Why is STAR TREK better than STAR WARS?
#1
Posted 21 July 2011 - 02:23 PM
"The GIMP workshop I'm attending next week is all going to be taught in Star Trek or Star Wars format. Can't remember which, I always get those two confused. Thought I would share that with you cause I know it will drive you crazy that I confuse the two. "
With:
here's a way to remember: Star Trek is for smart and better people, and Star Wars is for goofy people that want to believe that the bad guys are easy to see because they wear black.
Plus, Star Wars is a rip-off of Star Trek, trying to take the elements presented by Star Trek (like Warp Speed becomes Hyper Drive,...goobers) and dumb-it-down for the masses
Plus Star Wars has cute and annoying teddy bears called Ewoks, where as the only cute furry thing on Star Trek was Tribbles that were considered an infestation.
Plus, Star Trek has the first OFFICIALLY recognized synthetic languages spoken by hundreds (Klingon) which is something Star Wars can't do because it's only had 6 wussy movies compared to 11 Star Trek movies, and hunreds of episodes on TV.
Plus, Star Wars became considered a kiddy movie by the 3rd theatrical flop with most of the characters being MUPPETS! I am still surprised that Ms Piggy wasn't cast to replace Slave Leia, which would have drastically improved the Palace of Jabba.
PLUS, The Empire's Death Star could be blown-up with a single shot in the ventilation shaft...TWICE! like they couldn't learn from their mistakes the first time...where as It takes SEVERAL attempts to damage a BORG Cube, and by the time you think you'll get it, they've adapted, then you are up the creek with out a paddle.
PLUS, the Lightsabre is an impossible weapon, but a Batlif is real, and looks great
PLUS The force is stupid.
i ended silly, but i'm tired of sitting here (it's been more than 5 minutes, gotta go play...)
#2
Posted 21 July 2011 - 03:47 PM
#3
Posted 21 July 2011 - 04:28 PM
http://www.wired.com...k-vs-star-wars/
#4
Posted 21 July 2011 - 04:28 PM
#5
Posted 21 July 2011 - 04:46 PM
you can totally like both, but CLEARLY one is better than the other. Plus, I like to poke back with her when she likes to tease me. When she logs back on, she's going to have about 30 REPLIED emails! bwahahaha.
I am reading and using this page right now...it has some good points:
http://www.treknobab...-star-wars.html
#6
Posted 26 July 2011 - 03:24 AM
#7
Posted 26 July 2011 - 07:13 AM
#8
Posted 26 July 2011 - 07:50 AM
i don't think it's that simple. Blondes generally are considered more attractive, but not if they are evil.
But, if i were to post now...i dunno, that would still be funny, but OCD if i was to post another "AND..." to her wall-post.
#9
Posted 26 July 2011 - 10:33 AM
#10
Posted 26 July 2011 - 05:55 PM
#11
Posted 26 July 2011 - 08:28 PM
Chewbacca, R2-D2, and C-3PO are all mildly amusing one joke characters (the first two are funny because they speak in gibberish, yet people can understand them, and the third one is a stereotype of a neurotic person, but he's a robot, so it's novel). There are some creative special effects, good make-up, and striking production design. But so what? There's no substance. We have three movies with simple, marginally interesting characters and nothing stories.
Then there's the prequel trilogy. "The Phantom Menace" is another movie I remember nothing about, so I can't really say whether I like it more or less than the original three. I never saw "Attack of the Clones". I can say that "Revenge of the Sith" is the most memorable Star Wars movie to me, because it is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting and dialog in the movie are horrendous. Hayden Christensen is pitifully stiff and completely devoid of charisma, the storytelling is shoddy, obvious, and childish (I can't believe a man as old and experienced at filmmaking as George Lucas could write such hackneyed, childish tripe), the special effects look like a computer game, and Natalie Portman (crippled by the script's shockingly weak arc for her character) gives the worst performance of her career.
The Star Wars franchise gave us three movies that are respectable only on a superficial level for the originality of their look and some very basic characters who are iconic because they resonated with a generation who saw them as children. Then after 16 years of nothing, it gave us three more movies that stink (again I've only seen two of them, but by most accounts, the other one isn't much better).
The Star Trek franchise on the other hand, gave us three excellent TV series: "Star Trek", "Star Trek: The Next Generation", and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine", which while they have their share of terrible episodes, also feature some of the best episodes, characters, and writing in the history of television. Characters and stories with depth, emotional resonance, and social consciousness. Stories that explore and comment on the human condition and the foibles of society through the words, actions, and personalities of unique and multi-faceted characters. Even the other two lesser series have their occasional moments of inspiration, despite being mostly mediocre.
The Star Trek franchise also gave us three brilliant movies in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home", and "Star Trek: First Contact", a few decent movies, and only two (out of eleven) that are downright awful. And the best Star Trek movies weren't just good because they had fun adventure and characters who were occasionally compelling because they could recite dialog with conviction or humour.
Those movies had ideas about human nature and mankind's place in the universe and casts with more chemistry, whose personalities are given much more attention. The characters aren't just good or bad, brave or cowardly, endearing or despicable like in the Star Wars universe. We see many sides of them and sometimes we even see their mortality and flaws as individuals confronted. Star Wars, in contrast, only offers the empty spectacle of shallow adventures featuring one-dimensional characters. It's pretty obvious which franchise is superior...in my not-so-humble opinion.
#12
Posted 27 July 2011 - 12:14 AM
#13
Posted 27 July 2011 - 04:29 AM
But it was the only show with all my fave Super-Heroes on it when i was 5-10(or there-abouts) and when you are that age in that time, it was amazing.
#14
Posted 27 July 2011 - 05:17 AM
As for the plot, it was deliberately simple and linear and designed to be an antidote for the gritty, realistic movies that were winning all the prizes back then. I think Lucas himself referred to them as "isn't it terrible what's happening to the world?" war movies and he wanted to give movie audiences "two hours in which they could forget." In that respect Lucas succeeded, and it really didn't matter how reductively his story was Good V Evil and simplistic because people were marvelling at the special effects, the sheer scale of the thing, all the marvellous never-seen-before aliens, and the fact that he managed also to people his movie with some genuinely warm and witty characters - some of which didn't even speak in English! Many people loved the fact that Lucas hadn't gone for the usual damsel-in-distress sterotypical love interest and had chosen Carrie Fisher to be smart and feisty, and people enjoyed Harrison Ford as the anti-hero-with-a-heart. Mark Hamill's Luke Skywalker - although he was supposed to be both the hero and the hearthrob - got put into the shade by Han Solo and his Millenium Falcon.
The following two movies sustained the standard and advanced the simply story, but it still remains the case that no matter how big Lucas' mythology gets, I still turn to Star Trek for intellectual stimulation. I tend to enjoy the later three Star Wars movies for their beautifully realised planetscapes, but I have to agree that the characters in them remain infuriatingly one-dimensional in spite of three movie outings, and the story too lacking in emotional resonance. The original trilogy - or "Episodes 4-6" as we are obliged to call them now, set the benchmark for sci-fi in the late 70s and Star Wars Episodes 1-3 never really matched them.
#15
Posted 27 July 2011 - 05:02 PM
The light saber effects, for example, were drawn or painted in as an animation effect after the fact.
Still, the advances made on each film were revolutionary.
An interesting side note on in-camera effects, is that blade runner is typically considered the pinnacle of that type of fx. Even though Star Wars laid the ground for much of what was done in blade runner, by 1982 which is when blade runner came out, Lucas and industrial lm had started really perfecting cgi as we know it today.
Here's a neat link to fx utilizing computers in film!
http://en.wikipedia...._and_television
#16
Posted 28 July 2011 - 12:05 AM
I appreciate everyone for being magnanimous and understanding about my opinion on the Star Wars films. I find that many people online tend to be very defensive and obnoxious towards others who don't agree with them on movies. There are several science fiction films of the 80s considered seminal works of the genre that didn't do much for me. I used to feel freer to express my opinions about them, but years of being insulted by their online fans made me reluctant. It's nice to know I shouldn't have to worry about that here. "Blade Runner" is another highly acclaimed sci-fi film that I didn't much care for. I absolutely adored the special effects, make-up, and production design in that movie, but I thought the characters and story were lousy.
I have to admit I probably have a bit of a bias towards Star Trek like those of you who grew up watching Star Wars movies in the '70s, because I grew up watching "Star Trek: The Next Generation" in the '90s. On the other hand, my love for some of the '80s Star Trek movies is not influenced by nostalgia. I just think they're tremendously entertaining, emotionally and philosophically deep, and beautifully written movies no matter how old you are when you see them. I didn't get to them until I was out of the teen years, long after my opinions on a movie could be influenced by rose-coloured nostalgia glasses.
I didn't get to see a Star Trek movie in theatres until "Star Trek: Nemesis", and although I loved it the first time I saw it, I've since come to feel it was a very ill-conceived film. I still appreciate Tom Hardy's intense performance, though...he was just stuck playing a silly idea for a character that lacked convincing motivation behind his actions. As I said before, the Star Trek series has its share of clunky stories, but I still think in terms of substance, Star Trek's best stories are light years ahead of Star Wars at its peak.
#17
Posted 28 July 2011 - 04:12 AM
Obviously people who didn't grow up waiting for them to come out wouldn't feel that way.
#18
Posted 28 July 2011 - 06:55 AM
Does that apply to Star Trek XI (2009)?
I feel it's more a REBOOT than a prequel, and i am loving it.
#19
Posted 28 July 2011 - 02:24 PM
#20
Posted 29 July 2011 - 03:17 PM
I prefer the term "rebootquel". The movie wasn't exactly a straight prequel, because it's not said to simply occur directly before the events of the "Star Trek" series (like the events of the Star Wars prequel trilogy). It operates on the premise that the characters in the movie, while identical to those of the TV series in DNA, have lead different lives and will continue to lead different lives in an alternate timeline. Also, the character of Nero is connected to events of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" (Spock being an mediator between Vulcans and Romulans), so the movie is a sequel of sorts to "Star Trek" and "Star Trek: The Next Generation", while also being a pseudo prequel to "Star Trek".
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users