Star Wars - Episode VII

[Elong]

I can barely keep my head above water in this thread, let alone the serious stuff, most of the time I just re-write what @magicjuan says in a more poorly written manner and hope the best

I don't always agree with him and his tin foil but he's brilliant all the same, one of the best on here.

 

[Dylan]

mega LOL'S at this last one, if you don't like cumberbatch you must only be into hollywood blockbusters, when the opposite is clearly true and cumberbund is the average film fans great classical actor, whereas true aficionados can see through this, and how very average he is

Mega LOL's at this!!! "I watch crap arty movies, therefore my opinion is more valid than yours"

Jeez.....opinions are like butt-holes. Everyone has one and they all stink.

 

[Dylan]

you're in the degobah system chum, now cool it with the kirk nonsense or I'll have the mods of the old republic in here quicker than you can say hoth chocolate!!

First off.....Hoth Chocolate! Bloody brilliant!!!!

Second.....Mods of the Old Republic

Time for a new title under my name!

 

[Walken]

Mega LOL's at this!!! "I watch crap arty movies, therefore my opinion is more valid than yours"

Jeez.....opinions are like butt-holes. Everyone has one and they all stink.

it was jokey response to a another jokey response of the same nature, chill out nemo

 

[Kiwi]

I liked the new Star Treks and Jurassic park, even don't mind Jar Jar Binks.

Cumberbatch looks like a bloody squirrel though, loathe the man.

 

[McBain]

Calm down Everyone.

*waves fingers

You don't need to see our papers

 

[evilwebby]

The casting was a little hit and miss for me, props for getting Peter Weller back on the screen though, Chris Pine I find a bit unbearable, when Shatner can play a role with more humility you are in trouble, Cumberland is a decent actor, does the neurotic role well, but is overrated in the grand scheme of things, the second star trek film is entertaining in it's own way, but it's all a bit of a trick, it moves so fast it doesn't give you a chance to think about how daft most of it is, which is okay as it's still an entertaining explosion fest, but a step down from the first one for me. It certainly is true to star trek as they basically stole the wrath of khan and put new wheels on it, I expected a little more effort.

I think Into Darkness is a more enjoyable and watchable film than the first, but that's not saying much. "Star Trek" had its work cut out to just establishing the new characters and their backgrounds, which just left us with a pretty lame time-travel/revenge plot where ultimately Kirk just ends up having a fistfight on the deck of an alien starship to settle things. Lame as hell. Neither of them are a patch on the old series' II, IV & VI which are quality sci-fi.

Star Trek II: 10/10
Star Trek IV: 9/10
Star Trek VI: 9/10

Star Trek: 6/10
Into Darkness: 7/10

Anyway, sorry to highjack the Star WARS thread

 

[BlueLlama]

I liked the new Star Treks and Jurassic park, even don't mind Jar Jar Binks.

Cumberbatch looks like a bloody squirrel though, loathe the man.

Whoa brother, dont be trash talking no squirrel

 

[Little Ralphy]

Be prepared for:

- No sense of peril (Disney won't allow it)
- No death of any main characters (Disney won't allow it)
- Easter Eggs (It's the "in" thing)
- An insane plot designed to sell toys rather than tell a coherent story
- The attempt at a "cliffhanger" ending
- The attempt at a "twist"
- More Intergalactic Incest

Have you never watched a Disney film mate? Try watching them with kids and then come back and say no one dies and there is no sense of peril.

And who doesn't like Easter eggs.

I bet this film is seen as better than all of the previous films upon first watch and everyone raves about how good it is, but it won't have the same lasting quality that the others had. Like the new Planet of the Apes films, great films upon first watch but watch them again and they're very much meh.

 

[Kiwi]

Have you never watched a Disney film mate? Try watching them with kids and then come back and say no one dies and there is no sense of peril.

And who doesn't like Easter eggs.

I bet this film is seen as better than all of the previous films upon first watch and everyone raves about how good it is, but it won't have the same lasting quality that the others had. Like the new Planet of the Apes films, great films upon first watch but watch them again and they're very much meh.

Loved avatar on first watch in 3d on the big screen and all that, absolutely brilliant.
Can't stand it now though.

 

[sageyefc]

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

All I know is it better be good, I don't even acknowledge the last 3...can still remember standing in a line (that never seemed to end) at age 5 for Empire Strikes Back. Probably one of my earliest memories, actually.

 

[DanEFC92]

View attachment 14570

Where's Luke?

 

[dholliday]

I've got a bad feeling about this...


my ratings:

Star Wars 9/10
Empire 9/10
Jedi 9/10

Phantom 5/10
Clones 4/10
Sith 6/10

Star Trek I-VI...all good to great films
JJ Abrams Star Treks...both a 3/10

Disney's John Carter 2/10


I fear The Force is not strong in this one...stylised rubbish it will be.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

I think Into Darkness is a more enjoyable and watchable film than the first, but that's not saying much. "Star Trek" had its work cut out to just establishing the new characters and their backgrounds, which just left us with a pretty lame time-travel/revenge plot where ultimately Kirk just ends up having a fistfight on the deck of an alien starship to settle things. Lame as hell. Neither of them are a patch on the old series' II, IV & VI which are quality sci-fi.

Star Trek II: 10/10
Star Trek IV: 9/10
Star Trek VI: 9/10

Star Trek: 6/10
Into Darkness: 7/10

Anyway, sorry to highjack the Star WARS thread

You just don't like odd numbers, do you?