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:48 p.m. CST

    I'm literally crying, I'm laughing so hard

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    I just have to believe that Asi has a Napoleon complex to end all Napoleon complexes. No one would get this irate over shit spewed on the internet, but a tiny little man who's sensitive about his height, his lisp, and his lack of language skills. It's like watching a drunk angry midget try to brawl with a bear, HILARIOUS. This has been quite an entertaining day, nice job little Asi, you and your small penis have made laugh harder than I can remember in quite some time. Oh that, and your horrid, horrid grammar. It really is bad Asi, you should work on that. Has anyone ever told you that before? OH NO I DIDN'T!!!

  • March 11, 2011, 5:51 p.m. CST


    by tommyleespenis

    They should've hired him^

  • And Abrams the new Spielberg? Have we lost our minds, people? Or, and this is more like it, are we all fucking 12-year-olds on this board?

  • Jesus Christ almighty.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:53 p.m. CST


    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Finding Steven Spielberg's non-union Mexican equivalent is no small feat. Besides, he was busy filming "A Burns For All Seasons"

  • March 11, 2011, 5:54 p.m. CST

    It's like saying Dan Brown is the new William Faulkner.

    by D Ropaela

    Seriously, you assholes need to stop with the Nolan-Kubrick and Abrams-Spielberg comparisons.

  • March 11, 2011, 5:54 p.m. CST

    mel gibsteinberg — You're right, it's a hype-based comparison

    by blakindigo

    So much is devoted to comparing contemporary filmmakers to there alleged counterparts from the '70's or earlier. It's almost an obsession — kind of like trying to reclaim past glories in new clothing. The hype machine doesn't seem to really want 'originality' they seem to want a new filmmaker who embodies the values of the past for the current generation. A generation that doesn't have a cultural reference point for their cinematic fore bearers.

  • Did I get that right?

  • You should've know better by now

  • March 11, 2011, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Dan Brown = Faulkner! PURE WIN!!

    by blakindigo

  • March 11, 2011, 5:58 p.m. CST

    darth_kong - the soundtrack from the trailer is the one from COCOON

    by TheKiller7

  • March 11, 2011, 6 p.m. CST

    Both shit!

    by imagin78

    Inception and The Rock are both crap. The car chase in Frisco and the snow fortress raid are two of the most mindless action scenes I've ever seen. Casino Royale couldn't be more different. The airport and Madagascar chases are two of the best sustained and choreographed scenes in any action film in the last 20 years.

  • March 11, 2011, 6 p.m. CST


    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    I know those days man, cheers to it being Friday though, hope you don't have to work over the weekend. I had my fun with Teabag, but he's like a 14 year old with an uncreative potty mouth. Asi is more fun cause he's a hot blooded euro, and I imagine he gets really, REALLY, pissed at people that disrespect him. Or say anything that iGoogle translates as disrespect, or that translates as disrespect against his mother. And since iGoogle f's up translations all the time, I imagine that Asi reads half of the posts on this board as direct insults to his manhood and his mother. It would kinda be sad, if it weren't deliciously hilarious.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:02 p.m. CST

    Tim Burton is the new Tod Browning!!!FACT!!!

    by WriteForTheEdit

  • March 11, 2011, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Catherine Hardwicke is the new Norah Ephron!!!FACT!!!

    by WriteForTheEdit

  • March 11, 2011, 6:05 p.m. CST

    Jonathan Liebesman is the new John McTiernan!!!FACT!!!

    by WriteForTheEdit

  • Must be a masochist

  • March 11, 2011, 6:07 p.m. CST

    Tyler Perry is the new Jerry Lewis!! FACT!!!

    by blakindigo

  • March 11, 2011, 6:07 p.m. CST

    Zack Synder is the new Richard Donner!!!FACT!!!

    by WriteForTheEdit

  • March 11, 2011, 6:12 p.m. CST

    Chicken is the new white meat! FACT!!!!

    by TheKiller7

  • March 11, 2011, 6:15 p.m. CST

    It's hilarious that Teabag thinks he's won something

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    As though TB is a contest. And he is winning. With his brilliant...jokes...BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • March 11, 2011, 6:15 p.m. CST


    by Jonas Earl James

    It needs more lens flare!

  • March 11, 2011, 6:15 p.m. CST

    I like Abrams and all but....

    by slappy jones

    what exactly has he done that makes you think he should be considered the new Speilberg??

  • March 11, 2011, 6:23 p.m. CST

    YourStepDaddy, just don't treat AICN like a stepchild

    by blakindigo

    Mediocrity or not, at you still bring the goods.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:24 p.m. CST

    Super 8 starring

    by M6KR564

    Jeff Cohen as "The Chunky Kid," William Hurt as "General Thunderbolt Ross," and Jon Cryer as "Clerk dragged by Cthulhu," with Harrison Ford as "Principal Dondelinger" and Francois Truffaut as "Lacombe"

  • March 11, 2011, 6:30 p.m. CST

    what a complete pile of...

    by AllThosePowers

    ...poo! The hot-steaming kind that oozes between the knuckles as you squeeze hard with frustration. We first had ET not we got SE - bullshit film, wont be wasting my money

  • March 11, 2011, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Kyle Chandler just sold me on this

    by jimmy_009

    The girl in the tight jeans with the amazing behind just sealed the deal. My initial skepticism is fading.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:43 p.m. CST

    JJ Abrhams is a genius. Ill keep watching everything he makes.

    by Datascream

    Just so he can keep making more money and keep making more movies to make asimov have a coronary.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:54 p.m. CST

    everyone go to !

    by brightgeist

    i'm guessing the films there will be revealed bit by bit, the more people go there... like the Joker picture a while ago

  • March 11, 2011, 6:54 p.m. CST

    Hell yea

    by donkingkong

    Looks awesome!

  • March 11, 2011, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Glad some one mentioned China Mieville

    by zinc_chameleon

    If Perfido Street Station got made into a movie, there would need to be doctors and nurses giving out meds on the way out. China's mind is more twisted than H.P. Lovecraft's.

  • March 11, 2011, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Kyle Chandler

    by brocknroll

    I'm very happy for Kyle Chandler. I'm glad somebody realized the acting talent that Kyle has. Steven Spielberg must of been an avid watcher of "Friday Night Lights" TV series, if he was that impressed with his acting. Kyle will become a big name now, after this movie, "Super 8". I'm happy Kyle will get the recognition that he deserves and that's one reason why I'm very excited for this movie. He is such a good actor. If you all have never seen "Friday Night Lights", once you see this movie, you'll want to see FNL after this. Congrats Kyle!!!! :)


  • March 11, 2011, 7:03 p.m. CST

    Also about the "Super 8" ending...

    by brocknroll

    Man, if this movie ends with Kyle Chandler getting in a spaceship to live with Aliens out in space or if a kid gets taken by aliens, I'm gonna be very disappointed.Hopefully the ending will be different and original, and we won't get another "Close Encounters" or, "E.T". That can be a little suspicious when Steven Spielberg is associated with this film.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Kyle Chandler will become a star just like Richard Dreyfuss

    by TheKiller7


  • I HATE....HAAATTTEEE movies where the entire movie (CLOVERFIELD) where they never show the fucking monster. Have to read some reviews, but if all I hear is nostalgia blah blah...I'm skipping it.

  • March 11, 2011, 7:57 p.m. CST

    by the_Dogs_Bollocks

    Needs more cow bell too

  • March 11, 2011, 8:07 p.m. CST

    Final scene, pan up to reveal the Enterprise flying through the clouds

    by performingmonkey

    The lead-in to JJ's Trek 2. It's happening and you all know it!!! Love that Spielberg is producing. Love that Abrams, despite being flamed from all angles, is still one of the only big name figures that gets us all up and firing on all cylinders, whether we really love his work or not. I really want this to succeed. Abrams is yet to make a truly excellent film. Star Trek was great (IMO. I know you all allegedly 'hated' it..yeah right :P) but it's Super 8 and Trek 2 where his real worth will be known.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Stephen Sommers is the new Terrence Fischer!! FACT!!

    by blakindigo

  • March 11, 2011, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Like it but i fear its taking itself too serious

    by quintana007

    Explorers, Goonies, Stand by me, Gremlins whatever they had all a certain vibe you cannot copy. However its nice to see a big movie again that doesn't relies on cynism or many splattred kills possible.

  • March 11, 2011, 8:42 p.m. CST

    Oh, Christ, this conversation has actually gone DOWNHILL...Spielberg's racist?

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    Spielberg's racist, which is why has has a black kid. Right... <p> Oy vey. Again, really need an eyeroll icon on this site!

  • March 11, 2011, 8:48 p.m. CST

    And Spielberg was unaware of black people before 2008...

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    Except for his kid, Theo Spielberg, who he adopted in the early 90's. OY!

  • March 11, 2011, 9:12 p.m. CST

    Dogs run away? Maybe the creature's a giant Korean guy with a wok!

    by planetran_fan

  • And I love it!! I especially adore that this plays with a bit of Mr. Spielberg's life story. I'm sure everyone is familiar that as a boy Spielberg shot super 8 films with friends and family yes? Granted they were WW2 films, but still Abrams is doing something truly awesome for once. It's about damn time they did a film like this again!!

  • March 11, 2011, 9:13 p.m. CST

    teabaggerharry, I do want to read insightful posts...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...and I've read them in talkbacks before. halfbreedqueen (about halfway up the page) had a few in a Anne Hathaway/Catwoman discussion here, and we ended up talking about Gladiator and Inglorious Basterds and when it's OK for a film to fuck with history; and that's scarcely the only case I can think of. mattman said some worthwhile things in the same thread, and I've even had intelligent discussions with the much-maligned asimovlives; a recent one was about Tron:Legacy (although he does have an idee fixe when it comes to J. J. Abrams, to put it mildly, and discussions of his work do not show asi at his best). I'm sure there's some movie or filmmaker you love that you could say something perceptive about; why not give it a try? If it's something you're passionate about, it's unlikely to be any more difficult than making lame insults, and is almost certain to wear better, too.

  • March 11, 2011, 9:15 p.m. CST

    Scorcese on "Taxi Driver" Restoration

    by blakindigo

  • March 11, 2011, 9:37 p.m. CST

    And to stay on topic...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...I was around for the summer of '82 and Poltergeist and E.T., so the Super8 trailer can't help but evoke a certain Spielbergian thrill in me. By the same token, those memories are pretty precious to me, and anything that evokes them and then doesn't deliver the goods will make me very cross, indeed. (As I was when I watched the finale of Dante's Explorers. Even the protagonist is disappointed, and I knew exactly how he felt. And as a couple of people said above, Dante did such a great job of capturing the Spielberg feel up to that point, that it made the denouement even more disappointing.) If the reviews are good, I'll give it a shot; but early 80s Spielberg set a pretty high bar. We'll see if Abrams can clear it (or even brush it with his fingertips).

  • March 11, 2011, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Give the benefit of doubt here ...

    by filmakr1

    Asimov, you really got to chill out. Look. I'm right with you that he utterly failed with that piece of shit Trek movie, but, this flick is something completely different. This looks great, and COULD be awesome ... and you or I or anyone else, just DON'T KNOW yet. You really should give it a chance ... I'm sorry, but anyone who shot super 8 movies in the 1970's, can NOT be immune to the thrill of this premise! I freaked when I saw that quick insert of the yellow Ektachrome 160 S8 sound film boxes! I have an empty one sitting right on my shelf now from those days ... I'm so there on June 10!

  • March 11, 2011, 10:08 p.m. CST

    Asimov is a xenophobic, myopic, obtuse, pretentious douche bag

    by p0llk4t

    Idiot bags on AICN for fellating Abrams, yet takes every opportunity to grease up and bend over to take Nolan's cock in his ass with a money shot finish right in the eye.<br><br> The worse thing I can say about this tool is that he is completely humorless and absolutely boring. The next time he says something witty or meaningful will be the first time. Has he every written anything even remotely funny. Even a chuckle?<br><br> Btw idiot, Inception was just ok. Such wasted potential on that one though. Awesome set pieces and ideas...yet absolutely no tension or suspense whatsoever. Congratulations...your favorite director makes technically proficient films that are frankly somewhat dull. Not worth more than a couple of viewings.<br><br> Here's a lovely stat from Rotten Tomatoes to make you spit and stew all weekend:<br><br> Inception 86%<br> New Trek 94%<br>Oops...don't cry loser. Scoreboard Abrams. <br><br> You really need to actually touch a woman. One who wants you to touch her...not one you have to pay.<br><br> Trolled bitch!

  • March 11, 2011, 10:39 p.m. CST

    Looking forward to this one....

    by maxjohnson1971

    Loves me some 80's style Berg

  • March 11, 2011, 10:49 p.m. CST

    Wait, since when did we start calling Spielberg "the BEARD"?

    by Dr. Egon Spengler

    I thought that was Lucas. Shouldn't it be "the NOSE"? Oh shit, is that racist/anti-semitic? Just trying to jump on the racist bandwagon since that's the direction this talkback has gone. How I miss my intellectual arguments with fatass molester. Seems so long ago already. Anyway, watched the trailer a few more times. Yeah, this one should be good. Can't wait.

  • ... sounded like a riff on Williams ET. Fantastic. I'm fucking THERE guys. If you're not onboard, really, why the hell not? Try some optimism for once.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:37 p.m. CST

    SithMenace- why'd you get banned?!

    by D.Vader

    Fucking Banhammer. Let's go all Egypt/Tunisia/Libya on it.

  • Its not a sequel, remake, or based on a graphic novel that has yet to be released, THAT's for fucking sure.

  • March 11, 2011, 11:50 p.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    Never responded to my post in the Guillermo Del Toro talkback re: Pacific Rim (the first one). Check it.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:04 a.m. CST

    Here here MattMan

    by D.Vader

    "Oh boo hoo! Spielberg is producing a movie that's too much like a Spielberg movie!"

  • March 12, 2011, 12:11 a.m. CST


    by D.Vader

  • March 12, 2011, 12:12 a.m. CST

    I've been drinking scotch CTM

    by D.Vader

    When are you gonna tear Murphy a new one, eh? That's what I wanna see. Though I'm happy to see you've yet to be banned despite your spot on psychological dissections of Harry's personality.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:15 a.m. CST

    This fucking talkback structure is fucking awful

    by D.Vader

    Its slowing down my computer. Piece of shit design. Go back to the old school. Its been months and you STILL haven't updated this shitty format.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:20 a.m. CST

    I dunno CTM

    by D.Vader

    I had a post disappear/get deleted as well. We talked about that in whichever story it was bc you thought it was Nordling doing it, I think. I can't remember whose TB mine was in, but I mistakenly thought it was him as well. Fucking bullshit, this habit of deleting posts without owning up to it. Like making dissidents just "disappear" in shitty countries.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:31 a.m. CST

    This structure is fucking awful

    by D.Vader

    I have to scroll to the top of the page every time I want to see a fucking reply? I can't open up the talkbacks from the middle when I see an interesting title and want to read the responses to it? For fuck's sake. When this shit went down back in December, he CLAIMED this was an early version he was forced into implementing to protect the rest of us. And here we are in March and we're STILL in this fucking early, unpolished, new talkback? Fuck that. Its goddamned laziness and ineptitude that keeps this talkback as fucking awful as it is. And I've never had a problem with a large talkback making my scripts run slow, but that's the case with this sorry excuse. Fuck it, I gotta go to bed. Scotch is getting to my head. You have a good one CTM. Take her easy, Dude.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:32 a.m. CST

    Should have said...

    by D.Vader

    "I have to scroll to the top of the page to open up every new response when I fucking reload?"

  • March 12, 2011, 12:34 a.m. CST

    Hey, CTM

    by blakindigo

    I agree that DePalma's M:I is the best of the three, but it SHOULD be. He's easily the most experienced director and his off-game generally pummels the competition. Also, do you think "At the Mountains of Madness" should cost $150 million? I mean the last 'hard R' that was over $100 million was "Watchmen" and that was a superhero movie at over 2 and a half hours long. Not sure a studio like Universal knows how to market 'hard R' 2 hour plus movies. We'll see with 'The Thing' prequel, I guess…

  • March 12, 2011, 12:35 a.m. CST

    Nice, CTM, I've heard of that

    by D.Vader

    But I've never met anyone who has actually SEEN it. I didn't realize that was the premise. Sounds pretty cool, I'll definitely check it out now. Last good-new-old-movie I saw was "The Green Slime". Damn that was a fun b-movie from the director of "Battle Royale". Check it out if you never have.

  • March 12, 2011, 1:33 a.m. CST

    I will watch this only because of dat ass at 1:43

    by 'Cholera's Ghost

    and because of other things.

  • March 12, 2011, 1:42 a.m. CST

    Haircuts in this movie were definitely exaggerated for 1979.

    by CodeName

    People had puffier hair back then. Fro-like.

  • March 12, 2011, 1:53 a.m. CST

    Its a hulk sequel, he will bust out of the train car!

    by Saen

    I would shit myself in the theater if that happened. If Only!

  • March 12, 2011, 2:13 a.m. CST

    why pretend like you dont know what its about?

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    a kid in a small town in the 70s is making a super 8 movie with friends - they are shooting one night and witness a military train wreck - an alien escapes from one of the train cars - the military attempts to cover it up while searching for the alien - the town where it happens starts missing dogs and people and other weird shit happens pointing to the alien - the kid sets out to solve the mystery with his friends (goonies/e.t. kids) - the alien turns out to be a victim of the military (area 51 escapee) - the kids help it - i deduced all of this from this mysterious trailer - tell me im wrong

  • March 12, 2011, 2:24 a.m. CST

    This looks great!!!

    by dvdhound79

    Spielberg has a nearly untarnished record, his producer work leaves something to be desired at times... but as far as his directed work, I've loved almost everything. Hell, I liked Hook, found it to be far better than Indy IV, which Lucas had a large hand in making a million dollar turd. But with Abrams at the helm in writing and directing I have just as much faith in the film as Spielberg did in handing him the project. This movie screams everything in epic proportions. Epic Acting, Epic Effects (both CGI and practicle), Epic Score...just. fucking. EPIC.

  • March 12, 2011, 2:30 a.m. CST

    I felt nothing.

    by Jonathhan Kana

    I dunno, maybe Im just too cynical nowadays. I think not tho. This trailer is just way too overbearing and cliche. It pulls at every single moment from an fun 80s film that alot of us remember as kids and just throws all of em in a pot together like one of those horrible parody movies, Epic Movie or some dumb shit. the main problem here being they are playing it straight. the big part for me tho is....I simply dont give a SHIT what kind of animal escaped, and Im sure whatever it is will be highly underwhelming. remember when we used to be in awe of what the hook was? from ET to The Matrix, we were fucking WOWED. here? from this trailer, who gives a shit?? adding to that, it seems like a big amount of the film is shown in that damn trailer, like a good half of the flick and its a bunch of NONSENSE. kid shoots footage with friends, some military cargo crashes, and some ape/monster/yeti escapes michael bay's military guys show up and take over the town, of course. kids dad is the sheriff of said town, of course, so both of them get some stupid sense of importance to the story the adults dont know whats what, so the kids decide they will solve the monster problem themselves and off they go into the fucking woods. so...what exactly is there to like? is it the constant stupid ass annoying blue lens flare that shows up like 50 times in one trailer? what is it? I think its crap. this movie will be some big cgi crap filled with sappy super cliche dumbed down boring ass shit. and the saddest part is it wont even be as cool as the kids 80s flicks because we wont have those cool little moments where kids are kids, cursing a lil bit or being just a lil raunchy like kids can be. they are gonna be syrupy bubble gum good ole kids from some stupid ass narnia world that doesnt exist. so when i say i felt nothing..thats a lie. i felt annoyed. maaan fuck this shit.

  • March 12, 2011, 2:49 a.m. CST

    oh, the one thing I guess I kinda like

    by Jonathhan Kana

    the score. its all 80s influenced, but with a more serious 2011 stoic tone, and that one serious string to keep the tension up. but then the second half of it, when we are again focused on the kids, reminds me of the goonies. there is that wonder and amazement, like when they are about to set their eyes on one eyed willys ship. so imo the score is what gives this trailer life, not really the visuals,even tho both are a hodge podge of alot of past work with 2011 sensibilities. honestly it just makes me want to pop in gooneis or monster squad. just give me a kids movie thru and thru without making it some mars needs moms sappy bullshit. give me kids acting like fucking kids. curious about sex, cruel to their friends,always trying to pull one over on their parents, etc. good ole fashioned real life teen angst. give me a time before pg-13.

  • March 12, 2011, 3:06 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You made a very good point about hype. And i believe you are right. It seems now is all about hype. Even in the geek community, like at AICN, it seems people are now enjoying more the hype then the movies propers. And they bend their opinion of the film according to the hype. And this has happened to both good movies and the bad ones. And i tell you, i found the comparisons of Nolan with Kubrick frustrating and irritating. Because Nolan is not Kubrick. Nolan is not making Kubrick movies, nor he is atempting to do so. I can see influences of Kubrick in nolan's movies, but nolan is not making pastiches of Kubrick's movies. nolan is too busy making nolan movies to pastiche anybody. Hell, he says the movie he most quotes in his filmography is BLADE RUNNER, and it's not even directly done so. But Abrams is making a direct shameless pastiche of Spielberg's. Or rather, reads like the pastiche that such directors like ron Howard did of Spielberg back in the 80s. And he's being praised for it. Am I alone in seeing the absurdity of this?

  • Make no mistake. If this movie had been done by some other filmmaker like, say, Bryan Singer or Christopher Nolan, and it would look exactly like it loos in the above trailer, the vast majorityof you guys in here would be tearing a hole. Not just you guys at the talkbacks but most of the AICN crew too. You guys would be so wild and harsh in your coments it would make me look like Abram's biggest groupie in comparison. But because this is Abrams, you fall to his knees and hail him the savior of cinema and the spiritual and literal sucessor of the earlier, funnier Spielberg. What is going on at AICn and other places as well is simply a blind devotion, a cult of personality devoted to Jar Jar Abrams. And it's based on nothing else but his skills as salesman. And as a magpie stealer of other people's style now as well. Think about it, people: you are praising the shit out of a filmmaker who is making a movie that is an extreme pastiche of th work of another living director. Have you actually think about it? Have you actually think about it? Does that make any sense to you? Is it truly cause for praise and jubilation? Just think ablout this: were it this from another filmmaker, would you be praising this as much? My opinion? You wouldn't! You would be tearing it a new asshole, as you would.

  • March 12, 2011, 3:17 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Consider me corrected, sir. I should had suspected that it was Nording that said it, not Harry. My bad. I appologise to Harry Knowles and to you for my mistake. Thank you for pointing that out, friend. I never have a probem in admiting when i made a mistake. Never. I'm harsher about my mistakes then i am of others. But when i make a mistake. I'm not going to acknowledge a mistake just because that somebody else thinks i did. You know what i mean? I'm no flip-flop.

  • March 12, 2011, 3:28 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    i take it you are not much of a Nolan's fan. But i'k going to fully agree with you on that, Nolan is not Kubrick. Nolan never made a movie in the vein of Kubrick ever. There's no film in nolan's filmmography which i could say "this is such a pastiche of Kubrick". None. Not a single one. I can detect influence,s but to say "Nolan is the new kubrick" is absurd, as you very well said. Nolan is the new Nolan. He's to busy busy being his own man. Instead of pulling a Jar Jar Abrams and building an empire based on pastiches of other's people styles. Fuck, if i want to see a movie made by a filmmaker who makes lots of filmic references to other's films while still mannaging to make his own movies, i would watch a film by Neill Marshall. Jar Jar Abrams has a lot to learn from Marshall about how to make quotes form other filmmakers' movies and still develop his own style. As for your post above, it seems you have an high opinion of BARRY LYNDON. I'm very happy to see that soembody else in here also thinks highly of that great, amazing, fabulous film. a friend of mine cvals it the "wallpaper movie" because he says any frame from it could be use as a badass gorgeaus wallpaper screen for a PC monitor. And he's right. Any frame of that movie could he shown in a painting gallery. And of course, BARRY LYNDON has more qualities to it then just looking gorgeaus. Aparently, it's Spielberg's favorite Kubrick movie. It certainly is Ridley Scott's favorite Kubrick movie, so much so it completly influenced his filmming style of his first half of his career (he says so in the audio comentary of his first film, THE DUELISTS). Without BARRY LYNDON there would be no ALIEN or BLADE RUNNER as we know it. Think about it.

  • March 12, 2011, 3:30 a.m. CST

    The teaser was great...

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    ...but these trailers scream too much Spielberg kiddie boredom for me...

  • March 12, 2011, 3:39 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I justify the action scene in the snow fortress in INCEPTION because it's set in a dream work where the Cobb Team are in full control of it's enviroment, on account they actually designed the thing for their porposes. In there, they are like in The Matrix, where each can act like a super heightned version of themselves. While the mook guards are not real people but projections, like fantasy characters you would create for a story but in the subconscious. as such, and like in THE MATRIX, there's a justification for why the Team Cobb are so adept and badasses while the mooks are individually more inept and can only make a threath through numbers, single-mindess cannon-fodder tactics and having time always on their side. THE ROCK, however, it's supposed to happen in the real world. Regardless if that's the usuaal "heighned reality" of action movies, which for me is just a bad excuse from mindless geeks to justify bad filmmakers lack of skill in developing suspension of disbelief.

  • March 12, 2011, 3:49 a.m. CST


    by shoveller

    Subject. Comment. See if you can work out which box is for what... I'll help you... Write your awesome and amusing comments in the box marked "comment", then stick a witty little title in the box marked "subject". Otherwise you look like a ranting lunatic and we BOTH know you don't rant. ;) Other than that, that film looks like it could be a lot of fun. The trouble is, I have been let down by most of the "summer movies" over the last few years so now i refuse to get excited until i've seen the damn thing. Curse my jaded middle age...

  • March 12, 2011, 3:50 a.m. CST

    mr ahole ramirez

    by AsimovLives

    Maybe you still come here because this is the only online film forum where you can say "fuck" and other harsh swearings, vituperations, invectives, opprobrium and upbraiding and not get censored or expelled. On that regard, AICN is admirable.

  • March 12, 2011, 3:52 a.m. CST

    i am an ass.

    by shoveller

    ...who managed to miss out on reading the message a couple of posts above this and am now battening down the hatches from the inevitable tonguelashing i'm gonna recieve from asimovlives. Why don't i read things properly before i open my mouth... *sigh* Have at it.

  • March 12, 2011, 3:58 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The only coronary i got was from Jar Jar Abram's STINO. All other movies he will make afterwards will just be laugh riots for me. STINO upseted me because how unexpectedly stupid and shamlessly dumb it was. But know i know what Jar Jar Abrams is as a filmmaker, so now it's all just for laughs. I'll laugh at Jar Jar's continuous ineptitude as a filmmaker and the idiotic stupid movies he will keep making, and even funiers, the mindless blind accpetance gushing those movies and he will get from mindless drone geekoids and bad illiterate critics. That stuff will be the funniest shit ever! I'll not miss the party for anything in the world. Well, unless my friends drag me to it, i might very well give a miss on SUPER 8, or watch it in a way i don't have to pay for it just for kicks and giggles. But i will not miss STINO 2: RETARD LENS FLARES HARDER. Oh no! I cannot rob myself of such a laugh! Only STINO upsets me. The rest is laughing stock.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:01 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    To add to my former post, in fact STINO wouldn't had upset me that much if that movie had gotten the reception that it should, like how that of CLASH OF THE TITANS or TERMINATOR SALVATION. Half the reason i'm so upset with STINO is the mindless brainless blind acceptance gushing that it gets from the majority of the geeks, specially at the time when it was released, where the geekdom acted like shrieking mindless boys-band groupie zombies. With time dissident voices are getting heard above the mindless shrieking gushings.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:12 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    No, some of us didn't allegedly "hated" STINO. We really hated STINO. For real. For which we have very good, excelent reasons. You can take off the inverted commas from the word hated and you can stop the Donald Rumsfeld speak. Or maybe i should say that there are people in here who allegedly "liked" STINO. And i'm sure the 'allegedly "liked"' wouldn't describe your feelings for the movie, would it? It works both ways, pal.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:13 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The cynicism in SUPER 8 is in the filmmaker who made it. Stating with the absolutly shameless pastiche of Spielberg's 70s filmmaking style.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:19 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    In what ways i'm xenophobic, you stupid ass? Oh, and i should be impressed with the fact the majority of critics went full retard and fell for the hype of a bad movie? wow, i'm so convinced of the errors of my ways. Because never before inthe history of cinem aa bad mvoei got raving reviews when it came out! It never happened, right? Nor have good movies been revilled the first time they were first released either, right? Give me a break, you mindless drone. Go kiss Jar Jar Abrams's butt if that makes you happy. Good ridance, zombie boy.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:30 a.m. CST


    by Smack_Teddy

    there is a black guy in the trailer, twat. I cant believe I'm even bothering to get into this, but yes, there is. End of.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:31 a.m. CST

    I go to the Cinema to be entertained...

    by Pawprint

    Star Trek: The Motion Picture put me to sleep. I can't believe anyone could make a film about exploring space to counter an unknown threat so boring. And they had the cheek to label such a wooden, dull film as a 'motion' picture. In fact, if we're ascribing silly, childish names (like Jar Jar Abrams) to people or things, I can feel extremely justified in renaming ST:TMP as 'Yawn Trek: The Static Picture'. Abrams achieved an extremely difficult feat - he made Star Trek entertaining, exciting and accessible to the masses. He also removed the majority of the nonsense, meaningless techno-babble, which helped immensely. There was more excitement, tension and emotion in the opening space battle of JJ's Trek than in every single Trek film that isn't 'Khan'.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:33 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    But DIE HARD was the first movie, or at least thefirst major hollywood movie that had in-camera lens flares, so at least it looked differently and made it unique among it's action movie brethrens. and though those lens flares exists, they are not distracting, nor ever present, and not in places where it doesn't obscures and obfuscates the action. Basically, the lens flares in DIE HARD are not where it's not expected or where it wouldn't make sense. You know what i mean? Meanwhile in STINO, the lesn flares are in places where it makes absolutly no sense whatsoever whty there would be a sourse of light. Watch,for example, the first scene in the USS Kevin, where right when the captain enters the bridge, we get treeated with a big ass lens flare right on the face. The light sourse is such in a position that completly obfuscates the bridge's viewscreen. Ask yourself, the military would put a light sourse where they would make looking at the tactical viewscreen a problem and a eyesore? It's like saboutaging their own forces. The lesn flares are there just ebcause it looks cute? That's stupid! Even Tony Scott at his most extreme "sets filled with smoke" style never pulled such a dumb shit like that. Well, if i have to go futher in history, i think that Spielberg made a lot of use of lens flares in CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE THIRD KIND, but only in the scenes where they were justified, like when the UFOs show up, and in the scene at the Devil's Mountain space harbour. In those scenes, it made sense. Futher going back, i think the first movie which might had used lens flares as an aestetic choice was EASY RIDER. The flare ligth was from sunlight, and the intention was to give an halo-like lighting to the byke riders played by Peter Fonda and Denis Hooper. As a fun fact, EASY RIDER was photographed by László Kovács and CEOT3K was photographed by Vilmos Zsigmond. Both are hungarian cinematographers who were fellow class students at the Academy of Drama and Film in Budapest. So the lens flare style of cinematography was started, at least in USA, by two hungarian cinematographers who had before previous extensive experience filming documentaries.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:36 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "Its not a sequel, remake, or based on a graphic novel that has yet to be released, THAT's for fucking sure." But wouldn't it be really great if Abrams had made the film in a style all of his own instead of going for cheap nostalgia trickery and pastiche Spielberg? Wouldn't had that been so much better?

  • March 12, 2011, 4:39 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You said it, with much better eloquence. It's inspiring and so very true.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:54 a.m. CST

    creepythinmanlives, d.vader and mattman

    by AsimovLives

    The good thing i think about this new talkback structure is that it gives the choice to individually open the posts that you want to read. If there's some post you don't want to know about, you just don't open it. I'm OK with that. Mattman, as foryour coment aht you don't think that Jar Jar is not trying to be the new Spielberg, well it's very obvious that he is, painfully so. It's not just the visual style that he pastiched for SUPER 8, but his all attitude and the way he self-promotes himself. In his mind he must sees a lot of paralels, since both Spielberg and Abram both came from TV and are now making blockbusters and their names are used as part of the promotion material, they have both became brand names. I have no doubt whatsoever that Jar Jar is trying, very very hard, to be the new Speilberg, and his latest movie is just one more brick in that house. And now he even has Spielberg himself producing his latest movie made in a very openly obvious Spielberg's pastiche style. The connection is now complete. I'd call it an hommage and a tribute if there would had been no involvement of Spielberg and the pastiche had been much tonned down.

  • ... it turns out that the "alien" is really Chutluh in a weakned form. And thanks to the kid's help, he gets his full powers back on. Then he eats the kids, mercilessly kills everybody on sight, and starts a roaring rampage of total fucking destruction and destroys all life on Earth. And that after enduring 2 hours of sugary sentimentaloid bad version of a 70s/80s Spielberg ET pastiche. If Jar Jar Abrams made that, i would be impressed.

  • March 12, 2011, 5:05 a.m. CST

    alfer = after

    by AsimovLives

  • Sure he's a perfectly nice guy in real life. Wtf is happening to this talkback?

  • March 12, 2011, 6:20 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "I go to the Cinema to be entertained" You and me both. I wasn't entertained when i watched Jar Jar Abrams's STINO. I was insulted and left the theaters in a deep feeling of depression. STINO made me feel depressed and irritated. Becasue i just saw a movie in which for two hours a filmmakers insulted the intlligence of the people who payed to watch is movie by calling us all retards imbecilles. for two hours. and if the constant insulting wasn't bad enough, the filmmaking was pretty subpar and based on th work of the worst filmamkrs alive, like Michael Bay. I watched a Michael Bay version of Star Trek. No, entertained was not the best description to what i felt when i saw STINO. As for your YAWN TREK coment, you are not the first one who has mocked the movie by making puns on it's title. It started right when it was first released. You are 31 years late on that. The diferenc eis that STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE is a genuinely good movie made by a very good talented proper filmmaker called Robert Wise (heard of him? Edited CITIZEN KANE, directed THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, ANDROMEDRA STRAIN, THE HAUNTING and THE SAND PEBBLES. Also did this two little movies called THE SOUND OF MUSIC and WEST SIDE STORY). STINO, however, deserves every shit that's thrown at it. And then some. To call it STINO or to call it's director Jar Jar is the nicest thing i can do to both of them on account of their shittiness.

  • March 12, 2011, 6:24 a.m. CST


    by ChickenStu

    Either get with it, or drop it. But whatever you do, please leave it out of here cause IT'S GETTING FUCKING BORING.

  • March 12, 2011, 6:25 a.m. CST

    Asimov... seriously... what do you want out of Star Trek?

    by ChickenStu

    What do you want it to be?

  • Yeah, because before Jar Jar Abrams's wonderfullness, STAR TREK had been a small unpenetrable art-house hermetic artsy-fartsy thing that nobody had enjoyed on a large scale by masses, all in it's more then 40 years of existence. Right? Right? What fucking mindless bulslhit! What fucking mindless bullshit! There is not one single argument in defense of STINO that's not idiotic and thoughless and based on bullshit. Not a single one! Incredible!

  • March 12, 2011, 6:39 a.m. CST

    Asimov... man, if you don't like the movie fair enough.

    by ChickenStu

    But a lot of people did (including me). It got great reviews, did stellar box office... and you are ONE voice of dissent. Why exactly should we ignore the cold hard facts and take on board your, frankly, quite insane tirades at this film? Dude. "Star Trek Nemesis" and "Star Trek Enterprise" both nearly damn well killed off the franchise. That movie had awful box office/reviews and the TV show was the first ST to actually get cancelled in thirty odd years. It's because it WAS GOING OVER THE SAME OLD GROUND, AND EVEN THE SO CALLED "HARCORE" TREKKIES/TREKKERS/WHATEVER thought so! A reboot was the only possible way to move the whole thing forward! OK, you might not like the film, but Abrams played out the reboot concept WITHIN canon (by having a time travelling villian, and an appearance from Leonard Nimoy), and he did that FOR the fans! That genius plot device also allowed him to just freshen the whole damn thing up, plotting himself a new narrative trajectory to go on. He cut out the techno babble bullshit, and just made a damn enjoyable space adventure, accessible to new audiences, but with an explanation thrown in there for old audiences about why things have changed. (A prequel comic book series called "Star Trek Countdown" explained all that EVEN further!) IT. HAS. MOVED. ON. Just accept it man, and stop filling these talkbacks with your fucking HATE.

  • March 12, 2011, 7:23 a.m. CST

    i went in wanting to hate abrams' trek movie

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    i liked it a lot - but i still put it in its own category away from the original trek - i like that the differences on the surface were explained away by introducing time travel and its effects - i still wish the ship was built in zero gravity in orbit - super 8 is an obvious love letter to spielberg - or rather his film making style and his early hits - i see nothing wrong with that - spielberg obviously doesnt - he has as many fingerprints on this as abrams - maybe more - i wish the premise was kept a mystery longer - like cloverfield - how long before people start bashing the creature design and cgi i wonder?

  • March 12, 2011, 7:26 a.m. CST

    by chicgoods

    input this URL: ( ) you can find many cheap and high stuff (jor dan shoes) (NBA NFL NHL MLB jersey) ( lv handbag) (cha nel wallet) (D&G sunglasses) (ed har dy jacket) (UGG boot) WE ACCEPT PAYPAL PAYMENT YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!! ===== ===== ===== =====

  • March 12, 2011, 7:26 a.m. CST

    Ive got a gooood feeling about this...

    by Steve

    It reminds me of a mixture of E.T., Goonies and close encounters. Im looking fwd to it!

  • March 12, 2011, 7:26 a.m. CST

    i actually like "star trek: nemesis" a lot

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    nothing new or earth shattering, but i like watching it on dvd once in a great while - i like the story and the villain - the opening wedding scene was flat & cheesy and reminded me it all started as a tv show - but the rest was cool in my opinion

  • March 12, 2011, 7:28 a.m. CST

    Face it...

    by Steve

    Lets face it. Star Trek has always been a nitch thing. Try asking an average girl to go check out a star wars tv show or movie. Star Trek has an old crusty, stuffy feeling to it. JJ Abrams made Star Trek cool with his movie.

  • March 12, 2011, 7:31 a.m. CST


    by Steve

    "I have no doubt whatsoever that Jar Jar is trying, very very hard, to be the new Speilberg, and his latest movie is just one more brick in that house." Isnt that the goal of any student that loves film? Who DOESNT aspire to be Steven Speilberg?!?! Youre a douche!

  • March 12, 2011, 7:35 a.m. CST

    jimmyjoe redsky

    by ChickenStu

    I liked "Star Trek Generations", and I LOVED "Star Trek First Contact". But "Star Trek Insurrection" left me a little flat, and I thought "Star Trek Nemesis" was just plain awful. It was trying too hard to be a new "Wrath Of Khan" and just failed on all levels. But hey, that's just my opinion. I may not particularly dig it, but I'll die for your right to love it!

  • In fact, that should be ESSENTIAL reading for Star Trek fans! It explains the back story of Nero and Spock's beef, whilst wrapping up the ending of "Star Trek Nemesis", with appearances from many "Next Generation" characters. Also, tantalisingly, we find out that Spock Prime's "jellyfish" ship that he travels back in time in, was designed and built by non other, than Georgi La Forge! Honestly guys... it bridges the gap very nicely. Well worth a read. Beautiful artwork aswell.

  • March 12, 2011, 8:02 a.m. CST

    Spielberg directed

    by M6KR564

    Jaws. Abrams directed Felicity. One is beyond great. The other is a teevee show nobody watched because it sucked donkey. End of line.

  • March 12, 2011, 8:11 a.m. CST

    If you're looking for something wholly original...

    by JackalofBane

    ...go find the nearest theater (and not a movie theater) that does dadaism. None of it will make any sense, but it'll all be original. If you're looking for a fun, popcorn flick that makes you feel like I imagine people did back when E.T. first came out, then go see Super 8. I have no idea whether it will be good or not, but that trailer gives me hope.

  • March 12, 2011, 8:12 a.m. CST

    Let's gather some quotes

    by M6KR564

    "I'll watch anything with Kyle Chandler in it." "The addition of Kyle Chandler to the cast is also a very "Spielbergian" choice. He is a fine actor that can emote" "Kyle Chandler just sold me on this Kyle will become a big name now" "Kyle Chandler will become a star just like Richard Dreyfuss" Listen, you delusional homosexuals: No one, and I mean NO ONE, cares about Kyle Chandler and whether he'll be a star. He is a middle-aged nobody, you children. Richard Dreyfuss could open a movie when CE3K came out. "Kyle Chandler," whoever the hell he is, couldn't open a KFC. Do you see?

  • March 12, 2011, 8:14 a.m. CST

    @m6kr564 Spielberg also ..

    by Steve

    Spielberg also directed 1941.... Columbo... NightGallery... which also sucked donkey. Your point?

  • Funny stuff.

  • March 12, 2011, 8:28 a.m. CST

    phantomspazz - If you watched his work

    by M6KR564

    on Columbo and Night Gallery, his emerging talent is clear. And 1941 is, of course, highly underrated. My point? My point is that your man-love for Abrams and his body of work, if his list of shitefests can be called that, is cause for great embarrassment both to yourself and to whatever no-taste gene pool you crawled out of.

  • March 12, 2011, 9:18 a.m. CST


    by Steve

    Then why are you in this forum?! Typical forum troll bullcrap youre pulling. If you dont like Abrams then dont go see his movie coming out this summer. Your rants arent going to change my mind on wanting to see a movie or not wanting to see a movie. You like what you like... move on my friend, move on.

  • March 12, 2011, 10:01 a.m. CST

    phantomspazz - You are the kind of person

    by M6KR564

    who believes Star Trek was "a nitch thing" that Abrams "made cool." Not niche, "nitch." Do me a favor: graduate from high school, learn to spell and try to gain cinematic reference points beyond whatever 20 craptastic films you use now. While you're at it, quit talking about things you don't know about, like Star Trek, films, anything requiring intelligence and taste... basically, anything. Confine yourself to what you know: your love of a hack who probably gives you regular handjobs, J.J. Abrams.

  • March 12, 2011, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Actually, Spielberg didn't direct Night Gallery in full...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...he only directed the middle section, "Eyes", the one with Joan Crawford's last performance. I'd say it's the best segment, both in general, and specifically, in its direction, but that might just be me.

  • So what, i adore Guillermo Dell Toro, but he's not a big fan of Dracula, i think Dracula's an incredible literally timeless relevant infinitely resonant character, oh and i think his Hellboy is a god-awful piece of shit utter woeful interpretation of what made the comic so good, what i will always love about it.... And i'm pissed he not doing ATMOM soon now...and i believe he will be near perfect as anyone else for that material, and yet its HP Lovecraft, which heavily inspired Hellboy... STOP GETTING SIMPLETON ABOUT THINGS ASSHOLES Please if your gonna bitch about JJ or Trek, do it once, or do it in respect of anything more than utter simpleton abc rhetoric or reason. The school ground full of mentally disabled kids don't win an argument or get it right against the a regular average joe by ignoring the larger more complex reality of things outside themselves because it spazzes them out, yet nailing a point in their own interior false reality so HA! Have at you! etc.

  • March 12, 2011, 10:11 a.m. CST

    Thats China Mieville mind

    by Smack_Teddy

  • March 12, 2011, 10:20 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Don't you udnerstand? It's not the like. It's the mindless gushing, it's the blind acceptance of a bad movie by a majority, evne though there are all indications that the movie is shuit and the filmmakers are con artists. It's expected that there will alwaysbe people who will like shitty movies. Even crap like CLASH OF THE TITANS, TRANSFORMERS 2 and TERMINATOR SALVATION got it's supporters. but what happened about STINO escapes all rational explanation. It's to be expected that even a very bad movie can engage half the people in here, and almost half the critics. What happened with STINO is beyond shameless. It's pure insanity. a crap movie with barely nothing positive to make anargument in favour with and still people defend it with nothing but dogmatic blindless all due to their blind dogmatic faith on an obviously untalented filmaker con man artist whose only skills is at selling. I'm the counter-ballance here. I help bring ballance to this place. Or else this place would be just a disgusting hardcore porno den of Jar Jar Abrams cock suckers.

  • March 12, 2011, 10:22 a.m. CST

    jimmyjoe redsky

    by AsimovLives

    That reviewer Plinkett put it best: Jar Jar Abrams' STINo should had been called SPACE ADVENTURE: THE MOVIE. Or FELICITY IN SPACE: THE MOVIE. But not Star Trek. Had they done that, it would be fair game. The movie would still be bad and stupid but would cared?

  • March 12, 2011, 10:22 a.m. CST

    Who the fuck is this chicgoods14 assclown?

    by AsimovLives

  • March 12, 2011, 10:25 a.m. CST

    Asimov, here's the deal with this movie and the director...

    by D.Vader

    If *any* filmmaker said he planned to make a film inspired by and in the same vein as those early Spielberg films we all love, a project that attempted to capture that magic feeling present in those classic films, and *then* Spielberg himself produced it, and *then* the trailer came out and looked like they succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do... I would STILL be this excited for it, no matter WHO that director was. Doesn't matter if it's JJ or not, it still looks great.

  • March 12, 2011, 10:26 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "Star Trek has an old crusty, stuffy feeling to it. JJ Abrams made Star Trek cool with his movie" Godf, you swallowed that propaganda bullshit wholesome. This dogmatic belief in the STINO propaganda bullshit reminds me why dictatorships exists and people can vote on mass and support tyrants. How more gullible can you be? Jar Jar Abrams didn't made Star Tek cool, he made it stupid enough to be acessible to the illiterate hicks of MarryYourOwnCousinsVille. That's not cool, that's retard.

  • March 12, 2011, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Scene from Abram's office, 2008

    by AsimovLives

    Orci: "Boss, how can we make a Star Trek movie that the masses can enjoy?" Abrams: "I know it, i know it.. err, like, you just, like, write a movie that's really simple" Kurtzman: "how simple, boss?" Abrams: "Like, like,.. err, like, imagine you ar emaking a Star Trek movie, but one that an hick form Assville can understand. It works good for Michael Bay. I know it from experience, i wrote Armageddon too, see?" Orci: "So, by simple, you mean stupid?" Abrams: "Yeah, right, but don't say that loud, don't say later we made this stupid deliberatly." Kurtzman: "But boss, how stupid should we made this?" Abrams: "Yeah, like,yeah... err, you make it stupid like, stupid like, well, imagine what kind of Star Trek that retard kid who pays the bango in Deliverance would like to see". Orci and Kurtzman: "Brillant!!! And we don't even have to stretch otuselves. This shit will write itself!" Cue One Year Later: AICN: "JJ ABRAMS IS TEH BESTEST THE KEWLEST TEH STAR TREK MOVIE EVAH!!!"

  • March 12, 2011, 10:38 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The goal os any film student is to became famous by being his own man and his name endure as a great filmmaker on his own merits. If you think the goal of a filmamker is to be know as this guy who made a pastiche of spielberg and go by on his coattails, you have a very fucked up notion what is the ambitions of a filmmaker. A very fucked up opinion. Did you even think of what you posted? Tell me, who doesn't want to be seen as hios own person, nstead of a carbon copy of somebody else? Tell me! You? That's who you want to be, a cheap copy of somebody else? You have a very fucked up notion of what's personal merit, dude.

  • March 12, 2011, 10:41 a.m. CST

    And Spielberg's first sf film was one he did for television...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...that would be LA: 2017, an unusual 1971 episode of the series The Name of the Game, which ran 90 minutes and rotated between Gene Barry, Tony Franciosa, and Robert Stack as the stars. Stack and Franciosa each ran a magazine (Stack's was Crime and Franciosa's People (before the real one, obviously)), and Barry was the publisher of both. In this episode, Barry has a car accident and wakes up in a hyperpolluted future where LA has become a underground city run by a corrupt elite who give Barry a tour and invite him aboard. He refuses, fights back, but eventually wakes up and realizes it was it was all a dream...lame, of course, but what were they going to do, given the format of the show? (Though they occasionally bent the format in other ways; All The Old Familiar Faces featured a Greek chorus commenting on the action that nobody in-story could see.) The episode was written by (and eventually novelized) by Philip Wylie, who died the same year. He started off doing things like the screenplay for Island of Lost Souls, and wrote a number of sf novels, the most famous being When Worlds Collide, and the most influential being Gladiator, which was one of the inspirations for Superman. Spielberg's direction is assured and inventive, using special filters for the scenes on the surface. He got a Hugo nomination for Best Dramatic Presentation out of it, but lost to Kubrick for A Clockwork Orange. No denying that Orange is the better movie, but LA: 2017 is still worth checking out for Spielberg fans as an early showcase for his talents (and for Wylie fans, too, if there are any out there besides me). (Got to mention one scene where Barry's beautiful tour guide takes him to hear an now-ancient rock band. When he later asks, "What was that?", she says, "A lesson in relevance." I think of it every time I see the Stones these days.)

  • March 12, 2011, 10:42 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    If the movie needs a comic to make sense, then it fucking failed. The comic book as a cluth to make sens eof the movie's own failings? That's an admition of failure right there! The filmmakers migth as well have a banner in their movie saying "we couldn't come up with a proper complete story for our movies, please spend more of your money buying this comic and make us richer". How more lame is that shit can get? And how more gullible can you be? The movie needs a comic to make sense? TOTAL COMPLETE FUCKING FAILURE! Abrams can turn his falures as a storyteller into commerce and there's some sucker fools who will buy into his bullshit. The man is made for life, as long there's suckers in this world.

  • March 12, 2011, 10:46 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Stop with the faalacious "there's nothing new under the sun" pseudo-argument to justify the miserable lackings of an untaletned cynical hack. More importantly then anyting else, is to have a movie that was made by talented honest people who cared for their creation and treats their audiences as intelligent people. That is true for any kind of movie made, be they art-house or popcorn. If you Jar Jar Groupies actualyl stoped and listened and read what you are saying, you are basically praising Jar Jar Abrams for being completly beret of originality and dumbing down. That's the shit that i should find admirable now in a filmmaker, you say? Fuck hell i do!

  • Dude, do you have any idea how delusional that is? There are plenty enough people to bitch/dick spit about JJ and Trek as it just run it into the ground to a ridiculous extent

  • March 12, 2011, 10:50 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    1941 is underrated. Only cowards who lack convictions of their own mistake 1941 for a bad movie. Or idiots who can't understand what type of comedy that movie is. And i saw the Columbo and Nigth Gallery episodes that Spielberg directed, and they are all very good. Spielberg's Columbus episode is considered one of the best of the show. So there. If you going to name bad Spielberg movies, get some balls and name HOOK and INDY 4: CRYSTAL SKULLFUCK.

  • Spielberg's worst shit is much, much better and miles ahead then Abram's best.

  • March 12, 2011, 10:55 a.m. CST

    I Don't Get It...

    by Lucky13

    I mean, I was born in '80... I grew up on ET, The Goonies, Stand By Me, Jaws, and yes... Friday the 13th movies (sue me). But I don't get all the out of control, fanboy love for this movie. The trailer looks interesting, in a 'it could be cool, but it could also be really boring and lame' kind of way. And I'm sorry, I know this isn't an original critique... but the lens flare bullshit is insulting at best. Every fucking shot in every fucking scene? Really?? Are we that devoid of imagination, so lacking in attention-span, that we need pretty, shiny flares in EVERY FUCKING SHOT? That said, if my daughter was old enough to sit thru a movie at the theater (she's only 3) then I would take a shot at it. But for my entertainment alone... I'll wait for BD.

  • March 12, 2011, 10:58 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Listen up, friend: A troll is not somebody who disagrees with you. A troll is not somebody who points out very well why you are wrong. A troll is not somebody you do not like or agree with. A troll is not somebody who doesn't fit in in your happy hack cock sucking little party. A troll is not somebody who doesn't kiss Jar Jar Abram's ass like you. A troll is not somebody who eats up Jar Jar Abram's bullshit and call it strawberry. A troll is what that chicgoods14 fellow above does. Do you understand it now?

  • March 12, 2011, 11:01 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    No, you are very right, Spielberg's directed episode of NIGHT GALLERY called "Eyes" is by far the best segment. Also around that time Spielberg directed a TV film called SOMETHINGS'S DEVIL. It's a knock-off of THE EXORCIST, but it was quite effective, and showed quite well that this kid Spielberg really had what it takes and he put it all in in his work. And then came DUEL and the rest is history. Yeah, Spielberg's career truly didn't started with JAWS but with DUEL. It was DUEL that showed the world that this kid called Spielberg was somebody to notice and follow with interest.

  • And Tarkovsky tore him a new asshole for it? It took him a minute to 'become his own man' as a filmmaker. JJ Abrams has directed 3 features. This is his third and it's not even released yet. I'd say he should be allowed to work out his own stylistic sensibilities — and if he has to do that in the public eye, so be it.

  • Whatever budget a Spielberg movie has to work with, he can still make any movie he makes look epic and big. Any movie he ever mad,e and they look larger then life. They all look magnificent and like big epic cinema to rival the technicolour epics of old. Jar Jar Abrams was given the biggest budget even allocated to a Star Trek movie, and he made it look like a TV episode of Alias. Worst, Abrams has only worked with mega budget movies. Both MI3 and STINO are movies made with huge budgets: both and MI:3 had a budget of 150 million dollars. The first time spielberg had a budget superior to 100 millions, and that's including adjusted to inflaction, was AI: his 23th film as director. And only with CRYSTAL SKULLFUCK he did a movie with a budget superior to 150 millions. So, spielberg learned his trade by going up the ladder. Jar Jar Abrams, the spoiled tyke fuck, he started big already, with huge budgets that can disguise the bullshit he makes and the mistakes he makes left right and center in all he does. And Jar Jar is called the next Spielberg? Jar Jar is not worthy of licking Spielberg's shoes after he stepped on dog shit!

  • March 12, 2011, 11:22 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I used to be respectful when i discussed the demerits of Jar Jar Abrams's STINO. But the Jar Jar Abrams mindless zombie groupies wouldn't even listen to anything that me or any of the film's critics had anything to say and reverted to the most basic ad hominem personal attack imaginable, in their bullshit atempt to shup up the oposition. Well, i endured that shit for a month. And then i said, this far no futher, and i turned the tables on them and treated the same way they did their counter-parts. They were not amused. I have more then earned my right to call out the Jar Jar Abrams groupies for whatever i fancy. And the reason why i don't do that more often is because i can't be bothered. The only reason. Because by right, i have every right to do so. If this shit had been civil from the get go, i'd had been far more subdued and lowkey about this subject, as it would. This shit got personal.

  • March 12, 2011, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Gotta agree with mattman on this —

    by blakindigo

    — there is no objectivity coming from asimovlives, for this, a fucking TRAILER. I'm not slagging him off, but I think that kills the credibility in his argument. At the very least, it seems hypocritical. Hey — to each their own.

  • March 12, 2011, 11:35 a.m. CST

    I think that's Something Evil, asi...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ..and yes, it was a nice little horror film, derivative to be sure, and pulling its made-for-tv punches, but still further establishing its director as someone to watch. And then came Duel, and Spielberg had arrived.

  • March 12, 2011, 11:35 a.m. CST

    I think JJ's just trolling us with the lens flare now.

    by D Ropaela

    It's such an obvious, gratuitous attempt at a stylistic signature, but it's pointless. What does it add to the frame, other than a distraction? It's not a grace note since it's so goddamn prevalent, nor does it have any meaning. At least not in the way JJ uses it, particularly in the most routine scenes. It's disappointing because JJ has otherwise demonstrated a flair for the visual. Now if he'd cut the crap, he might end up being a very good director, instead of a just a decent to good one with great showmanship skills.

  • March 12, 2011, 11:37 a.m. CST

    This movie looks like the tits

    by djscott95

    Straight up, big, fat Oprah TITS!!!!

  • March 12, 2011, 11:40 a.m. CST

    Bobo said it best....

    by conspiracy

    JJ is brilliant at building hype, and making a pretty product...but they are all cold..and have HORRIBLE characters and poor story development. Sure...The guy and his co-conspirators know how to make a bankable film for the masses. But JJ's films so far have struck me as celluloid NASCAR races...fluff, filler, fast base fun for people who don't expect much more from a movie than pretty pictures, easy laughs, the pretense of a story or big stupid CGI set scenes. Yes I watched Trek..and it was fun in a cartoony way, but it was also fucking stupid...with shallow caricatures of Trek Characters and an inane script. Now this film...Orci and Kurtzman are not that alone gives me hope. And Spielberg put his name on it front and center...that also is good too see. The Berg may have lost some of his chops as of late...but historically, amybe not so much lately, you could never accuse him of not respecting his audience or the artistic side of film making. And..the trailer looks good...except for the typical JJ lighting and Camera work...if someone ever needed their Lights trashed it is JJ Abrams. Here is to hoping Spielberg remembered how to make a Quality film and then took JJ behind the set and beat some Professionalism and respect for the craft into his ass; that this turns out more along the lines of Close Encounters, Jaws or E.T. than of some silly ill thought out filler for the easily entertained set like Cloverfield was. Spielberg=Me Giving it a chance.

  • March 12, 2011, 11:43 a.m. CST

    Are there too many flares in this trailer?

    by blakindigo

    I don't think it's as egregious as STAR TREK 09. I'm assuming he shot this with HAWK Anamorphics — unless he went really old school with it and actually used the Panny glass from the 70's. If it's old school glass, then yeah it's gonna flare like mad.

  • Sure.

  • March 12, 2011, 11:46 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I did watched THE ELEMENT OF CRIME, and barely remember it because that movier put me to sleep. Not every movie outside of a Michael Bay shitfiest can do that, but Von Trier's first did it. And i actually like his movies. So, maybe that movie is a pastiche of Tarskoski, but i didn't watched it enough to confirm your opinion, if you know what i mean.

  • March 12, 2011, 11:52 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    And Jar Jar Abrams working out his stylistic chocies is by completly mimicking Spielberg's 70s style in a pastiche? am I the only one seeing the absurdity of that statement? OK, let me return to Spielberg: did you ever watched Spielberg's first made for theatrical release film, THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS. Watch it and you will see many, many of the what would became Spielberg's trademark style already fully developed in there. And this from a kid who so far had made TV episodes for diferent shows, who had been a jobber for hire and not a creator of many TV series as Abrams is. Abrams doesn't have it in him to have a style. He's a magpie, a talentless magpie that walks by straalingthe thunder of others more competent people like Matt Reeves or copyign and pasting some otehr filmmaker's style like spielberg for SUPER 8 and then doing clever/ass advertizement bulslhit propaganda to convince the fools he is reinventing the wheel. Believe his bullshit all you will. That's your problem, not mine.

  • March 12, 2011, 11:57 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Read whjat i wrote again, please. Becasue you will understand that my point was exactly the opposite of what you think. I have never, ever accused somebody of whose opinions i disagree with as trolls. I find that insulting and abhorent, and i have even defended people i disagrewe and disliked against others who called them trolls for that exact same reason. A troll is not somebody who disagrees with soembody else. And is uphold that notion to anybody, those who disagree with me inclusive. Specially those who disagree with me. There's very, very few people i can undoubtly call a troll, idiots like Lost Jerk and DocPasshole. The other people ar ejust people who disagree with me. And to call them trolls would be wrong. Very wrong. You understand me now, friend?

  • March 12, 2011, 11:59 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "Every movie high profile is $150 million now, that's just the way things work. Got a real complaint?" You are not really reading my posts, friend. Please reread what i did said about that subject. Understand the point i was making. Read what i wrote, not what you think i wrote.

  • March 12, 2011, noon CST


    by AsimovLives

    "Your not going to change peoles hearts and minds from buying that ticket" No shit!

  • March 12, 2011, 12:01 p.m. CST

    asimovlives, well the film is PRODUCED by Spielberg

    by blakindigo

    There is THAT tenuous connection. The fact that we don't even know what the ambitions of the movie are, and are basing opinions off of a TRAILER. It's not the movie. We don't know what the movie is 'really' about. We don't even know the full plot. What is Spielberg's involvement? Is this a feature length episode of "Amazing Stories"? We don't know. It could be a pastiche or it could be a clever play on the stylistic tropes of an older film style being used to comment on the current 'blockbuster' landscape. My point? We. Don't. Know. Yet.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:07 p.m. CST

    "42nd Street scumatoriums"

    by blakindigo


  • March 12, 2011, 12:09 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    First yopu make a big claim that opinions on movies are personal,,and now you accuse me of being unable to view the next Jar Jar movie objectively? What gives, friend? Either you think experiencing a movie is a subjective experience, or you think there's such a thing as objectivity in film analizing. You can't have both and cherrypicking to your convinience, you know what i mean? The above post you claim that to experience a filmis subjective. Thus, by that token, i'm totally in the right with my "rants" about Jar Jar's movies. Well, actualy, i don't agree with you on the subjective thingy about experiencing movies. There are sucvh things that are determinant in the acessment of a film's quality, like plot logic, story strcuture, filmmaking skill, vision, themes, acting skill, and many others pointers. Things which can be debated and presented rationally and with reason. The very things that do indicated that Jar Jar Abrams's STINO is a bad movie by all known standards of filmmaking. So, what's going it to be, friend? Don't make the mistake that i'm like the Jar Jar Abrams's Groupies who just go about emotional reasions to support their convictions. I do think this stuff througly. I don't pull my opinions out of my ass and then resort to irrationalism to pretend there's nothing wrong. I don't do that "don't see/don't hear/don't tell" crap.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:13 p.m. CST

    So Asimov needs his very own venting article then

    by Smack_Teddy

    he doesn't get payed or anything...just one article and all the Asimov you can get. I use facebook to get shit of my chest, its why i have only roughly 40 people on it and i like it that way. Poor Guys.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:22 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Objective things to take from this trailer: - It presents a sucession of images which are unmistakenly a pastiche of the visual style of Steven Spielberg's work in the 70s. - Trailer tries to compel the emotions of the watchers by using the most striking composition from COCOON (a movie which is itself very sentimental and emotionally manipulative with a musical score accordingly). - Trailer plays up the mistery above all else, a common trait to all of Abram's works. None of those above observations are critical. They are just descriptive of elements from what's observed from the trailer. Now, what you are telling me is that i should watch the tailer and not make anopinion on it? Nor i shoudl bring what i already know and think about Abrams and his rpevious work? Dude, the function of a trailer is to put manipualte us into an opinion for the movie to be, a good opinion at that. Trailers are by defenition skewed. As it were. You are complaing that i'm skewed about something thas tis by it's own very nature skewed? I don'tg et what that comes from? Back to the first point above, you think that i shouldn't have an opinion of this trailer based on it and what i know of Abrams and his previous work? How that computes? Or do you think that the only valid objective unskewed opinion to get form this trailer is a positive one, like your own or Mattman's? Is that it? The only objective opinion about this trailer is a positive opinion? Not even I in my most extreme demonstration of my dislike for Abrams would go that far, man, i would never go that far! Please!

  • March 12, 2011, 12:25 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I saw SOMETHING'S EVIL when i was 12 and it scared the bejesus out of me. Maybe i should be embaraced to admit that, but did the movie worked for me, it absolutly terrified me. Actually, because of that movie and the fame that JAWS had, for a long time in my mind i though of Spielberg as a director of horror movies, which at he time put the fear of jesus in me. And then i saw ET.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:27 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    THe only showmanship skills that Jar Jar Abrams has is as a salesman. On tha,t he's a master, no doubt about it. He is an incredible extremely talented salesman. Probably the best in the business. I would actually admire him for that, if he wasn't such a con man.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:33 p.m. CST


    by ChickenStu

    Listen man, I know we've had our spats in the past, and I apologise if I was a jerk. But you frustrate me, because I think you probably ARE capable of intelligent conversation - you just have this, I dunno, FASCINATION with the Star Trek movie and feel you have to jump on it every chance you get. A simple "Hey, the latest Star Trek movie didn't really work for me" would suffice mate seriously. If you don't like it, fair enough. There are plenty of movies I don't like. But I'm not the sort of cat who turns every talkback into a fucking CRUSADE about it. And dude, it didn't NEED a comic book to explain it. The comic book was really there to wrap up the ending of "Star Trek Nemesis" and segue into the new continuity that Abrams was setting up, that's all. I've got a hunch that if you'd read it, you probably wouldn't hate the Abrams movie half as much as you do.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:34 p.m. CST

    But about Abrams, asi..

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...we've got to talk. We've had pleasant, intelligent conversations before. I've defended you in this very talkback, up above. And I'm not the world's biggest fan of Abrams, either. I did enjoy the first few years of Alias, and I'm ok with his Ethan Hunt movie (I wouldn't call any of them Mission: Impossible movies, but that's another topic). But I, too, think his Superman proposal was an abomination, and have no love for his scripting on Regarding Henry or Armageddon. And there's a lot I find hard to forgive in his Star Trek, like anything between Kirk being beamed off the Enterprise to his beaming back on. So I agree with a lot you have to say. But the way you say it is becoming self-defeating, dude. I understand you received a lot of personal attacks for your opinion, and I get why you responded in kind. But at this point, it's become a hobbyhorse. It's getting to be all you're known for. People just write you off as the "Jar Jar Abrams" guy, and don't listen to anything else you have to say. And you've got a lot of other things to say; you've clearly seen a lot of movies, including a lot of obscure, offbeat ones, and you've read a lot of sf books, which I always appreciate. And when you talk about something you like, you're laidback and amiable. But when it's something you hate, you get unpleasantly vitriolic. And while God knows you're not the only one around here who does that, a lot of them have nothing else to offer. You do, but at this rate no one is going to listen to it. I almost found myself saying, I'm telling you this as a friend, which might be a bit much given our only contact is pseudonymous. But it is kindly intended when I ask you to just leave it alone for a while, at least till Super 8 comes out. Avoid discussions about Abrams till then. Talk about movies you admire, instead. If you have to mention Abrams, make a joke out of it, like "As is already well-known, I hate Abrams with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, so that's enough about that." Then, after you've seen Super 8, unload all your hatred of it into one magnificently pejorative, definitive post--and then ignore it. Ignore the trolls, and say there's nothing more to talk about, Abrams is beneath your notice, and you're saving your breath for films worth the discussion. I think you'll see your opinions treated with more respect, and fewer people skipping your posts because they've heard it all a thousand times before. (And, of course, if by some miracle you like Super 8, by all means rave about it; it could only demonstrate your fair-mindedness.) And if you think I have no right to say any of this to you...well, I probably don't; but please consider it anyway. You've got something to contribute here, and I hate to see it ignored.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:36 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I fully agree with what ypu posted above, with two caveats: 1- Yes, it's thankful that neither Orci nor Kurtzman are responsible for the script. However, this film was writen by Abrams, the writer of REGARDING HENRY, ARMAGEDDON and the most mocked and derised crappy Superman script in the history of Holywood. 2- There was a time when the name Spielberg on a movie would ment quality control for me. And then Spielberg produced the last 3 Michael Bay movies and Eagle Eye. Nowdays, Spielberg doens't invoke the sdame quality control trust i sued to have about him. Spielberg is dangeously becoming a second version of Jerry Bruckheimer. So, the name spielberg on this new Abrams movie is not inspiring me any confidence at all. Mostly, because it's not Spielberg who's directing this movie, but Abrams. I beleive, and my experience with films supported my conviction, that however good and talented a producer is, specially one who is also a director himself, he can't polish a turd from a bad director, no matter what.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Agree with Kisskingbangbang 100%

    by ChickenStu

  • March 12, 2011, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Asimov... don't write it off until you've seen it...

    by ChickenStu

    If you think Spielberg's gone off the boil in recent years then fair enough. Maybe he has (I thought Indy 4 was a total waste of time) but he deserves a chance to recover past form. This could be it. See the positives in shit dude. A lot of us have been waiting for (or even trying to write this) kind of movie for ages.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:42 p.m. CST

    by James Clarke

    Hi there. The music that opens the trailer is an excerpt from James Horner's theme from the fantasy film Cocoon. Hope this helps.

  • Frankly, and from the bottom of my heart, yes, i might had. I very well could had. I still think Abrams is a mediocre directro at best, and the final product would had been a CLASH OF THE TITANS type movie. But the majority of the problems form STINO are directly related to the script. I don't isemp Abrams from the script's problems of STINO, because he was the director of the mvie and he has a say on the script, specially from two of his long time collaborators. I also don't believe that Orci and Kurtzman didn't wrote the script in a vaccum and Abrams didn't put a lot of input to it. Abrams is very hands on. But, i truly believe, in the bottomof my heart,and if Abrams had been given a better scrip bya proper writer who knew what he was doing, te ovie would had came up better. I still doubt it would come oput good, because the typical Abrams idiotic decision stuff (like the fucking lens flares, the weird production design inconsistencies and the cheesy acting) would still make the movie lesser then the script. As i said before, without Orci and Kurtzman, STINO would be like a CLASH OF THE TITANS type movie, directingwise. Which is still a vast improvement of what STINO is.

  • It was STINO that made me realise that Abrams is but a newer version of Michael Bay, with a similiar lack of talent for framing, composition and sense of real pacing and rhythm, but with a better filmming crew and a cinematographer who occasionally is allowed to do his job. Or maybe a filmming crew who is not terrified of him.

  • March 12, 2011, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Look, can we get back to the topic

    by Brian Hopper

    which is not Abrams' (non-existent) directing talent, but what a horrifyingly pastiche-y mess that god-awful trailer is.

  • YES. For God's sake, yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Example: Michael Bay. I've watched all the trailers for Michael Bay movies. All of them. And y'know what? If you go by the trailers, those films look quite entertaining. But, unfortunately EVERY Michael Bay movie that I've seen (and I've never actually paid to see one) has been a crushing disappointment. In some cases a brutal insult to what I consider an enjoyable cinematic experience. It got to the point when I would watch a trailer I would say to myself "I'm not gonna get suckered in again. No! NO!!" And the free pass would come in the mail, or the phone would ring for the screening and I would go. Because, maybe, just maybe this time it would be different. Nope. I still gave the movie a CHANCE, based on a solid trailer. But, if you don't think this trailer is solid, then you're perfectly entitled to feel that way, mate. Rail away.

  • March 12, 2011, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Even the Chunky Kid raping

    by Brian Hopper

    Mama Fratelli could not have produced a more misshapen ogre than this stunted Abrams joint.

  • March 12, 2011, 1:25 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I have watched all the trailers of all the Michael Bay movies and they barely disguise the retard bullshit that they are. And you actiuvely want to ignore the past work of a filmmaker when you see his new movie's trailer? Why? Do you like to deliberatly set yourself to be fooled by it? Why would you do that? What's the logic of that? I'm sorry, but that's something i most definatly won't do. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it". I take that saying to heart. Listen, if you are one of those who convince yourselves to have fun at dumb movies because you think if you don't do that you will have less fun in your life, you are going on on false assuptions. If you dismiss a bad movie like STINO you are not lowering your fun quota. You ar just not looking it at the right place. somehwrre, there's a proper fun movie that will really make you enjoy yourself, ylu don't need the crappy movie (STINO) for that. Just look for where they are. With the internet and nexflix, it's very easy to do. You don't need to give reasons and excuses to hacks and their bad movies. Just look for the proper good ones. It's what i do and i get rewarded tenfold. Make no mistake, i have far more fun watching movies by going fo the good movies then by turning my brain off and blindly dlgmatically accept dumb bad movies like STINO in fear that i'll not haver any fun if i dismiss and reject it for the crap they are. Whatever fun you had with STINO, i had it tenfold more with any other proper good movie like MOON or DISTRICT 9, for example. I lose nothing then i dismiss a crap movie like STINO.

  • March 12, 2011, 1:33 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I'll give Spielberg all the chances until the day he dioes, because he earned it. He earned my devotion until one of us dies first, he or me. He has earned it because of all the excelent work he has done in his career. And that's the point: i only give a chance to filmmakers who earned it. Spielberg did. Hacks don't. "See the positives in shit dude" And risk obfuscation and easy manipulation? No thanks. When shit is shit, there's no positives to be seen. I'm always skeptical, even from the filmmakers i admire. How much more so with hacks i know they are shit. It has worked wonders so far. It also prevents me from swallow the bullshit of hacks. Though occasionaly, there's movie that surpasses even my best expectations, or surpass my worst fears and suspicions, like STINO.

  • March 12, 2011, 1:38 p.m. CST

    "As for this SUPER 8 trailer, frankly I find it banal."

    by blakindigo

    FINALLY!! Jeezus man, that's all I'm asking is a FAIR comment. Every other comment you've posted, you're railing against STINO (as you call it). I could give a toss about qualities/inadequacies of STAR TREK 09 in a TB about the TRAILER for SUPER 8! That's all I'm saying. Although I'm not a huge fan of MOON, I thought Sam Rockwell was brilliant in it.

  • March 12, 2011, 1:48 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Thanks for your considerate, intelligent and very friendly post you wrote above. I take it as the words of a true friend. And is ee the wisdom in what you wrote, and you know, i actualyl think you are right. By reason, you are absolutly right in what you said. I'm sorry if i have disapoitned you. I'm sorry if the worst part of my soul has derailed and shamed my name and my reputation. I have in the past writen DOZENS OF THOUSANDS OF WORDS about why STINO is bad. I didn't started vituperatious. I started very paciently. I detailed point by point, with exact precision, why the movie is bad by all standards that we geeks uphold movies as good or bad. I ddi it evne to those who did nothing but throw nothing but insults at me. The STINO groupies tried to bully me by gangbanging me in number,s and to all of them i offered a detailed and personal explanation of my positions. Tehy though they could push me away and made me leave the talkbacks by sheer numbers alone. They misclaculated by capacity for persistence. As you might know, i can be remarkably persistent. In fact, it was I who tired them, not them me. In fac,t back then, i never called Abrams anything other then JJ Abrams. i beleived i could had rational conversatiosn with the gekry by talking, by pointing out why the movie is failure, point by point, exaplaining in detail my reasons. And what did i gained from my troubles? Uncalled personal attacks. Until one day i called enough of that bullshit.Well, as Picard says in STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT about the borgs, this far no futher. Have i became Ahab and STINO and Abams my Moby Dicks? Perhaps it has. I can understand why seen form outside it can read as monomania. Anmd still i try to explain why STINO sucks and why Abrams is a fake. And do they listen? So why do i still prsist? Well, if not nothing else, to know there's somebody like you around here who's a gentleman and a caring person who can i call friend with pride. It's worth the shit i get from idiots like that Mel guy before. Dude, you did yourself proud. Allow me to tip my hat to you. For all it's worth, i think of you as my friend. And if you want to have a nice little chat about good movies i love, check me out at the BLADE RUNNER or the Neill Blommkamp's news talkbacks. But let me offer this though: should we only post about the movies we love? Isn't that a bit, say, restrictive? Food for thoughs.

  • He lists them by positive, negative and indecisive, tells them by numbers and then presents them by percentage. It would be cool if he did the same in here. It would give us a image of what's the reaction so far. Nothing like cold hard numbers to know where things stand. And even more then the CONAN teaser talkback.

  • March 12, 2011, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Summer Movies w SF or Fantasy themes

    by blakindigo

    Thor Preist Pirates of the Caribbean 4 Kung Fu Panda 2 Tree of Life (tba) Super 8 X Men:First Class Green Lantern Cars 2 Transformers 3 Captain America Harry Potter 7 Cowboys and Aliens Smurfs Spy Kids 4 Fright Night Remake Final Destination 5 Conan the Barbarian

  • March 12, 2011, 2:09 p.m. CST

    God Bless Netflix

    by blakindigo

  • This is classic Steven Spielberg. The music and the way they don't show the monster. What is it? We don't know. It's also interesting how the film is set in the early 1970s.

  • March 12, 2011, 2:20 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    As i said before, if the Abrams movie needs a comic to work out and link it to the rpevious Trek movies, then it didn't do it's job properly. It's the movie itself that should had done it, not a comic. I still stand by my point, if a movie needs external support to make itself consistent, then it failed. For example, there's people who said that for us to really understand Cobb's motivations in INCEPTION one would need tor ead the comic "The Cobol's Job" or whateve rit's called. Well, frankly, i don't need it, because the movie provided all the explanations i need about the character of Cobb and the world he lives in the movie. The movie is self-contained and explains all it needs to expalin about it's own universe and it's characters. I would live the rest of my life not reading that comic and i wouldn't miss anything. I beleive you if you say that the comic fills gaps and explains plot holes in STINO. I have absolutly no doubt that the comic does that. I know it without reading the comic because i'm all too aware of the movie's plot holes and narrative nonsenses. One question, doe the comic explaisn why NuKirk magically found Older Spock in a cave in the middle of nowhere while running away from monstruosities? If there's a big ass plot hole that pefectly examplifies the carelessness that went to the writing of the movie's script, that's it. You know what's also sad? It means that the wroters of the comic actually had to do the real hard work for the STINO movie, while the real writers of themovie just did that writen on a napkin script the movie had and called it quits, while certainy earning a much bigger paycheck. It's injustices like this that permeate everything about STINO that i just cannot close my eyes and shut up, if you know what i mean. Everything about STINO reeks of deep injustices beyond what's even normal about the backstabing ways of Holywood. "A simple "Hey, the latest Star Trek movie didn't really work for me" would suffice mate seriously." I don't think that's an opinion, it's just a blurb. An opinion needs to be explained and defended. Unless i have a very haughty opinion of what an opinion is (pun not intended). "because I think you probably ARE capable of intelligent conversation " THe "probably" part made me laugh like hell, i still have tears in my eyes from laughing so hard. God, that felt good! I thank you for your post. I really do. Thank you for your considerate and friendly words. Thank you.

  • March 12, 2011, 2:41 p.m. CST


    by Steve

    I forgot.... this is cool in your eyes.

  • March 12, 2011, 2:44 p.m. CST

    the berg is currently making a film called War horse...

    by emeraldboy

    based upon a book of the same name published in 1982. a couple of years ago it was absolute sensation in the west end. the play war horse won every award going and was a critical smash due to the fact that none of the horses were real. spielberg saw the show in either london where he was working on the tin tin movies.

  • March 12, 2011, 2:50 p.m. CST

    asi, thanks for your most gracious reply...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...good to know I wasn't too out of line in what I said. And thanks for thinking of me as a friend, despite our anonymity here. And, of course, I would never dream of telling you to comment only on movies (or directors) you love. I'm simply suggesting that when it comes to Abrams & Star Trek, your opinion is already well known, nay, legendary, and need not be reiterated. But when Super 8 comes out, if it fails to meet your standards, by all means, blast away. (For a while. Just remember that thousand-pound shithammers usually only need to be wielded once.) And, you know, there's a possibility Abrams might step up to the plate on this one. He always said he wasn't a big Star Trek fan, and was more a Twilight Zone kind of guy. But we know he's a huge Spielberg fan, so maybe making a homage to something he really loves will lift his game, especially with Spielberg producing. It's probably unlikely, but who knows? Food for thought...and hope. Speaking of hope, what, if anything, are you looking forward to on the list of summer movies Blakindigo thoughtfully provided? The trailers for Tree of Life look amazing, and while I'm less optimistic about On Stranger Tides, the book of the same name it's based on is a real treat. If they can work Jack Sparrow in there without messing up the rest, it might be a real barnburner. I had a chance to talk to the writers (Elliott & Rossio) at the '94 Worldcon, and they were hot to adapt Tides back then, but nobody, including Disney, wanted to do a pirate movie. How times have changed...

  • March 12, 2011, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Asimov, here is what I don't get:

    by ChickenStu

    I really don't see how something that is, and let's face it, just something as simple as, I dunno, A MOVIE can provoke such hatred in a human being. If it was something like "Irreversible", or that piece of shit "Auschwitz" movie that Uwe Boll's doing then yeah, I can understand that sort of subject matter could provoke such strong emotions. But fuckin' STAR TREK?!?!?

  • March 12, 2011, 2:56 p.m. CST

    the berg is currently making a film called War horse...

    by emeraldboy

    which opens 28th december 2011. based on the book by Micheal Murpugo. and was adapted for the london stage in 2007. it will be tourng international. soon. all the horses in the show were puppets.

  • March 12, 2011, 2:59 p.m. CST

    by emeraldboy

  • March 12, 2011, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Asi, your hatred for JJ Abrams...

    by D.Vader

    Does that extend to the pilot episode of LOST? Can you admit that it was a wonderful piece of writing/direction or will you be biased against that too?

  • March 12, 2011, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Well Braindrain, the thing is...

    by D.Vader

    Asi didn't really watch LOST so his reaction to it would speak more about his bias.

  • March 12, 2011, 3:23 p.m. CST

    And CTM Fringe is more X-Files than LOST was.

    by D.Vader

    But LOST did have individual stories. They shied away from that in the last 3 seasons because it seemed the fanbase wanted more Island story and less character story.

  • March 12, 2011, 3:24 p.m. CST

    They complained that the story was "stalling"...

    by D.Vader

    Everytime we had individual stories on LOST. I missed that in the last 3 seasons, the standalone episodes that let the story breathe a bit instead of being all cliffhanger all the time.

  • March 12, 2011, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Also Braindrain, I'm talking about the pilot *only*

    by D.Vader

    Asi will have a hard time doing that. He will typically have to bring in the rest of the series or the rest of JJ's oeuvre instead of focusing on the one thing I'm asking about.

  • March 12, 2011, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Ba Doom CHING!

    by D.Vader

    Point to Braindrain!

  • March 12, 2011, 3:38 p.m. CST

    I gotta say JAWS is my favorite flick from the Beard

    by D.Vader

    Though I love his JAWS, Close Encounters, Raiders, ET run. Horror, Spirituality, Adventure, Love. Yeah 1941 was in there too. Comedy. Fine. But those 4 with their 4 different themes were fantastic.

  • March 12, 2011, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Still, CTM, I do enjoy the hell outta Fringe

    by D.Vader

    I'm still in Season 2, though. But the William Bishop mad scientist character is aces and always makes it worth watching. As for Spiels not backing Aronofsky, Boyle, or Chow, I think its disingenuous to suggest he wouldn't. I think Spiels is backing JJ bc JJ went to him for advice with Star Trek (wasn't that the rumor?) and they consider each other friends (and JJ is very open about how inspired he was by the Berg's movies). Also, JJ asked Spielberg if he would like to be involved. Aronofsky doesn't make the kind of movies Spielberg produces, and neither does Chow. Boyle comes closest, but he doesn't need a touch of the Berg to make a movie. That said, however, if any of those filmmakers approached the Berg about producing a film, I bet he would do it, if it was the kind of thing the Berg usually does. My guess is that Aronofsky's Noah's Ark could be the kind of film that Spielberg might want to get involved in- big.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:03 p.m. CST


    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    "generations" had a lot of holes in it in my opinion - i didnt like the way it sent off kirk - falling off scaffolding to his death then buried in a grave of small loose stones on a hill of rock - did you ever see mr. plinkett's review of "generations"? - hilarious - watch all his reviews for a good laugh

  • Scene: Spielberg's Dreamworks office, 2009: Abrams: "So, i'm going to make a new movie" Spielberg: "Oh yeah? Good, good. What is it, the sequel to Star Trek you made last year?" Abrams: "No, that's in the backburner for now. No, i'm going to make a different movie, i'm going to make an original movie, from my own story" Spielberg: "Cool. What it is about?" Abrams: "It's about a kid in the late 70s that meets an alien that escapes from an airforce containment after a train crash that happesn right inthe kid's town. The alien runs away, but the kid is the only one who sees it and tries to bound with him". spielberg: "Sounds good. It does remind me somewhat of the movies i used to make in my youth in the 70s, though. Remember that Blue Skies thignthat enver got made which then later reformulated and turned into ET?" Abrams: "Exactly. that's the point,. This new movie of mine will be like an older movie of yours". Spielberg: "Oh yeah?" Abrams: "Yeah! and i'll evne use the same type of camera sets up and camera movements and and actros staring at a point beyond the camera while it dollies inon them and all that stuff you did back then". Spielberg: "What, really? Wow, that's... wow! Err... Jesus, i wasn't expecting that! i know many younger filmmakers are isnpire dby me, but you are just going to extra mile! Well, err... good luck, JJ, best of hopes and all that with your new movie." Abrams: "Wait, i'm not finished. I want you to pay for it." Spielberg: "Oh, what? Errr... (to himself) what cheek (looks at Abrams) OK, err, so, how much do you need?" Abrams: "50 million bucks" Spielberg: "(Gaps!) Wow, that much?" Abrams: "It's not much, i had 150 millions for Star Trek" Spielberg:"It costed that much? Really? Anyway, well, well, we DreamWorks are not exactly swiming in cash. Whenever we earned money from the Transformers movies, Michael Bay spends it all on the next Transformers movies. So, sorry, JJ, but we can't afford your little my hommage to me... which i'm flatered... not right now. So, yeah." Abrams: "Is that final" Spielberg: "Well, not final, you know how it is in our business. We just, well, we wait a bit, see how things turn out, that sort of thing" Abrams: "Well, i feare you would say this. You leave me no choice, Steve" Abrams shows Spielberg photos. Photos of Spielberg that if revealed would seriousyl compromise him in the business and in the eyes of the world. Spielberg: "This are not real" Abrams: "They always print the lie. Remember that John Ford movie, The Searchers, they always print the legend." Spielberg: "It's from 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence'". Abrams: "Same difference. Anyway, there it that". Spielberg coughs up the money. Abrams: "One more thing. Your name will be in every promotional teaser and trailer and nes of this film and you will activelly promote my movie." Spielberg: "I can do that". Abrams: "The promotionals of this movie will be based on the notion that i'm your spiritual sucessor and that i'm the new Spielberg. I'm the new you". Spielberg: "What??" Abrams waves the photos. Spielberg: "Fine! FINE! It's done, deal. You got your movie, my name, the lot. Satisfied?" Abrams: "Ok then. Thank you for your time, Steve. By the way, the photos, they were done by ILM." Spielberg: "What?? No... no, no, not George...!" Abrams: "No, not like that. I had to blackmail him too. Remember the rumour that there was going to be more Star Wars movies? (smirks) There will be now. Guess who's making them (smiles). Guess who's going to get very rich very fast now (laughs)" Spielberg: "Jesus fucking christ!" Abrams: "Hey, we are jews, we don't say stuff like that, we don't believe in Jesus as Christ". Spielberg: "I do now".

  • March 12, 2011, 4:10 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    And let me guess, the nice one is the hot australian blonde who looks like a younger Cate Blanchett. Well, a show full of very unsympathetic characters populating the whole thing. Yup, sounds very much like the average Orci and Kurtzman creation, TV show or movie.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:15 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Har har. But you have seen the whole episode? Because it's brillant. Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams couldn't come up with a single line of that episode, much less a story as good, even in thei dreams. Yeah, let's compared a 150 million dollars production levels with an episode of a show which was made with the catering budget of Abram's STINO. The tipical argumnt from the STINO groupies, argumentation from fallacy and misdirection. STINO groupies are the creationists of science fiction.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:17 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    That's a lot of movies for the summer. And of those, only TREE OF LIFE and the last Harry Potter has caugh my interest. *sight*

  • March 12, 2011, 4:21 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    If i have to name one, it's TREE OF LIFE, then. The traielr blew me away. And it's Terence Malick, so there's that. As for you saying that maybe Abrams could come up with a god movie because he's now associated with Spielberg and all that... well, remember, they said the same thing when Michael Bay started to work for Spielberg. I rest my case. I learn from history, man.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:31 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "I really don't see how something that is, and let's face it, just something as simple as, I dunno, A MOVIE can provoke such hatred in a human being." Ever heard of passion for film. That's it. There's liking movies. And then there's loving movies. And then there's seeing the movies being fucked up beyond all possible recognition by con men. It's not amusing. But as i said before, what aggravates me the most about STINO is not that it's such a pile of crap, but the mindless acceptance to the point of blind dogma that it got. As i said before, had the movie got the same reception as CLASH OF THE TITANS, GI JOE or TERMINATOR SALVATION, that would had been fine and dandy. It would be business as usual. A crap movie that gets a fifty-fifty approval or disproval fromthe gek and the reviewers, that's how things are. I would get a laugh of two on the mvoie's groupies but that would be it, case closed, all forgotten the next month. But the universal blind gushing that befallen STINO is just ungodly. It's th work of the devil. Or people just decided that they actually live in IDIOCRACY, wnet full retard like the Ben Stiller's character in TROPICAL THUNDER movie-within-a-movie and went to reward the year's version of ASS THE MOVIE with the highest compliments and praises. And then having said mindless zombie gushers groupies coming with the most inane excuses to justify the movie, all based on mere copy and pasting the crap from the movie's own publicity department, that was just too much. So there it is. You want apicture of how i felt. Remember Charton Heston at the end of PLANET OF THE APES. Damn you all to hell!

  • March 12, 2011, 4:37 p.m. CST

    There's one thing Fringe has all over X-Files, I think...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...and that's the "mythology" (I'm not crazy about this term, but it's the one the X-Files used). I watched the X-Files assiduously, and never got a good sense of how the (at least) four different alien races related to each other, or what they wanted from us. For my money, Fringe's "mythology" is more elegant, well-motivated, and, at least for television, original. We are threatened by, not aliens, but our own selves, from a slightly more technically advanced parallel universe. Why? Because they're merging with us, and only one universe can survive, and they want it to be theirs. (I should add that I haven't had a chance to see the second season, so I may be unaware of something vital, but that's how it looked to me at the end of season one.) I especially appreciate the motivation here. Presumably, the alternates of ourselves aren't intrinsically evil, they just want to live, as do we. Assuming the second season confirmed this is the case (unlike, say, the DC world where all heroes are evil and all villains good), this poses a nice moral dilemma for the viewer; wouldn't we be rooting just as hard for the other guys if we'd met them first? It all seems unusually well conceived for an sf television series, and gives a lot of range to play for the actors as well. And speaking of actors, Noble is a standout as Bishop, one of the best mad scientists ever. (Of course, no one could be expert in that many fields, but you could say the same of Reed Richards as well.) And there's really nothing like him on X-Files, either. So that's another way in which it's not just a copy of the X-Files. (To be sure, they did keep the prolonged sexual tension between the principals, but that's been pretty much a given since Cheers and Moonlighting, at least. At least, they didn't make one a believer and one a skeptic, which worked fine at first, but made Scully look like an idiot as the seasons went by. How many times was Scully right? "War of the Coprophages" and that one with them trapped by the giant hallucinogenic fungus are the only ones I recall. She might have been right in "Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space' ", but how could you ever tell?)

  • March 12, 2011, 4:39 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I hate Michael Bay. For Jar Jar i heve despise, disgust, disrespect and diarrhea. As for the mythical pilot episode of LOST, after i saw it my reaction was "It that it? All this commotion for this? This is a joke, right?" Sufice to day, i couldn't be bothered too much with the show afterwards. Watched the ocasional odd episdoe and it was always the same thing, a bunch of not very interesting boring crap, story overextended with nothing but hot air to make it last more then it had any right to be, while at the same time throwing so much action shit happening that if it happend in real life it would had killed the whole people on the island of massive coronary stress on day two. The show was so unimpressive that when the whole things finally ended and people were perplexed by how inane the whole thing was resolved, i wasn't suprised in the slightest. It figured. Like all of Abrams endevours, LOST was the victory of marketing over substance.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:42 p.m. CST

    I lost even more interest with this trailer...

    by Negative Man if Abrams name connected to it wasn't enough. He's a great by-the-book technical director, but there is not one inch of love in what he films. Much less non-stolen creativity. He's a better producer than a writer or director. I know Abrams wrote this, but the film screams to be directed by Spielberg to give it an authentic 70's feel. Abrams at best will only ape-it.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:45 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The thign about X-FILES is that, evne in th bad episodes, and even when the series jumped the shark, you still loved the characters of Mulder and Scully, and you really felt terrible when something bad happened to them. And what are the characters of LOST? A bunch of whining idotic unsympathetic backstabbing fucks whoa re always at each otehr's throats for the flimsiests excuses, with all the emotional and dramatic weigth of a venezuelian soap opera. That show was not a case of who lived or died, but more of why didn't this fuck died sooner.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:46 p.m. CST

    by blakindigo

    Yup, that sounds EXACTLY like the TV pilot of LOST. FAIL.

  • March 12, 2011, 4:56 p.m. CST

    This looks GREAT!!

    by MovieGeekBlog

    I really can't wait! ET 2 with added horror...!!! SPIELBERG RULES!!

  • March 12, 2011, 4:56 p.m. CST

    braindrain, reading your comment right after Asi's...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...was kind of spooky. How could crap like Star Trek be received warmly by so many critics? It's "the work of the devil." How could Fringe be received warmly by so many critics? It "somehow has brainwashed TV critics the world over." Asi's driven to religion, you to a conspiracy Mulder wouldn't have bought. In the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell: "Gentlemen, by the bowels of Christ I beseech you, think that you may be mistaken." (Of course, Oliver could have taken his own advice a little more often...but isn't that usually the case for all of us?)

  • March 12, 2011, 4:59 p.m. CST

    Gimme a fucking break —

    by blakindigo

    I've ONLY seen the TV pilot of LOST. It was an excellent for a series set-up. I decided a month later to give away my TV and concentrate on my art/skills/writing and lose most distractions (unrelated to any TV programmes). I'd borrow box sets of THE WIRE or the SOPRANOS from friends periodically, but I had work to do. But even someone who hasn't seen the show since the pilot, can give a better description of it without being dismissive of it's origins as a boogeyman "Jar Jar Abrams" production. That's pure bullshit asimovlives. Watching the pilot of LOST and calling it 'underwhelming' is simply trollish bollocks. It has nothing to do with fucking STAR TREK 09 either.

  • March 12, 2011, 5 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    No, the older ST movies are more intellectual while still acessible t general audiences aswell. That's the beauty of them. That's the real Star Trek. And not that bullshit STINO.

  • March 12, 2011, 5:07 p.m. CST

    Star Trek movies are not 'intellectual'.

    by blakindigo

    That's a laughable assertion. A Star Trek movie written by Harlan Ellison or Chip Delaney or JG Ballard would have been 'intellectual'.

  • March 12, 2011, 5:07 p.m. CST

    your primary care nurse deserves a medal, asi

    by Boborci

    because your fast recovery continues to impress. never did tell us what happened, though, so the guessing game continues. Did somebody slam the toilet seat down on your head when you were getting a drink?

  • March 12, 2011, 5:10 p.m. CST

    How many trailers this year have the EXACT same shot?

    by v3d

    You know, a guy being pulled out of frame by an unseen something. Is this the third or fourth?

  • March 12, 2011, 5:18 p.m. CST

    Hey, remember that episode of "Amazing Stories" directed by Scorcese?

    by blakindigo

    Well, it had zombies in it and it wasn't directed by "Jar Jar Abrams"!! Ha!! That's pretty close to what you sound like. Turn it off already. Talk about Nolan. Or Wyler. Or Wells. Hell, go for Ida Lupino. Just give this bullshit a rest.

  • March 12, 2011, 5:24 p.m. CST

    You missed Brad Bird's FAMILY DOG episode of Amazing Stories?

    by blakindigo

    That was pure brilliance.

  • March 12, 2011, 5:42 p.m. CST

    blaindigo, seconding you on the Family Dog episode...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...of Amazing Stories. Probably the best thing the show ever did (and the first hint of the brilliance that is Brad Bird). Overall, however, I'd say that the show was above average at underachieving. Great theme by John Williams, though.

  • March 12, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST

    blaKindigo, apologies for misspelling your name...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...feel free to mess mine up sometime.

  • March 12, 2011, 5:47 p.m. CST

    braindrain wrong

    by Smack_Teddy

    i understand New Trek & like Moon. Your an idiot.

  • March 12, 2011, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Agreed with Asi - ive never asked Asimov

    by Smack_Teddy

    Just how big a Trek fan are you Asimov? And from which Era etc? Also which films this year are you really looking forward to?

  • March 12, 2011, 5:54 p.m. CST

    "Lost = X-files meets Gilligan's Island" Errr no you muppets

    by Smack_Teddy

    Its Twilight Zone, Prisoner, Land of the Lost, Dark Tower, Lost Horizon, The Third Policeman....(goes on and on and on like these fucking JJ Bashers)

  • March 12, 2011, 5:55 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    STAR TREK NEMESIS is not an intelelctual powerhouse movie but at erlast it had a theme to it, something STINO can't boast. And STINO is a remake in all but name of NEMESIS, only even dumber. Yet it got more praised. Figure that. "Wrath of Kahn made me feel smart cuz they quote classic literature!" WRATH OF KAHn was made by a wrioter/director who is very well dead and quite literate in his scriptwriting. Yeah, the movie quotes literature, it does make it smart indeed. It does show the filmmakr is a smart literate guy. Instead of the jock jerks that made STINO. Everything you said about LET ME IN and Matt Reeves is true. Which was the point. Matt Reeves is an unremarkable magpie filmmaker, and yet he's miles ahead of Jar Jar in the filmmaking abilities department. I'm not boasting Reeves, i'm pointing out how uncapable Jar Jar is. "Yes, opinions on film are personal." Usually, that came from people you have little to no interest in movies other then seeing shit blown up and justify themsevles with an umbrella definition of subjective personal taste that they barely understand it's meaning. You are much better and smarter then that. Jar Jar Abrams doesn't deseved that you dumb down for him. And objectivity only has one meaning. That's the whole point. It's not debatable. And you concluded very wrongly about me. Remmeber the hats we had in other talkbacks and about other mvoies and think if that's the acts of a troll. A troll is not somebody who disagrees with you or dislieks the movies you like. You want to see a troll, see the guy who's selling those chick's clothing at all talkbacks, that's a troll, he's merely disruptive without contributing to the topic. I always stay on topic about the Abrams's related talkbacks, be it about him, his next movie or the movies and TV shows he made. That's related subjects. If you disagree about my opinions of Abrams and his movies, that's another matter. If my passionate feelings for them perturbs you, that's another matter. Re-read the literature about the meaning of what is a troll in internet foruns. I respect you and consider you an AICN friend, even now after you erroneously calling me a troll. You for upset, i understand that. But you are a very smart guy who has, Abrams aside, very good taste in films. Tastes we share a lot. A pal who i love to chat with. Do not disapoint me, friend, please, justfor the sake of defending a movie by an hack like Abrams.

  • March 12, 2011, 5:58 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Sam Rockwell was brillanty in MOON. One of the many things that was brillant about that movie. That movie put the awe in me.

  • March 12, 2011, 5:59 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Abrams went to Spielberg's school of filmmaing and left before the first term was over. He's too cool for school. Now he thinks himself his sucessor.

  • March 12, 2011, 6:02 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I understood STINO quite well, thank you very much. Better then you groupies did. That's why i detest it. Everybody who understood what that movie is ended up detesting it, as it were.

  • Today, i don't think he would. Specially since DREAMWORKS is now a subsidiary of Paramount.

  • March 12, 2011, 6:07 p.m. CST

    I'll take a stab at this...

    by droids22

    Some kids find some top secret gov. Super 8 footage of aliens. On a train wreck. Its the stand by me of et movies.

  • March 12, 2011, 6:12 p.m. CST

    jimmyjoe redsky

    by AsimovLives

    Don't even tell me about the death of Kirk in that movie. Has ever a clasic herom ever got such a lame death before? Or since, for that matter. It's like seeing Spock or Indiana Jones dying while taking a shit, it was that embaracing. If Kirk didn't died of old age, then he should had died in the bridge of a ship, specially the enterprise, in a last heroic stand, sacrificing his life for the sake of the many while facing down and goading a badass enemy likethe Klingons to a trap. Dying by embracing, metaphorically, his enemy in an embrace of warrior death. That's my view of Kirk's final hour. Either as a very old man chilling out in some wood cabin in his native Iowa, or in command of a ship in battle. But from a fall from a rusty bridge because of some second rate villain? Please!!

  • March 12, 2011, 6:20 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The problem with X-FILES is that the moemnt they mixed the aliens wirh the cigarette smoking man global cojnspicaries and Mulder's sister kidnapping into an wholesome conspiracy arc, the show got itself into a pickle they could never tied themselves out. Originally it was a great idea. It make it look like the first and second season had built into an arc. It later bitted them in the ass. And then the show jumped the proverbial selachimorpha, and depending of what you believed is the seris that fuck it up, it went belly up. Ocassionally,therewould be the stand out episode, even after the aerial acrobatics over the shark, but it never rcouvered. I lost interest of X-FILES by season... what it 6? The one before Robert Patrick came on board. But the characters of Mulder and Scully always remained fascinating and interesting. They didn't jup th shark on the mythology and the stories, but never on the characters. You migth find it funny, but i think Gilliam Anderson is sexier now then she was during the X-Files.

  • March 12, 2011, 6:21 p.m. CST

    So it's about...Magneto?

    by Cap'n Jack

    and the last time I saw an ass like that in a Spielberg movie, it was on Erika Eleniak in ET.

  • March 12, 2011, 6:23 p.m. CST

    I'm with mattman on this asimovlives

    by blakindigo

    not calling you a troll. But, I'm attacking trolling boorish behaviour about a trailer from a filmmaker without the benefit of the doubt. That's just not cool.

  • And his movies and even his Tv shows are a clear reflection of that. They are movies made by a man used to be in a studio comite, who thinks like a studio executive, the kind who gives directros notes on how they shoud make movies the kind of studuio executives that directors forbid them to ever set foot on the set again or they get punched in the face. Abrams is as if Sid Sheinberg decided he wanted to direct and does so not by filmmaking merit and skills but because of connections to the boys at the board.

  • — and believe me, I just don't see it. I mean seriously — I met one who literally said 'If I can't sell a movie, than it's not a good movie.' He then went on to compare 'indie' movies to fucking POLAROIDS. As in 'point and click' shooting. I don't see JJ Abrams as that guy.

  • March 12, 2011, 7:02 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Aranoski directing a episode of LOST? That would had been interesting. It would certainly lift up the boredom that was the usual lost episode.

  • March 12, 2011, 7:07 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    If there's a skill that i have picked up from watching movies and their trailers all this years, is my ability to see the writing on the wall. I'm damn good at that. Remember, i have ten years ahead of you on this. You were probably born the year i saw ET or something. Fun fact: I saw SUNSET BOULEVARD before that. Think about it, i saw SUNSET BOULEVARD before i was ten. Think the seeds it migth have implanted on me. I suspect my love for darker good movies and dark pitch black comedy cames from there.

  • March 12, 2011, 7:07 p.m. CST

    mattman, I'm kind of torn here...

    by kisskissbangbang

    "Don't judge a film until you see it." This is fairminded and judicious and hard to argue with on one level. I think we've all seen a movie with misleading advertising or a bad rep that's pleasantly surprised us. I'm glad I didn't judge Blade Runner by its reviews or my qualms about its distant (well, it wasn't close) adaptation from the book. On the other hand, we all judge a movie before we see it when we decide to see it. And we have to base that judgment on something. In the case of Blade Runner, I'd really been impressed by Alien and The Duellists, and judged another movie by its director a risk worth taking. But what if that previous movie had been Legend or his Columbus film? I might have decided to give it a pass. I went with my previous history with the director, which we all do. Do we not judge a film by the guys who did Epic Movie or Uwe Boll before we see it? I think we need to distinguish between two levels of judgment here. You shouldn't make a _final_ judgment of a film before seeing it, perhaps, but we have to make _preliminary_ judgments of films all the time, and they have to be based on trailers, or reviews, or previous fondness for an actor or writer or subject, or something. And I think that's fine, as long as we're willing to change our minds when we're wrong about a movie. As long as we're open-minded about our final judgments, and can say, "Well, maybe if I saw it I'd like it, but I'd need a damn good reason to see it after Lady In The Water", then we're not being unfair by judging movies before we see them.

  • March 12, 2011, 7:10 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    As i said in my reply post to mattman, i'm quite good at seeing the writing on the wall. And i'm not coy about saying what i think, specially if i'm dead certain i'm right. And unlike many, i don't think about movies because of my feelings or gut feelings. I make my words what once Carl Sagan said whe he was once asked about what was his gut feeling about the existence of aliens. His reply was he didn't knew because he didn't though with his guts.

  • It's as if somebody is deliberatly mocking us. I'm starting to believe the new Conan movie was made as a financial scheme, like in that movie THE PRODUCERS.

  • March 12, 2011, 7:15 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I see Abrams as exactly like that guy, and this SUPER 8 movie is proof of that. This movie is like how an executive would think of an idea for a movie, their typical high concept thingy. The only difference is that the executive is now behind the cameras shooting the shit.

  • March 12, 2011, 7:21 p.m. CST

    "I don't ask that every filmmaker be as awesome as Nolan."

    by AsimovLives

    Of course. Being talented suffices nicely. Abrams is talented in selling only. Not filmmaking. It does not suffices. And it was not just MI:3 that looked like a glorified TV episode, so did STINO, like Felicity in space. In fact, STINO is a chick flick dressed and edited as a Michael Bay movie and tagnamed Star Trek. In the audio comentary, Abrams is adamant to say that his goal was to make a Star Trek movie in which his wife could watch. His wife, which he points out, can't give a shit about SF. Did STINO reached a bigger crowd? Yeah, i guess it did, the chick flick market. STINO, the first chick flick Star Trek movie in the history of Star Trek. Progress, you say?

  • March 12, 2011, 7:26 p.m. CST

    Looks great. Like Abram's projects. Did good on Trek

    by The Founder

  • March 12, 2011, 8:01 p.m. CST

    Well asimovlives, THAT executive HATED SF

    by blakindigo

    He wouldn't have made Star Trek, unless it starred the Backstreet Boys and took place in Vancouver. Or he would have made it a camp '60's spoof — starring the Backstreet Boys taking place in Vancouver.

  • March 12, 2011, 8:19 p.m. CST

    mattman, perhaps I was being a bit pedantic there...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...(it's been known to happen), but the tension between being fair and being practical is one I strongly feel. I try to be fair-minded, I want to give everybody a chance...but as the Greeks said, life is short and art is long, and we have so much more art than they did. Prejudice saves time. I'm sure there's several excellent directors out there I'm unfairly prejudiced against, or working in genres I think I dislike, but that I'd love if I found them. How can I get past my initial prejudices? I do my imperfect best. Just to be specific, I don't like gore or the disgusting in movies. Yet movies I saw grudgingly, like The Fly (Cronenberg's), convinced me that the disgusting can be crucial to the impact of a fine film. When Geena Davis embraced the decaying Seth Brundle, a woman in the row ahead was sickened and vocal about it. I was moved to tears by how much she loved him. That scene wouldn't have worked without the aspect I hate. So I recognize I need to be more open-minded about this sort of movie, but I find it hard. Uniform critical adulation helps. When it's not there, I tend to take fewer chances. Blue Velvet, yes; Irreversible, no; the newest Romero, God only knows. I just wish he made more films like Knightriders; but I wouldn't have seen that if I hadn't been willing to give him a chance despite his zombie films. (And someone out there is saying, "Dude, those are his best ones!" Maybe so, but I tend to feel I did my due diligence by seeing Night; I'll have to be convinced on Dawn. But as long as I can be convinced, and say the words you close with, "I might be wrong," I think I'm okay. (See Oliver Cromwell, mentioned above.))

  • March 12, 2011, 8:27 p.m. CST

    My last comment should read "between being fair and being judgmental"...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...not "being practical". Bygones, as Fish would say.

  • March 12, 2011, 8:42 p.m. CST

    mattman, glad to hear you liked Adjustment Bureau...

    by kisskissbangbang

    ...the reviews seem sort of mixed. The impression I'm getting is that some of the fantastic elements are sort of arbitrary and overconvenient, but the romance is surprisingly strong. Would that match your take on it? (Going to out for an hour. See you guys later.)

  • March 12, 2011, 9:52 p.m. CST

    Going to call it a night...

    by kisskissbangbang chatting with you all on and off today. Mattman, I'd still like to hear more of what you thought about Adjustment Bureau, if you're game. Later, dudes and dudettes...

  • March 12, 2011, 10:13 p.m. CST

    shit fury

    by Onix_Verumi

    it must be opposite day or something....Everyone over on /Film's hating on this like crazy, and everyone here on AICN is singing its praises. Odd day indeed.

  • March 12, 2011, 10:25 p.m. CST

    Asimov your reaction to the LOST pilot is just trollish behavior

    by D.Vader

    It reveals your bias against JJ. You are completely incapable of giving him anything other than an insult. Only a fool would say that the pilot was "a joke". You didn't watch the show, you have no business talking about it, you've got absolutely NO credibility regarding it.

  • And I was right. Thanks for proving my point.

  • March 12, 2011, 10:27 p.m. CST

    Was a huge trekkie

    by proevad

    but never saw the last half of the last season of voyager. Watched them try to get home for 6 years, but then didn't give a shit. That's how bad it got. Never watched a full episode of Enterprise. That christian rock theme song was enough to turn me away. Thank god for JJ Abrams. Mean that. His movie kicked ass and made me a fan again.

  • March 12, 2011, 10:33 p.m. CST

    And Asi, can you back up any of your claims? Ever?

    by D.Vader

    "No, the older ST movies are more intellectual while still acessible t general audiences aswell. That's the beauty of them. That's the real Star Trek. And not that bullshit STINO." Wow, REALLY? Care to back that up? Can you? You never do. Do you have evidence that "The older ST movies are more intellectual"? That they are "still accessible t general audiences aswell"? Especially when compared to "Star Trek" which made more money than any of them? Do you have anything you can say to back up your claim here that is NOT some immature middle school insult about NuTrek being for retards and US rednecks or GayforJJ fanboys? You won't. You never can, you never do. If you did you'd get more respect from me and others.

  • March 13, 2011, 12:43 a.m. CST

    I want to make love to the blue lens flare


    and have little babies with eyes with shiny blue lens flares.

  • March 13, 2011, 12:44 a.m. CST

    Asimov doesn't need to back up his claims


    Asimov is the utmost authority on Star Trek films. The buck stops with Asimov. He's the king. He is the ruler to rule them all. Hail to the king, baby.

  • March 13, 2011, 12:49 a.m. CST

    My prediction of Asimov's reaction if Super 8 is exceptional


    Jar Jar is a hack, he had to bite Spielberg and have Spielberg hold his hand in order to succeed. This post is timestamped *10:49 PM PST Saturday, March 12 2011*

  • March 13, 2011, 5:06 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Do i need to teach people again what the hell a troll really is? Again, with feeling: A TROLL IS NOT SOMEBODY WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU. How hard is this to understand? I never call the people who disagree with me as troll, why the fuck you guys are so knee jerky and do it? Go read the literature and re-learn what a troll is, man! Jesus!

  • March 13, 2011, 5:10 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I am very good at readingthwe writing in the wall. For example, this new Conan movie, since the hiring of the director i have been very skeptical about it. And now the majority of the people are not bemused snce the teaser came out. and i tel you, the movie will be, well, not very good to put it nicely. Mark my words. It happened with TERMINATOR SALVATION when McG was hired as direcor, i lost all hopes for the movie. And look what happened, the movie was crap. It's jsut experience in watching mvie,s and knowing who the filmakers are. Eventually, you will do it too. It's just experience, all this years watching movies. I'm not claiming a magical ability, it's just netural human learning based on experience. Sorry if i can't convey what i mean in clearer words, but that's just it. It seems i have hit a berserk button on you on all this Abrams related subjects.

  • March 13, 2011, 5:13 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    That executive you met, how in the bloody hell he even ended in the movie business? Family ties? Because that bloke sure had no pulse in regard to films. He should had been selling vaccum cleaners, not films. What's your theory of why there's so many people like that executive you mentioend above in the film industry? Why do you think so?

  • March 13, 2011, 5:19 a.m. CST

    "even Lost was tedious in places"

    by AsimovLives

    I found it tedious in all places, myself. It reminded me of a south american soap opera, where you have what seemslike lots of things happening to people, but in fact he story advanced pratically nothing in each episode. Each episode had a lot of plotting, lots of chinwagging but little to no story. I found every episode of LOST, even those which had action stuff,people shoting each other and major characters dying to be pretty tedious myself. Many people accused CARNIVÀLE of being boring. and while it seemsthat in each episode "nothign happeend", that show was the inverse of LOST: little plot might had happened, but a lot of story and characterization was advanced. Many people fell heads over wheels in love with LOST. To me it was CARNIVÀLE and ROME. Those are the unbeatable shows for me. Those are my Tv referenceswhen i think of top quality on top TV. LOST, for me, felt right formthe startto be nothing but a gimmick which the createors hadn't figure out what and what they were fgoing to put next, they figured it out as they went along, there was no master plant or clear idea. The ending proved it in spades.

  • March 13, 2011, 5:28 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    There's two things that for me inmovies kill a bit my enthusiasm for them: hype and shaky-cam. However, i really loved movie mvoies that got massively hype (at least in USA) like THE DARK KNIGHT and THE MATRIX. And while i'm starting to detest shaky-cam, i loved how Paul Greengrass uses it in his films, and i also saw the reason why it's use in BATMAN BEGINS. Sometimes anti-hype makes me feel more friendly toward a movie. Like HEAVEN'S GATE. Most people hate the movie just from it's own reputation and never saw it. I have seen the film 3 tiems already, in it's ful lenght from (the nearly 4 hours long version, not the mythical 5 hours ling version which never saw the light of day outside an editing room), and it's a damn good movie. The themes and the presentantion might upset some, but the movie now looks ahead of it's time. Why are we like that? I don't know. But maybe experienc ehas something to do with it as well. Or the attitude we bring to the movies. If somebody goes to the films and all he demnds is merely fast paced escapism, they will never like a movie like HEAVEN'S GATE. Or even INCEPTION, for that matter. But they will dig the hell out of STINO, for example. But ifone goes to the movies demanding a bit more form theirbuck, like a filmmaker dedication to the material, good filmmaking, good scripting, and a fair amount of quality to the material, then a movie like STINO will not suffice. I don't think the second way is lesser then just the one that merely demands fast cheap thrills.

  • I mean, that song, Jesus Christ! What the bloody hell!! Who the fuck though that shit would be a good way to open a Star Trek show? Or any show for that matter? And the fucking lyrics are basic and lame like hel!! They turned Star Trek into a Las Vegas show! That song belongs to bloody Smallville, not Star Trek or any SF show or that matter. The only Enterprise episodes i though they did it right was the mirror universe ones where they changed the opening theme to match. That ws good. I know people piss on ST: VOYAGER. I'm one of those too. But for all it's flaws, at least it had a badass opening theme composed by the great Jerry Goldsmith, in fact one of the top best opening themes ever made for a Star Trek show or movie. Voyager's opening theme gives me gosebumps. Couldn't had they come up withsomething a bit similiar for Enterprise, something in the vein of Aaram Copland? Anything would be better then that fucking song.

  • March 13, 2011, 5:42 a.m. CST

    "between being fair and being judgmental"

    by AsimovLives

    Of course, kisskissbangbang, the pickle is that what we might think of being fair is what others will think as being judgemental. Take, for example, both the new Conan movie and Super 8. I think, and by what i have learn of watching movies, that both will be pretty undrwheleming if not to say worst. And there will be others who think i'm being unfairly judgemental because they think both movies will be good. and then there's the ones who think one will be crap and th other will be good. and probably those will be the ones who will feel,even more offended becaus ethey will not understand why one of those can be lumped with the other. This is one of the reasons why my posts tend to be so long. Because i like to at least provide some explanation to why i think like i do. It would be easy to just say "it will rock/it will sucks", and be done with it. It would be too easy. But i'm not like that. I like to see some explaining why one has such and such an opinion, myself included. Specially myself. The way i think, if i'm going to expose my opinion in a public forum like this, i ought to at least do some explaining to my position. And if i don't, it's because i already did it many times before for quite a while already.

  • March 13, 2011, 5:44 a.m. CST

    jimmyjoe redsky ... about Star Trek Generations...

    by ChickenStu

    Gotta say I enjoyed it man. I know it's not perfect in anyway, but the night I went to see it was one of the best nights of my childhood. Plus, Star Trek: The Next Generation's final episode had aired only a matter of weeks before the film's cinema release. The weekend the movie came out was my 17th birthday and saw it with my two best friends (who are still my two best friends to this very day!) and it was a fuckin' GREAT experience. The cinema was absolutely PACKED with Trekkies/Trekkers, some were even dressed up. It was unreal, I'd never seen anything like it. One thing I like about this movie, that kind of makes it stand out from the rest is that it has a kind of mystical quality. Dennis McCarthy's score is ethereal and suitably other-worldly, and I found the soft lighting gave it a very dreamy kind of feel. I also like how it deals with themes of life, death and immortality.And I was VERY impressed with the gutsy decision to destroy the Enterprise at the end. Plus, I think in the last third of the movie, Kirk and Picard made an interesting double act. Fans must've wanted to see these two captains together for ages - so it was good that Stewart and Shatner had good chemistry. The movie isn't perfect, but it had decent action scenes, parts of it are very funny, and thanks to an excellent central performance from Patrick Stewart... it's at times very moving. As for criticisms about the way Kirk was killed off... well, this was a Star Trek: The Next Generation movie. Kirk was no more than an extended cameo/sidekick for Picard. Maybe that's kind of the way it should've been?

  • You know what in love the most about watching movies? Being suprised. You know what i like the least about watching movies? That so rarely i am anymore. If anything, movies are getting easier and easier to predict. both becaus eof my experiece in watching them as a regular and enthusiastic movie geek (since my 16 when i first saw Blade Runner, i'll be 40 this year), and because more and more movies are being made to follow formula. So much so that i have started to get my film suprises from South Korea, because i'm not getting much of them from Hollywood. Thankfully, last years was alright, thanks to INCEPTION, TRUE GRIT and yeah even TRON LEGACY. Yeah, TRON LEGACY, that's an example of a movie in which suprised me and i changed my mindfor the better. There you have it, one example. You need more. It's not as easy to figure me out as you might think it is. It's more complicated then that.

  • March 13, 2011, 5:52 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Are you finnish? Are you who think that oen conversation only leads to the same conversation? I'm portuguese, of a latin culture, and we the south european guys, when we talk, when we start a conversation, we follow it through from the tangents that it creates. We south europeans love to chat away. What i do is nothing unusual or suprising from a south european person. Don't presume your cultural praxis to be the only ones right, friend. Dont' presume that. The implications of your post were almost insulting.

  • March 13, 2011, 6:10 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I have been backing my claims for 22 months already. If you haven't known them by now, frankly, then that's your problem. I'm not going to repeat the what must be now hundreds of thousands of words i already dedicated to the subject. You are not going to get my Hamlet now, you are now getting the cliff notes. And if you disagree with my reasons and my explanations and they are never to your satisfaction, that's another matter. And pelase don't come up with the "popularity equals quality" argument, because not even you believe it in. So please don't bring it to STINO just because you took a shine on it. I don't go about claiming that INCEPTION is a good movie because of it's box office numbers. Because it's not. Box office does not equal quality, ever. Or else you had to conclude that CLASH OF THE TITANS is a better movie then STINO because it was made on a smaller budget (125 millions compared to STINO's 150 millions) but earned more at the box office (493 millions compared to STINO's 385 millions). Are you going to say that? Are you going to follow through with your "numbers are quality" logic? Let me offer you this notion so you can understand this a little better: In USa you guys are bvombarded with the movies advertizements. The hype machine exclusively works for the USa territory. THe studis spend 90% of their marketing budget on the USA territory alone. The rest 10% are for the REST OF THE WORLD. and of the rest, the ones that get it the most are big markets like UK, France, Japan, China, Germany, the like. My country is small, so basically we pass by the hype. Our references are mostly the posters, what we can watch on the news, and some online news sites like As such, we are mercilessly spared the hype bombardment that you guys get in USA. Which means that wehn we get to watch the movie, when i get to watch the movie, it's pratially only the movie i'm watching, without the hype baggage that accompanies them like they do in USA. Basically, i jsut watch the movies. And STINO

  • March 13, 2011, 6:13 a.m. CST

    d.vader, sorry, i didn't finished my post.

    by AsimovLives

    So, what i was saying is that basically in here when we watch the movie, we are just watchign the movie, without all the mega-hype machine behind it like you guys do in USA. And STINO without the hype beyind it is just a very silly dumb movie that only superfically resembles Star Trek, and that's by name only or other such superficial elements. watchign it without hype, STINO just looks like any other Michael Bay type action movie that exists out there, with the peculiarity that now it's set in space. STINO without hype is so little, it's such a nothing!

  • March 13, 2011, 6:15 a.m. CST

    winona_ryders_pussy_juice, how droll

    by AsimovLives

    I'm goingto tell you soemthing, silly boy: if SUPER 8 turns out to be really brillant, i'm be the one in the front praising the shit out of it. but that will not make me automaticalçly a STINO groupie either. No, STINO will still get shit from me, even if i end up loving SUPER 8. You got it?

  • I think the movie will end up being like MI:3, it will by the end being a banal lost oportuniy of a movie, one which held more promises then what could execute. The end product will be banal and a clear case of much ado about nothing. and the reason the movie is lesser then it could had been is because of the limitations of it's writer/director, JJ Abrams. It will not be the pile of shit that STINO is. But it will not be the secod coming of Spielberg circa 1970s either. It will be a banal inbetween.A movie filled with smart-ass trickery, like the pastiche of Spielberg's 70s style, but in the end pretty much all that just for the service of a banal film, for banal results. Much ado about nothing indeed. This is what i think.

  • March 13, 2011, 6:59 a.m. CST

    Hands up anyone who just skips Asimov's posts now?

    by ChickenStu

  • March 13, 2011, 7:03 a.m. CST

    What's with the creepy fixation on the girl,

    by Dennis_Moore

    making her up like an adult? Is this for pedophiles?

  • March 13, 2011, 7:40 a.m. CST

    goonies/signs/e.t. and you guys

    by JAMF

    are praising its originality? fuck off.

  • March 13, 2011, 8:27 a.m. CST

    Inspired by, is the phrase I like to use...

    by Dr. Egon Spengler

    Will Super 8 be completely original? Probably not. But fuck me, at least it isn't another sequel/prequel/reboot/remake of some tired franchise. As film lovers, let's at least try to support the ones that aren't an obvious cash grab.

  • March 13, 2011, 8:46 a.m. CST

    YouPorn's hentai section must be down

    by Fat and Curious

    The cynical nerds are out in droves for this one.

  • March 13, 2011, 10:08 a.m. CST



    no way in hell will you EVER admit to liking a Jar Jar Abrams film. You have way too much invested in your AICN persona to do otherwise. Praise Jar Jar at your own peril.

  • March 13, 2011, 10:10 a.m. CST

    I'm hoping and praying that he knocks this one out of the park


    Please God. Bless us with endless ammunition to annihilate the taint that is known as AssimovLives.

  • March 13, 2011, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Baby Jesus, please turn Super 8 into the next E.T.


  • March 13, 2011, 10:38 a.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    You think you do by tossing more and more insults out, but you fail EVERY SINGLE TIME to provide evidence. And I'm not calling you a troll because I disagree with you, I'm calling your response to the LOST pilot as being trollish behavior because I asked for you to comment on the WRITING and DIRECTION that JJ Abrams provided for the LOST pilot, and all you could muster was that the pilot "was a joke" before launching into a critique of the rest of the series, a series you readily admit you DID NOT WATCH. That is trollish behavior mate. A true intellectual, like you claim to be, would provide evidence as to why the pilot was a joke. You would comment on JJ's direction and what was wrong with it for the first episode and discuss why his co-writing was bad. But you didn't. You went on into an insult of a few episodes you claim to have seen, but without any evidence to back them up (which suggests you saw nothing actually). And the same goes for Star Trek. You can easily claim its less intellectual than the others, but its more difficult to prove that. That's what I'd like to see. Claiming that you always back up your claims and if I missed them its my fault is taking the chicken shit way out. It suggests to everyone here that you really CAN NOT back up your claims. "This is one of the reasons why my posts tend to be so long. Because i like to at least provide some explanation to why i think like i do. It would be easy to just say "it will rock/it will sucks", and be done with it. It would be too easy. But i'm not like that. I like to see some explaining why one has such and such an opinion, myself included" You said that. Why not actually follow through and fucking DO IT when we ask.

  • March 13, 2011, 10:40 a.m. CST

    Note how Asimov talks down to Mattman

    by D.Vader

    Poor Mattman, one day you too will learn how to judge a movie before it comes out when you learn who the filmmakers are! It comes from experience and soon you will be at my level too!

  • March 13, 2011, 10:43 a.m. CST

    And Asimov, on Star Trek

    by D.Vader

    You said this: "And pelase don't come up with the "popularity equals quality" argument, because not even you believe it in. So please don't bring it to STINO just because you took a shine on it. I don't go about claiming that INCEPTION is a good movie because of it's box office numbers. Because it's not. " I didn't. I never use box office as an indicator of quality, but as an indicator (usually) of how well received it is by the masses. If it made a lot of money, it usually means a lot of people liked it.

  • March 13, 2011, 10:48 a.m. CST

    I tell you what, if Stanley Kubrick was still alive...

    by D.Vader

    And if James Cameron decided he wanted to make an epic science fiction film in the same vein as 2001, and he made it like the kind of movie Kubrick would have made back then, and then he brought Kubrick on as a producer too... ... Asimov would fucking shit a brick.

  • March 13, 2011, 10:54 a.m. CST

    You friggin children

    by Brian Hopper

    need to quit acting like judgment should be reserved because there's a chance this could end up being a good movie. The ONLY reasonable conclusion one can draw from this trailer is that the movie itself will be a stinking turdpile. I offer the fact Jeffrey Jacob Abrams excreted Armageddon and Regarding Henry and assreamed Star Trek as supporting evidence.

  • March 13, 2011, 11:18 a.m. CST

    Stop arguing with asimovlives

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    You are just making more bullshit that I have to wade through. He is gripped by psychosis when it comes to JJ Abrams. Just ignore him, it's the only way to limit the annoyance.

  • March 13, 2011, 11:32 a.m. CST

    The only ones who didn't like Star Trek...

    by kidicarus

    were basement-dwelling, balding nerds who wanted it to be about boring and unapproachable as every other Trek movie ever made (save Wrath of Khan and First Contact).

  • March 13, 2011, 1:13 p.m. CST

    Super-8 and Trek XI

    by Coordinate_System

    Regarding Super-8: haven't seen anything that really jumps out at me, the trailer is an assembly of plot elements that have been seen before: some entity escapes and terrorizes a town (or is misunderstood), military tries to contain It, kids interfere in someway. Nothing new, really. But perhaps the IT is something intriguing (?). The fact that some folks here are slobbering to see it, suggests the trailer (especially the use of the "sense of wonder" inducing music from Cocoon) is an example of good marketing, but nothing more. No one here can say whether the movie is good or not at this point. As for Trek XI. It flaws have gone over many times Talkbacks before (plot holes, "borrowing" plot elements and dialog from other places, the re-defining of Classic Characters to something that will appeal to today's youth (Kirk and Scotty are the most glaring examples, for myself, anyway, etc). In order for Mr. AsimovLives to demonstrate that Trek XI is intellectually inferior to previous Treks, he would have to demonstrate that each of the previous films are not possessed of the same error rate as Trek XI, which would likely be a lengthy post. However, let's turn this around and allow me to pose a serious question to the defenders of Trek XI: Why did you like it? I ask this, because, mostly folks here say say "they liked the film" or "it rocked", etc. Well, why? Let me give you an example of what I mean: yesterday, I went to see Batte: Los Angeles. I don't think it's great or innovative movie, but I liked it. Why did I like it? The characters appealed to me. They were written in a way that allows me to like them (and therefore, I was rooting for them). Nothing really deep or "intellectual" about it. Just a simple emotional reaction. That's all. I've noticed that many folks tend to entangle Reality and their emotions in a manner that tends to produce a distorted view of he former. I.e., things that they like (or dislike) are inherently Good (or Bad). Tastes in movies are no different. So, please tell me why you liked Trek XI: both intellectual and emotional reasons are welcome. I where I stand on Trek XI and why (for both intellectual and emotional reasons). Kidicarus: enjoy your youth while it lasts, kid. Because it doesn't. And, eventually, the marketing emphasis of Hollywood (and the rest of pop-culture) will move on from your generation to the next, and you will be the one scratching your balding head asking: "What happened?"

  • March 13, 2011, 1:15 p.m. CST

    forgot to proofread, sorry for the grammar.

    by Coordinate_System

  • March 13, 2011, 1:16 p.m. CST

    the cynics are waking up?

    by ieatgarbage

    i know i am a little late with this comment but you have no idea what cynical means. shut the fuck up. moron.

  • March 13, 2011, 1:18 p.m. CST

    who is this viggo cat?

    by ieatgarbage

    he's winning these forums

  • March 13, 2011, 1:27 p.m. CST

    kidicarus just fucking nailed it...

    by ChickenStu

    although I do think SOME of the others had some merit...

  • March 13, 2011, 1:37 p.m. CST


    by Smack_Teddy

    so many good Lost episodes but we are just going to disagree on that one. I remember a while back it was reported he was impressed with or a fan of the show, and had expressed interest in directing an episode and maybe? penning it with the showrunners and discussions/plans were being made... around the time of 'The Fountain' being prepped the 1st time perhaps, and of course Lost is heavily about Axis Mundi & Tree of Life & Fountain mythology...i think this alone at least is a single guaranteed reason for why Aronofsky really dug Lost, without any actual evidence or quote to back it up, or any other things that might interest you like his artistic sensibilities alongside those of Lost, his opinion on the latter etc... I REALLY like The Fountain for exploring this mythology but of course mostly as the guys own film and interpretation as piece of art in its own right, I am really excited as a big Malick fan for 'The Tree of Life' also.

  • March 13, 2011, 1:37 p.m. CST

    coordinate_system... here's why I liked Abrams Star Trek

    by ChickenStu

    Cause it had no real pretension to it. I like a lot of the previous Star Trek films, but they were made for a niche audience and the filmmakers admit it. Thing is, that niche audience is big, and the budgets were fairly low for them - so they made profits... sequels were farmed out... everyone was happy. When Abrams came on board, he and his team threw out a load of previous narrative scar tissue (but kept it canon with the time travel plot device and the appearance of Leonard Nimoy) and took a fresh look at an established era of the franchise. He created something that you didn't have to be a previous fan to enjoy. And what he created was well cast (with maybe the exception of Pegg as Scotty), well written (yeah OK, there was the odd plot hole... but I can let that slide personally) the visual effects were stunning... it was gutsy (there was an audible "WTF?!?!" style gasp when Vulcan was wiped out. At least at the cinema I was in) and it felt fresh, zippy and was just a joyous way to spend a couple of hours at the cinema. Who knew that to freshen Star Trek up, and give it a future again, the answer was to go back to the days of Kirk, Spock, etc etc? Abrams and his team knew. To me, it felt like more like an early Star Wars film than it did a Star Trek film, and that is damn well fine by me. Abrams, if you're listening - more please.

  • March 13, 2011, 2:23 p.m. CST

    Hey Ahole

    by D.Vader

    I know what I'm doing. It's all about letting Asi hang himself.

  • March 13, 2011, 2:36 p.m. CST

    Holy shit this looks good!

    by HB_Dad

    Sign me up for opening night on this one!

  • So often trailers are nitpicked for every single detail and no one has brought up: -what Super 8mm cameras they are using -could they possibly shoot in low light -could they sustain a fall -could they continue shooting without someone holding down the shutter trigger.

  • March 13, 2011, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Absolutely loved everything (but the CGI)

    by JoeSixPack

    I love almost everything about this film. Why don't we have great stories in the vein of ET, The Goonies, Stand By Me, etc. anymore? It seems if they put kids in movies now it has to be an ADD kiddie flick. The only thing that bugs me is the terribly fake looking CGI. I know it's not the final product, but wow, that's bad. Horribly fake effects take me out of the movie.

  • March 13, 2011, 4:30 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Just because you say i don't back up my opinions doesn't mean that i don't. That's just your wish fullfillment talking.

  • March 13, 2011, 4:36 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I'm certain if we put the supporters of STINo on one side and the detractros on the other, the basement dwellers would populate the supporters side by a very large margin. You know what i find funny? Basement dwellers insulting others by calling them basement dwellers.

  • March 13, 2011, 4:55 p.m. CST

    mr ahole ramirez

    by AsimovLives

    The problem is that, and i have seen thing since the start, the STINO supporters have only used emotional "arguments" to support their love for the movie. I hav yet tos ee a rational argument from their side to support their movie. And when anybody rpesents a coutner-argument, they pretend it was never made, ignore it altogether, and shoutout loud that who doesn't support STINO is a psychotic dumb out of touch little man who doesn't deserve to belong to the cool kids club. When i used to discuss this movie, all i got was personal attacks and aggravations. It always happened when they used up all the blubs stuff from the Paramount Pictures advertizement marketing campaign. Meanwhile, detractors like me and others keep on telling and explaining why we though the movie was ba,d why the story was riddle with plot holes, bad illogical story decisions, contradictory character developement, constant use of deus ex machinas, weird aestetics decisions, and a world which Abrams and his writing buddies created wkth matches very porly with the already established Star Trek universe. And for each of our arguments, we would just get dismissed with a wave of the hand and ignored. Well, at best. At worst, we were presonally insulted. It was always like that. I find it rich that now there are STINO groupies who accuse me of not making logical arguments to suport my case, when the exact opposite is what has happened. I almost wish we could rstart the whole argumentationa bout why STINO is a good/bad movie to tha ti can see the replay again of what happened before when the movie was released. History would repeat again. So, here's the challenge, you guys want to ACTUALLY discuss the movie, the pros or cons? You want to do it, so that you can put the money where your mouth is and get the so-called my irrational unlogical reasons for my opinion onthe movie? Let's do it! Let's discuss the movie again. Let me say again why the movie is bad. Let's stop with all your say so, let's actually have it from me, and from you, lets all see how the arguments for and con STINO goes. This time for real, with the arguemtns writen in her, and not just say so and smart-alec coments. Let's go at it. What say you? I'm down to the challenge, how about you?

  • March 13, 2011, 5:02 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I also like THE FOUNTAIN too, and like you i'm very interested and curious about Malick's THE TREE OF LIFE. Let me tell you soething abotua THE FOUNTAIN. It's curious my relationship to the mvoei, because, findamentally, i disagree with the message of the movie. The death as the road to awe, and death as the liberator. mostly i'm like tom in the modern day segments, for me death is a desease. Death is not a liberator not a door to enlightment, death is misery and pain and sadness. So, no, i don't agree with themessage of the movie at all. And yet i love it. I love the movie. I can't get enough of it. Thid fot me is the grat achievement of art and a mvoie can do, that despiste they support a different idea to you, you can still connect and enjoy and be moved and challenged. You know what i mean? I don't need to agree with THE FOUNTAIN to love it. And love it i do.

  • March 13, 2011, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Asimov, I was talking about Trek's BOcompared

    by D.Vader

  • March 13, 2011, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Asimov, I was talking about Trek's BO

    by D.Vader

  • March 13, 2011, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Fuck this talkback script... It's killing my phone

    by D.Vader

    Cant get anything done.

  • March 13, 2011, 5:25 p.m. CST

    Asi I was talking about Treks BO compared to past Trek movies

    by D.Vader

    Not to other movies, and you know that. Very typical of you to change the subject to fit your script rather than staying on the topic at hand. The point is, Star Trek made more money than previous Trek movies. Why did Clash make more? Without doing research I'd say one reason: the price of 3D ticket sales and it being the first big summer blockbuster to have 3D after the success of Avatar. Bam.

  • March 13, 2011, 5:26 p.m. CST

    There can be no "this generation's Spielberg"

    by lv_426

    Just as there can be no "this generation's Cameron" or "this generation's Kubrick" either. Spielberg, Lucas, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, David Fincher, Kubrick, Ingmar Bergman, Hitchcock, Peter Jackson, etc... all came of age and learned their trade in different eras under very different political, economic, and cultural circumstances as well as in differing versions of Hollywood and/or in the international film industries as well. This is why we will not see equivalents of these kinds of directors in this day and age, nor any time in the future. I feel it is foolish to even look for or try to peg someone as the equivalent of someone else in terms of an art or craft like film making. No one can just rise to greatness in the film industry by somehow laying claim to being "the next [insert big name director's name here]" whether by their own accord, or by being named so by some entertainment journalist. An example is what happened to M. Night around the time of Signs. He didn't say he was the next Spielberg, the media said it. As for a lot of these big name directors having been able to rise to such stature, think of how different the movie industry is now compared to even back in the 80's. Back then a director could make a name for themselves by directing something new and edgy. A daring film like those done by Spielberg and Lucas at the close of the 70's. Or how about Ridley Scott and James Cameron hitting it in the early to mid 80's? Oliver Stone in 86 with Platoon and then going on to Wall Street? Millius with Conan The Barbarian and Red Dawn? Copolla's Apocalypse Now? Those types of new and daring films would never be made today. If they were, then they'd have to settle for low budgets and almost no exposure in the mainstream because they'd be fighting against the mega-funded studio projects. I mean, let's say a screenwriter or director brings a project like Raiders, or Star Wars, or Alien to the studios. If the execs like it they will probably not want to spend much to make it. Or they will just say "you know what, this Star Wars thing, with a few tweaks could be the basis for that adaptation of Isaac Asimov's Foundation we can't seem to get off the ground." Don't believe me, then look at the Die Hard franchise. Some of its sequels were based on completely unrelated spec scripts that were retro-fitted and tweaked to be a Die Hard sequel. Now, these new practices in Hollywood might not make bad films. That is not the point. The point is that it is very hard for new filmmakers to gain a foothold in the current climate of cinema. Sure we always have a few. Nolan is currently the most obvious one that does work for the studios. Although, it will be interesting to see if he is at his peak right now with The Dark Knight and Inception. Once he has finished his run on the Batman films, will he have a harder time doing original ideas like Inception? I'd wager that he will, unless of course he aligns himself with another big franchise and alternates between originals and franchise films. Blomkamp is the next example people will bring up. Thing is that after the Halo project fell through for him, he did District 9 independently, and is still sorta detached from the studios. Elysium is not a big studio film, not entirely. Also, after doing District 9, Blomkamp stated something to the tune of not wanting to be tied up with the studios because he wants to do original projects and not big bloated franchises films or adaptations. Hopefully he will be able to maintain that and make good films consistently. Now, besides Nolan and Blomkamp, the only filmmakers on the near horizon that are making mega-budget original genre films are James Cameron with his Avatar sequels and Ridley Scott with Prometheus. These two have already made their mark years ago, so I don't really see how they apply to the newer generation of filmmakers like Blomkamp who is on the original end of the spectrum and someone like Abrams who is at the other end of the scale. As for a filmmaker like a Hitchcock or a Kubrick. In this day and age I don't see how someone like that would even have a chance of building a long and stellar career like those two did over several decades. Spielberg is the closest and he's getting older. I see no one who is building a really unique and interesting film making career right now. M. Night was looking like he was on that way, but he's been in decline for a few years now already. I don't think the way the industry works now will allow someone to have as long of a career as many did in the past. Aping someone else's style is not the way to do it either. The problem is that these days, Hollywood is scared shit-less of video games, Netflix, bit torrent pirates, on-demand cable, etc. taking away the spotlight on movies for people's recreational time and dollar. Present day Hollywood's goal is to make every last penny that their marketing research people claim can be made, but only if all the films are based on existing properties and tailored to appeal to everyone. They fail to realize that something like Star Wars was such a game changer because it was an original film that tapped into something primal. Same with many of their so called franchises. Alien(s), Terminator, Indiana Jones, The Matrix, Predator, Back to the Future, Die Hard. I understand they can't only make original daringly insane films all the time. I do think though, that there has to be a much healthier balance that can be reached between original, franchise pics, remakes, and adaptations of all budgetary levels. The real insidious problem is that Hollywood has lost faith in the principle of "word of mouth". Make a good or great movie, and word of mouth spreads. How they hell do they think Avatar made so much money? It certainly wasn't that they just marketed the hell out of it. Now the major studios have the parasitic tentacles of the marketing dept. wrapped around them to the extent that most budgets are either half that of, or less than the marketing budget for any given studio film. Why do you think that all the pre-hyping and pre-buzzing for big movies start years in advance of the film releasing, and sometimes before the damn thing goes into production? It is sad that with all the tech we have these days to put just about anything imaginable, no matter how fantastic on screen, the film industry is stuck in this sickening cycle of franchise-i-tis and rebootard remake syndrome topped off with an unhealthy addiction to pre-buzz kicks and over-hype overdoses. ----------- As for SUPER 8. It looks fun. The trailer was skillfully put together and didn't reveal too much. I can't say it doesn't look like it could be a good summer movie, but I just don't see why it has to ape Spielberg's style to be a good movie in it's own right. The concept is solid on its own. That is kind of alarming to me, and in the day and age of endless remakes too. Besides his TV work, is Abrams afraid to do an original film that isn't attached to some nostalgia-related element? If not, then at least he is up front about it on this film so far. I guess if it make him happy to stick to these kinds of "safe studio" films, then there is nothing wrong with it. I just don't see how that somehow makes him anything like Spielberg was then as a filmmaker or is now.

  • March 13, 2011, 5:41 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    This is an honest atempt at a conversation with you, with all due respect. I'm going to reply to your reasons why you liked Abrams ST, and why i disagree with soem of your coments. This is a valid for real conversation, and not just a trade of insults. OK? "Cause it had no real pretension to it. I like a lot of the previous Star Trek films, but they were made for a niche audience and the filmmakers admit it." do you really think that all of the previous ST movies were made only for niche markets? Becasue for me, i think that the intention behind the first St movie, and also ST4 and ST6 was to go for a more broad audience. ST1 really looks like an epic movie to make everybody go watch a big spectacle. they evne hired an expert of epic filmmaking, robert Wise,. ST1 was an event movie, and at that time, a really big budget mvie (not as big as many later thoughit was, but it was still a pretty fat budget movie). With ST4 it's clear they wantedto open up the movie to a more borad audience, and it's quite evident by the more humourous approach and also the tiem travel aspect, so that we could see the enterprise crew in our world. As for ST6, the mvoie was made deliberatly topical and alegorical to the political situation of the times the movie was made, with direct references to the Chernobyl Disaster and the Glasnost and the opening of the Soviet Block, all portaited and made alegorical to the way the reformist klingons were presented. Also, i think, the original intention of STAR TREK when it started as a TV show back in the 60s was to be a populist show. The notion of ST as a niche thing might be more due to the rediscovery of it later in syndication then to do with the original intentions of it's creastors. "When Abrams came on board, he and his team threw out a load of previous narrative scar tissue (but kept it canon with the time travel plot device and the appearance of Leonard Nimoy) and took a fresh look at an established era of the franchise. He created something that you didn't have to be a previous fan to enjoy." Well,but the pickle here is, what is usless scar tissue to be thrown out? Because it seem sto me that with that, Abrams and Co. threw out the baby with the bathwater. As for the kept cannon, well, let me just say, at most it was just the most superficialç of things. The name of the character,s the name of the ship, it's general apearence and... that's it. He didn't stick to the world already created. There's a Federation in Abrams ST, but which little or nothing resemble what had been establsihed. Now we have a federation where there's capitalism again, where there are commercial brands like Budweisser and Nokia, and there kids rock out on 300 years old songs and driving 300 years old cars. You say that Abrams' strengh was that he created soemthignthat one didn't have to be a previous fan to enjoy. Well, nolan made one such thing with BATMAN BEGINS, but in that movie one doesn't see a deep cut off to sell his Batman interpretation. He was faithful to the notion and ideas of Batman, while he didn't need to reuse an actor from the previous movies or Tv shows to create continuity. The continuity was to the themes and the nmood of Batman. Abrams, as i see it, didn't do continuity, he breached and broke out completly. He created ST anew, in his own image. The casting of spock as a suppsoed continuation seem like like a stunt to shup up the fans. With the pope on their side, how can they not be the caries of the true faith, right? It felt like a gimmickto sele their ESCLUSIVE receration of Star Trek. Abrams ST is not linked to the old Trek, despiste their claimes. It's a complete new beast, with a clever trick to catch the audiences in. "And what he created was well cast (with maybe the exception of Pegg as Scotty), well written (yeah OK, there was the odd plot hole... but I can let that slide personally) the visual effects were stunning... it was gutsy (there was an audible "WTF?!?!" style gasp when Vulcan was wiped out. At least at the cinema I was in) and it felt fresh, zippy and was just a joyous way to spend a couple of hours at the cinema." I'm not going to disagre withthe casting, it's one of the few things that i have agreed with the supporters of Abrams St is that the movie was pretty well cast. And i even like Simon Pegg as Scotty. I can't vouch for the autenthicity of his scotish accent, but the duide was OK. They were all OK. I really liked the casting of Quinto as spock. For me, it had to be him and nobody else, it's a matter of course. If i hav a problem with the cast, it has to do with Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana, because i really, really hated the characters they portaited. I can't decide if the fault compeltly rests on them or the terrible line sof dialogue they had to speak or the terrible way their characters were presented. But they rubbed me the wrong way, the worst way possible. I found them unsympathetic, irritating and unberable. Possibly the fault rest with the script, not the actors. They just did what was writen on the page. "Who knew that to freshen Star Trek up, and give it a future again, the answer was to go back to the days of Kirk, Spock, etc etc? Abrams and his team knew." It's not a new idea. The idea of making a Star Trek mvoie based on their Academy years had been going around in Hollywood since the early 1990s, since ST6 was released. In fact, for a time, there was two possibilities, either to make a ST:TNG movie or a ST:TOS movie set in the earlier years of the characters. They even did preliminary casting for the Academy movie, with John Cusack as Spock. So, in this regard, Abrams St movie is not a novel idea, it's a reused of a 20 years old idea. "To me, it felt like more like an early Star Wars film than it did a Star Trek film, and that is damn well fine by me." And that's to me is the very biggest problem that Abrams movie has. It is a Star Trek movie, not SW. If the only way for Abrams to make a St movie is to turn it inot a clone of SW, then why did he even made a ST movie to begin with. clearly his heart was not to it. Nolan didn't made a Batman movie and turned it into Spider-Man, did he? Star Tek is a unique franchise with an idendiy of it's own. Star Wars is an unique saga with an identiy of it's own. Now ST loooks like a SW movie. Now SW and ST looks the same. Sw was dogfights in space, St was the navy in space. That was always the basic premise. What is ST now? The loss of ST's own idendity is supposed to be a good thing? I don't think it is. If Abrams didn't liked St that much and he couldn't find an agle to it that was true to it's own nature, then Abrams shouldn't add accepted the gig. That would had been the honest thing. I'm certain there ar emany, many ways to re-popularise and bering back Star Trek to the masses, and Abrams way is not the only way. and certainly there has to be one which dosn't need to turn ST into soemthing that it's not. We don't need to turn Batman into Spider-Man to make him popular again, did we? As for the "odd plot holes" as you say, well, i didn't find them as scarse as you make it out to be. In fact, i found them all over the place. And none more obvious then the whole sequence at Hoth, i mean, that ice moon of vulcan which nobody knew it existed before the Abrams ST movie. The nonsense starts with Kirk being marroned, then the pod CRASHES violently to the sirface to hard it makes a deep hole, then Kirk is seen in a remote place outside of any near human facility and sucour, then he gets attacked by two monsters and he falls into a cave which, so convienently Spock just so happens to be. Adn then we learn that the federation outpost was just a few clicks awaty and spock had just been seating on his ass for hours doing nothing, just waiting for kirk to show up. If i had writen that sequence of events in a scripwriting clas, i would had flunked hard. Everybody would had mocked the shit out of me, and deservedly so. And it's not just that, it's so much, much more. all throughout the movie. I guess for you, Abrams ST problems is a case of a glass half empty. I see it as a glass pouring out. Many blockbusters made today suffer form weak scripting full of plot holes and lack of internal narrative logic. But Abrams St movie is the one that has it to such an extent that i have only seen in a Michael Bay movie. Becasue that's what Abrams ST movie in the end looks like, a Michael Bay movie. You migth be down with that, but for me it's a disaster. There has to be a mucy better way to make a modern Star Trek movie, there has to be. If abramsis so down and good and willing to do nostalgia movies, as he's to do with SUPER 8, why didn't he pulled a similiar thing and did a nostalgia style movie but done with modern means for Star Trek?

  • March 13, 2011, 6:06 p.m. CST

    d.vader is CORRECT about Clash of the Titans box office—

    by blakindigo

    — the ticket sales from the 3D version were 55% of the opening weekend gross.

  • PLEASE READ lv_426's POST AGAIN, CAREFULLY. VERY FUCKING CAREFULLY. Then despair…the truth fucking hurts…

  • March 13, 2011, 6:35 p.m. CST

    I waited to see this trailer on the big screen, and...

    by CountryBoy

    ... all I can say is, THIS is what people are so excited about? Aside from a handful of blatantly Spielbergian shots (dolly in on fallen camera, bulletin board of LOST DOG signs, closeup of kid's windblown face as he stares in awe), it's mostly just a bunch of unremarkable images and a fairly rote "something strange is happening! I want answers!" plot. What in the world would give anyone "chills" from this? Though if Nordling got said chills just from the Amblin logo, I guess some people are more primed for it than others. Honestly though, this in no way looks or feels like anything great. I'm reminded of the headline "COWBOYS AND ALIENS trailer channels early Spielberg!" a while back; Favreau "channels" early Spielberg like the BATTLE:LA director "channels" David Lean. AICN keeps pushing these projects on us with the totemic "It's like Spielberg!" invocation; but the pretenders to his throne seem to be just that. Maybe Abrams' problem is he's had it too easy; the son of Hollywood insiders, who sold his first script (and got it produced!) at, what, 21?, maybe he's just too soft; all his projects seem glib and weightless; he seems like exactly what critics mean when they complain that today's young filmmakers don't know life, they only know movies. Spielberg, conversely, has been wrestling on film with his "daddy issues" for decades; and even when it's not explicit, there's a desperation in some of his work that Abrams never touches. Somehow, even in MI:3, when Ethan Hunt and his wife are at the mercy of Owen Davian, it feels... light. I can't explain it. Or maybe I just did. Of course, SUPER 8 may completely surprise us. One trailer doesn't prove anything. But I'm definitely not holding my breath for the final product.

  • March 13, 2011, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Steven Spielberg was good in the 80's

    by Dark Doom

    CETK had some scary shit in it, and this looks a lot like those great moments. I like it and no amount of hating or trooling will change that. I'll give it a fair shot.

  • March 13, 2011, 6:41 p.m. CST

    HOLY SHIT!! asimovlives that was GREAT!!

    by blakindigo

    I can truly see your points — I definitely don't agree with all of them, but I can understand, from what you wrote above, what you dislike about the ST film. It seems that the 'tone' of the film is at the heart of your dissatisfaction. Nic Meyer's Naval Battle strategy approach, vs JJ Abrams' semi E.E. "Doc" Smith-esque Space Opera. It's just a matter of taste. Well, taste and deus ex machina. I think the motivation of Pine's 'Kirk' is the biggest flaw, for me. He seems brattish, not daring. There is an important element missing in his character arc, where he learns responsibility, where it becomes the focus of his impulsive behaviour. I didn't have a problem with his performance, that was definitely the script. Saldana's 'Uhura' was refreshing, not off-putting. I bought her performance. The "Vulcan Moon" section of the film, is to put it mildly, pandering to the audience. Blatantly. Illogical and ridiculous. The nadir was running into Spock in the cave. Here we agree entirely. But, the other plot holes weren't that egregious and didn't completely remove me from the movie. It was… a decent popcorn movie. A space opera nothing more. It's the most fun I've had in a Trek movie since Undiscovered Country. But, I didn't have any expectations, as I'm not a huge ST fan.

  • March 13, 2011, 7:31 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I don't think that CLASH OF TITANS was shown in all theaters in 3D. But you are right in that the 3D prices are higher. Good call in that matter. You did your research. How about Terminator Salvation, then? It's box offcie was 371 million dollars, quite similiar to 385 million dolalrs result. Should i infer then that both movies are of a similiar quality. Or of a similiar popularity that would justify the praises bestown upon them both? Doesn't make sense, does it? As for the Star Trek movies box office: Abrams Star Trek: Budget: 150 millions. Box office: 385 millions. Ratio: 1:2.56 Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): Budget: 46 millions. Box office: 139 million. Adjusted to inflaction: 139/421. Ratio: 1:3.02 Star Trek 2: The Wrath Of Kahn (1982) Budget: 11.2 millions. Box office: 92 millions Adjusted to inflaction: 25.5/209. Ratio: 1:8.2 Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock (1984): Budget: 16 millions. Box office: 87 millions Adjusted to inflaction: 33.9/184. Ratio: 1:5.3 Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home (1986): Budget: 21 millions. Box office: 133 millions Adjusted to inflaction: 42/267. Ratio: 1:6.3 Star Trek 5: The Final Frontier (1989) Budget: 27.8 millions. Box office: 63 millions Adjusted to inflaction: 49.3/111. Ratio: 1:2.25 Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country (1991) Budget: 27 millions. Box office: 96 millions Adjusted to inflaction: 43.6/155 Ratio: 1:3.55 I'm going to just stick to the TOS movies because Abrams ST movie is a TOS relaunch. Abrams movie should be only compared to the other TOS movies, that's fair game. So, what do we have here is this results, adjusted to inflaction: Most sucessful ST movie at the box office: Star Trek: The Motion Picture - 421 million dollars. Most sucessful ST movie in budget to box office result: Star Trek 2: The Wrath Of Kahn - Budget: 11.2 millions. Box office: 92 millions (1:8.2) Abrams ST movie is second in box office result and 6th in budget to box office ratio. Abrams ST movie is not the most sucessful ST movie ever made. In the cathegory that matters the most, the budget to box office ratio, it seats behind Wrath of Kahn, Voyage Home, Search For Spock, The Undiscovered Country and The Motion Picture. In fact, the closest to the budget/box office ratio of the older ST movie to Abrams ST is THE FINAL FRONTIER, their ratios are pratically the same: 1:2.25/1:2.56. So, Abrams ST movie is actualy only more sucessful then THE FINAL FRONTIER. Anmd it«'s second to the movie everyone always deemed as the big box office failure, THE MOTION PICTURE. This are the numbers. So, no, Abrams ST is not the most sucessful ST movie ever made. And then we have to tke this to account: The other ST movies were "niche" market moview, as you said above. Abrams ST was the populist movie. And in budget/box office ratio, all the niche movies did better then the maisntream wide released Abrams ST. Food for thoughs. Tell me now my opinions have no rational and thoughful basis. And this is just the begining. There's much more where they come from.

  • Spielberg should had done better to incentivate Abrams to make his own movie his own way, instead of a pastiche of his former work. Spielberg's involvement on a pasthice of his own past work almost feels like egotism.

  • I'm going to lay to rest, get to bed and watch PUSHER.

  • March 13, 2011, 8:29 p.m. CST

    Abrams where are you getting your numbers?

    by D.Vader

    Are you doing these numbers all by yourself? Because every site I look at lists Star Trek as being the MOST successful Trek film in the series. One site even gives the numbers and says it sold the most tickets (domestically at least) in the series as well.

  • March 13, 2011, 8:31 p.m. CST

    And you need to learn how to read, Asimov

    by D.Vader

    I never said the word "niche" once. Look it up. I also never said anything about box office equating quality. LOOK IT UP. So bringing in Terminator Salvation and Clash of the Titans is either just a dick move to shift attention away from you being wrong, or you're once again proving incompetent as a debater.

  • March 13, 2011, 9:10 p.m. CST

    This TB now 1/3 asimovlives

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    and growing. Anyone still arguing with this dude better be enjoying themselves because otherwise they are wasting their time. If you want a TB like this to be about ... well, what it's supposed to be about, as opposed to asimovlives's deranged display, just stop it. Don't encourage him. And yes as pertains to JJ Abrams, I am the sane one - I and everyone else who doesn't have a weird hate boner for him.

  • March 13, 2011, 10:23 p.m. CST


    by Coordinate_System

    Thanks for taking the time to respond in a civil manner.

  • March 14, 2011, 12:22 a.m. CST

    imagining James Cameron and Kubrick collaboration????

    by ufoclub1977

    That's like a pairing of Justin Beiber to Brian Wilson... conceptually they are in completely different arenas. Both popular, one much more POP-ular, and that one with with very contemporary, protective, and naive fans (thematically/conceptually naive).

  • March 14, 2011, 12:38 a.m. CST

    Tie Fighter @ 1:36

    by uppercut


  • March 14, 2011, 12:58 a.m. CST

    Everyone is getting all farm and fuzzy because it reminds you E.T.

    by bloodawn5

    Its just for the Nostalgia, the old times, and all that, If you analize the trailer it didnt gave us nothing, it keeps playing with the Cloverfield formula: "Oh, I wonder how the alien looks like?!!!" Thats cheap, plain and simple

  • March 14, 2011, 2:13 a.m. CST

    Can you all just shut the fuck up about JJ copying Spielberg?

    by Ray_Tango

    Of course this is a homage/mash-up/whatever of Spielberg's schtick, JJ loves films and grew up watching the SBerg's stuff... end of story. It will aim to capture the vibes of those 80s 'kids films' but will draw on JJ's childhood, mixed in with his obsession with 'the mystery box'. Let's just hope all the elements align and form a good time at the cinema.

  • That's my guess anyway, and it's just a guess. but the films are not a million miles away from each other, last mimzy has a producer that worked on close encounter of the third yeah.

  • March 14, 2011, 4:42 a.m. CST

    I agree with lv 426

    by emeraldboy

    and would add that its also down to the studio system. in the 1970's it was far more liberal than it is today. spielberg also made six films back to back. three indiana jones films, plus prior to that duel, sugarland express, jaws, close encounters and et. all within the 1980's. it would not happen today.

  • March 14, 2011, 6:11 a.m. CST


    by Gorgomel

  • March 14, 2011, 8:11 a.m. CST

    by chicgoods71

    Wonderful. Share a website with you , put this url in google sirch ( ) Believe you will love it. We accept any form of payment.

  • March 14, 2011, 9:25 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Gratuitous ass shot and all.

  • March 14, 2011, 9:40 a.m. CST

    If this is like "Cloverfield"

    by cookylamoo

    I'll be watching it on DVD at home in ten minute segments between bouts of nausea. Shaky Cam not my thing.

  • March 14, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST has my interest.

    by JDanielP

    It does give the appearance of classic originality, without giving away too much. This flick has my attention.

  • March 14, 2011, 10:22 a.m. CST


    by ChickenStu

    No worries mate.

  • March 14, 2011, 11:44 a.m. CST

    I wonder if Abrams personally

    by Brian Hopper

    jacked off M. Night Shyamalan into a cup so his three-eyed sperm could be used to help produce this lumbering abortion.

  • March 14, 2011, 2:04 p.m. CST

    Here we fucking go again.

    by rogueleader66

    More Star Trek BULLSHIT....fuck this ST talk 2 fucking years after the movie is's the most inane stupid fucking ridiculous argument, PERIOD. It's no wonder I hardly come here anymore. Same stupid bullshit over and over.

  • March 14, 2011, 2:10 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    That's the beauty of THE FOUNTAIN. The movie is as it is, the director had a personal vision and an idea for it, and yet each of us can still come up with our own interpretations. I love movies like that. It's great. I like the way you saw the movie, and there's much of truth in what you said about it.

  • March 14, 2011, 2:12 p.m. CST

    Is Rainn Wilson in this, too?


  • March 14, 2011, 2:14 p.m. CST

    More glossy tripe from the preeminent con man of Hollywood?


    Hm. Pass. I'd rather stick my dick in the fukkin mashed potatoes.

  • March 14, 2011, 2:16 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    This is the constant thing i see about you Abrams ST fans, even faced with numbers you still wont budge. You believed the own filmmakers words as they made the most sucessful ST movie and you accepted them as gospel. In absolute number,s it does look like Abrams St is the most sucessful. But if you take such things as inflaction and the ratio of budget to box office, the numbers tell a very different story. So much so, that in budget to box office ratio, whihc is to say, in terms of profitability, of the TOS movies only THE FINAL FRONTIER is what is behind Abrams ST. And in terms of box office results, with inflaction, it's THE MOTION PICTURE who's earned the most at the box officve ST movie ever made. Those are the numbers. And where i got the numbers? Glad you asked. I got them from BOX OFFICE MOJO and IMDB. and i have reason to feel insutled by your implication that i was just making them up. No, i don't make this up. I like to know thingsas they are. You, and the Abrams St fans, you believed in the movie's ADVETIZEMENT PROPAGANDA. And you still do, no matter what. It's faith. You guys makes me remind of the creationists.

  • March 14, 2011, 2:17 p.m. CST

    thunderbolt ross, don't be daft

    by AsimovLives

  • March 14, 2011, 2:19 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Who's to sat that Kubrick didn't enjoyed Cameron's movies? Kubrick was an avid movie watcher, even in his so-called seclution years. And Cameron is a major groupie of Kubrick. Kubrkc is his favorite director. Cameron saw 2001 about 20 times at teh time when the moie was released in the theaters, he was so thunderstroked by it.

  • March 14, 2011, 2:20 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    If the movie is as good as the british poster, it's a winner.

  • March 14, 2011, 2:23 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I still talk because i hate people giving me nonsense and saying absurd things and basing their opinions on silly things which are hardly true. I tried to show d.vader how wrong it is the common perception that Abrams TRek is the most sucessful St movie ever made,and showed him numbers. Did he believed in it even with the numbers? No. I hope he a ctually checks the numbers up and sees that i did do my research and homework on the subject. I just don't understand why people take by faith the words of a con hack like Abrams and then get sturbonly blind when the reality of the situation is presented. Why this?

  • Sometimes he'd catch himself watching a game from two years prior, and he'd rarely skip through the commercials. He's on record saying that TV commercials represented some of the best pure filmmaking ever.

  • — I think those commercials were the lowenbrau spots from '86/'87

  • March 14, 2011, 2:57 p.m. CST

    Asi your reading is terrible

    by D.Vader

    I asked if you crunched those numbers yourself. That's COMPLETELY different from "making them up". The reason I asked is because I looked at the same sites you did and NEITHER one supplies the adjusted inflation box office results (BoxOfficeMojo does if you are a member), which leads me to believe you tried to adjust the numbers yourself (in which case you can be mistaken). I say this because the sites I visited claim that even WITH adjusted results, Star Trek is still more successful, and like I said, one site even stated that Trek had sold more *tickets* than The Motion Picture did. And look at you trying to twist the facts. Your entire claim is that box office receipts don't equal quality (I agree), but you seem to think they also don't equal popularity. And yet you go and try to disprove that Star Trek was a box office success (and therefore popular) by comparing the receipts to the budget, which means ABSOLUTELY DICK in this case. Its another example of YOU changing the subject to fit your own terms instead of facing up to the issues at hand. Because if Person A said "Star Trek made more money than any other Trek movie; I'd say that's an example of it being popular," no one other than YOU would say "Compared to the budget spent on each movie, Star Trek was NOT the most successful movie in the series!!!" which is neither here nor there when talking about the amount of tickets sold. Jeezus.

  • March 14, 2011, 2:57 p.m. CST

    actually they were Michelob commercials, I believe

    by blakindigo

  • March 14, 2011, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Either way, all this is nitpicking

    by D.Vader

    If Star Trek isn't the most successful (ie, made the most money, either domestically or worldwide and adjusting for inflation) in the series, so what? How does that affect your argument at all? If Trek didn't sell the most tickets, its only bested by the first movie in the series. So it still doesn't really help your position. The numbers still show it to be an extremely popular and well-attended movie. Which again, is neither here nor there.

  • March 14, 2011, 3:48 p.m. CST


    by blakindigo

    ST:TMP is still the most financially successful film of the franchise worldwide, if you adjust for inflation. It's important to note that it had a much LONGER theatrical release then ANY other ST film. As an "all audience" movie (rated G in the US) it was essentially what a Disney film is today. Remember both "Star Wars" and "Superman" were PG rated films in the states. The secondary markets of VHS didn't exist in 1979, so theatrical windows were quite extended. It was quite common for popular films to play for 6th months or longer — including second run cinemas and drive-in cinemas.

  • March 14, 2011, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Brilliant analysis, lv_426

    by kevred

    And one that makes me fear for the next generation of film, music, etc. I know change is a constant, but I can't help feeling that we;re in the middle of a very sudden fundamental change in so many art forms that were previously changing only gradually for about 50-70 years. A trailer like this, for all the nostalgia inherent in it, makes me feel a sense of loss in that change. And makes me wonder what the kids of today will be nostalgic for. As for your take on the trailer, I had a similar feeling, though in my case, it wasn't so much a case of 'why did this have to be based on nostalgia' as it was, 'okay, now we've re-established that we can do this type of film, with this heartwarming nostalgia as a vehicle for it; for the *next* film, let's try to capture this sense of wonder in our own time period.'

  • March 14, 2011, 4:39 p.m. CST

    That's a knockout trailer

    by kevred

    It shows so much yet shows so little - that's one of the things I enjoy about it. Tons of little scene previews, but no real idea what to expect. *That's* what a trailer should be. And as a 70s-80s kid, this of course pushes all the right buttons. Best trailer I've seen since 'Where the Wild Things Are'. That film disappointed me mightily, but I have a good feeling about this one. I'm not expecting it to actually stand alongside the best films of my childhood, but if it can evoke that same sense of wonder while making the most of what technical advances we've seen since then (and they are few), it should be a fun ride.

  • March 14, 2011, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Now in 1080p Quicktime on Apple's Trailer site

    by Batutta

  • March 14, 2011, 6:22 p.m. CST

    halfbreedqueen, I think it's a mix of suffering and sensitivity

    by CountryBoy

    A good director needs to have some hard knocks, and sort of a "deep soul" to process it into art. I remember an interview with Martin Scorsese, where he said he wouldn't see a certain movie because it was produced by a studio he associated with Isabella Rossellini; and as soon as he saw the studio logo -- the LOGO! -- he'd be reminded of their failed relationship, and it was too painful. When the interviewer pointed out that he could start watching during the opening credits, and miss the logo altogether, Scorsese said miserably, "I'd still know." THAT'S a sensitive soul. In related news, I see that Steven Soderberg's retiring after THE MAN FROM UNCLE. It seems he's sick of location scouting. That, I would guess, is NOT a sensitive soul. (I never thought his movies were all that great either...)

  • March 14, 2011, 6:40 p.m. CST


    by Candy ass monkey suit

    This just looks a mash up of the goonies, e.t and cloverfield and whats with the starsky and hutch car right at the beginning??

  • March 14, 2011, 7:07 p.m. CST



    Yes, sorry, I should have cited that R.S. article. CHOPPAH usually doesn't forget to give credit where it's due. Here, have a Michelob on me.

  • March 14, 2011, 7:10 p.m. CST

    I have to adjust my trousers for inflation.


    When my elephantine cock stiffens with desire.

  • March 15, 2011, 5:42 a.m. CST

    Just another "Cloverfield" minus the shaky camera work

    by MajorFrontbum

    Could this be Abram's first film, to not use that annoying hand held camera work, done by a person with Tiger Balm on their scrotum?

  • March 15, 2011, 10:03 a.m. CST

    halfbreedqueen, you're right; maybe "sensitive" isn't the word

    by CountryBoy

    Maybe directors have to have an "intensity" or something, which can manifest itself both as depth of feeling and as fevered harshness on set. I actually seem to recall another, sort of conflicting, story about Scorsese: he was dealing with Miramax (I guess this was on GANGS OF NY) and had some contention with them (running time??) -- so he stormed into someone's office, threw everything on his desk onto the floor and had a huge tantrum. But it turned out it was the wrong desk, and he trashed some innocent bystander's stuff by mistake! So I guess even the "sensitive" can go the other way.

  • March 15, 2011, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Well thats fine Asi

    by Smack_Teddy

    I don't quite get that message exactly from the film myself, but i understand regards to Trek, im not even going to get into that for all thats been discussed so far, i think everyone gets why you loath Trek & JJ by now Asi, and if they don't well they never are going to are they? Its not like he's literally cancer is it? So therefore the point for me is i think the matters done and like other people are saying theres loads more im curious about you commenting on - like i would expect you to be ripping on new Tron or something, but you really liked that and have explained to some degree. I plan on finally watching it tonight. ...Well ok... seeing as Aronofsky on Lost never actually happened in the end... how do you feel about JJ Abrams and Jonah Nolan doing a show together? Not quite as rushed out as Terminator: Salvation, the collaboration of the individuals on the project this time is it? I'm genuinely curious what do you make of the need or reason or logic for that? Why is a guy like J Nolan bothering to work with JJ from your perspective? The Guy who wrote Memento & the Prestige has nothing on this Con Man? Or is this The Prestige for the Nolans and they're performing Inception!? Whats going on in the world Asi!?

  • March 15, 2011, 5 p.m. CST

    turd not so, in that it's not cynical or exploitative

    by Smack_Teddy

    whether its hollow remains to be seen or felt i guess...

  • March 15, 2011, 5:34 p.m. CST


    by lv_426

    the point you make kinda scares me. What if Super 8 is a huge hit? Will that open the floodgates for the McG's, Bays, and the Ratner's of filmmaking to just say, "hey, I'll align myself with so and so big name inconic director from the late 70's or early 80's and make a nostalgia film"? What if this becomes some new type of approach? Will we be seeing pastiches of hit films like Aliens, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, Apocalypse Now, Lethal Weapon, etc... done by today's directors?

  • so like they all want for Lucas, hand the director reigns over to someone else... and look you sexed them and ate them! lol guys

  • Personally im less cyni