Spectre (James Bond). Major spoilers warning.

[The Romulan Republic]

Meh, the trek movie had even more problems than just Kahn. At least Spectre is well-directed and had interesting locations.

To me, the last two films can basically be summed up as "flawed/medicore scripts supported by spectacle and excellent acting".

[Thanas]

Yeah, that was my impression too. I think both movies needed at least several more months of script-writing and polish, which doesn't bode well for the new SW film.

[Adam Reynolds]

Yeah, that was my impression too. I think both movies needed at least several more months of script-writing and polish, which doesn't bode well for the new SW film.

The only redeeming factor is that it has Lawrence Kasden involved rather than Orci and Kurtzman. I also heard rumors that they actually got this break due to Harrison Ford's on set injury. Though that bit of information could go either way.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, that was my impression too. I think both movies needed at least several more months of script-writing and polish, which doesn't bode well for the new SW film.

What does it have to do with Star Wars?

Star Wars is being made by different people than the Bond franchise. Even if you're referring to Into Darkness, its screenwriters were not the screen writers of Star Wars. Abrams didn't write his Trek films, just directed them.

Also, it seems to me that they've spent quite a long time on the Star Wars film, including, as I recall, pushing it back from a spring or summer release to a December release.

[Thanas]

Yeah, that was my impression too. I think both movies needed at least several more months of script-writing and polish, which doesn't bode well for the new SW film.

What does it have to do with Star Wars?

Both ST (what I was talking about) and SW is made by Abrams.

[The Romulan Republic]

And as I pointed out, if the main problem is with the scripts, then I'm not sure how much importance that has, as Abrams did not write Into Darkness (although he probably had some input).

[Thanas]

It is not as if ST1 was any better. Neither movie is any good. So Abrams either is comfortable with crap or has input on crap. None of which makes me feel any confident about the SW movie.

[The Romulan Republic]

Difference of opinion. I thought the first Abrams Star Trek film was stronger.

In any case, though, Abrams wrote neither and did not have complete control over what went into them. And I think asking him to resign over it is a bit much.

In any case, he's not the sole writer on Star Wars either.

I'm as worried about the film being micromanaged by Disney executives as anything Abrams might have done.

Although I do think there's a danger in putting a major fan (as Abrams reported is for Star Wars) in charge of the franchise. Fans are often adverse to change, mired in nostalgia, and come in with a lot of baggage, a lot of axes to grind. Its a big part of what fan fiction is often (though not always) complete shit.

You can see the "fanfic writer with a budget" phenomenon with Peter Jackson's Tolkien films and Moffat on Doctor Who. That worries me. But it has nothing to do with the quality of Star Trek.

[Thanas]

In any case, though, Abrams wrote neither and did not have complete control over what went into them. And I think asking him to resign over it is a bit much.

FFS learn to read. I am not asking him to resign. I am saying I have no confidence that he will manage to develop a better product than he has over his entire career.

[libertyjim]

Despite the influence and popularity of his ideas, this key point leads me to say fuck Lovecraft. The idea that more knowledge leads to less sanity is absurd and destructive. One only needs to look at the sense of genuine awe you see with virtually all modern scientists to realize that this is an idea with absolutely no basis in reality.

This is also the fundamental problem I have with with the Lovecraftian RPG Trail of Cthulhu(even if the Gumshoe system itself is interesting). The appeal of mystery fiction in general is the idea that there is an answer to seemingly unknowable questions. The idea that insanity is the inevitable result completely defeats the point of a mystery.

While I agree that if somebody perpetuates ideas like 'more knowledge leads to insanity' it would have a negative affect on the relevant community I would like to point out that Lovecraft didn't spout any such nonsense. He used an idea for the purposes of horror and nothing more. 'He was keenly interested in astronomy and eighteenth-century architecture.' (Afterword: A Gentleman of Providence, Necronomicon Commemorative Edition, page 834). He was essentially an amateur scholar so I feel like saying 'Fuck Lovecraft' is jumping to conclusions somewhat. The rp game isn't really about mystery necessarily; it's about mounting dread based horror. It can be about mystery if one wished. The best way to do that is to not let your players know that they are playing Call of Cthulhu but obviously that will give you mixed reactions.

Also I know the film isn't actually particularly Lovecraftian. It can't be or else it wouldn't be a bond film. I liked the film because it used the old Bond tropes but updated them in a refreshing way and had themes that Lovecraft also used as well as some clear homages. It left me smirking throughout.

[Adam Reynolds]

My reference to RPGs was Trail of Cthulhu, based on the Gumshoe system(which is specifically intended to run mysteries).

As for the rest,I realize this is not directly what they meant, but it seems to me that this is the inevitable result. Knowledge is not without its downsides, given that dangerous technology can proliferate, but the idea that the knowledge itself could ever be bad is terrible. it reminds me too much of the creationist arguments against evolution.

[libertyjim]

As for the rest,I realize this is not directly what they meant, but it seems to me that this is the inevitable result. Knowledge is not without its downsides, given that dangerous technology can proliferate, but the idea that the knowledge itself could ever be bad is terrible. it reminds me too much of the creationist arguments against evolution.

Yes which is why it is a great idea for use in horror. Many fear knowledge and those who have it so it is inevitable that horror writers will use that. Also to give you a bit of context on Lovecraft he is famously quoted 'The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown.' He just ended up taking that quote to its logical conclusions where the unknown is something to be afraid of rationally. Though he wouldn't have thought this himself some people theorise that those who do go insane in Lovecraftian stories and games are actually sane and it is we who are insane as we turn our gaze away from everything that doesn't fit our idea of reality. When you say 'that this is the inevitable result' I think you reach a little too far because I have not seen anything that shows that his stories or ideas resulted in people avoiding learning or preventing others from learning.

[Adam Reynolds]

Yes which is why it is a great idea for use in horror. Many fear knowledge and those who have it so it is inevitable that horror writers will use that. Also to give you a bit of context on Lovecraft he is famously quoted 'The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown.' He just ended up taking that quote to its logical conclusions where the unknown is something to be afraid of rationally. Though he wouldn't have thought this himself some people theorise that those who do go insane in Lovecraftian stories and games are actually sane and it is we who are insane as we turn our gaze away from everything that doesn't fit our idea of reality. When you say 'that this is the inevitable result' I think you reach a little too far because I have not seen anything that shows that his stories or ideas resulted in people avoiding learning or preventing others from learning.

Fear of the unknown is eliminated by knowledge, not the other way around. Science and technology is the ultimate candle in the dark, and that is only made possible by a general willingness to poke the unknown thing with a stick. In reality, the positives of such an action, at least in the modern world, almost always outweigh the negatives when it is done properly. This is not to endorse improper and unsafe science, but the idea that is would ever be worse to study something than not to is awful.

I don't think it will have any real impact socially due to the fact that anyone who reads it knows that it is fiction. I dislike the idea behind it and its similar philosophy to creationism in that respect. I suspect that those who enjoy Lovecraft are often more intellectual regardless of the contradiction with those ideas.

Anyway, I meant that this is the inevitable result of taking that point to its logical conclusion.

[libertyjim]

Fear of the unknown is eliminated by knowledge, not the other way around. Science and technology is the ultimate candle in the dark, and that is only made possible by a general willingness to poke the unknown thing with a stick. In reality, the positives of such an action, at least in the modern world, almost always outweigh the negatives when it is done properly. This is not to endorse improper and unsafe science, but the idea that is would ever be worse to study something than not to is awful.

I don't think it will have any real impact socially due to the fact that anyone who reads it knows that it is fiction. I dislike the idea behind it and its similar philosophy to creationism in that respect. I suspect that those who enjoy Lovecraft are often more intellectual regardless of the contradiction with those ideas.

Anyway, I meant that this is the inevitable result of taking that point to its logical conclusion.

I agree on most points here. The only parts I differ on are these:
1. The idea that the unknown is actually something terrifying beyond belief to the point that if one learns about it one goes insane is indeed terrible because it is terrifying. This is why I love the idea (judge me as you will XD). It's cool that you don't like it though man.
2. It's not like creationist ideas at all. I don't really get why you think it is. While I get that creationists ignore reality in favour of their fantasy that isn't the same as believing knowledge is dangerous. They think they know about the nature of reality already and they adamantly teach their children about it.

I think we may be straying off from the original subject though and should probably stop now. Maybe we should make a different thread on the subject of Lovecraft and the moral implications of his ideas.