Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

That hard to accept two different versions of a universe?

I read Pockets 24th century books and they've done some incredible world-building and character work. But I don't want a TV/movie producer to have to account for that work.

I want them to bring their own vision. I can keep multiple universes straight.

 

Are you forgetting T'Pring and Stonn and Valeris? Or the time Spock hijacked the Enterprise because of his emotional connection to Christopher Pike?

Vulcans . . . they are a complicated people.

 

I do that with the Doctor Who EU (Although like SW, I generally accept the books/audios as canon over New Who!). But that's a time travel show that's way harder to keep track of. It wouldn't take much effort for the writers of Episode VII to just check Wookiepedia to make sure the event they're writing doesn't contradict anything major. If they go along and do it anyway then at least they made an effort to check.

 

No they're not Greg!!! They're fucking cardboard cut outs that only spout off about logic!!! Have you ever even watched Star Trek!!!

 

They're not checking Wookiepedia.

Much like Trek, I'm simply looking for an entertaining movie.

 

I can't speak to Enterprise, but nothing in STXI's depiction of Vulcans is inconsistent with their portrayal in prior canon.

 

The Vulcans are inconsistent depending on who is writing so this debate is kinda pointless. I'm just saying that I personally prefer when they're less human as I find them more interesting to watch then. Others prefer when they act just like humans and that's fine too. Orci and Kurtzman are definitely in your camp.

 

You do realize all of Trek's aliens are modeled after human cultures? I think Vulcans are pretty consistently standoffish pricks throughout the entirety of Trek's run.

For my money, Quinto and Nimoy played the character in a very similar manner forty years apart. Go watch All Our Yesterdays or Amok Time or This Side of Paradise.

 

As far as I'm concerned the less of the EU that is in the films the better. It's just such a mess. Attempting to untangle it enough to make it accessible to people would be more work than it's worth.

Seriously, Brooks prophetically hit the mark with: "I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate."

 

I just want the next Star Wars movie to entertain me as well as the last Star Trek movie did. I feel confident my expectations will be met.

 

Eh, too easy.

Look, this isn't going to follow the EU. At most we might get a rare name drop, but there's no way in hell that the film is going to adhere to a bunch of crappy books that 0.001% of the audience has read. You'd better get used to this now because you're going to end up mightily disappointed in two years.

 

Doesn't the Clone Wars cartoon not really pay attention to the EU? Haven't they already "overwritten" somethings?

 

When I was younger I used to read a lot of Star Wars EU books and I still have my full collection. The enjoyment I got from those stories doesn't vanish if the new films decide to tell different stories.

 

I find Abrams terribly overrated. At this point I'm honestly not even sure how he got to his point what amazing thing has he done? Other than sort of being behind a TV series that wasted six years of most people's lives only to toss out all of the mysteries and intrigue just to say, "Fuck it purgatory or some shit."

How is Abrams the kind of popular culture so much right now to be handed two major popular culture franchises?

Star Trek 2009 was a decent enough movie but I can't say I was really blown away by it, though not terribly disappointed either. It "lacked something" to make it feel really like Star Trek. But, whatever, it had cool action scenes 'n' stuff!

The next movie I'm reserved on as I simply don't know anything about it and the teaser trailers have left me luke warm at best, it certainly doesn't look to me to be going in the direction I had hoped but we'll see.

On Star Wars? I think he might be a better fit for but I also don't have as much attachment to that franchise as I do Trek. But, really, anything past what happened in Ep1-3 will likely be an improvement.

I just don't see what the draw or appeal is in him for so many. And the guy to me actually comes across as sort of a smug jackass and his propensity for secrecy around his projects is a touch annoying too. But, well, I don't follow much on spoilers anyway so it has little impact on me as well.

 

A) A TV show cannot waste 6 years of some person's life.
B) Purgatory or some shit was not the end of the show and it most certainly DID answer its mysteries.

 

Why don't you go to IMDB or wiki and find out more about the work that he's done? Successful TV producer, successful movie director... I don't understand this question...

Sure, don't like his work, but don't deny the enormous popularity of it.

 

Saying that it was "Purgatory or some shit" shows that a lot of people don't even understand the show. They plainly tell you that everything that happened on the island was real. The only part that was the afterlife was the sideflash scenes where the flight 815 lands in LA. It isn't the show's fault if you don't understand.

It's like all the BSG fans who complain about the God element of the BSG finale even though that was a major theme since season one. Head Six even tells Baltar exactly what she was very early on, he dismissed it and assumed it was a chip in his head.

With both people wanted a mystery show when it was a show about characters. If you were interested in the characters and their journey, you were probably happy with both endings.

With the possible exception of what happened to Starbuck, I'm pretty sure they threw a dart at the board.

 

He believed it because that's what Six told in the miniseries.

 

That's why you shouldn't trust people who you can only see inside your own head.