PDA

View Full Version : Star Wars vs. Star Trek



Wookieboy
01-25-2003, 03:56 AM
I have only been a sir steve member for 2 days now. I am sure this has been asked numerous times, however I would love to know your thoughts on this question of what Sci-Fi giant overall is better? Wars vs Trek. Also, should I sell all of my Trek merchandise that I have aquired over the years? I have recently sold all of my action figures on Ebay that were not Wars, or Trek.
With Art Asylum making such cool Trek figures, do I sell, or do I keep? Please help me on this problem. My first love will always be Star Wars, but the new Trek figures look awesome. I wish Hasbro could make figures like that. I would pay the extra just to get that quality of likeness on the figs. I guess that's another question I could post, would you pay a bit extra for better quality merchandise. I tried once having this discussion on a Trek site, but those people are freaky! Quoting every single episode like it's the freaking Bible. "And I thought these things smelled bad on the outside". Sorry, I lost my head. This one guy told me that the enterprise would destroy the Falcon because of it's "targeting computers". I said yeah, but how's your Federation crew going to do if I stick 1 little yoda with a lightsaber in your mighty federation ship? Tell me what you think about all of this?

JediTricks
01-25-2003, 05:41 AM
Howdy! :) The 12"-scale forum isn't the right place for this, so I'm gonna move this to the "General Discussion" section. Sadly, a lot of folks will probably act all dippy and bag on Trek just because it's the thing to do, though some will have genuine insight one way or the other.


I personally have been a Trekkie all my life, since before there even was a Star Wars. My belief on the issue is that they are 2 different animals and both are great at what they are, both dissimilar enough that there's not a lot of room for comparison (apples and oranges, if you will).

I have tons of merchandise from both franchises and while I have recently been thinking about selling off some of the extra POTF2 stuff I have around here, I can't imagine not having my Playmates Trek stuff -- even when prices for some of them went sky-high, it never occurred to me to sell 'em off. If you have a place for the toys in your heart, then I think at least the ones you really like should stick around.


As for paying more for "higher quality", that is such a subjective idea that I really think the only safe answer is "no" because the toy companies have plenty of wiggle room as it is for making their profit, so giving them more money seems like just giving them carte blanche to lower the quality back down over a period of time without lessening the price like Hasbro did with the Episode I line.


Oh, and I'm gonna try to avoid the "Trek tech vs SW tech" conversation as I've had that one out a million times already over my lifetime and because of the "apples and oranges" nature of the franchises' handling of technology there's a logical advantage towards Star Trek with its advanced shields that can handle gasses and lasers, transporters, photon torpedoes, etc.. Of course, that usually leads the person on the other end of the discussion to try to "even the odds" by changing all sorts of things so SW comes out on top. Sure if the TNG crew had only a shuttlecraft and a medical tricorder they'd get demolished by an Imperial Star Destroyer, but that's just dippy folks.

wedgeA
01-25-2003, 06:16 AM
Welcome to the forums!

As both a long time Star Trek/ Star Wars fan, I have to echo JT's sentiments. I really don't understand the fussin' and a fuedin' between fans of the two camps, one can enjoy both.

One of my most memorable collecting moments was finding nine out the first ten Playmates TNG figures (minus Troi) at a convention in 1992. Although looking back, I overpaid for them, but getting them that day is a very fond memory.

From a monetary standpoint, I don't think that the Playmates stuff will ever be very valuable, except for the limited figures. AA has got a long way to go before they catch to the level of figures that Playmates have made, so my advice to you is to keep your stuff and enjoy them, instead of waiting around for a better version.

Jargo
01-25-2003, 12:50 PM
Well, i like both. Long before star wars i was watching trek OS on a wednesday evening religiously with all my family. Biggest difference between the two as far as i can tell is that trek is based on actual science and wars isn't. Trek is true science fiction whereas star wars is science fantasy. they aren't really comparable for that reason alone. Which is better? There isn't one solid answer to that. personal preference and taste is the only decider. I favor the absolute abandonment of the science fantasy galaxy where anything can happen - just because. But the science fiction of trek makes for thought provoking 'what if' scenarios and discussions. Trek teaches me surreptitiously about stuff that would be mind boggling if explained by scientists in a lecture or some magazine. Seeing it on screen actually working with some simple exposition to inform of the basic principles is enough. Easy to grasp the concepts that way. Star wars just does stuff because it's cool to have a ship go into hyperspace or whatever. Or because it suits the storyline. and it's convenient and means they don't have to spend the budget on any extra long haul flight scenes. same as trek but trek went into why they were able to fly at warp and what it does to the ship physically and all that. Star wars doesn't need to bother because it doesn't matter.
I know tricks didn't want to go the tech route but for me to explain why I think they just co-exist rather than try to exist in the same spce at the same time, so to speak, I had to touch on it.

They both have pros and cons. But each is its own entity entirely. Neither better nor worse than each other.

stillakid
01-25-2003, 05:48 PM
I've never really been able to get that much into Star Trek. The stories are fine, but I haven't been able to get past the production design. The aliens, in particular, have always been incredibly poor in conception. From the earliest incarnations in the original series (antennae poking out of a head = alien?) to the "geeky" renditions of today (ie, those Ferengi (sp?) and the new big eared guy (can't recall his name). Even the Klingons, who are supposed to somehow embody a violent and nasty demeanor just never quite managed that for me.

(And what is it with starship design? All species are programmed to build the bridges with the same general floorplan?)

The Star Wars universe "feels" far more diverse and somehow "realistic" in terms of the variety and type of aliens. They aren't all limited to walking on two feet and having useless bumps on their heads like the Star Trek folk. I know that the similarity to humanity is part of the ST lore, but...oh well. I still don't like it. :)

Tycho
01-25-2003, 06:30 PM
With techonology of effects production, Trek has overcome some of that now. Species 8472 from Voyager had 3 legs. The Founders from the Dominion can be whatever form they want, though yeah - Odo was almost always human formed. And there are more, as they are trying to escape that notion, bit by bit.

In Star Wars, Jabba comes to mind first. Others had extra arms or a tail. With the addition of Watto and Geonosians, we now have characters with wings. Chewbacca still had 2 arms and 2 legs, while Klingons his height have been cast for Star Trek. Meanwhile, JarJar has 2 arms and 2 legs and the rubbermask turned CGI, however, his greatest "alien" attribute is also his ears. The Ferengi look like Ross Perot because they are comedic characters.

Anyway, I am a life-long fan of both series. I was a SW fan first. After seeing ANH, I wanted more sci-fi, and TOS was on in re-runs and with that, and BattleStar Galactica (not sure of the date on the latter one) I got hooked. TOS Star Trek had the best stories and none of them had been done like that then.

Naturally, I loved both later SW movies, and in 1987 fell totally in love with Star Trek: The Next Generation - though DS9 surpassed that for me and remains my favorite Trek.

Welcome WookieeBoy, I recognize you from ArtAsylum's Star Trek forums. It's cool over there how the toy manufacturer actually has their execs talk to its customers in the forums. They start their own threads, show proto-types, and even reply to their customers' posts and criticisms. We can help shape what they produce almost immediately, versus wait for Hasbro's once-a-year Fans' Choice and annual figure line-up announcements - but Hasbro is getting really good at listening to the fans' e-mails and websites, so I give them credit where it's due (I still thank them for Wuher, the Cantina Bartender!)

I have enough Playmates ST figures to make dioramas of the Dominion War - a goal eventually. That's something in the teens on my count of Jem Hadar Warriors. And I pretty much have every Playmates figure (that was carded in the 1st basic size) that they ever produced - and the ships and that great TNG bridge playset! I even have an extra Transporter Playset - sealed - if someone needs it. Other than that, I will not sell my Trek collection at all!

I am buying all of ArtAsylum's Trek stuff (except role-play). Obviously Enterprise is only available at this size. I didn't want them to "oversize" my favorite show, so I got Playmates' Deep Space Nine Figures and "action feature" Worf (in the modern movie uniform that the DS9 figures come in) along with an army of Cardassian and Jem Hadar Soldiers in that size range at a KB Toys $2.50 sale price for each of them! I plan to recreate the boarding of the Defiant by the Dominion in one of several episodes where they did that.

But carrying on, with the Borg series, I bought all 3 for First Contact scenes, and then plan on getting 3 more to put away for Voyager scenes I might be able to do. (I buy only what I plan to open - they're toys to me - as well as art best displayed out of the packaging - save for Hasbro's 12" Bikerscout on Speederbike where the packaging is a scene in itself!)

Anyway, I have to get another set of Picard and Data to return to my Nemesis scene (my current ones like fighting Borg) - and I have an extra Viceroy to fight Riker if they'd just make him!

I only collect SW and Star Trek, save for Terminator figures from McFarlane they just suckered me into (and wow!- they are good!)

But I think Playmates can co-exist with ArtAsylum highlighting your favorite crews and stuff - things that should look the best!

I think Trek is more intellectually rewarding than SW many times, and promotes really deep thinking about some episodes, but by the sheer quantity of them, they always have a dud on when somebody new tries it for their first time :rolleyes:

Star Wars is more passionate, and the music is better! SW can evoke more feeling than most SW - a tribute to John Williams over anything else - plus a great cast I really care for in SW films, including Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker, recently. I thought he did a great job - especially when he broke down in the Lars' garage, and when he was trying to seduce her in the Shakespearean scene by the fireplace (when Padme wore black) and even in his dialogue on the freighter - "You might say that we are encouraged to love."

In Star Trek, Kirk and Worf are some of the few characters I can really feel passionate about. When K'Ehleyr was murdered and Worf cut Duras' head off in revenge, that was awesome! When Krugge killed Kirk's son, and he kicked him into molten lava - that just rocked! Also, when Worf was infiltrating the Dominon base on that jungle planet, and he went back for Jadzia because she'd been shot and was bleeding to death - that story got my heart into it - as did much of Deep Space Nine, with the war and everything. Major Kira was also a good character that attached some passion to Star Trek.

If I were to say any single Trek would appeal to a non-fan that likes Star Wars, I'd say Deep Space Nine - but while they should view them in order, I don't think they will much like the first 2 seasons and might want to skip them, or tolerate them and trust me. The war is really said to pick up in Season 4, but its story starts in 3 with some good episodes. By Season 5 and 6 they have battles with more special effects and more ships in them, than Return of the Jedi did - and done by the same effects people that did ROTJ in the first place.

Watch the credits for Trek: George Lucas' ILM did a lot of their TNG and DS9 shows' effects, and TOS movies - same names, too: Dykstra, maybe Tippet and Murren - I have to double check.

What's also nice about Trek is that you get new episodes for a long time every year. That's not the case with 3 year waits for SW.

And Star Wars movies are so perfect, IMO, because there are only going to be 6, and they have to be! Lucas is a genius and by the time those of you who doubt TPM and AOTC, see Episode 3, you will realize it.

See my thread in the Star Wars E3 spoilers section if you can take speculation (that's all it is now) and not cry over potential spoilers. Things will be confirmed as spoilers are confirmed - but there will be nothing yet until more people are exposed to the script when Lucas releases copies and they start filming.

Anyway, if they are apples and oranges, I think that together I'm very happy having fruit punch!!!

plasticfetish
01-26-2003, 03:55 AM
Hello Wookieboy!
(reading through the posts now ...)
Uh huh, what JT said ... and what he said about the playmates toys ... yep.
Yes, what wedgeA said too ...
Well yeah, what EMPEROR JARGO said for sure.
Oh, now stillakid says ... hmmm ... "The stories are fine, but I haven't been able to get past the production design."

hmmmm ...

hmmmm ... (sniff) ...

hmmmm ...

... I've always considered the production design of the early Trek episodes to be quite beautiful. Little masterpieces depicting good production value. The perfect example, in my mind (and as someone who's worked in television art departments), of a great balance between imagination and available resources. It was later, when movies like Star Wars and then Alien came out that I grew to love those aesthetics. Both, I think, prime examples of the same challenge ... how to make something extraordinary from very little, in very little time. Anyway ...

Oh yeah, what Tycho said ... and there too ... and there too.

Right!!! You can like 'em both and have the toys from both ... and other things too why not? Who knows, maybe in a few years a whole new "something" will pop up and you might want to go with that. It's all in good fun.

Obi-Don
01-26-2003, 04:51 AM
I agree with most of what has been said here. You can like both and still come out on top. They are two different stories, and I like them both. True I was a ST fan 1st, because it was here 1st. But, SW has taken 1st place with me now. Even though SW is my main love. ST will always be there too.

scruffziller
01-26-2003, 07:59 AM
SW-ST Blend (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14315)



SW-ST Crossover (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5728&highlight=Star+Trek+Crossover)

Check this out if your interested Wookieboy.:)

Darth Sinister
01-27-2003, 03:02 PM
It has been stated alot that the production factor is weak thus people don't "get into it"....that is said in other places, not just here. It is my opinion that if you are watching Trek or anything else for it's realistic space aliens or look....you are missing the point.

Lucas has begun to rely heavily on effects and "look" rather than making it a bonus to a great story. Star Trek does, and always has, put more into their stories and used effects to add detail to the canvas. TNG and DS9 got you involved in the character development so well, you didn't care about the grand effects.....Star Wars seems to only tell a story to set up a climactic battle. Granted, those battles are long and very involved with great FX and technical wizardry...but in the end, that's all you have that you really go home and remember.

Star Trek makes you really appreciate the characters and their struggles...Data's strive to be more human...Worfs battle to regain his family's honor...etc. I think Star Trek gets a bad rep because it chooses to develope its characters and tell a story without having some kind of "exciting chase seen" or duel to keep the story action packed. This is sad because the story and characters should come before the action. Movie-goers are now disappointed if the ending of a movie doesn't have some kind apocalyptic battle to end all battles or something with insane stunt work and fiery pyrotechnics.

I keep my Trek stuff because I know the characters and I know exactly what the feeling was and the story behind each figure or autographed picture or model. I keep my Star Wars stuff because it reminds me of my youth and a time when the imagination ran wild of space battles and lightsaber duels. I say keep them both because they aren't just items that can be sold one day for a profit....their value far outways monetary thought. I will keep all of my items till the day I absolutely have to part with them and that will be a sad day indeed.

stillakid
01-27-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Darth Sinister
It has been stated alot that the production factor is weak thus people don't "get into it"....that is said in other places, not just here. It is my opinion that if you are watching Trek or anything else for it's realistic space aliens or look....you are missing the point.

Oh, I definitely "get the point." But I still think that the fundamental basics for what is allowed to represent an "alien" are kind of weak. If the above is any reason to dismiss poor production value, then why not just "tell" these stories without costumes or sfx or anything? If the stories are that fantastic, they shouldn't require any candy coating. Right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the explanation for all the bipeds supposed to come from a "one source" colonization or something like that? If so, fine. I've got no problem with that. It would account for the lack of fundamental diversity of species.

However, it doesn't really explain the arbitrary bumps and stuff on alien heads.

Call me typical and average, but I think I'm with the majority of humanity when I say that "pretty pictures" are more likely to attract my attention than just a good story. Don't get me wrong, pretty pictures aren't enough, but most people (myself included) respond better to the well-told story when it is wrapped up in a nice package. :)

JediTricks
01-27-2003, 07:56 PM
TOS (The Original Series of Star Trek for those who don't know) did the best it could on the budget it was given in the '60s, NBC and Desilu weren't exactly dropping big bucks on the series so the designers had to make do with what they could - heck, at one point NBC had to give the cast raises by cutting back on the f/x budget... and that was when a whole season could be filmed for around the budgets of only 1 episode of Friends and Fraiser combined.

When the cartoon came around, they were able to do more interesting concepts without spending a big wad on f/x, when the movies came around, they could now afford to spend more on f/x, and when TNG came around the f/x industry had changed enough to allow certain increases in quality, but that all came at a cost of not trampling on what had come before in TOS. Roddenberry's original Klingons were just kinda swarthy-looking, but the message was what was important and they looked just different enough to spell it out. When TNG had the opportunity, they explained that the galaxy had been "seeded" by a race of olllllld school aliens which explained some general similarities, but environmental differences are what kept them from being identical.

Perhaps the nose ridges of the Bajorans are from thousands of years of getting their noses broken or staring at the sun too long, perhaps the extra brow ridge on the Romulans are from constantly falling on their proto-Vulcan-based faces. Certainly there are a lot of humanoid lifeforms in the Trek galaxy that walk on 2 legs and have 2 arms and 1 head, but there are certainly others as well - heck, look at the Horta, that was a TOS alien that was basically a large lava-rock thing. And there was the (the badly-named) salt vampire cloud, that black ooze thing that thankfully killed Tasha Yar, the Shelliac, the Q (whose true forms are far beyond our comprehension), and there are more and more.

They do the best with what they have and try not to step too badly on what has come before. The Klingons' change are an exception to that which came from the first Trek movie, but the concept was meant to reinforce the idea of the Klingons.

wedgeA
01-27-2003, 09:00 PM
With regard to the whole production value issue, I think that it is a credit to Trek that, IMO, although Paramount keeps them under tight purse strings, the film series has delivered some true gems.

For example, Wrath of Khan has around 70% of its total screen time on one set. But thanks to solid acting, plot, and direction, it has a very epic feel to it, and outshines most big budget genre films, ie ID4, Armageddon, etc.

stillakid,

What is your opinion on the OT:SE? I am curious because your comments seem to support Lucas' actions. It seems you are saying that a good story is more attractive with the bells and whistles. IMO, the OT:SE was an attempt to make a great story "better", by adding more eye candy.

stillakid
01-27-2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by wedgeA
stillakid,

What is your opinion on the OT:SE? I am curious because your comments seem to support Lucas' actions. It seems you are saying that a good story is more attractive with the bells and whistles. IMO, the OT:SE was an attempt to make a great story "better", by adding more eye candy.

Good question. Thanks!

For the most part, I fully support any director going back in to a story to improve it a) if possible, and b) if necessary. The caveat is that any changes should be honest to goodness improvements and not wholesale alterations to the basic storyline.

The two outstanding examples right off the top of my head would be the addition of Jabba and the Greedo fires first scene.

In the case of Jabba, his addition (regardless of the fx that didn't quite make the grade) didn't really alter anything that we'd come to accept as part of the Star Wars continuity. Storywise, it was fine, but technically speaking, a less than perfect effect can do more harm than good when it distracts the audience and pulls them out of the film.

In contrast, however, when Greedo suddenly (clearly) fired first, that dropped a domino on Han's character arc that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. I know, I know, George claims that Greedo fired first all along, but based on my informal polls, it's undeniably clear that he's among the scant handful that saw it that way. Popular public perception believed that Han fired first and then they witnessed his character grow and change for the better over the course of three films. With the SE change, he's just now always a really swell guy.


The only other additions to speak of (outside of story) are almost purely aesthetic improvements, which I'm in favor of. The best example I can think of was in ANH during the Death Star battle. It was written in the novelization and the script (I believe) that Luke has a TIE on his tail and can't shake him. Wedge comes from in front of Luke, wastes the TIE, and then flies through the fireball. The original fx shots never quite painted that picture very well, but in the SE, it is crystal clear.

So, with those ideas in mind, it's not fair to just write off all the changes as "eye candy." Some are, but many are done to clarify the visual picture that was originally intended, but couldn't be accomplished for any variety of reasons.

plasticfetish
01-27-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Darth Sinister
It has been stated alot that the production factor is weak thus people don't "get into it" ... It is my opinion that if you are watching Trek or anything else for it's realistic space aliens or look....you are missing the point.

Not that it always matters what people say here or anywhere else, but I do agree with your point about "watching for realistic space aliens". I had always understood that Roddenberry fought to keep all of the aliens very human looking, i.e. not obscuring the eyes, etc. because it allowed the actors to convey emotion more easily. You've got a short period of time chopped up by dog food commercials to communicate some kind of drama ... easier to do if your characters have human-like faces. (Think of it like it was a very colorful stage production with a few Hollywood "special effects" thrown in. Considering that this is how and where most production designers and lighting designers developed their talents back then, it's not hard to understand why the show looks like it does.)


Originally posted by Darth Sinister
Lucas has begun to rely heavily on effects and "look" rather than making it a bonus to a great story. Star Trek does, and always has, put more into their stories and used effects to add detail to the canvas.

I think your point about Star Trek there applies to the Original Star Wars Trilogy. I'm pretty sure that what I find lacking in the new Star Wars "films" is that kind of subtle cleverness. It's like ... how much fun would it really be for any of you as toy collectors if you had 100 million dollars in the bank? No doubt after a week you'd give up and start buying Lamborghinis. Sometimes it feels like Lucas has given up making "films" and is out shopping for Lamborghinis (or a better digital camera system and better computer softwear.)

stillakid
01-28-2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by plasticfetish
I think your point about Star Trek there applies to the Original Star Wars Trilogy. I'm pretty sure that what I find lacking in the new Star Wars "films" is that kind of subtle cleverness. It's like ... how much fun would it really be for any of you as toy collectors if you had 100 million dollars in the bank? No doubt after a week you'd give up and start buying Lamborghinis. Sometimes it feels like Lucas has given up making "films" and is out shopping for Lamborghinis (or a better digital camera system and better computer softwear.)

I've noticed that the more "successful" a filmmaker gets, the worse his films tend to be. In other words, once the challenges are gone, that intangible "spark" of creativity gets left at the door. Somehow that lack of resources, and in many cases, support, that younger filmmakers face inspires better and more creative choices by necessity. Once a certain amount of success kicks in, those financial hurdles get lifted and money can buy the filmmaker out of any bit of trouble. I take it from your above statement that you agree, at least as it applies to Lucas.

How do you feel about other filmmakers succumbing to the same fate?

plasticfetish
01-28-2003, 03:35 AM
Yeah. I think we do agree.

I think it goes way beyond just film makers though. I think any "artist" can suffer from getting too "fat". (Though as an "artist" I would love some of that fat.) The shame here is, the freedom that the money can bring seems to get smothered by all of the responsibilities that come with having to maintain your name and business. Having to live up to freakish ideals that most fans see as being a given can be a burden too. It's killed many artists and caused many more to want to simply vanish. I think Lucas can be commended for the strength that he shows in wanting to keep the "business" going and in wanting to continue delivering the "art" to his fans.

It's funny, because to use the closest example, Spielberg seems to do what Lucas does not. On some occasions he seems to actually show some "you-know-whats" and take risks. They may be the kind of risks that big studios can still take to the bank, but none the less they are risks. I don't see Lucas doing that, I don't see him driving things with as firm a hand ... or "directing" the film like others. He seems to set up shop, hire the smart kids and let things fall together. Spielberg has honestly made me experience emotions with a few of his latest film (Saving Private Ryan, A.I.) and though they may be totally fabricated and engineered, at least he seems to be genuinely focused on doing that. (That being the entire point of making "art" ... to convey emotions and ideas that can not be communicated in any other way.)

Case in point ... the landing scene at the beginning of "Saving Private Ryan" ... I will watch that movie whenever it's on ... I can't help it, and that scene makes me want to crawl into a little ball and hide. The emotions that come from that scene and pretty much the rest of the movie are so huge. Then there's the battle scene from "Attack of the Clones" ... I will admit, it is one of the most amazing things I've seen on the big (or little) screen. First time I saw it, and not even the intended digital version, I was stunned. But ... no feeling in the pit of my stomach, no emotion or feeling of connectivity. It was simply "super cool!"

Now, for sure ... one is about WW2 and another is about The Clone Wars ... no doubt the war my grandfathers fought in is going to be somewhat more stirring, but I wonder ... if there was a little more desire on the part of Lucas to generate emotion and a little less desire to make the big, big eye candy, would the film be better? I think so. I also think this is why, though I am immensely entertained by these last 2 newer movies ... they just aren't the same as the first 3. The OT wasn't about pixels, it was about looking at Mark Hammil's face in ESB and trying to figure out which scars were real and if he was perhaps really in pain or not. (I always figured he was, but that's acting.)


... I have no idea how to merge Star Trek into all of that.


Oh ... I will throw this irrelevant bit out ... one of the few film makers that I will always love is Stanley Kubrik. I never felt cheated by him ... he always seemed there to make some kind of "art". I think I liked "A.I." so much because I could still feel his hands all over that movie. He was a guy who never seemed to worry about getting those hands dirty too.

Patient Zero
01-28-2003, 10:08 AM
With me it all comes down to Quality (SW) over Quantity (ST). And except for the first few ST movies, they all seem to be just hour tv shows that they painfully streatched to movie length. :o

Exhaust Port
01-28-2003, 10:41 AM
Or in the case of the first movie, it was painfully stretched to the extreme. V-Ger

JediTricks
01-28-2003, 09:34 PM
I don't think it's fair to say that about ST:TMP, the film was a character play more than anything else and I don't think that story could have been told in under an hour and a half (though the film is significantly longer than that ;)). Also, I think in some ways, TMP is the most faithful to the spirit of the original Trek because it most strongly represents the potential for the human experience with the treasures and pitfalls that carries.

Jargo
01-28-2003, 10:59 PM
Yeah TMP is the coolest of the lot. Although it takes itself a little too seriously. These newer movies are about making money more than a story. Just keeping the actors in a job. going through the motions, they feel empty somehow. Frakes as a director is not that hot. However, for the time it was made TMP rocks the casbah big time visually. The ship really feels like a real working ship. The crew seem to be a real working crew. There isn't so much familiarity around where they sound more like they're en route to a board meeting than a diplomatic voyage of discovery.

TMP is one of the better science fiction movies to grace the silver screen because it really tried to astound with new vistas and new horizons. It tried to meld the OS with the newer technologies available at that time. It took the characters we knew and loved and shoved them into new directions personally. Stretched them out a little. It tried to tie the universe of the OS which seemed a little exotic and far from home, to the world we know. It paved the foundation for everything that followed as far as ST goes. We might never have got TNG without it.

But coming back to the newer movies, they have the budgets and they have the characters to draw on and they have countless episodes to rape for the storylines but they don't have anything worthy of the same status as TMP. They're just too fanciful now. TMP was the last honest episode of trek. The sequels got silly once Nimoy took the directors chair. Yeah TMP is about the pinnacle of trek for me.

scruffziller
01-29-2003, 12:18 PM
Amen Emp Jargo!!

wedgeA
01-29-2003, 09:03 PM
I have never really understood how come so many Trek fans complain about how the characterizations of the crew in TMP are somehow off. I think that they are very faithful, and the Kirk-Spock-McCoy troika is at its best save for Wrath of Khan.

I have to say though that the extended home video version was too long and the pace was slow (I've never seen the original theatrical version). However, the new director's edition that came out in 2001 is one of Trek's finest efforts. Amazing what some subtle editing and effects work can do. Lucas should look to that when creating his ultimate edition OT.

I think that the TNG films really suffer from not taking any chances. The films wrap up too neatly and there are no real substantive changes for the crew. Berman plays it way too safe, and it finally came back to burn him with the disappointing box office for Nemesis.

JediTricks
01-30-2003, 08:40 PM
I think it's the costumes that throw everybody. :D Seriously though, I've never heard that complaint before about TPM, and I've heard an awful lot of complaints about that film. ;) Spock starts off very dry, but that's to be expected by his attempt to reach Kolinar which is mentioned in the dialogue, maybe it's too subtle for general audiences though.

I like the original extended version that was on home video above the theatrical version, I like the dialogue that is in there more, but the pacing does suffer. I haven't seen the updated version yet though.