New Star Wars Movie

[CommanderOtto]

lol those videos are hilarious

[CommanderOtto]

The quality of movies by J.J Abrams (Q) is a function of (x) which is the total amount of unnecessary and excessive CGI in a determined film. The linear function can be represented by the following formula:

Q = f(x)

Values of the function f(x) are in the following table so we can calculate the slope. As you will see in the following calculations, the rate of change F '(x) will be negative. Thus, the derivative is demonstrating how bad his films can be considering all the excessive CGI he uses.

[Outrider]

You're probably thinking of George Lucas and Michael Bay.

[THEWULFMAN]

Otto, you don't really know what you're talking about. Again.

J.J. has(is) direct(ing)ed 5 feature length movies, not including a TV movie and TV shows. 2 unreleased, one being Star Trek: Into Darkness and the other being Star Wars VII.

The other 3 are Mission Impossible 3, Super 8, and Star Trek.

MI3 has minimal CGI.

Super 8 has pretty moderate CGI, and is a pretty good movie.

Star Trek has quite a lot of CGI, but that's mainly because of how much takes place in space. They use sets when they can, which is pretty often. The interior of the Federation ships are mostly sets.

[Jedi Power]

J. J. Abrams is now official as the director for Episode VII.

[CommanderOtto]

the problem is that he uses excessive cgi and doesn't add sufficient storyline... so his movies have less soul. But that formula is my opinion, that doesn't mean I don't know what i'm talking about.

[[m'kay]]

The quality of movies by J.J Abrams (Q) is a function of (x) which is the total amount of unnecessary and excessive CGI in a determined film. The linear function can be represented by the following formula:

Q = f(x)

Values of the function f(x) are in the following table so we can calculate the slope. As you will see in the following calculations, the rate of change F '(x) will be negative. Thus, the derivative is demonstrating how bad his films can be considering all the excessive CGI he uses.

How can you tell that Otto copy pasted a post from somewhere else? It makes the slightest amount of sense.

[CommanderOtto]

I made it using paint.

let me assure you, the same thing will happen to star wars. If you really are a star trek fan, you know that star trek has not been the same since Gene Roddenberry. The original and the next generation were very utopic storylines, where humanity was progressing and exploring new planets, inventing new technologies. In the star trek universe of gene roddenberry, there is no poverty, money or countries.... after the next generation, when gene wasn't able to get involved in the production of Deep Space 9 or Voyager, the storylines were much less utopic (which means that the directors of those series didn't understand what gene wanted) so the nature of the programs were slightly different from the older ones. even if the Federation is still the same, the new series focused less on these aspects. The same happened to the movies, the style of the films after the decaying health of Gene, started to change too. For example, the last movie of the next generation was terrible in my opinion. Although I do like some of the CGI scenes from J.J Abrams, I hope he doesn't completely kill the storyline for more explosions, fight scenes and sex just to attract today's kids. I don't know if someone can understand without watching The Next Generation. but as I said, it's my opinion.

[THEWULFMAN]

the problem is that he uses excessive cgi and doesn't add sufficient storyline... so his movies have less soul. But that formula is my opinion, that doesn't mean I don't know what i'm talking about.

You really don't know what qualifies as "excessive cgi" then. And I enjoyed Star Trek's storyline. It wasn't amazing but I really enjoyed it.

let me assure you, the same thing will happen to star wars. If you really are a star trek fan, you know that star trek has not been the same since Gene Roddenberry. The original and the next generation were very utopic storylines, where humanity was progressing and exploring new planets, inventing new technologies. In the star trek universe of gene roddenberry, there is no poverty, money or countries.... after the next generation, when gene wasn't able to get involved in the production of Deep Space 9 or Voyager, the storylines were much less utopic (which means that the directors of those series didn't understand what gene wanted) so the nature of the programs were slightly different from the older ones. even if the Federation is still the same, the new series focused less on these aspects. The same happened to the movies, the style of the films after the decaying health of Gene, started to change too. For example, the last movie of the next generation was terrible in my opinion. Although I do like some of the CGI scenes from J.J Abrams, I hope he doesn't completely kill the storyline for more explosions, fight scenes and sex just to attract today's kids. I don't know if someone can understand without watching The Next Generation. but as I said, it's my opinion.

I agree about Deep Space 9 (which was crap) and Voyager (which was meh). I'm not a massive fan of The Next Generation, but I do like it a lot. The Original Series is great, and I actually enjoy Enterprise a lot. Which I will gather a lot of flak from haters of Enterprise, which are many.

However, it really feels like you're mixing up J.J. Abrams and Michael Bay. Like, seriously. J.J. doesn't add tons of explosions, fight scenes, and sex just to attract kids. That's Michael Bay's doing. See Transformers 2.

[CommanderOtto]

well I have to agree with you there... I hate michael bay