43 replies to this topic

[Jedigreedo]

Personally I consider it an alternate universe somewhere between the "Prime" universe of TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY and the Mirror universe. This inbetween universe was mostly the same as ours but contaminated from the events of First Contact in which the Borg's time travel tech didn't just travel back into the past, but shifted into this universe. The events that have taken place in this inbetween universe post-FC are Enterprise and Abrams' Trek.

But that's just me.

As for the original topic, or the hairy analogy of the original topic, my opinion is that Star Trek is itself both the blonde AND brunette, depending on how the week is. Star Wars is the green haired one you meet on the weekends and leave all rationale at the door.

Meanwhile, Stargate is the neglected red-headed stepchild.

[Commodore Kor'Tar]

@ Q : That is best description I have heard of it!

[FHC]

Star Trek

Is like your parents. Even if you ignore them you always know that you can find them easy and they are always out there somewhere waiting on your return

Star Wars

Is like your crazy uncle buck. He shows up every few years (more often then not it's just a rumor) and when he does make it to town, it's a big party with singing and dancing and good times for the short time he's there. Then, he's gone again leaving you feel a bit empty hoping that he'll come back some day.

[Jedigreedo]

Uncle Buck, you say?

[Quadrotritacale]

@ Q : That is best description I have heard of it!

Thanks! I gave it my best shot! I like FHC's comparison of the two franchises, even though I don't much care for Star Wars. I think he's quite astute in suggesting it's more like silly escapism/your wacky friend or relative, while Star Trek is something you can rely on for a much deeper and more emotionally satisfying relationship.

[Gothneo]

Some movies I love or dislike when they come out, but I find if I just stick them on a shelf and wait 5 or so years they will either age well like a fine wine or turn to vinegar!

There are a number of Trek Movies, that When I re-visited them after years of letting them sit, I found I liked them better.

Maybe this will be one of those.

Meanwhile, Stargate is the neglected red-headed stepchild.

I have to admit... I do like red-heads!

[Skot]

Some movies I love or dislike when they come out, but I find if I just stick them on a shelf and wait 5 or so years they will either age well like a fine wine or turn to vinegar!

There are a number of Trek Movies, that When I re-visited them after years of letting them sit, I found I liked them better.

Maybe this will be one of those.



I have to admit... I do like red-heads!

I just watched, this month, EVERY single Star Trek movie because 07/11 scrambled is 1701, so this is a Star Trek month...and some have gotten more logical, but i still don't care for the 5th movie.

[Gothneo]

Yeah, that one is at the top of my least liked films...

That one is more like Vinegar

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

While the original star wars certainly had computers involved with it's Fx, it wasn't the type of fx we think of today e.g. Cgi fx. It was mostly models, use of mattes and in camera fxs such as the computerized trench displayed for the death star sequence.

I think they also had computerised sequencing for "remembering" camera positions, panning, tracking and passes for filming those model sequences. I agree there wasn't any CGI as such - computer graphics were probably still around 3 years away. And I do have to say that I may be a luddite, but I much prefer models. I don't like CGI because I can always tell and it looks cheap to me. CGI explosions always look look fake and I am probably not the only SW fan who prefered the puppet Yoda to CGI Ninja Yoda. That Yoda was eventually able to do backflips was to my mind not actually the point of the character.

The light saber effects, for example, were drawn or painted in as an animation effect after the fact.

And I think the actors used prop light saber "pommels" with thin strips of reflective metal to represent the light saber effect while they were filming the fights. That way they were able to play the scenes as choreographed "sword fights" and could dodge the bits which would eventually be added later in post-production.

Still, the advances made on each film were revolutionary.

Well considering somebody said in 1966 after 2001 Space Oddessy was released that if somebody wanted to make a more realistic movie about space they would actually have to go into space to make it - yes!

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.

Yes, I tend to think Bladerunner was fantastic and the FX still hold up today, but it's easy to see where Lucas' work influenced much of how the LA of the future was rendered (all those camera pans up enormous building models and the very busy street scenes and the futuristic vehicles). However, I think Bladrunner was ground-breaking in a different way and led to a number of future dystopian visions. It was much imitated. As much as Star Wars spawned a number of "a-likes".

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

I actually prefer those more practical special effects to C.G.I and I definitely think the special effects in the first three Star Wars movies are much more enjoyable than those in "Revenge of the Sith". Sad how the newest Star Wars movie also has the worst use of technology for special effects. I think sometimes people get lazy when they don't have to put forth the kind of effort required to use things like models, mattes, and camera tricks. I'd take the stop-motion special effects of Ray Haryhausen (no matter how goofy they may look) over the dull C.G.I. in "Revenge of the Sith" any day. I recently watched "The Beast from 20, 000 Fathoms" and was in complete awe of the giant lizard creature in it.

You and me both! One of my favourite films of all time is the 1969 British movie The Battle of Britain quite simply because they don't make movies like that anymore. They actually had to fly real planes to make those dog-fight scenes, whereas today they'd be all CGI and as cheap-looking and unrealistic as Gerry Anderson Supermarionation. In fact, there are some horrible mistakes in The Battle of Britain such as a distinctly 1960's modern front door and electric doorbell on a cottage in one of the scenes and Susannah York's hair and make-up being totally the wrong era, but those dog fights and the film score make up for all that.

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.

Have you ever had a row on imdb.com message boards? The people there are savage! I remember going the several rounds with a guy who absolutely venerated Duncan Jones' Moon whereas I hated the movie. The funny thing was that in the end I probably developed a better understanding of the film through arguing against it than this obnoxious guy did with his very superficial worship of it. In the end I knocked up against so many fruitloops there that I quit my account because people were so negative and usually the dumber they were the more obnoxious they were.

As for Bladrunner your ability to appreciate the design of it more than the content is about where I am with noughties Star Wars - I can enjoy the planetscapes all day, but the characters I find distinctly "meh"! Oh, and my goodness me, but Padme has the most extensive wardrobe doesn't she? I think she changes her clothes more often than she changes her expression. I thought that Attack of the clones might have sent me into a coma before its running time expired - even the planetscapes couldn't redeem that one for me.

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.

They were mostly very good movies that worked on all kinds of levels and could please long-term fans and non fans alike. Although I thought TMP was a partial triumph of spectacle over plot, the rest of the TOS movies were very well -written and relied on the warmth of well-loved characters to drive their appeal. The FX was almost incidental - although Shatner's TFF was a bit of a misfire, but again it was nothing that couldn;t have been fixed with a slightly better budget and some restraint on Shatner's part.

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.

I'm inlcined to agree with that assessment. I think the problem with Star Trek Nemesis was that they chose the wrong director - a man who was new to the franchise and didn't take the time to learn to understand its appeal - and poor editing. It simply didn't fulfil the brief of a Star Trek movie and it lacked a coherent plot and enough character moments for the TNG cast. It was basically a very poor Star Trek movie which could have been better if they'd stuck to John Logan's original script and hired Jonathan Frakes or LeVar Burton to direct it. In the end it was a bit of a mess with no one in the audience understanding Shinzon's motives unless they thought about it for a few years (like I did!), and even though Hardy's performance has to rank as one of the high watermark performances from an actor in the entire franchise, Stuart Baird's lack of care meant that not many people cared to think about Shinzon's dilemma and the pathos inherent in Picard's situation beyond the closing credits. The original shooting script was a lot more coherent and was full of all the character moments that fans wanted to see. Baird just made it into an action movie that didn't have enough action that was justified in good plotting (pointless B4 in bits and the dune buggy race anyone?) or the budget to make any of it convincing.

[Gothneo]

Just a quick note on Bladerunner...

It really is a fantastic "art" film, so if you only enjoy it for the effects and cinematography, you've probably gotten the main jist of it.

Much of the plot suffered from writer conflicts, there were many angles that never made it to the final script that I think would have moved the story along better, it may have been that there were too many concepts to cram into a 2 hr movie, and thus it lost some of its coherence.

I think I appreciate it more for the effort than for what it ended up being. If that makes any sense...

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

Just a quick note on Bladerunner...

It really is a fantastic "art" film, so if you only enjoy it for the effects and cinematography, you've probably gotten the main jist of it.

Well, yes, it's very enjoyable on that level, but the book it was based on: Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (incidentally K. Dick died in 1982, the year of the film's release) was a deep science fiction novel raising important existential questions which were less well explored or presented in the film. That was something of a shame, but I think the film wanted to be more about Art, special effects, and ... Harrison Ford as Deckard. In some respects the movie was a triumph of looks over substance.

Oh, and don't forget that awesome soundtrack by Vangelis! If ever a movie score ever so prefectly matched the mood and visuals of a movie, that was the one.

Much of the plot suffered from writer conflicts, there were many angles that never made it to the final script that I think would have moved the story along better, it may have been that there were too many concepts to cram into a 2 hr movie, and thus it lost some of its coherence.

Oh, in the end, it's a bit of a "beautiful mess", not the least because the style of the thing became about recreating forties "gum shoe" movies and less to do with what the novel was trying to represent. I've got that 3 DVD collectors set of the movie with the different versions. I'm something of a heretic here because I actually prefer the first version with the voice-overs! The Director's cut went too far down the line of Deckard beginning to suspect that he himself is a replicant. Yes, that scene where he closely examines the replicant's photo creates within his psyche a momentary existential crisis, but you don't get the impression in that actual novel that Deckard ever thinks he's a product of the Tyrell Corporation and mainly he's in something of a moral conundrum only when he feels some attraction for Rachel - otherwise he's quite happy blasting "skin jobs" into oblivion. That's MHO anyway.

I think I appreciate it more for the effort than for what it ended up being. If that makes any sense...

Yes - it totally does! I'd also place Titanic, Avatar, and Star Wars: Episodes 1-3 in that category!

[admiralsands]

One place where Star Wars has Star Trek beat is in toy merchandising. Unfortunately

[Gothneo]

In outright sales? Yes. Star wars is the gold standard for boys toys. However, I think the trek tek is more interesting and fun than star wars... Mostly you only have the electronic light sabers... And a good old blaster

Treks got way more cool gizmos!

[Skot]

In outright sales? Yes. Star wars is the gold standard for boys toys. However, I think the trek tek is more interesting and fun than star wars... Mostly you only have the electronic light sabers... And a good old blaster

Treks got way more cool gizmos!

I dunno, when i was a kid i had the Death Star play set and i had hours of fun with that elevator, the blow-up cannon, and...THE TRASH COMPACTOR!!! I loved that Trash Compactor for some reason.
Also, Creature Canteen playset had all those neat levers and etc.
And I had years of fun with that Droid Factory playset! that was amazing, you could build and rebuild droids in so many combinations. I never played with the crane, and nixed it rather early.
..and there were several more playsets i did not have.
My friends had, and i enjoyed: The Ewok Village, Yoda's home with that cool quicksand trap, the Hoth playset, ...

What playsets did we get from Trek? bridge, engineering, and transporter room are the only ones that come to mind.

[Gothneo]

With trek tek I'm talking about role play...

The play sets are just extensions of the action figure toys, which I've already conceded star wars is king of!

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

Wait you could get an Ewok village and Yoda's house?!

Gee, I really was born way too early! I'd much rather have Ewoks and Yoda to play house with than Sindy and Barbie!

Actually, the droid factory sounds fun too...


I think Star Wars wins on the toy index by several million miles! However - could that be more because it's always been seen as more for kids? ***ducks***

[Daysleeper]

I think there's enough room for both franchises. I like both. If you ask me what I'd prefer, the answer would clearly be Star Trek, because there's much more diversity to the stories and characters. And probably because I prefer the more "realistic" appeal. Also, Star Wars (for me) means simply fun, whereas Star Trek has depth (without losing the track on fun). I watched DS9's "Past Tense 1&2" last night, an episode I had not seen for at least 13 years and that I didn't like that much back then. But watching it last night, I realized the topicality. I mean, that's kinda prophetic, isn't it? It's the typical sci-fi-way of using a sci-fi-story to mirror our society. It's just not the clean black and white Star Wars theme.

What I always liked about Trek is that it's main focus is on the characters and the stories, whereas Star Wars tends to go for spectacle and special FX. I guess that's also one of the reasons why I didn't like JJ Trek at all.

And as for Hardy's performance in "Nemesis": I thought it was terrible (as was the whole movie). I was really surprised and impressed by his acting in "Inception". Same goes for Hayden Christensen: He can act, if he's got a good director to work with. George Lucas is not bad when it comes to FX and spectacle (although I prefer the original trilogy and it's specialFX to the new CGI-created stuff), but he's a bad director for actors. Watch the original Star Wars movies. There's some awful acting going on there...

Finally, my comment on special effects: As I mentioned before, I'm not into CGI-effects, especially not when the story seems to develop around the effects instead of having effects to highlight a story. Plus you can always tell that there's a computer generated effect, whereas the use of models always seems to bring some real, tangible feel to effect shots. I guess when it comes to starship FX, my favorite movie is and will always be "The undiscovered Country".

[A Chimpanzee & 2 Trainees]

From a general perspective, they are much different movies targeted for people who are looking for completely different moviegoing experiences. I think it's only the fact that they seem superficially similar because they both feature interstellar space travel that makes people want to try to compare them.

I see the SW movies as simply fantasy adventure geared specifically for the average teenager in its level of storytelling and character sophistication. That may seem like a slam, but I don't mean that negatively. There's nothing wrong with those movies, and nothing wrong with liking them even if you're not a teenager. It just... is, and the people looking for more from their storytelling are the ones who are going to walk away disappointed. The problem with the prequels is that they really tried to broaden the appeal beyond teenagers into pre-teen kids. Likely this is done as a business decision to try to extend the merchandising monolith that SW has become. In the process, the storytelling and characters became notably simpler, leading to the criticisms among the original trilogy's fans that the prequels stink in comparison.

ST doesn't really have, to me, that same sort of consistent identity that SW had/has. You could argue this as both a strength and a weakness, but the movies in particular are all over the map ... from the old fashioned sci-fi plotline in TMP, to the adventure of TWOK, to the political thriller that is TUC, to the zombie movie that is FC. The series being originally crafted for TV, its core characters are and were always intended to be more malleable to support a variety of different storylines. The appeal of the characters stems from a slowly growing appreciation of them, so that you care about them on a different level than you do SW. That's not to say that people don't care about the characters in SW, but merely that the attraction is different. (Tying both points together, for example, Riker's the only guy who could BOTH single handedly defeat the Borg AND lose the Enterprise to a 30 year old ship with 1/10th the firepower... and significant numbers of fans HATE that the writers can get away with making him look so inept.)

The upshot is, you can get away with being less rigid in what your movies are about. It's also why, I think SW fans find a lot more to like about that franchise as a whole. While they might individually like a ST movie but not the overall franchise. It makes the whole body of work a little less satisfying to everyone. What do you really KNOW that you're getting beyond a bunch of guys on a spaceship and some kind of space combat? You might be able to compare the more adventure themed ST movies to SW, but even then, I'm not sure how you compare the thematic undertones of TWOK to ANH ... I suppose that Khan can be compared slightly to Darth Vader in some respects, or Trek XI's Kirk to Luke Skywalker, but in terms of the movies and not just the characters, I don't see how it makes sense.

In the end, let's not forget to be grateful to SW even if you don't like it... without it, we probably wouldn't even have a movie franchise, or at least a much much smaller one.

[JulesLuvsShinzon]

IAnd as for Hardy's performance in "Nemesis": I thought it was terrible (as was the whole movie). I was really surprised and impressed by his acting in "Inception". Same goes for Hayden Christensen: He can act, if he's got a good director to work with.

I thought Christensen wooden and remained so, but then I thought Ewen McGregor took forever to stop sleepwalking through is role - only coming good IMO during the final movie. As for Tom Hardy, there are a few people who share your opinion of his acting in Star Trek Nemesis - although I thought exactly the opposite - that his acting was pitched perfectly towards portraying an awkward young man-made-Emporer, and I drew some parallels between Shinzon and Joaquin Pheonix's portrayal of Commodus in Gladiator, both films being written by John Logan with some overlap in villainous motives.

If you can get hold of a copy of the Nemesis collectors' Edition DVD and watch the extras, you can see Hardy's screen test for the role in which he nervously picks his way through the dining scene with Patrick Stewart. What works in this screen test is that Hardy's almost palabale nerves really work well with the material he's been given (which is the unedited, complete dialogue for that scene, inclduing a joke about Picard's baldness) and if that had been the cut the made the movie, I think you would have been more impressed. Again I blame Baird, he seemed to think that Hardy needed a lot of support in his first major role, and spent a lot of time coaching the young actor to play the role the way he wanted it played instead of working more with what attracted him to Hardy in the first place. Baird is basically a film editor and a pretty poor one at that, so no wonder the quality of the final movie was compromised.

Hardy in Inception is basically Hardy-Lite; if you really want to see what Hardy can do as an actor then try and get hold of Stuart: A Life Backwards or Bronson.