Ha ha, well Christopher Nolan did so who knows maybe JJ could follow him!

Anyway, apologies, I literally couldn't resist the smart-arse "literally" comment. Sorry 👍

I rewatched this the other day. It's an entertaining popcorn film with great special effects. I think the biggest mistake people make with these JJ films is trying to compare them to the original series or older movies. They can be fun if you go into them with low expectations. I basically do the same with his star wars films.

@nolesjs17 said:

I rewatched this the other day. It's an entertaining popcorn film with great special effects. I think the biggest mistake people make with these JJ films is trying to compare them to the original series or older movies. They can be fun if you go into them with low expectations. I basically do the same with his star wars films.

I think that is a healthy attitude to have generally. What makes it particularly difficult for me with Star Trek compared to Star Wars is that it uses the same characters, but makes some of these characters different (e.g. Spock becoming a Vulcan Bruce Lee here) and contradictions with the canon (I'm not an expert on this but did the modern films blow up the planet Vulcan?)

It is also easier because Star Wars is generally a less serious action affair, whereas Roddenberry clearly intended Star Trek to have more thoughtful moments and messages, and a more considered pacing. I've yet to see any of that in JJ's interpretations.

@Fergoose said:

@nolesjs17 said:

I rewatched this the other day. It's an entertaining popcorn film with great special effects. I think the biggest mistake people make with these JJ films is trying to compare them to the original series or older movies. They can be fun if you go into them with low expectations. I basically do the same with his star wars films.

I think that is a healthy attitude to have generally. What makes it particularly difficult for me with Star Trek compared to Star Wars is that it uses the same characters, but makes some of these characters different (e.g. Spock becoming a Vulcan Bruce Lee here) and contradictions with the canon (I'm not an expert on this but did the modern films blow up the planet Vulcan?)

It is also easier because Star Wars is generally a less serious action affair, whereas Roddenberry clearly intended Star Trek to have more thoughtful moments and messages, and a more considered pacing. I've yet to see any of that in JJ's interpretations.

Making characters different? Didn't they turn Han Solo into a deadbeat negligent dad in force awakens and Luke Skywalker into a drunkard loser Jedi in last Jedi? If you're a star wars fan you better have your homework done correctly. You need to know what you're talking about.

@Billions said:

@Fergoose said:

@nolesjs17 said:

I rewatched this the other day. It's an entertaining popcorn film with great special effects. I think the biggest mistake people make with these JJ films is trying to compare them to the original series or older movies. They can be fun if you go into them with low expectations. I basically do the same with his star wars films.

I think that is a healthy attitude to have generally. What makes it particularly difficult for me with Star Trek compared to Star Wars is that it uses the same characters, but makes some of these characters different (e.g. Spock becoming a Vulcan Bruce Lee here) and contradictions with the canon (I'm not an expert on this but did the modern films blow up the planet Vulcan?)

It is also easier because Star Wars is generally a less serious action affair, whereas Roddenberry clearly intended Star Trek to have more thoughtful moments and messages, and a more considered pacing. I've yet to see any of that in JJ's interpretations.

Making characters different? Didn't they turn Han Solo into a deadbeat negligent dad in force awakens and Luke Skywalker into a drunkard loser Jedi in last Jedi? If you're a star wars fan you better have your homework done correctly. You need to know what you're talking about.

The new Star Wars films are so unmemorable I don't even know if I have seen both of those! But it is less jarring than Trek for me because:

• Luke & Han are only one character, rather than the entire cast, as is the case in Trek
• in the later films Han (and I presume Luke) are both older than in the original films, so there is scope for them to change a bit as they age. At no point in the original trilogy did Han Solo strike me as 'Dad of the Year' material. Whereas in Trek the characters are younger in the new films. Maybe Leonard Nimoy just forgot that Spock was a martial arts expert in his youth!

@Fergoose said:

@Billions said:

@Fergoose said:

@nolesjs17 said:

I rewatched this the other day. It's an entertaining popcorn film with great special effects. I think the biggest mistake people make with these JJ films is trying to compare them to the original series or older movies. They can be fun if you go into them with low expectations. I basically do the same with his star wars films.

I think that is a healthy attitude to have generally. What makes it particularly difficult for me with Star Trek compared to Star Wars is that it uses the same characters, but makes some of these characters different (e.g. Spock becoming a Vulcan Bruce Lee here) and contradictions with the canon (I'm not an expert on this but did the modern films blow up the planet Vulcan?)

It is also easier because Star Wars is generally a less serious action affair, whereas Roddenberry clearly intended Star Trek to have more thoughtful moments and messages, and a more considered pacing. I've yet to see any of that in JJ's interpretations.

Making characters different? Didn't they turn Han Solo into a deadbeat negligent dad in force awakens and Luke Skywalker into a drunkard loser Jedi in last Jedi? If you're a star wars fan you better have your homework done correctly. You need to know what you're talking about.

The new Star Wars films are so unmemorable I don't even know if I have seen both of those! But it is less jarring than Trek for me because:

• Luke & Han are only one character, rather than the entire cast, as is the case in Trek
• in the later films Han (and I presume Luke) are both older than in the original films, so there is scope for them to change a bit as they age. At no point in the original trilogy did Han Solo strike me as 'Dad of the Year' material. Whereas in Trek the characters are younger in the new films. Maybe Leonard Nimoy just forgot that Spock was a martial arts expert in his youth!

The original Spock was no pushover either. Luke and Han aren't the only characters in all the star wars movies. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

@Billions said:

@Fergoose said:

@Billions said:

@Fergoose said:

@nolesjs17 said:

I rewatched this the other day. It's an entertaining popcorn film with great special effects. I think the biggest mistake people make with these JJ films is trying to compare them to the original series or older movies. They can be fun if you go into them with low expectations. I basically do the same with his star wars films.

I think that is a healthy attitude to have generally. What makes it particularly difficult for me with Star Trek compared to Star Wars is that it uses the same characters, but makes some of these characters different (e.g. Spock becoming a Vulcan Bruce Lee here) and contradictions with the canon (I'm not an expert on this but did the modern films blow up the planet Vulcan?)

It is also easier because Star Wars is generally a less serious action affair, whereas Roddenberry clearly intended Star Trek to have more thoughtful moments and messages, and a more considered pacing. I've yet to see any of that in JJ's interpretations.

Making characters different? Didn't they turn Han Solo into a deadbeat negligent dad in force awakens and Luke Skywalker into a drunkard loser Jedi in last Jedi? If you're a star wars fan you better have your homework done correctly. You need to know what you're talking about.

The new Star Wars films are so unmemorable I don't even know if I have seen both of those! But it is less jarring than Trek for me because:

• Luke & Han are only one character, rather than the entire cast, as is the case in Trek
• in the later films Han (and I presume Luke) are both older than in the original films, so there is scope for them to change a bit as they age. At no point in the original trilogy did Han Solo strike me as 'Dad of the Year' material. Whereas in Trek the characters are younger in the new films. Maybe Leonard Nimoy just forgot that Spock was a martial arts expert in his youth!

The original Spock was no pushover either. Luke and Han aren't the only characters in all the star wars movies. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Thanks for the concern but I'm entirely comfortable with what I'm saying. Can you point me to scenes where Spock has a relationship with a Uhuru or any other crewmate in the original series? I don't think is particularly contentious to say that liberties were taken with characters and style/pacing in the new Trek films in a way and extent that is not the case with the Star Wars.

And I never said Han and Luke were the only original characters in the new films. What was if about Darth and Leia for example in the new films that you felt wasnt consistent with the original trilogy and why do you consider that Han had excellent parenting skills and wouldn't indulge in alcohol as an adult? Answer those and maybe I'll be sure that you know what you are talking about too!

@Fergoose said:

@Billions said:

@Fergoose said:

@Billions said:

@Fergoose said:

@nolesjs17 said:

I rewatched this the other day. It's an entertaining popcorn film with great special effects. I think the biggest mistake people make with these JJ films is trying to compare them to the original series or older movies. They can be fun if you go into them with low expectations. I basically do the same with his star wars films.

I think that is a healthy attitude to have generally. What makes it particularly difficult for me with Star Trek compared to Star Wars is that it uses the same characters, but makes some of these characters different (e.g. Spock becoming a Vulcan Bruce Lee here) and contradictions with the canon (I'm not an expert on this but did the modern films blow up the planet Vulcan?)

It is also easier because Star Wars is generally a less serious action affair, whereas Roddenberry clearly intended Star Trek to have more thoughtful moments and messages, and a more considered pacing. I've yet to see any of that in JJ's interpretations.

Making characters different? Didn't they turn Han Solo into a deadbeat negligent dad in force awakens and Luke Skywalker into a drunkard loser Jedi in last Jedi? If you're a star wars fan you better have your homework done correctly. You need to know what you're talking about.

The new Star Wars films are so unmemorable I don't even know if I have seen both of those! But it is less jarring than Trek for me because:

• Luke & Han are only one character, rather than the entire cast, as is the case in Trek
• in the later films Han (and I presume Luke) are both older than in the original films, so there is scope for them to change a bit as they age. At no point in the original trilogy did Han Solo strike me as 'Dad of the Year' material. Whereas in Trek the characters are younger in the new films. Maybe Leonard Nimoy just forgot that Spock was a martial arts expert in his youth!

The original Spock was no pushover either. Luke and Han aren't the only characters in all the star wars movies. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Thanks for the concern but I'm entirely comfortable with what I'm saying. Can you point me to scenes where Spock has a relationship with a Uhuru or any other crewmate in the original series? I don't think is particularly contentious to say that liberties were taken with characters and style/pacing in the new Trek films in a way and extent that is not the case with the Star Wars.

And I never said Han and Luke were the only original characters in the new films. What was if about Darth and Leia for example in the new films that you felt wasnt consistent with the original trilogy and why do you consider that Han had excellent parenting skills and wouldn't indulge in alcohol as an adult? Answer those and maybe I'll be sure that you know what you are talking about too!

I could ask you the exact same question too: why are you so sure that original Spock played by Leonard Nimoy couldn't defend himself in hand to hand combat? Was it the actor's calm manner that has you fooled? Darth isn't in the new films. You could say that Anakin being a lovely boy then all of a sudden turning into the most feared tyrant in the entire universe would be a noticeable noteworthy character change, don't you think?