The Star Trek 09 / Star Wars debate is a non-starter.
Let's just agree that the one about a young kid who follows some old dude to fulfill his destiny whilst planets are being blown up by a superior technological force is the better movie.

The Star Trek 09 / Star Wars debate is a non-starter.
Let's just agree that the one about a young kid who follows some old dude to fulfill his destiny whilst planets are being blown up by a superior technological force is the better movie.
Both Trek 09 and TMP spent a great deal of money on SFX. TMP showed all these effects because they knew they had no script. The script was being written and rewritten on set. TMP's effects came at the expense of telling a good story.Questions about the importance of the effects are red herrings and non-starters - if you spend less money on effects you make a different movie.
It's not a red herring when you're comparing one SFX laden film against another.
The Star Trek 09 / Star Wars debate is a non-starter.
Let's just agree that the one about a young kid who follows some old dude to fulfill his destiny whilst planets are being blown up by a superior technological force is the better movie.
It's not a red herring when you're comparing one SFX laden film against another.
It's not a red herring when you're comparing one SFX laden film against another.
It's exactly that and no more, and no one is impressed. Deal with it.
The Star Trek 09 / Star Wars debate is a non-starter.
Let's just agree that the one about a young kid who follows some old dude to fulfill his destiny whilst planets are being blown up by a superior technological force is the better movie.
Well done.![]()
The Star Trek 09 / Star Wars debate is a non-starter.
Let's just agree that the one about a young kid who follows some old dude to fulfill his destiny whilst planets are being blown up by a superior technological force is the better movie.
Well done.![]()
Or how about the film that has the good guys fight the bad guys and the good guys win..
Or how about the film that has the good guys fight the bad guys and the good guys win.
Questions about the importance of the effects are red herrings and non-starters - if you spend less money on effects you make a different movie.
It's not a red herring when you're comparing one SFX laden film against another.
The Star Trek 09 / Star Wars debate is a non-starter.
Let's just agree that the one about a young kid who follows some old dude to fulfill his destiny whilst planets are being blown up by a superior technological force is the better movie.
Would you like a partial list of westerns that feature gun fights on the main street of a small town?
![]()
Would you like to provide a list of films where the hero is forced to watch the destruction of his/her homeworld by the villain?
![]()
Or how about the film that has the good guys fight the bad guys and the good guys win.
I prefer the war movie about the guys trying to complete a dangerous mission against the odds, myself. You remember - the one where the guy you hope is gonna make it gets shot dead in the final battle, saving a buddy.
Would you like a partial list of westerns that feature gun fights on the main street of a small town?
![]()
Would you like to provide a list of films where the hero is forced to watch the destruction of his/her homeworld by the villain?
![]()
Hitchhiker's Guide the The Galaxy
Doctor Who
Flash Gordon
Battlestar Gallactica
Titan AE
Darkspore
Commander Perkins
Superman Comics
Flash Gordon (serials)
Just to name a few..
Questions about the importance of the effects are red herrings and non-starters - if you spend less money on effects you make a different movie.
It's not a red herring when you're comparing one SFX laden film against another.
It is a red herring, because it's not an arguable point. You can't compare a hypothetical to anything. If the FX budget of Trek 09 were lower, they would have made a different movie and that's all there is to it. I'm not sure what you're not understanding about that.
The Star Trek 09 / Star Wars debate is a non-starter.
Let's just agree that the one about a young kid who follows some old dude to fulfill his destiny whilst planets are being blown up by a superior technological force is the better movie.
Well, that description really only applies to Star Wars. In Trek 09, Kirk follows Pike's ADVICE, but he doesn't actually follow him anywhere. Luke actually leaves home and goes off with his older mentor figure.
See, what you fail to realize and address, AGAIN, is that the two movies do follow the monomyth structure. There are a dozen more like them. Did The Lion King, The Matrix, Harry Potter, and many more also copy Star Wars? Does the Lord of the Rings copy Star Wars? Oh wait...
Hitchhiker's Guide the The Galaxy
Doctor Who
Flash Gordon
Battlestar Gallactica
Titan AE
Darkspore
Commander Perkins
Superman Comics
Flash Gordon (serials)
Just to name a few..
Oh, it's the old "you guys are totally lame" internet defense. How is the defense of it any different than the offensive on it?
There go the goalposts..Hitchhiker's Guide the The Galaxy
Doctor Who
Flash Gordon
Battlestar Gallactica
Titan AE
Darkspore
Commander Perkins
Superman Comics
Flash Gordon (serials)
Just to name a few..
Of that list I've only ever seen Battlestar Galactica and as far as forcing a hero to watch while his planet is destroyed the only specific example I can think of would be Baltar but I wouldn't define him as a "hero" either.
Oh, it's the old "you guys are totally lame" internet defense. How is the defense of it any different than the offensive on it?
Oh, it's the old "you guys are totally lame" internet defense. How is the defense of it any different than the offensive on it?
Because it's like a shark tank in here... just a drop of blood and everybody goes bonkers to defend the film.
Just an innocent comment like "Zoe Saldana isn't my type..." and people are lined up around the block to get a piece of it.
Like I said before, entertaining.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.