RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

TrekToday title image

Orci Reacts To Article And Online Comments

Posted by T'Bonz - 06/09/13 at 02:09 pm


Share |

OrciStock090613

Some comments from fans on TrekMovie regarding Star Trek into Darkness got to Roberto Orci, and he lashed out at the article and one commenter in particular.

The comments came after an article written by Joseph Dickerson, in which he claimed that Star Trek was broken. Dickerson offered suggestions on how to fix it.

As might be expected, there were plenty of comments pro and con after the article, and Orci, a regular commenter at the site, chimed in. “I think the article above is akin to a child acting out against his parents,” he said. “Makes it tough for some to listen, but since I am a loving parent, I read these comments without anger or resentment, no matter how misguided.

“Having said that, two biggest Star Treks in a row with best reviews is hardly a description of ‘broken.’ And frankly, your tone and attitude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future. Sorry, Joseph. As I love to say, there is a reason why I get to write the movies, and you don’t.”

One poster took exception with Orci’s comments, and said “If you are the real Bob, I say this, you guys didn’t listen to the fans before & will always do what the studio want; which is a movie that has more action & less thinking.”

A moderator at the site confirmed it was indeed Orci, who replied to the poster, saying “… I wish you knew what you were talking about. I listened more than any other person behind the Trek franchise has EVER listened. And guess what? Glad I did because it lead to 2 biggest Treks ever.

“You think action and thinking are mutually exclusive. Ok, then. Pitch me Into Darkness. Pitch me the plot, and let’s compare it to other pitches. Go ahead. Let’s see if you actually understood the movie. Tell me what happened?”

Orci then provided a list of items in the movie that happened as a result of listening to the fans:

  • Kirk promoted too fast incorporated as part of the text of Universe.
  • Remade Engineering
  • Made Scotty more than comic relief
  • Got Uhura more into the action
  • Touched upon Prime Directive.
  • Saw more of the ship
  • Brought Pike back

A comment (evidently now deleted) by another poster set the writer off though. “STID has infinitely more social commentary than Raiders (of the Lost Ark) in every Universe, and I say that with Harrison Ford being a friend,” said Orci. “You lose credibility big time when you don’t honestly engage with the FUCKING WRITER OF THE MOVIE ASKING YOU AN HONEST QUESTION. You prove the cliche of shitty fans. And rude in the process. So, as Simon Pegg would say: FUCK OFF!”

Later, calmed down, Orci explained that occasionally he gets angry online and that he values Trek fans. “Don’t take me too seriously,” he said. If you’ve been on this board for the last five years (as I have been) you know that twice a year I explode at the morons. Today there seemed to be a congregation, so it seemed like a good time.

“You are the most listened to fans ever. That doesn’t mean you will get is to do what you want. Just means what I said: I listened. Then we decided, having heard as many opinions as possible. To paraphrase of one of my great and beloved heroes, George W. Bush, ‘We’re the deciders…’”

“You know I love you all,” he reassured another poster. “Every once in a while, even Spock loses his cool ;)”

Source: TrekMovie

Tags:

  • YourMotherIsACheesecunt

    That’s lazy storytelling.

  • trekwars1

    Uhura is not an action character, she is a communication officer. Orci should not have listened to this stupid fans.

  • Aitor

    Ok, STid earned 460 milions…But total budget (Production+marketing)=240 million=220 millions earned. And then you Must Pay Taxes and other things: dubbing and translation and distributor (overseas).So…

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Let me give to you a case in point. Not just a Trek n00b; someone who didn’t like Star Trek.

    A dear friend of mine, my wife in fact, watched some TNG but never liked anything else because it was formulaic and boring (Voyager, Enterprise), or incredibly cheesy (TOS), or couldn’t be followed without a scorecard (last half of DS9). I persuaded her to watch the 2009 film, which I’d already seen and liked a great deal. Guess what; she also liked it. She said: good pace; clear and easy to follow; did the characters really well, especially Spock and McCoy; felt it was a good intro and she understood them better; Pegg’s Scotty was an annoying git; she liked Bana’s Nero and thought he should have had more screen time; had plot holes and a contempt for science but she could overlook it because the rest was so good. Afterward we even talked Trek, watched some of the old show and movies together, including (unfortunately, as it turns out) Star Trek II.

    I say unfortunately because that is what tipped STiD in her mind from a forgettable piece of fluff to a poorly written, insultingly stupid ripoff of a much better film. She liked some things, but felt the bad vastly outweighed the good – the exact opposite of the previous film. She said she felt they took all the good things about ST 2009, wiped their asses with them and threw them back at the audience like we were so stupid we’d just eat it and smile. She couldn’t believe this was made by the same people — “Wait, who’s that other writer? Damon Lindehof? Has he done anything I’ve seen?” I only got as far as Lost and Prometheus before she said, “How does he keep getting work?”

    In short, it doesn’t take a Trek Nazi to recognize that STiD is a poor film. There are many respectful analyses that come to the same conclusion.

  • trekfan

    I haven’t seen so much crap in one place in a long time. You, sir, are a hypocrite and an Abrams & Co. apologist. You preach pacifism and criticize the lack of it in others while spewing such hatred-filled insults like, I quote: “…foolish imbeciles and idiots like Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, Ronald Moore, Dennis Bailey, T’Bonz…”. And you are calling those who criticize Abrams Trek “pernicious vermin”. Huh? Weren’t Nazis saying that about Jews? People have every right to criticize the product they’re consuming, and especially so if there is a good reason for such criticism. And you’re also accusing the fans (!) of perverting the franchise while it’s obvious that people currently in charge have been doing it. Fans only want the best for their beloved franchise. Abrams, on the other hand, doesn’t give a damn about it, it only served him to promote his Michael Bay-esque filmmaking and his business skills. He and those hacks behind him don’t really care or know how to create something truly original, from the heart. I for one am glad that he won’t be coming back as a director and I’d be even happier if his Bad Reboot were completely gone from the world of Trek. Star Trek deserves better.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    I suspect this guest is attempting to cast aspersions on Orci’s intelligence for liking George W. Bush. I think it’s ridiculous that they had to look that far. I find enough evidence of poor intelligence in his writing.
    Let me clarify that. What I find in Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman’s joint writing is this. They have a grasp on some things, and those they do pretty well with. The things that they do not have a grasp on, they simply don’t put any effort into. A lot of their finished work reads like an early draft. They don’t bother to do any research, they seem to take the attitude that if they don’t know it already, it’s not worth knowing– like this “science” guff. I found Fringe’s disregard for even basic science in a science mystery show was just insulting. Star Trek 2009 had enough good elements to overcome this, but with STiD I got the distinct impression that since they got away with it once, they just piled it on thicker and harder. This is exactly what they’ve done on every single sequel they’ve worked on to date. And also to date, they repeatedly state the opinion that anything they crap out must be good because it made so much money. Michael Bay to his credit has never represented his output as anything better than it is based on the money it makes.
    I’d love to blame the faults of STiD solely on Damon Lindehof, but Orci’s own words tell me there is plenty of blame to go around.

    I don’t see any point in going further with this. If my words don’t get through to you I see no point in wasting any more of them.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    The Genesis device was not a deus ex machina in Wrath of Khan; it was a macguffin. It was a gimmick to move the plot forward, something to brig higher stakes into the conflict and make the stakes higher than just which old man could kick the other’s ass. It was also built up a lot better than, say, red matter. Genesis got a couple of pages of dialogue, including a recorded presentation, to explain it. Red matter got… well, Spock said they used red matter to make a black hole. That’s all. That’s it. Not even an extra line to say this was some nifty new form of exotic matter that yadda yadda. Lazy screenwriting rears its head again.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    The Genesis device was not a deus ex machina in Wrath of Khan; it was a macguffin. It was a gimmick to move the plot forward, something to brig higher stakes into the conflict and make the stakes higher than just which old man could kick the other’s ass. It was also built up a lot better than, say, red matter. Genesis got a couple of pages of dialogue, including a recorded presentation, to explain it. Red matter got… well, Spock said they used red matter to make a black hole. That’s all. That’s it. Not even an extra line to say this was some nifty new form of exotic matter that yadda yadda. Lazy screenwriting rears its head again.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Call me crazy, the state of Oregon has, but;
    They could have frozen Kirk. Or at the very least refrigerated him. Ham can keep for weeks at low temperatures.
    Also, the ship has a medical department. There is no logical reason why McCoy, the chief of said department, couldn’t have just biopsied a frozen augment and compared the blood chemistry to the sample from Khan– while henpecked boyfriend Spock continued to run screaming around the galaxy. This was not either-or, unless both McCoy AND Spock lost massive amounts of IQ points at the Trek XI wrap party.
    And I just have to ask, is injecting random blood samples into dead tribbles a standard diagnostic practice in Starfleet, or was McCoy just screwing around? This brings us right back around to Orci and Kurtzman’s (those knuckleheads) laziness and utter contempt for the simplest, most basic research intoanything. Rather than bother to look into how actual doctors investigate an unknown, they proudly use their stupidity as a plot point. They don’t even bother to pretend to try to explain anything, they simply expect the audience to be as stupid and lazy as they apparently delight in being. And I have to add, once again the solution comes from a happy accident rather than any chain of reason or research.

  • AirSarge

    Example “A” of what is wrong with Star Trek today. It has children at the helm. Both in the movie and behind the scenes. Find me one instance where any of the original crew or Rodenberry and/or his staff ever lashed out at the fan base to the same degree as the “Fuck off” comment that came out of Pegg. Classless. Just like JJ Trek. Too bad too. Being an older Star Trek fan, I really wanted this to succeed and have staying power. I actually like the new cast. But they have so little to work with here. To sum things up. I think this Youtube says it nicely. Money does not make a good movie Bob. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B22Uy7SBe4#t=275

  • Hakuzen

    Guys.. The old Star Trek was killed due to lack of profit. If it were not for the Abrams version, we would have NO STAR TREK PERIOD.

    Do you really think that no Trek is better than not-preferred-but-still-good trek? Grow up guys, it’s not Abrams fault that the old trek paradigm fell apart in the 21st century. Nobody was going to see them, nobody wanted to pay for them. Enterprise BOMBED, Nemesis BOMBED.. Again, Not Abrams fault.

    Abrams came in and gave us a financially viable Star Trek, and I DO NOT HATE HIM FOR THAT. In fact, I love him for it. It may not be my favorite trek, or even my second favorite trek. HELL, it may be the worst trek other than the animated series; but it’s still a whole lot better than … NO STAR TREK PERIOD.

    PS: I would love the old trek to come back, but guys.. It’s time to let go. Even if a new series comes, it will be like Abrams Trek. It’s just time to move on and accept the blessing we have, rather than lament our loss.

  • CaliburnCY

    Actually, I agree that Classic Trek will likely have more long-term profitability; the subject just hadn’t come up. Doug Drexler made a terrific comment on this subject here (at time index 11:32, if the link fails to take you there automatically as it should) –
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_S5M1OJE4#t=11m32s

  • CaliburnCY

    Yeah, that must have been quite a phenomenon. I’m 31 and got started as a Trek fan as a kid from some videotapes my Mom had of a few episodes of the original series. Many of the TOS movies were already out, and it wasn’t long before TNG came on the air, then DS9, VOY, and ENT. So for all the time I was growing up, new Trek was always easy to come by, almost overwhelming in its quantity, which is very different from the dry years between TOS and TMP. The closest thing my generation has seen to that kind of post-cancellation revival is maybe Firefly revived as Serenity, or the upcoming Veronica Mars movie, but neither of those can really compare to the juggernaut that is Trek. I’ll have to ask my Mom sometime what it was like for her when TMP was released.

  • John_Q_Doe

    I was ready to defend Roberto Orci… until that line about George W. Bush being his hero.

  • YourMotherIsACheesecunt

    uh… actually no… it was not killed due to lack of profit. the Star Trek franchise has been one of the most profitable in history. It was killed because of the absolute oversaturation of Star trek for over a decade. It needed a break – so that people could rediscover what they loved about the original concept – and support it’s return… Kinda like what was done once before. And Gene was smart in that he knew the FANS wanted more stories about a POSITIVE future. Hence TNG after Trek had been off the air for more than 15 years. Abrams crapfest could have never been made – and guess what – there would have eventually been a new television series. You think a franchise that has spanned almost fifty years is just gonna away? You think a company that wrought big buck profits would have just let it go to sleep? The rest of your comments aren’t even worthy of being discussed. It’s obvious you have a limited knowledge of the history of Trek, the reality of the business world, etc. And no… sorry – a new series would most likely not be like Abrams Trek. TV rights are owned by CBS, not Paramount… and thus far CBS has shown at least a respect for the fans and what REALLY made the franchise a success.

  • Theragen Derivative

    We already have NO STAR TREK PERIOD. In the meantime I’m going to keep laughing at the lobotomized freak show that appropriated the name.

  • Blue Thunder

    are not so hateful and spiteful, and who are just accepting of Star Trek for the way it is now in its current state.

    More importantly it deserves better than that swine and crap that Farragut Films’ gas chamber of a show has ever delivered.

  • Blue Thunder

    It deserves better than to have fans who(see 1st line)

  • Papillon

    I understand why Star Trek Into Darkness – is the way it is. I understand the market reality of Hollywood in the summer of 2013, and the theatrical exhibition industry for movies generally, and what is different.

    Some fans have debated the following argument: “It’s only that the new film, Darkness (and if your titles can be thus reduced, I’d argue we’ve located at least part of the problem), make me wonder: when the spirit of the thing is no longer in evidence, do we need the thing any more at all? Or put another way: if you have to rewire something so completely to make it work for a modern audience, does the modern audience want it in the first place?”

    Star Trek Into Darkness is a blunt, violent movie. It is a blunt, violent movie because the people who made it presumed, probably correctly, that the (young, male) audience would enjoy seeing, respectively, spacefaring spectacle and earthbound superfights created at a level of Hollywood finesse unparalleled in the whole history of movies. They are effective as such.

    Now let me ask you a question: At any point in your life until now, would you have described the Star Trek franchise as “blunt” or “violent?”

    Our popular entertainments mirror the times that we’re in, and perhaps we’re in blunt and violent times. I’d like to think there’s at least a possibility that the ghost of Gene Roddenberry would have no problem with Abrams, Lindelof et. al.’s post-9/11 manhandling of the Star Trek mythos. Roddenberry did, at least in part, design that mythos to respond directly to the contemporary world. Whatever else it does clumsily, Star Trek Into Darkness responds to its contemporary world, both in theme and in tone: it is a story about the time that we’re in (inasmuch as this is possible in a largely brainless action movie), and it is also a movie very much for the time that we’re in.

    In Star Trek Into Darkness, the notion that Starfleet is trekking across the galaxy on an altruistic mission to scientifically expand human knowledge is nowhere in evidence. The real villain of the piece is not Khan so much as the idea that, following the destruction of Vulcan (which the creators of the film have referred to as the Federation’s 9/11-level event), Starfleet would tilt towards covert militarization. That’s a cynical idea, not unearned in our real-world political landscape, but a distinctly odd fit with the ceaseless optimism that forms the core purpose of Star Trek. Not just the theme, and not just the point, mind you: the purpose. Star Trek was designed to advocate for that optimism. If you remove it, how is it Star Trek?

    And since Star Trek Into Darkness brings 9/11 into the conversation by way of a freaking title card dedication in the end credits (!!!), let’s come right to it: there have been few things more disturbing at the multiplexes this summer than the astonishingly cavalier treatment of 9/11-style imagery in Star Trek Into Darkness. (That we exist in a time where whole categories of blockbuster images can be described as “9/11-style” is a terror unto itself, for the nadir of American thoughtlessness.)

    In Star Trek ID, Khan crashes a starship into the middle of San Francisco; Skyscrapers crumble to the ground in sickening CGI recapitulations of mass urban destruction with which we are all too familiar.

    It isn’t the destruction, itself, that I find repugnant. We repeatedly see the heroes trying to protect the civilians. We see one of the principal characters nearly sacrifice his life to prevent the destruction of his ship and his crew. middle of a major American metropolis from being leveled with people inside it.

    In Star Trek Into Darkness, the heroes never seem aware of the collateral damage of their adventures at all. How many Federation citizens are killed offscreen in Star Trek Into Darkness so that Mr. Spock and Khan can engage in a fistfight on a garbage truck?

    Star Trek Into Darkness’ cold cynicism extends beyond its war sequences; the careless sight gag of Kirk waking up in the midst of a threesome with two alien babes, and the potty-eyed underwear scene for Alice Eve, evince a surprisingly snarky treatment of female sexual partners and females generally. The new franchise’s only adult relationship, between Spock and Uhura, is curtailed into a needless subplot that is awkwardly resolved by the end of the film’s first act.

    It would seem that Star Trek has reached its zenith and has refracted brilliantly as a broken, 21st-century tone poem of adults moving on with their lives.

    Perhaps we’ve simply moved beyond the sort of morality tale that it represents – so much so that if we’re beyond that sort of morality tale commentary, I’d argue we’re beyond Star Trek.

    Star Trek is a motality play, written under the creative guise, tracking, filter of science fiction. It’s inherently idealistic, and intentionally uplifting. It is also, I suspect, fundamentally of its time. The characters were created in 1966, expanded through the ‘the three years it was television, its one year as an animated series, and finally came into its own in the ’70s with the launch of the epic return of the original cast in Star Trek – The Motion Picture. The transformative potential of special effects cinema to bring us all up into the stars with them.

    A right place/right time scenario, as are many genre-defining films. Since then – and I mean literally since that first movie – the efforts by all and sundry to continue to make Star Trek movies that are dramatically viable have all been somehow problematic. Some of the results work better than others, but each new entry is met with a cross-cultural paraphrase: “Why does the world need Star Trek?”

    And here’s the thing: it doesn’t, just like the world doesn’t need Captain Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise any more, maybe. They were characters of their time, built and designed for their time, and efforts to resurrect them from the dust of the popular consciousness only belies how insistently – how wonderfully, transformatively, necessarily – we continue to stir the soup of pop art after every major ingredient is tossed in.

    It’s okay: sometimes, we move on. Star Trek was wonderful, and wonderful for a long time, and across multiple genres. It’s fitting that the characters who kicked off space operas themselves would go on to kick off big Hollywood space opera movies, too. But why, almost fifty years later, do we need to keep trying to bring him back? The crew of the Starship Enterprise had their time.

    After the upcoming(and final third film)the work of Star Trek will be done and retired.

  • trekfan

    Oh, come on, that’s not true, and you know it. There was a time when Trek was dead and gone after 1969, at least people believed so, yet it rose like a Phoenix from the ashes. A period without Trek on a small and/or big screen is not a disaster. I don’t see Abrams as a messiah, like some would want him to be portrayed. I’m sorry, but I don’t share that view. I’d rather have waited 10 or more years and get a decent Star Trek (not some alternate universe ersatz), with quality cast, strong and respectable characters, great and intelligent story, etc. For me, Abrams Trek is the antithesis of all that. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather wait for the right and creative people to take over, no matter how long it takes (after all, we’ve got a ton of Trek already), then have some hacks “revive” it with their decadent vision. It’s true that their product earned a lot of money, but that’s not the only indicator of quality and success. Many dumb movies earned a lot of money, too. J.J. Abrams is a skilful businessman, I’ll admit that, but he sucks at making science fiction, especially Star Trek. Not to mention that he is personally not interested in it at all. He may have brought in extra cash to Paramount, but look at the price Star Trek had to pay.

  • Jason

    The irony is you answered your own question. It’s obvious the movie was made as a liberal commentary criticizing this supposed “conservative agenda” that you refer to. It’s equally ironic that you equate propping up dictators to conservatives while conveniently ignoring liberal presidents like Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. If you don’t think that they had an equal hand in propping up dictators, you’re delusional. But keep on drinking that cool-aid bud. It’s done wonders for America…just look at all of the wonderful things Obama has done.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Lucas at least knows what a good story is.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    I say this as someone who has a similar opinion of Vic Mignona and of the way he and FF have treated people they have worked with.
    Star Trek Continues is not the greatest by a good margin, but it is respectful of Trek, the characters they portray, and the ideals that Roddenberry and have upheld, in the prime universe at least. Even if many of the people making it are first class colon cleansers.
    I admit I haven’t seen every fan or unofficial production out there, but I’ve yet to see any that veer as far away from the core Trek values that have survived through five series and ten films as Star Trek Into Franchise Raping has.

    (If there are any, send me a link, I could use a good laugh.)

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    I thought “Shitty Dodge” was what my father drove in college.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    If there is a drought, and someone pisses in your face, is that a blessing?

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    I was ready to defend Robert Orci… until he opened his mouth and proved himself an asshole. I care not about his politics.

  • Hakuzen

    Well that explains a lot, The English Patient was a terrible crapfest and if that’s what you want for star trek, THANK GOD YOU ARE NOT IN CHARGE. I’m sure 99% of the heterosexual males on this planet are also thankful.

  • Hakuzen

    Lol it’s obvious I have limited knowledge of the history of trek? Sure dude, I have only seen every series at least 4 times, TNG 7 times and DS9 6 times.

    I’ve seen every special, every documentry on trek.

    And my business knowledge? I’m on the side with numbers to back up my claims. You can quantify my words, my statements, with MATH. You know, numbers? Of course not, You are just a little punk troll that most likely works in fast food or some other minimum wage job while you spout off about your fine knowledge of “the reality of the business world”.

    Good for you dude, have a happy life being a bitter piece of crap troll on an internet messageboard. I’ll continue to enjoy the only Trek that exists today, while at the same time hoping the old Trek might come back someday.

  • trekfan
  • jerr

    I agree. I guess an explanation of why it ranks so high on Rotten Tomatoes is the positive reviewers never saw TROK? Perhaps I would think STiD was good if I never saw other Star Trek?

  • CaliburnCY

    I believe you accidentally linked the wrong article and meant to link this one:
    http://1701news.com/node/425/drexler-not-fan-new-star-trek-either.html

  • YourMotherIsACheesecunt

    The bigger irony is that you actually believe your own nonsense. But, please – enjoy your poison straight up on the rocks.

  • YourMotherIsACheesecunt

    Yeah – because telling stories based on the human condition DIDN’T WORK FOR STAR TREK FOR ALMOST FIFTY YEARS… But, please… tell us more about your uninformed childish opinion that doesn’t carry any more weight than a mouse fart.

  • YourMotherIsACheesecunt

    Uh… numbers DON’T back up your claim. but, nice try trying to make yourself sound relevant. And watching specials and documentaries doesn’t really mean anything… since it is obvious you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Please show me numbers which prove NuTrek has surpassed profitability for Classic trek… in fact – show me fifty year projections for nuTrek that will approach even a fraction of Classic trek’s profitability… Oh – that’s right – you can’t. And it’s pretty interesting that my comment to you contained no name calling – yet you called me a a punk crap troll several times. Troll, know thyself. And yes, I will enjoy my life. Which is fairly obviously better than yours in fantasyland.

  • SJStar

    Stop acting like a deadshit dickhead, sunshine!

  • SJStar

    More BS from the master BS’er. Whatta stinking deadshit!

  • SJStar

    Nice one, deadshit. The only one here in fantasyland, is you, prick.

  • Jason

    lol…I rest my case.

  • Oswald Carnes

    Fuck you and the toxic condom you crawled out of.

  • Hakuzen

    LOL, the guy named “YourMotherIsACheesecunt” just called me childish! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    HAHAHAHAHAHA Okay bro, enjoy watching the English Patient and The Notebook. I’m gonna go ahead and stick with Star Trek and other stuff that isn’t estrogen-infused chick fodder.

    PS: If you think anybody cares about the opinion of a guy named “YourMotherIsACheesecunt”, oh boy.. You got some life lessons ahead of you.

  • Hakuzen

    If only your mother used that toxic condom…

  • Hakuzen

    I was going to respond to this, but then after seeing this..

    “FAGS ARE GONNA DESTROY THE WORLD… QUICK UNITE STRAIGHT JOCKS AND CRUSH THE FAIRY REBELLION!!”

    I came to the realization that you are just a sub-80 iq manchild who probably lives in his mom’s basement still.

    I have nothing further to say to a bigoted troll like yourself. Jump in front of a bus and do the world a favor.

  • trekfan

    You’re right. Thanks. I corrected that.

  • Bonnie Heim T’Bonz Malmat

    Only the first two SW films (the originals back in the 70s/80s) were any good. The new stuff is just rubbish and the Return of the Jedi was nominal.

  • Bonnie Heim T’Bonz Malmat

    No kidding. And after the first ten or fifteen minutes, it was a disappointment, alas. But then came WOK.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    I didn’t say he was still making any, I merely said he knows what a good story is.
    I used to think Jedi was pretty bad; in retrospect I see it as having all the beats, just not as well connected as the first two. It’s dot-to-dot. It also focussed more on the explosions and kid-friendly fart jokes and… uh… tentacle-headed, not-exactly-well-covered females… and less on having the scenes be as tightly woven as they had been. It’s not nearly as bad as the prequels, but it was the first step. I’d still pick Jedi over Attack of the Gratuitous CGI any day.

  • Milo

    I for one am sick of “dark and gritty” tv shows and films. The post-9/11 World sucks, and not because of politics or war, those are basically the same that they have always been, but because the creative community has some kind of vendetta to remind us how “dark” the World is everywhere we turn. How dreadful have we allowed ourselves to become? If this is the only way Star Trek can live on, then I’d rather they never make any new Star Trek again.

  • Milo

    LOL! You just made my day! :D

  • Milo

    Keep in mind that about 40 to 50% of that $460 goes to the various movie theaters!

  • Milo

    That’s what I’m saying! Berman, Braga and Lucas have WAY more class than anyone at team Abrams. JJ and friends have made this Trekkie feel like I’ve been replaced by some newer, young fans that would have made fun of me for liking Star Trek in TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT eras.