RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,795
Posts: 5,325,672
Members: 24,548
Currently online: 528
Newest member: wrestlefreak36

TrekToday headlines

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4

Star Trek Pop-Ups Book Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3

Cho: More On Selfie
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Site Forums > TrekToday News Items

TrekToday News Items Discussion of TrekToday news items

 
 
Thread Tools
Old February 1 2009, 12:34 AM   #16
Lindley
Moderator with a Soul
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

I think what may not be obvious is that at this point Abrams seems to be speaking from a director's standpoint, not a storyteller's.
__________________
Lead Organizer for EVN: Firefly.
"So apparently the really smart zombies have automatic weapons!"
-Torg, Sluggy Freelance
Lindley is offline  
Old February 1 2009, 01:04 AM   #17
Star Treks
Fleet Captain
 
Location: California
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

Admiral James Kirk wrote: View Post
Dane_Whitman wrote: View Post
The last few Star Wars movies got it right? Huh. I must have been watching a different set of movies. They were so stock full of flashy CGI it was smothering. Like watching someone play a videogame.
You're either deluded or just an out and out moron. Star Wars is the single most successful franchise of all time. Star Wars rules film, television, comics, novels, toys etc and pulls in billions year after year after year. There isn't a franchise on the planet that couldn't stand to learn a lesson from Star Wars. Whether or not you personally liked the PT is irrelevant. It made all the other major franchise of the last decade look very second rate. Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Carribean, Harry Potter. Popular all. But not the phenoms that Star Wars was. There isn't one person involved in those series that wouldn't want their franchises to have one billionth of Star Wars popularity.

I also have to say that if you thought the CGI was smothering that you might want to take a little ridalin. It might have helped you focus on the deeply textured, comples and beautiful story that the PT told.

I suppose your opinion is no surprise. The TrekBBS has never been a bastion of original thought but rather a collection of like minds proceeding with minds that are sealed shut by the the screaming sheeplike voices of internet culture.
You are being unbelievably defensive of the prequels. Defensiveness often suggests that the person knows what they're saying isn't true. And calling someone a moron because they thought the prequels were like a videogame? Really not classy. Yuck.

Your response was almost as bad as... well, the Star Wars prequels.
__________________
"Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weakon our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence."

- W.K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief
Star Treks is offline  
Old February 2 2009, 12:18 AM   #18
TJinPgh
Captain
 
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

JNG wrote: View Post
The idea of someone feeling there are strong similarities between Star Trek and Star Wars because they both have aliens leaves me cold. On a creative level and in terms of the setting and history, these franchises are so different that I feel even the fact that aliens do appear means something very different in each. I hope this was poorly excerpted from some sort of wider-ranging speech within which it made sense.
This, sadly, is what turned me off to this project from the start.

Trek and Wars are NOTHING alike. Never have been.

While I would like to think this was taken out of context, it's nothing he hasn't said (or at least hinted at) before.

In the year or so that we've been getting comments and tidbits on this film, up to and including the newest trailer, I really have not seen anything that suggests to me that anybody connected with this film really "gets it" when it comes to Trek.

I admit that I started out not liking the direction of this movie (reboot, recast, re-whatever). So, I would be lying if I said I didn't have a bias that is tough to overcome.

But, every time I come to this page I find yet another comment from somebody connected with this film that makes me not want to see it.

After months of this movie essentially being finished, the most positive comments I can find are the obligatory canned comments like "Trek fans will enjoy it."

Sorry, but that just isn't cutting it.
TJinPgh is offline  
Old February 2 2009, 12:36 AM   #19
number6
Vice Admiral
 
Location: number6 has left the village through some inexpicable hole in the ground to head the corporation.
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

I don't really get this whole Star Wars vs. Star Trek argument. Never did.

They have their differences and they have their similarities and there is no reason on earth why anyone should have to choose between the two. Personally I like both. Both are space faring, swashbuckling adventures. Both have compelling characters. Both are fun and entertaining. Both have groudbreaking special effects. Both have underlying messages. Now we can argue the degrees to which they differ, but if one is entertained by both, why should there be such strong issues being taken with Abrams being a fan?

For years Trek fans have been looking for fresh blood and now we have it.

I would rather have someone at the helm that is passionate about making a good movie, than someone who is simply just a fan of Star Trek. The track record of the latter hasn't been that great, while the former has given us a couple of descent Trek outtings.
number6 is offline  
Old February 2 2009, 12:52 AM   #20
Ptrope
Agitator
 
Ptrope's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

Admiral James Kirk wrote: View Post
Star Wars is the single most successful franchise of all time. Star Wars rules film, television, comics, novels, toys etc and pulls in billions year after year after year. There isn't a franchise on the planet that couldn't stand to learn a lesson from Star Wars. Whether or not you personally liked the PT is irrelevant. It made all the other major franchise of the last decade look very second rate. Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Carribean, Harry Potter. Popular all. But not the phenoms that Star Wars was. There isn't one person involved in those series that wouldn't want their franchises to have one billionth of Star Wars popularity.
"Successful" in terms of revenue, sure. Creatively, however, Star Wars has, at least on film, long ago reached its freshness date. Even many SW fans consider the PT a huge misstep, if not an outright mistake - there's hardly a thing in it that I, as a fan of the OT, would ever consider to have "gotten it right." It's disturbing that J.J. would even consider the PT as some sort of benchmark, especially when one distills it all down and it's evident that his admiration, if not outright envy, is for its visuals and little else. I hope the ST trailers are incredibly misleading, because if his goal was to "stay true" to the characters, or at best, to create compelling and interesting characters at all, I think anyone expecting strong characters and a strong story are in for a massive disappointment. It seems he may have taken the wrong lessons from SW after all ...

Admiral James Kirk wrote: View Post
I also have to say that if you thought the CGI was smothering that you might want to take a little ridalin. It might have helped you focus on the deeply textured, comples and beautiful story that the PT told.
You and I clearly saw a completely different set of movies. What you may consider "complex," I say was muddled; Lucas just kept throwing things at the wall, hoping they would stick, fabricating a paper-thin plot populated with caricatures, not characters. No one's motivations made sense, nor did their relationships. Add to that a main character portrayed badly by two actors who would be hard-pressed to find their way through a line with both hands and a flashlight, and there was nothing there to even hang a story on. Pretty much the only thing the PT had going for it was its CGI, and even with that, Lucas couldn't comprehend the concept of restraint - that in many cases, less is more; he seemed to believe that if they could achieve something once, than it should be multiplied a hundredfold and it would be a hundred times better. Puppies are cute, but do you really think that a room full of 100 of them would be 100 times cuter, or would it simply be overwhelming, if not disgusting?

Admiral James Kirk wrote: View Post
I suppose your opinion is no surprise. The TrekBBS has never been a bastion of original thought but rather a collection of like minds proceeding with minds that are sealed shut by the the screaming sheeplike voices of internet culture.
And yet you're here, with nearly 17,000 posts. Does it just let you feel superior to all those who can't form "original" thoughts.

Face it - you're part of the problem, not the solution. Just because people disagree with you doesn't make them wrong.
__________________
Star Trek: Reanimated - it's more than just a cartoon!
Ptrope is offline  
Old February 2 2009, 01:57 AM   #21
RandyS
Vice Admiral
 
RandyS's Avatar
 
Location: Randyland
View RandyS's Twitter Profile
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

number6 wrote: View Post
I don't really get this whole Star Wars vs. Star Trek argument. Never did.

They have their differences and they have their similarities and there is no reason on earth why anyone should have to choose between the two. Personally I like both.
I am in complete agreement with this.
RandyS is offline  
Old February 2 2009, 06:09 AM   #22
Neumann
Captain
 
Neumann's Avatar
 
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
View Neumann's Twitter Profile Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Neumann
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

Star Treks wrote: View Post

Your response was almost as bad as... well, the Star Wars prequels.


BRAVO!

Seconded!
Neumann is offline  
Old February 2 2009, 09:14 AM   #23
TJinPgh
Captain
 
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

number6 wrote: View Post
I don't really get this whole Star Wars vs. Star Trek argument. Never did.

They have their differences and they have their similarities and there is no reason on earth why anyone should have to choose between the two. Personally I like both. Both are space faring, swashbuckling adventures. Both have compelling characters. Both are fun and entertaining. Both have groudbreaking special effects. Both have underlying messages. Now we can argue the degrees to which they differ, but if one is entertained by both, why should there be such strong issues being taken with Abrams being a fan?
My problem with Abrams isn't that he is a Star Wars fan. I have been a fan of Star Wars as well. Of bigger concern is that he admitted early on that he was NOT a Star Trek fan.

Which, creates the problem. The fact that they take place in space and have ground breaking special effects is pretty much where the similarity between the two ends. There is very little about the Star Wars saga that lends itself to Star Trek, or vice versa.

If Rick Berman were to suddenly start producing Star Wars movies, I can assure you that most Star Wars fans would be as concerned as many are about a Star Wars fan taking over Trek.

For years Trek fans have been looking for fresh blood and now we have it.
Be careful what you ask for...

I would rather have someone at the helm that is passionate about making a good movie, than someone who is simply just a fan of Star Trek. The track record of the latter hasn't been that great, while the former has given us a couple of descent Trek outtings.
In theory, that all sounds good. And, I have never claimed that they need to be mutually exclusive goals.

However, it seems to me that, strictly from a film making perspective, your first goal needs to be to make something that is appealing to existing fans.

Why? Because, when you're dealing with a franchise film, if it doesn't appeal to existing fans, more than likely, it's not going to be true to the franchise.

I have rejected from the start that you cannot make a film that is true to what Trek has always been and make it entertaining for others at the same time. I think that thinking is narrowminded and lazy.

I don't dislike Abrams. As I've said before, I have enjoyed much of his work for television and, I suspect, his intentions are good with this movie. I simply don't believe he has a feel for what has made Trek Trek.

Can he create a good story? Sure. He's done it with Fringe. He's done it with Lost (although, quite frankly, I'm ready for it to end). But, those are stories HE created. He didn't try to follow up somebody else's work. Let alone try to re-create, re-invent, or improve upon it.
TJinPgh is offline  
Old February 2 2009, 10:56 AM   #24
J. Allen
Best Pony™
 
J. Allen's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Send a message via ICQ to J. Allen Send a message via AIM to J. Allen Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to J. Allen Send a message via Yahoo to J. Allen
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

I think he can do it.


J.
__________________
:: :: ::
Visit Brony Kingdom, where all of your wildest dreams will come true.
:: :: ::
-=- My Patron Saint is Twilight Sparkle -=-
J. Allen is online now  
Old February 2 2009, 02:40 PM   #25
Lindley
Moderator with a Soul
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

I think the thing is done and there's no use wasting energy on worries of any sort at this date.
__________________
Lead Organizer for EVN: Firefly.
"So apparently the really smart zombies have automatic weapons!"
-Torg, Sluggy Freelance
Lindley is offline  
Old February 2 2009, 03:23 PM   #26
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

Well, certainly "Star Trek" will not be even a tiny bit as influential on commercial films as "Star Wars" was.

That said, the most significant difference between the two is that enough people will still pay money to see a "Star Wars" film to make that Franchise viable. If Abrams can accomplish that for "Star Trek" he'll have done more to preserve Trek than all the armchair critics and nitpickers could manage in a thousand years.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old February 2 2009, 05:28 PM   #27
TJinPgh
Captain
 
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

Starship Polaris wrote: View Post
Well, certainly "Star Trek" will not be even a tiny bit as influential on commercial films as "Star Wars" was.
Perhaps. It's funny, though, that despite not making nearly as much money Star Trek is just as recognized worldwide.

I guess 30 seasons of television has a little something to do with that.

That said, the most significant difference between the two is that enough people will still pay money to see a "Star Wars" film to make that Franchise viable. If Abrams can accomplish that for "Star Trek" he'll have done more to preserve Trek than all the armchair critics and nitpickers could manage in a thousand years.
As I've said in the past, if Star Trek has to become Star Wars to survive, then it's not Star Trek that you're preserving, it's Star Wars.
TJinPgh is offline  
Old February 2 2009, 05:31 PM   #28
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

TJinPgh wrote: View Post
Starship Polaris wrote: View Post
Well, certainly "Star Trek" will not be even a tiny bit as influential on commercial films as "Star Wars" was.
Perhaps. It's funny, though, that despite not making nearly as much money Star Trek is just as recognized worldwide.
We're not talking about money per se in this instance. "Star Wars" had an enormous influence on how American commercial films are made and marketed as well as - of course - setting the direction of the business in terms of content and audience focus for decades. "Star Trek" has never had that kind of impact and the new one won't either - Trek at the movies has always existed within the broad confines of the industry that Lucas created.

TJinPgh wrote: View Post
As I've said in the past, if Star Trek has to become Star Wars to survive, then it's not Star Trek that you're preserving, it's Star Wars.
Have you said that in the past?

Then you've been wrong.

"Star Trek" is not becoming "Star Wars." It is simply incorporating the kind of modern style, production values and action that movie audiences demand in exchange for parting with money in sufficient quantities to make these kind of space movies profitable (and therefore worth doing for the people who own them).

I'd say "no one is going to confuse 'Star Trek' and 'Star Wars'" except that obviously lots of people have been doing that for thirty years.

The old "Star Trek" will be preserved - on DVDs and probably in some form in comics and novels. It has no commercial future, however, at the level of TV and films.

Last edited by Admiral Buzzkill; February 2 2009 at 05:49 PM.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old February 3 2009, 10:29 AM   #29
TJinPgh
Captain
 
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

Starship Polaris wrote: View Post
We're not talking about money per se in this instance. "Star Wars" had an enormous influence on how American commercial films are made and marketed as well as - of course - setting the direction of the business in terms of content and audience focus for decades. "Star Trek" has never had that kind of impact and the new one won't either - Trek at the movies has always existed within the broad confines of the industry that Lucas created.
I suppose that's part of my problem. I enjoyed Star Wars right up until the point when it became more about marketing (toys and video games) than about telling the story he wanted to tell.

Eps 6 and 1 were, IMHO, complete wastes. Fluff over substance.

Further, it's impossible to really compare Trek and Wars. One franchise was centered around a series concept. One was cenetered around a big screen major motion picture concept.

Considering that ST:TMP wasn't Roddenberry's first choice as a vehicle to bring Trek back into existence, I really fail to see why it should be the vehicle of choice now.

Have you said that in the past?

Then you've been wrong.
Your opinion is duely noted. Thanks.

"Star Trek" is not becoming "Star Wars." It is simply incorporating the kind of modern style, production values and action that movie audiences demand in exchange for parting with money in sufficient quantities to make these kind of space movies profitable (and therefore worth doing for the people who own them).
They managed to make Trek profitable for 9 out of the 10 times they put it up on the big screen. Interesting that the one that failed was the one with the most special effects and the most action.

Could possibly be because the story sucked. Although, it tanked before the first reviews were in so I doubt that. More likely that Trek always has and always will be viewed as a TV series that people can see 30 years of pretty much every day of the year and isn't likely to compete with epic franchises like LOTR when put head to head. Something to consider when it goes up against Wolverne and Christian Bale in a couple of months.

I'd say "no one is going to confuse 'Star Trek' and 'Star Wars'" except that obviously lots of people have been doing that for thirty years.
I'd like to say you're right. But then, I've already heard from some of my Star Wars loving friends that the trailer looks like a Star Wars wanna be flic.

I guess the pre-pubescent Annikan Kirk with his pod racing corvette in the opening seconds may have had a little to do with that. I doubt the Starship Trooper aliens helped much either.

The old "Star Trek" will be preserved - on DVDs and probably in some form in comics and novels. It has no commercial future, however, at the level of TV and films.
Somebody seems to disagree, since TNG is returning to syndication. But, I digress.
TJinPgh is offline  
Old February 3 2009, 06:20 PM   #30
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Abrams On 'Star Trek' Vs. 'Star Wars'

So when Abrams mentions that he's trying to make Star Trek different from 'Star Wars' by not trying to beat it at it's own game - mainly effects - and is instead focusing on the characters in order to keep it distinct, that somehow translates into him turning Trek into Star Wars.

He's making the movie a big effects fest, but he's not going to make it all about the effects because Star Wars essentially owns that, in his view.

What is the problem here? He's saying exactly what he should be saying.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.