Author Topic: What was good/bad for Trek, good for Star Wars?  (Read 837 times)

Offline lancerkind

  • New Member
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
What was good/bad for Trek, good for Star Wars?
« on: December 15, 2015, 06:20:55 PM »
The new Beyond trailer told me a lot: Paramount is continuing in the Abram's vein of work even though he's involved with Star Wars.  Not only that, they are going further by having a Fast and Furious director directing.  Fast and Furious is a fun action technology thriller but at times you need to turn off the "physics check" in your brain to make the stunts work.  (Take FF7 scene when Vin dives out of the car to save his GF. The ballistics archs don't match with what he did.)

So I'm worried that adding Justin Lin takes us even further in a direction that will turn Trek into a "feel good" science fiction for the scientifically illiterate.  I'm happy to be wrong and that they won't let "what looks cool" trump "what's technically feasible."  Otherwise we'll just end up with Pirates of the Caribbean and we won't even get the charms of Johnny Depp.

We know what Abrams has brought to Paramount with Trek. What do you think he'll do for Star Wars? This article goes over this Abrams, Trek, and finishes with a poll to see if Star Wars will be better served by the Abrams/Disney combo or not. http://lancerkind.com/2015/12/15/star-trek-rebooted-now-its-star-wars/

Cheers,
==>Lancer—

An article about what Abrams has done with Trek and what we think he'll do for Star Wars. At the end is a poll to see if Star Wars will be better served by the Abrams/Disney combo or not. http://lancerkind.com/2015/12/15/star-trek-rebooted-now-its-star-wars/



Online Fiery Little One

  • Distinguished Member
  • Posts: 7,794
  • Live Long and Prosper
    • View Profile
Re: What was good/bad for Trek, good for Star Wars?
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2015, 07:15:54 PM »
I have no doubts about JJ and Wars, unlike what I've had for his take on Trek. That said, I'm waiting for more before I write Beyond off completely.
Open your mind to new possibilities
-Trip(sort of), The Crossing

Offline Razor

  • Board Legend
  • Posts: 15,820
  • All things not of this world
    • View Profile
Re: What was good/bad for Trek, good for Star Wars?
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2015, 06:51:52 AM »
Quote
So I'm worried that adding Justin Lin takes us even further in a direction that will turn Trek into a "feel good" science fiction for the scientifically illiterate.  I'm happy to be wrong and that they won't let "what looks cool" trump "what's technically feasible."

...What!? we're in a universe with starships and transporters I think we can throw technical feasability out the window.  Bond pointed this out when STID came out but whats wrong with rule of cool.  We've a got a multimillion dollar budget I want to see the Enterprise do new and cool things.
“The boat dipped and swayed and sometimes took on water, but it did not sink; the two brothers had waterproofed it well. I do not know where it finally fetched up, if it ever did; perhaps it reached the sea and sails there forever, like a magic boat in a fairytale. All I know is that it was still afloat and still running on the breast of the flood when it passed the incorporated town limits of Derry, Maine, and there it passes out of this tale forever.” ― Stephen King, It"
High priest in the Cult of J

Offline Bernd

  • Administrator
  • Distinguished Member
  • Posts: 7,865
  • Lord of the Bored
    • View Profile
Re: What was good/bad for Trek, good for Star Wars?
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2015, 06:01:04 AM »
Now that I have seen "The Force Awakens" I can attest it is 100% Star Wars. In a positive way, it remains perfectly true to the roots of the franchise. In a negative way, it is awfully repetitive as it includes all the same themes as Ep. IV and hardly anything else.

Star Trek is treated radically differently by the people in charge. The Abramsverse has very little in common with the old Star Trek - new universe, new style, redefined characters, new philosophy if any. In a positive way, Star Trek moves on in some fashion* unlike Star Wars, which ultimately proves to be a "static universe" where the same story repeats with every Skywalker generation. In a negative way, Star Trek isn't Star Trek any longer. While the much criticized Beastie Boys trailer for "Beyond" may have been designed for an "action kid" audience it is symptomatic of a general cluelessness of how to create and how to present Star Trek in our time.

*If we are generous. STID heavily suffered from the "everything-repeats-like-in-Star-Wars" snydrome.

The perhaps decisive difference between the franchises is that the makers of Star Wars are proud of its heritage and handle it with great care. That's why they manage to gloss over the many weaknesses in the story, in the characters and in the philosophy. And they don't change anything about the the recipe in the first place because it is a money-making machine.

The people currently in charge of Star Trek desperately try to incorporate always more action and more coolness, and they remove ethical dilemmas in favor of pure character conflicts, because they know the recipe (of Star Wars and other action movies) or were told to use it. It is symptomatic that Simon Pegg has to tell us that there's more Star Trek in "Beyond" than the trailer insinuates. This appeasement will probably continue even after the film has premiered. In contrast, no one ever needs to justify how a Star Wars movie turns out. And in cases where something met general disapproval it was fixed the next time (Jar Jar) and not simply ignored or denied (lens flares - BTW, where are Abrams' lens flares in "The Force Awakens"?).

The makers of Star Wars care for the money, for the "purity" of their franchise and for their audience (perhaps in exactly that order). The makers of Star Trek want to make money too, they try to preserve some aspects of the legacy but they don't really know their audience in the first place. As sad as it is, Star Trek currently presents itself as some sort of second-rate Star Wars. Without self-confidence, and with a promise like "Look, we've got plenty of action. And perhaps something for the nerds too."

BTW, I like the Trek Purity test. I would recommend to reduce the number of questions in order to make it more like a Bechdel test** that can be applied very quickly.

**I don't mean to say that I care for the Bechdel test. But considering that it is used to shoehorn the demands of a specific group into the movie industry, I find it only fair that Trek movies should live up to the demands of Trek fans.