Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No marketing

[Ryan8bit]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

Spoilers are like frustrated voyeurism instead of real participation in intimacy with a living partner and a satisfying climax. When the voyeurs finally get to go inside, they're all spent.

I love this analogy.

I don't want any spoilers of the movie, but just the general premise would be nice maybe. Although it's still pretty far out, right? I think I can wait until trailers and stuff start to break. When would that be, Christmas time?

 

[tomalak301]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

We're less that two months away from the force awakens and I still don't know what that movie is about. There's still plenty of time for Beyond.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

We're less that two months away from the force awakens and I still don't know what that movie is about.

I'm guessing that 99% of The Force Awakens will be one long drawn out deux ex machina to enable Hamill to turn up in the final scenes, which aside from Ford, is the one and only thing most of the fans want to see. Everything and everyone else in the film is window dressing for the main event.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

We're less that two months away from the force awakens and I still don't know what that movie is about.

I'm guessing that 99% of The Force Awakens will be one long drawn out deux ex machina to enable Hamill to turn up in the final scenes, which aside from Ford, is the one and only thing most of the fans want to see. Everything and everyone else in the film is window dressing for the main event.

It has to be more than that because they are setting up the future of the franchise, as well.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

We're less that two months away from the force awakens and I still don't know what that movie is about.

I'm guessing that 99% of The Force Awakens will be one long drawn out deux ex machina to enable Hamill to turn up in the final scenes, which aside from Ford, is the one and only thing most of the fans want to see. Everything and everyone else in the film is window dressing for the main event.

It has to be more than that because they are setting up the future of the franchise, as well.

Again, I'm guessing that in some way, Hamill's appearance will be integral to that.

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

Your suspicion is my unstated, until now, fear. I try to dismiss it because it's too easy, too lazy, and too cliche a device for the quality of the writer and director attached to this movie. For example, the Emperor showed up in Return of the Jedi well before the end of the movie and had a larger role than whack-a-mole at the end. I hope Luke is more integral, and that Abrams and Kasdan would demand no less than we.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

Your suspicion is my unstated, until now, fear. I try to dismiss it because it's too easy, too lazy, and too cliche a device for the quality of the writer and director attached to this movie. For example, the Emperor showed up in Return of the Jedi well before the end of the movie and had a larger role than whack-a-mole at the end. I hope Luke is more integral, and that Abrams and Kasdan would demand no less than we.

Abrams is the master of too easy and lazy. Admittedly he didn't write Into Darkness, but he directed a film in which James T Kirk was bought back to life with "super blood".

Nuff said.

As for The Farce Awakens, aside from a bit of voice over and the appearance of a robotic hand in one of the early teaser trailers, Hamill's non appearance in any of the trailers is pretty telling, especially when both Ford and Fisher are featured.

 

[Squiggy]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

Abrams is the master of too easy and lazy. Admittedly he didn't write Into Darkness, but he directed a film in which James T Kirk was bought back to life with "super blood".

Nuff said.

And Nimoy directed a film in which Spock was brought back to life with even less explanation.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

Abrams is the master of too easy and lazy. Admittedly he didn't write Into Darkness, but he directed a film in which James T Kirk was bought back to life with "super blood".

Nuff said.

And Nimoy directed a film in which Spock was brought back to life with even less explanation.

But. . .but . .. "protomatter."

You know, that notoriously unstable substance that had never been mentioned in any STAR TREK movie or episode before.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

Abrams is the master of too easy and lazy. Admittedly he didn't write Into Darkness, but he directed a film in which James T Kirk was bought back to life with "super blood".

Nuff said.

And Nimoy directed a film in which Spock was brought back to life with even less explanation.

But. . .but . .. "protomatter."

You know, that notoriously unstable substance that had never been mentioned in any STAR TREK movie or episode before.

Wasn't that "red matter"?

And it was perfectly explained how, within the realms of sci-fi plausability, Spock was bought back to life. How he had his marbles transferred from McCoy. . .Leonard H, son of David, is slightly more, let's say foggy. But in 49 years of Star Trek, no one's ever said how ridiculous the concepts of the Vulcan mind meld and Fal-tor-pan are.

It's science fiction, people!

 

[Campe]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

Oh, it's absolutely okay if lazy storytelling comes from the prime universe.

Didn't you get the memo?

 

[BillJ]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

And it was perfectly explained how, within the realms of sci-fi plausability, Spock was bought back to life. How he had his marbles transferred from McCoy. . .Leonard H, son of David, is slightly more, let's say foggy. But in 49 years of Star Trek, no one's ever said how ridiculous the concepts of the Vulcan mind meld and Fal-tor-pan are.

Really? We know we can use blood to treat people, even now. Plus, we can revive some people who are considered clinically dead. Yet you consider what happened in Into Darkness stretches credibility farther than how Spock was revive in The Search for Spock?!?

 

[Trekkin]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

Within the realms of scifi plausibility...

It's arguable that the entire genre of science fiction started with Frankenstein. Admittedly, the novel is a little vague about how Victor resurrected the dead, but it's suggested that it was maybe some electricity (Victor is inspired by Galvani) and near-definitely some chemistry (Frankenstein's area of study.)

On the other hand, proto matter was entirely made up for 'The Search for Spock'.

So the 'resurrection serum' precedent in science fiction, beats proto matter by a century and some spare change. It's even existed in Star Trek for nearly 30 years now (The Neutral Zone.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

And it was perfectly explained how, within the realms of sci-fi plausability, Spock was bought back to life. How he had his marbles transferred from McCoy. . .Leonard H, son of David, is slightly more, let's say foggy. But in 49 years of Star Trek, no one's ever said how ridiculous the concepts of the Vulcan mind meld and Fal-tor-pan are.

Really? We know we can use blood to treat people, even now. Plus, we can revive some people who are considered clinically dead. Yet you consider what happened in Into Darkness stretches credibility farther than how Spock was revive in The Search for Spock?!?

It's science fiction, people.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

Really? We know we can use blood to treat people, even now. Plus, we can revive some people who are considered clinically dead. Yet you consider what happened in Into Darkness stretches credibility farther than how Spock was revive in The Search for Spock?!?

Absolutely! Besides, at least a good portion of The Search For Spock was given over to the Fal-tor-pan ceremony, and it was treated far better as a plot device than the Khan super blood which was used as the ultimate quick fix, shoe horned in to the last 5 minutes of Darkness as the winner in the lazy deux ex machina competition.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

Really? We know we can use blood to treat people, even now. Plus, we can revive some people who are considered clinically dead. Yet you consider what happened in Into Darkness stretches credibility farther than how Spock was revive in The Search for Spock?!?

Absolutely! Besides, at least a good portion of The Search For Spock was given over to the Fal-tor-pan ceremony, and it was treated far better as a plot device than the Khan super blood which was used as the ultimate quick fix, shoe horned in to the last 5 minutes of Darkness as the ultimate in terrible deux ex machinas.

And a rapidly aging proto-matter induced clone isn't?

Good thing he stopped aging at the right time. And there just happened to be a ceremony/ritual to place the very conveniently near by consciousness into this aged to perfection body.

The "super blood" was introduced at the start of the film and mentioned again later in the film. Setting up the use at the end. "Chekhov's Gun".

 

[Trekkin]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

That ritual did come right the fuck out of nowhere. As in, the movie didn't even set it up as an option until Sarek was nagging them to do it. Before that, it was just 'gotta have the soul and the body for a funeral coz...eternal misery otherwise?'

And um, you know how people get a bit iffy about Data (maybe) erasing B4's personality and replacing it with his own? Isn't that kinda what they did with reborn/clone Spock? It wasn't like he was catonic and brain dead whilst Spock's personality was bouncing around McCoy's head.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

And um, you know how people get a bit iffy about Data (maybe) erasing B4's personality and replacing it with his own? Isn't that kinda what they did with reborn/clone Spock? It wasn't like he was catonic and brain dead whilst Spock's personality was bouncing around McCoy's head.

Yup. Always how I saw it.

 

[RoJoHen]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

That ritual did come right the fuck out of nowhere. As in, the movie didn't even set it up as an option until Sarek was nagging them to do it. Before that, it was just 'gotta have the soul and the body for a funeral coz...eternal misery otherwise?'

Well, that's because Spock was assumed to actually be, ya know...dead.

They got really lucky that they just happened to have a brand new living Spock to put his soul back.

 

[JWPlatt]

Re: Less than a year away + we know nothing about this film/ No market

And um, you know how people get a bit iffy about Data (maybe) erasing B4's personality and replacing it with his own? Isn't that kinda what they did with reborn/clone Spock? It wasn't like he was catonic and brain dead whilst Spock's personality was bouncing around McCoy's head.

Yup. Always how I saw it.

Wow, well, the Data-Katra parallel to Spock aspect of that never even once occurred to me. It's actually a bit more tolerable to think of it that way. Brilliant. As if such a parallel was what the writers intended. I thoroughly doubt they did (source?), but it's fun to imagine they were even minimally clever.