Star Trek 2009 vs Star Wars 7 (NO SPOILERS)

[FPAlpha]

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.

Pretty much my thoughts.

Now my hopes are on Rogue One.. only the basic story is known, it's not directed by JJ who i've always felt keeps too close to the source in both Trek and Star Wars and so far seems to be afraid to really break free and produce something other than high quality fan fiction.

 

[HaplessCrewman]

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.

This.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Star Trek 2009 is a Star Trek film for Star Wars fans. Star Wars 7 is a Star Wars film for Star Wars fans.

So Star Wars wins.

The thing Star Trek has for it as an argument for being better is that Pine and Quinto turned in better performances than anyone in 7. Their acting elevated a pretty weak script that was at times a little ridiculous, creatively lazy, and whose only high points were direct references to the source material.

Star Wars 7 could also be a little creatively lazy but at least it had the same spirit as the originals and had more genuinely entertaining moments that weren't just references.

 

[Relayer1]

Pine and Quinto turned in better performances than anyone in 7.

Er, no.

Pine ? Utterly disposable, but I do quite like Quinto. Carl Urban's the standout in the Trek cast.

Daisy Ridley and John Boyega knocked it out of the park. Oscar Isaac was pretty good too.

No contest...

 

[slappy]

Likes TFA, loved Trek 09 more.

I mean, I'm a Trek guy so...yeah lol

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek (2009) is already in my Blu-ray library, The Force Awakens will join it the day it is released to home video.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

It's been interesting to compare the reactions.

Largely the reaction to JJ's Star Trek from those who disliked the film was "they changed it, now it sucks".
The reaction to TFA from those who disliked the film seems to be "they didn't change it enough, now it sucks"

Same filmmaker, same fanbase reputation as being rather unforgiving when they dislike something...

 

[Relayer1]

It's been interesting to compare the reactions.

Largely the reaction to JJ's Star Trek from those who disliked the film was "they changed it, now it sucks".
The reaction to TFA from those who disliked the film seems to be "they didn't change it enough, now it sucks"

Same filmmaker, same fanbase reputation as being rather unforgiving when they dislike something...

Both films had the same problem imho - JJ's films all seem to be action based with multiple logical failings and plot issues.

However, stylistically JJ is a poor choice for Star Trek and a very good fit for Star Wars - hence TFA being a much better result.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Star Trek.

I think Abrams took more chances and was far less reverential to the source material with his Star Trek film. The Force Awakens plays it too safe.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Yes. Star Trek was way more ambitious. It almost seems like he was so afraid to ruffle any feathers that he held back.

He had no connection to Trek, so he was much more willing to take changes.

 

[Mojochi]

I honestly felt the character development & overall feel in Abrams' Star Wars illustrated a much stronger bond with the source material than Star Trek 09 did. In that 1 way, I feel Star Wars was the better movie

 

[DarKush]

It's been interesting to compare the reactions.

Largely the reaction to JJ's Star Trek from those who disliked the film was "they changed it, now it sucks".
The reaction to TFA from those who disliked the film seems to be "they didn't change it enough, now it sucks"

Same filmmaker, same fanbase reputation as being rather unforgiving when they dislike something...

I don't know if that's the case. While there is overlap regarding fan bases, I'm not sure it's the same fanbases here. Or that there aren't critics of JJ's Trek who love TFA and vice versa.

It's not simply a matter of 'change' itself but what kind or the manner of those changes and if some fans feel those alterations are appropriate or in the spirit of the original material. With Trek '09 I was okay with many of the changes or willing to tolerate them, though the film wasn't perfect. It had an energy that Trek was missing.

With Star Wars, a franchise Abrams said all along he loved more than Trek I expected we might see him want to add something more or new to the storyline, or more than he added, but he didn't. He was perhaps too cautious (likely Disney was), and maybe too reverential.

 

[RAMA]

Id rate them like this: ST09: 10/10, STID: 9.5/10, SW7: 6.5/10

 

[Dales]

JJ Abrams gets a pat on the back for both movies

 

[F. King Daniel]

Loved both, I prefer Trek '09 though. But I'm a Trekkie - I imagine any SW die-hard would pick TFA.

They both had that mix of likable characters, funny moments, big emotional beats and crazy action that I love.

 

[Shazam!]

*snip*

It's almost as though NO SPOILERS isn't in the thread title...

 

[Shazam!]

Anyway, Star Wars all the way for me. Whilst certain elements could have been expanded upon ie. the political climate, the geography of the Republic and the First Order, overall I felt that the writing and the characters were so much stronger.

 

[davejames]

I loved the heck out of his first Trek movie (despite all the crazy science and leaps in logic), and on first viewing found it a more consistently fun and entertaining movie from start to finish than TFA.... but I still have to give TFA the edge because, despite it's story issues, there are just SO many more amazing and epic moments in it, and it's also got more weight to it and a greater sense of mythic importance that was lacking in the Treks.

Not to mention that the characters also come across more multi-dimensional and a lot less cartoonish.

 

[davejames]

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.

No doubt that Abrams is much better at creating fun, dynamic characters and great action sequences than in plotting a tight and cohesive story... but personally that's a tradeoff I'll gladly take given that he does those first two things better than the vast majority of directors out there nowadays.

And ultimately I'd rather have some fun and engaging characters to watch than something that's tightly constructed and plot heavy as hell but with the dullest characters imaginable, like we got with the prequels. Since in the end it's much easier to care about great characters than a great plot.

With Star Wars, a franchise Abrams said all along he loved more than Trek I expected we might see him want to add something more or new to the storyline, or more than he added, but he didn't. He was perhaps too cautious (likely Disney was), and maybe too reverential.

I don't think it was them being "cautious". I just think he and Kasdan really liked the idea of reinterpreting the basic story and themes of the original movie, and the idea of Rey's journey essentially echoing that of Luke's. And probably didn't think fans would be as utterly outraged by that idea as many (oddly) seem to be.

 

[Neroon]

ST09 gets credit for a couple of things: it raked in the $$$ and thereby saved the Trek franchise. As disappointed as I was in that film, I freely recognize its victory on that point. The second thing was the cast's overall good effort in interpreting their roles. Karl Urban especially deserves kudos.

However, for my money TFA was significantly better in nearly all ways. It had a hard path to follow (much as ST09) did in attempting to resuscitate a flagging franchise following disappointing films (and in Trek's case tv shows). Just how MUCH harder is open to interpretation. Certainly TFA had weak points but there seemed to me to be far fewer in number. In fact, nothing really stands out as a defect or weak point.

Abrams deserves great credit for the part he played in both franchises latest film offerings.