Author Topic: Star Trek prequel > Star Wars prequel (Read 1336 times)

Dante Leonhart · « **on:** May 09, 2009, 12:37:02 PM »

Just wondering what the other opinions are on this subject. A lot of people regard Lucas' return to the origin as less than stellar. Now that Star Trek has returned to its origin, it seems to have exploded in popularity.

Thoughts?

Dalek · « **Reply #1 on:** May 09, 2009, 12:38:36 PM »

They didn't use the Lucas of the Trek universe. If someone else had made the Star Wars prequels, who knows?

JimmyB76 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2009, 02:18:05 PM »

prequils suck... remakes suck... reboots suck... (except maybe for BSG lol

)
it has been done so many damn times to too many movies over the last decade, and all to make a buck using the name of something that was previously very successful...

before this thread goes further - this will not be a discussion of Trek XI, or a Star Wars vs Star Trek thread...
if any of that happens, this thread will be shut down immediately...

we'll let this thread go for now, only to remain exactly ontopic as per the first post... the discussion of prequils, the success/failures of other movies having done them, and the positives/negatives of Star Wars prequils as compared to Trek prequils, and other related conversation...

Dante Leonhart · « **Reply #3 on:** May 09, 2009, 02:24:05 PM »

Quote from: JimmyB76 on May 09, 2009, 02:18:05 PM

prequils suck... remakes suck... reboots suck... (except maybe for BSG lol )
it has been done so many damn times to too many movies over the last decade, and all to make a buck using the name of something that was previously very successful...

before this thread goes further - this will not be a discussion of Trek XI, or a Star Wars vs Star Trek thread...
if any of that happens, this thread will be shut down immediately...

we'll let this thread go for now, only to remain exactly ontopic as per the first post... the discussion of prequils, the success/failures of other movies having done them, and the positives/negatives of Star Wars prequils as compared to Trek prequils, and other related conversation...

QFT. The key word in my first post too is "Opinion" so no one is going to be right and no one is going to be wrong.

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2009, 05:49:36 PM »

In my humble opinion, the reason Star Trek's "prequel" is succeeding where Star Wars failed is simple. Star Wars, you can go into the 3 prequels and you don't have to worry that Obi-Wan or Anakin are going to die. Why? Because we've seen the late Sir Alec Guiness portraying the same character. Star Trek...simply put, while it is an origin story, it negates the baggage of, "Oh, I know Kirk has to live for at least 75 years so he can die on Veridian III" due to the time travel creation of an alternate reality(something that has happened plenty of times in Star Trek lol). This creates the notion that ANYTHING can happen to these characters now. Their fates, unlike the fates of Obi-Wan and Anakin in Episodes I, II, and III, are not fixed.

Tuskin38 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2009, 06:15:23 PM »

Quote from: Shadowknight1 on May 09, 2009, 05:49:36 PM

In my humble opinion, the reason Star Trek's "prequel" is succeeding where Star Wars failed is simple. Star Wars, you can go into the 3 prequels and you don't have to worry that Obi-Wan or Anakin are going to die. Why? Because we've seen the late Sir Alec Guiness portraying the same character. Star Trek...simply put, while it is an origin story, it negates the baggage of, "Oh, I know Kirk has to live for at least 75 years so he can die on Veridian III" due to the time travel creation of an alternate reality(something that has happened plenty of times in Star Trek lol). This creates the notion that ANYTHING can happen to these characters now. Their fates, unlike the fates of Obi-Wan and Anakin in Episodes I, II, and III, are not fixed.

Basically summed up my thoughts.

newman · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2009, 06:24:49 PM »

Quote from: Shadowknight1 on May 09, 2009, 05:49:36 PM

In my humble opinion, the reason Star Trek's "prequel" is succeeding where Star Wars failed is simple. Star Wars, you can go into the 3 prequels and you don't have to worry that Obi-Wan or Anakin are going to die. Why? Because we've seen the late Sir Alec Guiness portraying the same character. Star Trek...simply put, while it is an origin story, it negates the baggage of, "Oh, I know Kirk has to live for at least 75 years so he can die on Veridian III" due to the time travel creation of an alternate reality(something that has happened plenty of times in Star Trek lol). This creates the notion that ANYTHING can happen to these characters now. Their fates, unlike the fates of Obi-Wan and Anakin in Episodes I, II, and III, are not fixed.

I could say all is true except the "In my humble opinion" line: it's not your opinion, it's JJ Abram's. You almost literally retyped what he said in one interview. It's also a weak point - it's obvious he's not going to kill off any of the main cast, simply because this Star Trek is an obvious attempt to make the franchise more accessible to the average joe - old Star Trek was more of a "nerd" thing, and there's not enough of them to make sufficient profit. So, in order to make the franchise accessible to a larger audience, they need to dumb it down, CGI the hell out of it, and keep all the main characters alive so they can make money making sequels. Which is exactly what they did, and will probably keep doing.
The movie was so dumbed down it didn't feel like trek at all to me. So far, Trek at least tried to look and sound scientifically plausible - science officers would talk about neutrinos, leptons, antiprotons, various types of radiation, etc - no knowledge of what these things actually are was necessary to get the plot, but at least it made an effort to sound like someone with a degree in astrophysics is manning the sensor station. New Trek is afraid this is too much for the average human brain to handle, so they replace actual particles and physical forces with terms like "red matter", and make black holes a few hundred meters in diameter 2d phenomena that send ships back in time, instead of crushing them with overwhelming gravitational force, long after the crew was already killed by Hawking radiation. But let's not care about people who'll notice this, because our new type of Star Trek fan is going to beat them up and take their lunch money anyway.

FarShot · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2009, 07:57:48 PM »

I guess you're one of those "technobabble" guys.

Which reminds me, I hope ST-E isn't full of it. Man I would kill myself. :lol:

newman · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2009, 08:37:22 PM »

You completely missed my point, and I'm not. Technobabble is one of the main things I disliked about Voyager, that show solved 90% of the problems using the main deflector. My point was that this went too far in the other direction, and became so dumbed down it stopped feeling like trek at all. Or does the term "red matter" sound very brainy and scientific to you? I agree that neutrinos can't be the plot device, but trek XI's plot is practically non-existent, and does an even poorer job of maintaining the storyline.

JimmyB76 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 10, 2009, 11:40:19 PM »

guys please try and remain ontopic to the discussions of prequils related to Trek and Star Wars...
_{(and how cheesy and lame they are lol )}

Quote from: FarShot on May 10, 2009, 07:57:48 PM

I guess you're one of those "technobabble" guys.
Which reminds me, I hope ST-E isn't full of it. Man I would kill myself. :lol:

why are you bringing Star Trek - Excalibur into this discussion?
how does that have anything to do with the point of this thread?

RCgothic · « **Reply #10 on:** May 11, 2009, 07:02:28 AM »

I actually agree with the direction they took. There was no way they could make the 'red matter' make any sort of scientific sense, so why bother giving an explanation that is just going to make the scientifically minded roll their eyes at it?

1DeadlySAMURAI · « **Reply #11 on:** May 11, 2009, 09:07:41 AM »

The red matter is a reference to the series Alias where Sydney Bristow chases a red sphere called a Mueller device.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_device

That's all I could see the entire movie. That stupid Mueller device. :lol:

Bren · « **Reply #12 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:51:41 AM »

We're completely off topic here, but I will weigh in to say that JJ loves balls. Red ones. He puts one somewhere in everything he makes, apparently. I can't recall it in LOST, but apparently, there is one.

I think Fringe already had one, though I don't watch it. I saw maybe one ep of Felicity.

I think ShadowKnight agrees with JJ because what JJ says is true. There is potential for unpredictability, hell there was something in the personal relationships that came totally out of left field for me!

Star Wars didn't have any potential for change. Everything was predestined, and aside from the details, which in the end were executed by turns stylishly and tiresomely, everything was set in stone.

At the end of this movie, The Galaxy is a vastly different place to the one of the original series. Star Wars could never have done that (though some say they did).

Villain · « **Reply #13 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:58:44 AM »

JJ Is a fan of Wipeout. :arms:

candle_86 · « **Reply #14 on:** October 15, 2009, 03:24:29 AM »

To be honest I prefered the Star Wars prequels yes we knew what happened to Anakin ect, but it was still cool to see. Seeing the back stories of C3Po (my favorite) and R2D2 was awesome, seeing why and how anakin feel is also pivitol that wasnt covered in the movies just that he did. Knowing that Obi Wan trained Anakin because his master couldn't also added some info we didn't have. It had plot and suspense, sure they wouldn't die but does anyone say seeing Anakin get disfigured wast totally awesome to actully see lol.

Star Trek XI is totally diffrent instead of giving a back story they rewrote the whole book, something Lucas would never have been allowed to do, the fans would likly have cut him down with there fake toy light sabers. Personally I prefer a real backstory to a whole new book, but thats my view point

Bones · « **Reply #15 on:** October 15, 2009, 05:51:41 AM »

Quote from: candle_86 on October 15, 2009, 03:24:29 AM

Star Trek XI is totally diffrent instead of giving a back story they rewrote the whole book, something Lucas would never have been allowed to do, the fans would likly have cut him down with there fake toy light sabers. Personally I prefer a real backstory to a whole new book, but thats my view point

IMHO by rebooting ST in ST XI they wrote whole new book hence it's alternate universe which may be diffrent from what it was meant to be (TOS) while SW reboot was simpy writing begining story.

I can't really choose which one was better, both are well executed, both are pumped up with new GFX (tho SW gfx were kinda more appealing for eye as cam wasn't soo shaky) altho there are some things I didn't like about SW (AOTC was kinda soapy like 'Bold and Beautiful' )
If I would to pick either ST XI or EP1 I would say ST XI as a reinvision for ST is much better than EP1 for SW.

Darkthunder · « **Reply #16 on:** October 15, 2009, 06:19:44 AM »

Forgive me for asking this but... bumping a 5 month old topic?

Bones · « **Reply #17 on:** October 15, 2009, 11:18:30 AM »

blame Candle

j/k didn't noticed when it was created and Candle responded to it

candle_86 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 15, 2009, 11:22:10 AM »

im allowed to reply to any topic as long as the post is relevant the rules say so

Bones · « **Reply #19 on:** October 15, 2009, 01:16:59 PM »

Quote from: candle_86 on October 15, 2009, 11:22:10 AM

im allowed to reply to any topic as long as the post is relevant the rules say so

no harm done ;)

News:

Author Topic: Star Trek prequel > Star Wars prequel (Read 1336 times)