Star Trek 2009 vs Star Wars 7 (NO SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Dales
- Start date
Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
Star Trek '09 is great, but TFA is really fucking good. Yes, there was a planet-destroying super weapon, doesn't mean it's an ANH clone. New characters are all different, and the film just feels completely new, while also somewhat familiar. I loved it, seen it twice already.
Star Trek '09 is great, but TFA is really fucking good. Yes, there was a planet-destroying super weapon, doesn't mean it's an ANH clone. New characters are all different, and the film just feels completely new, while also somewhat familiar. I loved it, seen it twice already.
I enjoyed the film as well but it felt way too disneyfied which was what I always feared the film will be when you watch marvel films also made by disney. the film felt way too safe and too tame unlike star trek 2009 which took a more ...I guess I should say mature and aggressive root. I have also seen some critics and fans hammer TFA for been a reharsh of a new hope. In terms of reboots, when all the hype dies down and both films are revisited star trek 2009 will overall be seen as the better film.
It was very similar in tone and violence to the original trilogy. What exactly was "Disney-fied" about it?
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I think I preferred the Star Trek reboot. It at least felt somewhat fresh and original for the franchise it was restarting, as opposed to The Force Awakens which was a hollow string of callbacks and homages. It'll be easier to judge once we get some distance from TFA, though.
Even with not having liked ST09 very much, I think maybe Abrams not being a Star Trek superfan was actually good for it.
Even with not having liked ST09 very much, I think maybe Abrams not being a Star Trek superfan was actually good for it.
Nah is not really overacting , this board has always been pretty neutral. its a great film but too many call back and homages and an average to good plot but jj is a masterful director and can make anything work. If I give star trek 2009 and A+ I would give TFA a B+
I really enjoyed TFA, but I think I liked Trek 09 more. Just more of a Trek fan, I guess.
I haven't seen TFA yet, but if it's a half-decent Star Wars film, then I'll probably like it better than Wars in Trek's clothing. I'm no big fan of the PT, but if you forced me to choose to watch one or the other right now, I'd pick AotC over ST09.
Star wars ep7 imo was much better and much more faithful to the source material. ST9 was still great (much better than ST ID) but JJ Abrams not being a fan of trek I think made it a little harder for him to understand it. I think trek can be a little harder to get right (also us trekkies can be whiny children sometimes).
Loved both movies. TFA is almost an homage to ANH. A lot of the problems some people seem to have with TFA, I see in ANH aswell.
And Rey, a Mary Sue? Sure.... I mean, it's not as if Luke is "a young or low-rank person who saves the day through extraordinary abilities. Often but not necessarily this character is recognized as an author insert and/or wish-fulfillmen". Wait..... YES HE IS!!!!
That quote is taken directly from this Wiki-page about Mary Sue. Sofar, all the issues people have with TFA can be said about ANH aswell. But people in the Star Wars fandom are still not willing to admit that ANH has some serious pacing, acting, directing and plot issues. Thing is, they never were an issue with me, because of all the other amazing things it had that made it such a fun movie!
And Rey, a Mary Sue? Sure.... I mean, it's not as if Luke is "a young or low-rank person who saves the day through extraordinary abilities. Often but not necessarily this character is recognized as an author insert and/or wish-fulfillmen". Wait..... YES HE IS!!!!
That quote is taken directly from this Wiki-page about Mary Sue. Sofar, all the issues people have with TFA can be said about ANH aswell. But people in the Star Wars fandom are still not willing to admit that ANH has some serious pacing, acting, directing and plot issues. Thing is, they never were an issue with me, because of all the other amazing things it had that made it such a fun movie!
JJ's a very, very flawed film-maker. Stylistically he was a good fit for Star Wars, but not for Trek and that is represented in my enjoyment of them.
What is now obvious is that JJ has no real understanding of plot, detail and continuity. His Trek and Star Wars films are packed full of logical inconsistancies, stupidity and holes you could drive a truck through.
While he continues to deliver movies that pack cinemas and make millions (and that's a considerable skill) hardly anyone will care, but that's life.
I really liked TFA, hisTrek less so. I'd have liked both more if they were made by a better film-maker.
What is now obvious is that JJ has no real understanding of plot, detail and continuity. His Trek and Star Wars films are packed full of logical inconsistancies, stupidity and holes you could drive a truck through.
While he continues to deliver movies that pack cinemas and make millions (and that's a considerable skill) hardly anyone will care, but that's life.
I really liked TFA, hisTrek less so. I'd have liked both more if they were made by a better film-maker.
I wouldn't call JJ a bad film maker, but he is quite a lot like George Lucas, in that he's a visual stroyteller. He has a story he wants to put out there, but he loves to work in striking imagery. Sometimes, that works. Sometimes, it doesn't. I feel that JJ is actually better with actors and plot than Lucas was, but ymmv. Overall, he certainly isn't my favorite director, but he has made some stunning and entertaining movies.
Oh, I would. He's made some movies I've enjoyed, but there's way too many things in many of them that you just can't imagine getting past a better film-maker. He's good at 80% of film-making, but that other 20% (plot, cohesion) can be a real deal breaker.
Certainly, that's how he gets away with it. His films do mostly work, just not in all of the ways they should.
After the prequels, certainly correct regarding actors. Flawed as they were (and dull) the plotting in the prequels was tighter than in JJ's films.
I've enjoyed a lot of them until I fell into one of his plot holes or tripped over some general stupidity.
He's a bright and talented guy - I have to believe that he either doesn't think these things matter, or that he really just doesn't see them...
I enjoyed Star Trek 2009 better. JJ Abrams nailed so much of it with the characters while providing thrilling action. I hadn't thought anyone else could really inhabit the TOS characters but they put together a cast that did a pretty good job taking on those roles. Trek '09 wasn't perfect. I thought Nero was a bit drab and there were some questionable jumps in the story. But overall I left the theater pumped. Abrams made Trek cool for the general public in a way I hadn't seen it before.
TFA, on the other hand, suffered from its story. The characters were likeable, the action was good, etc. But the opposition was lackluster. The story wasn't original. I felt more of a threat from Nero than I did from the First Order ultimately. TFA was a whole different challenge for Abrams. I don't think the movie was going to tank regardless, in a way that Trek seemed to be on shakier ground. Too much of a hype machine around it, and he had the benefit of the doubt going into it due to a lot of people needing TFA to be better than the prequels. To me it feels that Abrams was intent on being true to the spirit of the OT and providing something for the fans while with Trek he was a little more open to changing things up, since he wasn't as emotionally tied to that franchise going into Trek '09. Nostalgia wasn't as much of an issue.
That being said, TFA is better than Into Darkness. Though I would say that Into Darkness's Khan is a better villain in terms of presence and exuding menace than Nero (though not as effective to be honest) or the First Order. Like TFA, Into Darkness trod some well worn ground, but Into Darkness was more egregious in taking from older material.
TFA, on the other hand, suffered from its story. The characters were likeable, the action was good, etc. But the opposition was lackluster. The story wasn't original. I felt more of a threat from Nero than I did from the First Order ultimately. TFA was a whole different challenge for Abrams. I don't think the movie was going to tank regardless, in a way that Trek seemed to be on shakier ground. Too much of a hype machine around it, and he had the benefit of the doubt going into it due to a lot of people needing TFA to be better than the prequels. To me it feels that Abrams was intent on being true to the spirit of the OT and providing something for the fans while with Trek he was a little more open to changing things up, since he wasn't as emotionally tied to that franchise going into Trek '09. Nostalgia wasn't as much of an issue.
That being said, TFA is better than Into Darkness. Though I would say that Into Darkness's Khan is a better villain in terms of presence and exuding menace than Nero (though not as effective to be honest) or the First Order. Like TFA, Into Darkness trod some well worn ground, but Into Darkness was more egregious in taking from older material.
