So you'll take 1 stinking turd instead of 3 rotting turds?

I prefer NO turds at all, so I'll just stay home and watch Netflix or just go on a walk outside.

Exactly. And he had a lot of other help; I read somewhere that his (now ex-)wife helped edit the script for ANH to keep it from having the same shit dialog that the Prequels had. And of course ESB and RotJ had other writers and directors. Lucas had a few good ideas for an overall story, then other people came in and cleaned it all up and gave us Episodes 4-6. The Prequels are what you get when Lucas has full control of everything, and the result is crap, some nice ideas, but overall crap.

What blind spot? What are you talking about? And what is this link you posted? It doesn't go anywhere, or have a valid URL, it just says "http://".

What are you talking about? Shatner never directed a Star Trek movie. Although I have sometimes wondered why the Star Trek franchise went straight from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. I guess someone at Paramount forgot how to count. But that's OK, IV and VI were both good movies.

I liked the first JJ ST movie better than the SW prequels (1 and 2, never saw 3).

I still didn't like it enough to bother watching his second ST movie. And considering I used to be a big ST fan as a teenager, that's saying something.

One shitfest being better than another shitfest just isn't enough to get me to spend time or money watching a movie.

The Kardashians is more decent than Lucas's shitfests, but I'm not about to spend my time watching the Kardashians.

Oh please.

THX-1138 was an enjoyable film, but it had no dialog! That's the #1 complaint about Lucas's scripts: he can't write dialog worth a shit. THX didn't have any, except a few weird lines ("I'm an android!"). THX was all about visual effects, nothing more. And it did well with that. It really didn't have much of a plot, and certainly no dialog worth speaking of.

JJ's Star Trek movies were lame, and they cut out everything that made ST great: the intellectualism and consideration of social issues, instead of just having mindless violence and action like most other modern movies.

Just read the Timothy Zahn books and ignore everything else.

I don't; we've already seen what JJ produces with sci-fi with his Star Trek movies, and the result isn't pretty. Better than the SW Prequels, maybe a little, but that's not saying much.

Yes, that is true, but the thing is, even if Abrams's SW is better than Lucas's, that's not enough to make me spend my time watching it. Something slightly better than utter crap is still crap. I'm not going to go watch a movie just because it's not quite as horrifically bad as some other movie.

Not me. JJ's Star Trek movies were lame, so I have no hope he's going to do better here. Better than Lucas, perhaps, but that's not saying much.

Yeah, at first the idea of Lucas's script not being used sounds great. But then you have to just remember how awful JJ's Star Trek movies were.

Honestly, I don't see this working out well at all. The movies would have sucked in Lucas's hands, and they're going to suck in JJ's hands. They should have hired Joss Whedon to do them instead. Or maybe James Cameron (though he probably wouldn't have been interested).

Honestly, I'm curious which companies these posters are talking about. I live in America, and the last time I was drug-tested was when I went to work for Intel way back in 2000. Since then, I've had 4 other corporate jobs, including one short-term contract assignment at a defense contractor, and I never had to take a drug test.

This still doesn't make sense. The Powershift (which is just Ford's name for DSG, which is still an "automatic", it just uses clutches and two transmissions that look like manuals mechanically, but are shifted by computer, or optionally by the driver using paddles) is still getting better highway mileage, which is not because of shifting competence but because of gear ratios, since you don't normally need to shift a lot when driving on the highway. The anticipation factor you speak of is only a factor when driving at lower, varying speeds, not cruising on the highway with the cruise control set.

Note also that CVT transmissions are also "automatics" (even though, again, mechanically, they have little in common with a traditional automatic), and here again I'm pretty sure Suburus are showing better MPG across the board with theirs.

>Go to Europe and you'll see the automatic/manual dynamic flipped. American drivers are lazier. They can barely be bothered to use their turn signals much less shift a manual.

That's irrelevant, we're talking about cars with both manual and automatic options, and for the manuals, the small subset of Americans who do like to drive them. I'm fairly sure they don't put different gear ratios in the manual models in Europe.