I strongly feel Star Trek 2009 will be better than Star Wars 7

[WarpFactorZ]

I'm not so sure - Trek's insidious. It's seeped into the public conciousness without the mega success of Star Wars. It's influenced the design of all sorts of real world gadgets and I wouldn't be hugely surprised if you showed non scifi fans in the street photo's of characters Kirk and Solo, if more of them could name Kirk.

That's irrelevant. The average Joe will not see a Star Trek movie because the cell phone is "based on" the communicator. When I talk about the cultural influence, I'm not talking about intrinsic. I'm talking about popular (and the extent of "intrinsic" influence of ST has been greatly exaggerated).

Darth Vader is "awesome"; Spock is "nerdy." That's the general impression.

And no, Trek will never be in anywhere the same league as SW at the box office.

Precisely my point.

 

[Amaris]

It's got to be looking at a bare minimum 150mil opening weekend, if the third and so far least well received Hunger Games film can put in 121mil then I reckon The Avengers record of 207 mil is a possibility and Iron Man 3's 174mil 2nd best opening weekend is definitely under threat. There's no getting away from it - this is going to be a seriously massive film that a lot of the public will go and see, no question.

The Force Awakens is going to stuff Avatar down a sarlacc.

I laughed. Also, I agree.

 

[ralph]

In my opinion, Abrams is using Harrison Ford in the same way he used Leonard Nimoy in Star Trek. Is Orci following the same strategy with Shatner?

 

[The Wormhole]

-- There is no emotional resonance at all in Spock's feelings dealing with the loss of Vulcan, in Kirk's story arc, or in what Khan had been willing to do to keep his people alive? Issues of loss, grief, and coping are shallow?

No, there isn't. In order to have emotional resonance, it has to strike a chord with the audience, make the viewer feel what the characters are feeling in the scene. And no, the supposed emotional moments in the Abrams movies don't do that at all for me. Sure, get the right kind of atmosphere going and I can get my blood pumping with excitement, a crowded theatre filled with other Trekkies can do that. But the emotional stuff falls rather flat. Hell, I know a guy who got frustrated during George Kirk's tearful farewell in Trek XI claiming it to be copying exactly what goes on in every second episode of Lost. The Abrams movies fail at conveying emotions.

 

[Franklin]

-- There is no emotional resonance at all in Spock's feelings dealing with the loss of Vulcan, in Kirk's story arc, or in what Khan had been willing to do to keep his people alive? Issues of loss, grief, and coping are shallow?

No, there isn't. In order to have emotional resonance, it has to strike a chord with the audience, make the viewer feel what the characters are feeling in the scene. And no, the supposed emotional moments in the Abrams movies don't do that at all for me. Sure, get the right kind of atmosphere going and I can get my blood pumping with excitement, a crowded theatre filled with other Trekkies can do that. But the emotional stuff falls rather flat. Hell, I know a guy who got frustrated during George Kirk's tearful farewell in Trek XI claiming it to be copying exactly what goes on in every second episode of Lost. The Abrams movies fail at conveying emotions.

Other than in an Abrams movie, when did you ever see the great James T. Kirk cry like a baby? Pike's untimely and basically useless death just when it seemed Kirk had a future with him wasn't an emotional moment? Kirk's death wasn't an emotional moment? Again, when have we ever heard the great James T. Kirk admit he's afraid?

Someone (a reviewer, I forget who) said Spock's admission about why he chooses not to feel was moving because it's the same reason so many holocaust survivors gave in real life for coping with what they went through.

If that all fell flat for you and others, that's the way it goes, but emotion was there within the action, none the less.

 

[fireproof78]

-- There is no emotional resonance at all in Spock's feelings dealing with the loss of Vulcan, in Kirk's story arc, or in what Khan had been willing to do to keep his people alive? Issues of loss, grief, and coping are shallow?

No, there isn't. In order to have emotional resonance, it has to strike a chord with the audience, make the viewer feel what the characters are feeling in the scene. And no, the supposed emotional moments in the Abrams movies don't do that at all for me. Sure, get the right kind of atmosphere going and I can get my blood pumping with excitement, a crowded theatre filled with other Trekkies can do that. But the emotional stuff falls rather flat. Hell, I know a guy who got frustrated during George Kirk's tearful farewell in Trek XI claiming it to be copying exactly what goes on in every second episode of Lost. The Abrams movies fail at conveying emotions.

But that doesn't mean the movie doesn't have it. It just means it did not connect for every viewer.

That does not mean there are not emotional moments, or character moments that have depth and meaning.

And, I'm sorry, I cry every time I watch George Kirk's death scene. As a father, that scene impacts me every time. Same thing with the death of Pike, and Kirk's struggle with a lack of a father figure.

Similarly, having always identified with Spock, I find Spock's journey towards balancing his human side and Vulcan side to very compelling and interesting.

Again, your mileage may vary, but saying that films did not have those moments is a generalization, at best.

 

[The Wormhole]

-- There is no emotional resonance at all in Spock's feelings dealing with the loss of Vulcan, in Kirk's story arc, or in what Khan had been willing to do to keep his people alive? Issues of loss, grief, and coping are shallow?

No, there isn't. In order to have emotional resonance, it has to strike a chord with the audience, make the viewer feel what the characters are feeling in the scene. And no, the supposed emotional moments in the Abrams movies don't do that at all for me. Sure, get the right kind of atmosphere going and I can get my blood pumping with excitement, a crowded theatre filled with other Trekkies can do that. But the emotional stuff falls rather flat. Hell, I know a guy who got frustrated during George Kirk's tearful farewell in Trek XI claiming it to be copying exactly what goes on in every second episode of Lost. The Abrams movies fail at conveying emotions.

Other than in an Abrams movie, when did you ever see the great James T. Kirk cry like a baby? Pike's untimely and basically useless death just when it seemed Kirk had a future with him wasn't an emotional moment? Kirk's death wasn't an emotional moment? Again, when have we ever heard the great James T. Kirk admit he's afraid?

Someone (a reviewer, I forget who) said Spock's admission about why he chooses not to feel was moving because it's the same reason so many holocaust survivors gave in real life for coping with what they went through.

If that all fell flat for you and others, that's the way it goes, but emotion was there within the action, none the less.

There's a difference between being emotional and actually making the audience feel emotional. The Abrams movies are emotional, fine, but they don't me feel anything. I see the characters crying, but it doesn't make me feel anything, it's just something that's happening. I am not moved by it, I don't feel anything about it. It's not really genuine, it feels like someone was just sitting around having a conversation like this:

"How should the characters react to this?"
"Dunno. How do people react in these circumstances?"
"Dunno."
"Well, someone died, won't the others feel sad? Maybe cry?"
"Probably. Crying scenes will fool the audience into thinking we're emotionally deep or something. People usually win Oscars for crying scenes, so we'd better have a few."
"Can we get back to the cool fight now?"

 

[fireproof78]

No, there isn't. In order to have emotional resonance, it has to strike a chord with the audience, make the viewer feel what the characters are feeling in the scene. And no, the supposed emotional moments in the Abrams movies don't do that at all for me. Sure, get the right kind of atmosphere going and I can get my blood pumping with excitement, a crowded theatre filled with other Trekkies can do that. But the emotional stuff falls rather flat. Hell, I know a guy who got frustrated during George Kirk's tearful farewell in Trek XI claiming it to be copying exactly what goes on in every second episode of Lost. The Abrams movies fail at conveying emotions.

Other than in an Abrams movie, when did you ever see the great James T. Kirk cry like a baby? Pike's untimely and basically useless death just when it seemed Kirk had a future with him wasn't an emotional moment? Kirk's death wasn't an emotional moment? Again, when have we ever heard the great James T. Kirk admit he's afraid?

Someone (a reviewer, I forget who) said Spock's admission about why he chooses not to feel was moving because it's the same reason so many holocaust survivors gave in real life for coping with what they went through.

If that all fell flat for you and others, that's the way it goes, but emotion was there within the action, none the less.

There's a difference between being emotional and actually making the audience feel emotional. The Abrams movies are emotional, fine, but they don't me feel anything. I see the characters crying, but it doesn't make me feel anything, it's just something that's happening. I am not moved by it, I don't feel anything about it. It's not really genuine, it feels like someone was just sitting around having a conversation like this:

"How should the characters react to this?"
"Dunno. How do people react in these circumstances?"
"Dunno."
"Well, someone died, won't the others feel sad? Maybe cry?"
"Probably. Crying scenes will fool the audience into thinking we're emotionally deep or something. People usually win Oscars for crying scenes, so we'd better have a few."
"Can we get back to the cool fight now?"

Ok, well I will admit to responding differently to many different things, but I found the reactions to be mixed, and uncertain in the face of a tragedy. That struck me as more realistic, given the difficulty some people have in processing such a tragedy, going from different emotions through the event.

Also, if I'm crying at George Kirk's, Pike's, and Kirk's death, then I'll make the argument that some emotions are being elicited and genuine, for my experience.

It might not be true for every viewer, but it is for me. I can't really force it on anyone else, because then it would not be genuine either

 

[Smellmet]

I thought Pike's death was pretty heart-wrenching to be honest and was very well acted by all concerned, particularly Pine. I thought is was far better than the reverse reactor scene, which was OK but almost descended into parody with the Khan scream.

 

[2takesfrakes]

With George Lucas in a "Creative Consultant" position and out of the director's seat, the next STAR WARS movie has a fighting chance at being entertaining. What's more, though they're older than dirt, it's still going to be "nice" to see Han, Luke & Leia again. Though, I do hope that Mark Hamill will dispense with his unrelenting mystical acting from RETURN of the JEDI, this time 'round. I don't know what happened, there, but everyone on that picture seemed bored. This time, the three of them are basically there for Glory Days and a paycheque. Which is the least objectionable? I haven't a clue. But STAR TREK (2009) does make the STAR WARS prequels look like rubbish - all of them. But between Abram's love of the material and the STAR WARS brand name to back him up, I'm confident that this movie's returns will most easily break the billion-dollar mark. Once that happens, how will Abrams possibly top himself?

 

[xavier]

With George Lucas in a "Creative Consultant" position and out of the director's seat, the next STAR WARS movie has a fighting chance at being entertaining. What's more, though they're older than dirt, it's still going to be "nice" to see Han, Luke & Leia again. Though, I do hope that Mark Hamill will dispense with his unrelenting mystical acting from RETURN of the JEDI, this time 'round. I don't know what happened, there, but everyone on that picture seemed bored. This time, the three of them are basically there for Glory Days and a paycheque. Which is the least objectionable? I haven't a clue. But STAR TREK (2009) does make the STAR WARS prequels look like rubbish - all of them. But between Abram's love of the material and the STAR WARS brand name to back him up, I'm confident that this movie's returns will most easily break the billion-dollar mark. Once that happens, how will Abrams possibly top himself?

abrams may also be to close to the film because he is a star wars stan.sometimes a fan or stan directing their favorite series could lead to disaster because the stan in them may take over the artistry. for those of you who does not know what I mean by Stan, please read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_%28fan%29

 

[Johnny]

Other than in an Abrams movie, when did you ever see the great James T. Kirk cry like a baby? Pike's untimely and basically useless death just when it seemed Kirk had a future with him wasn't an emotional moment? Kirk's death wasn't an emotional moment? Again, when have we ever heard the great James T. Kirk admit he's afraid?

Someone (a reviewer, I forget who) said Spock's admission about why he chooses not to feel was moving because it's the same reason so many holocaust survivors gave in real life for coping with what they went through.

If that all fell flat for you and others, that's the way it goes, but emotion was there within the action, none the less.

There's a difference between being emotional and actually making the audience feel emotional. The Abrams movies are emotional, fine, but they don't me feel anything. I see the characters crying, but it doesn't make me feel anything, it's just something that's happening. I am not moved by it, I don't feel anything about it. It's not really genuine, it feels like someone was just sitting around having a conversation like this:

"How should the characters react to this?"
"Dunno. How do people react in these circumstances?"
"Dunno."
"Well, someone died, won't the others feel sad? Maybe cry?"
"Probably. Crying scenes will fool the audience into thinking we're emotionally deep or something. People usually win Oscars for crying scenes, so we'd better have a few."
"Can we get back to the cool fight now?"

Ok, well I will admit to responding differently to many different things, but I found the reactions to be mixed, and uncertain in the face of a tragedy. That struck me as more realistic, given the difficulty some people have in processing such a tragedy, going from different emotions through the event.

Also, if I'm crying at George Kirk's, Pike's, and Kirk's death, then I'll make the argument that some emotions are being elicited and genuine, for my experience.

It might not be true for every viewer, but it is for me. I can't really force it on anyone else, because then it would not be genuine either

I just think the nuTrek films lacked 'breathing room'. Just needed to slow down a little, embrace the scenes that did have emotion and roll with it. Think that was the thing that killed it for me.

 

[JWPlatt]

As I recall from discussions on these forums, JJ was more of a born and bred Star Wars fan than he ever was for Star Trek. If he groks anything, it should be Star Wars. I suspect with this rep, if he can't make a good Star Wars film, no one can. Even George Lucas can't make a good Star Wars movie any more, according to professional and amateur reviews. We'll just have to be satisfied with what we get because there won't be anything better. I really think I'll enjoy it. But that's the way of many things - looking forward to the product with great optimism until we actually get it in our hands. I liked Star Trek 2009 well enough despite not having much relevance to my Star Trek universe, but I expect I'll like Star Wars more because my impression is that JJ is out to be true to the heart of Star Wars rather than finding ways around it like with Star Trek. We'll see.

 

[The Wormhole]

Actually, Abrams being such a huge Star Wars fan could work against him. I'm not saying it will, just that it could. The movie could end up being his pet project, the movie he's spent an entire career waiting to do resulting in it being a fanboy's love affair, just like Peter Jackson's King Kong or Bryan Singer with Superman Returns.

 

[JWPlatt]

Quentin Tarantino is a huge fan of movies in general. I like his movies. It could be said that because of his love for the art, every movie of his is a pet project. I don't think they suffer when his entire career is waiting to make the next homage to a genre. If Abrams understands Star Wars the way Tarantino understands the sources for his inspiration, it should do well. Note that I'm not saying Abrams makes films the way Tarantino does, before anyone intentionally misunderstands that I want Abrams to make Star Wars in Tarantino fashion. But besides, Abrams also had Kasdan. Beyond that, he's using film and practical sets all in the spirit of the original. Those things amount to a lot of faith so long as he doesn't drink the lens flare Kool-aid.

I think people complained that King Kong was too long. Is that right? So I guess that left room for lesser quality in their opinion. It's always a mystery to me why people complain that movies are too long. They often say it affects pacing and so forth. For me, movies are never too long, and pacing concerns are way overrated. Doing things for the sake of pacing to a "beat" far too often inspires fast-cut music video editing. I consider that a negative. I've never complained that roller coaster rides are too long either. There are slow and fast parts, and the longer the ride, the more I get for my money. It's like that for me. I couldn't care less about length and pacing. I just want to live in the story as long as possible. I also regret that books need to have finite lengths. It's like leaving a good friend when I'm done and I feel a little lonely.

 

[fireproof78]

There's a difference between being emotional and actually making the audience feel emotional. The Abrams movies are emotional, fine, but they don't me feel anything. I see the characters crying, but it doesn't make me feel anything, it's just something that's happening. I am not moved by it, I don't feel anything about it. It's not really genuine, it feels like someone was just sitting around having a conversation like this:

"How should the characters react to this?"
"Dunno. How do people react in these circumstances?"
"Dunno."
"Well, someone died, won't the others feel sad? Maybe cry?"
"Probably. Crying scenes will fool the audience into thinking we're emotionally deep or something. People usually win Oscars for crying scenes, so we'd better have a few."
"Can we get back to the cool fight now?"

Ok, well I will admit to responding differently to many different things, but I found the reactions to be mixed, and uncertain in the face of a tragedy. That struck me as more realistic, given the difficulty some people have in processing such a tragedy, going from different emotions through the event.

Also, if I'm crying at George Kirk's, Pike's, and Kirk's death, then I'll make the argument that some emotions are being elicited and genuine, for my experience.

It might not be true for every viewer, but it is for me. I can't really force it on anyone else, because then it would not be genuine either

I just think the nuTrek films lacked 'breathing room'. Just needed to slow down a little, embrace the scenes that did have emotion and roll with it. Think that was the thing that killed it for me.

I would agree with this. Thanks for point it out.

If I have any complaint about Abrams Trek films is the pacing. However, for me, that it was makes them so interesting to review as then I can reflect upon those moments and the emotions they generate.

I enjoy Abrams Trek because they are films that I can revisit and still enjoy. This is an aspect that I enjoyed in many of the Trek episodes and Abrams films are no exception for me.

As for Abrams and Star Wars, it could go either way. Fortunately, at least to me, is the fact that Kathleen Kennedy is still head of Lucasfilm, and Disney is not going to let Abrams go unfettered, regardless of his reputation. Due to the amount of money Disney has invested, I would imagine every decision is highly scrutinized, reigning in Abrams fan boy in favor of business decisions.

Beyond that, I will be happy to wait and see, but think that Abrams will do a good job.

 

[2takesfrakes]

abrams may also be to close to the film because he is a star wars stan.

Stan or Fan, the fact is there has not been a really good STAR WARS movie since A New Hope. That movie still has legs, after yay, these many, many decades. The Empire Strikes Back has amazing production values, but the story is shite. After the battle on Hoth, there is a lot of waiting around and doing nothing in this movie. "Hiding" with the Millinium Falcon in an asteroid, for example. Luke wandering the halls in Cloud City. Even on Dagobah, there is an aweful lot of sitting around and talking. It's all very slow and boring but ... the cinematography is achingly gorgeous and the soundtrack is very pretty. Every STAR WARS movie after that has been aweful - just aweful - but they've all made a tonne of money! With that kind of competition, hell ... Abrams can't lose.

 

[Relayer1]

abrams may also be to close to the film because he is a star wars stan.

Stan or Fan, the fact is there has not been a really good STAR WARS movie since A New Hope. That movie still has legs, after yay, these many, many decades. The Empire Strikes Back has amazing production values, but the story is shite. After the battle on Hoth, there is a lot of waiting around and doing nothing in this movie. "Hiding" with the Millinium Falcon in an asteroid, for example. Luke wandering the halls in Cloud City. Even on Dagobah, there is an aweful lot of sitting around and talking. It's all very slow and boring but ... the cinematography is achingly gorgeous and the soundtrack is very pretty. Every STAR WARS movie after that has been aweful - just aweful - but they've all made a tonne of money! With that kind of competition, hell ... Abrams can't lose.

Empire. Widely regarded as the best movie in the franchise. Which it is, even though I prefer Star Wars. Which isn't called A New Hope - I saw it 13 times at the cinema - I'd remember if that is what it was called...

Empire is the best film though. Easily.

 

[Smellmet]

I've still got a lot of love for Return of the Jedi too. Bar the dumb Ewok scenes and the the odd other bit here and there, I think the rest of it is right up there with the other two. The scenes with Luke, Vader and the Emperor are dark and easily as thrilling as their encounter in Empire, and the end battle still looks absolutely amazing after all these years and remains for me, the best space battle ever put to film.

I think it's the third best movie out of the six so far, and if number seven is as good, I won't be disappointed.

 

[suarezguy]

Liking Kasdan and mostly disliking Abrams, the trailer suggests the film will be much much closer to the latter's style.