• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Star Trek infinitely better than all three "Star Wars" prequels.

Well at least Nero had a reason for being the way he was, not "I follow a philosophy of hatred, mwahaha". What's the point of the Sith anyway? And don't give me that "abolute poweeeeeer" crap.
Star Wars, unlike Trek, is a basic good versus evil story. The Sith are, quite simply, the untilmate personification of evil, one of the elements of which are cruelty and domination over others. I don't think Lucas, for all the chinese and japanese psuedo religious themes, really meant for it to be any more complex than that.
 
Star Trek has always had greater depth than Star Wars. And by that I mean deeper characters and deeper food for thought.
 
They could package a turd and put Star Wars or Indiana Jones on the package and people would lap it up. Even that shitty CGI one a year or so ago made about 40 mil without any advertising.
 
^Clone Wars had a lot of merchandise (Mcdonalds promotion, Hasbro figures), though, which was sort of advertising.


While Nu-Trek did have some plot holes, it was very well-acted IMO, compared to the prequels where most of the actors-with the exception of Mcgregor & Mcdiarmid-were wooden. Heck, I wonder how Chris Pine would've done as Anakin.
 
I truly believe the decline of Star Wars can be traced to the departure of producer Gary Kurtz and writer Lawrence Kasdan -- and not letting REAL directors direct the films. Aside from episodes III (which I felt was a pretty good film;not great, but pretty good) and IV, when Lucas directed a film, it became a trainwreck.

George Lucas is a way overrated film maker. As with Gene Roddenberry on Star Trek, Lucas had talented people helping out behind the scenes that made Star Wars great. Without them, it was nothing.

Abram's Trek is superior to the SW prequels -- no doubt about it in my mind anyway.
 
^Actually, CLONE WARS had a different director (Dave Filoni) and writer, but still turned out pretty bad. With Indiana Jones and Clone Wars, I think Lucas is not only a bad director, he's now a bad *producer* as well! We'll see how his new Red Tails turns out, but I don't have any high hopes.


Yeah, I haven't been impressed with any other Hayden performance either. He just seems to be stuck in the whiny, stilted mode in everything I've seen him in. I know he got some acclaim for Life As A House and Shattered Glass, but he still seemed like the same lifeless guy to me.
 
I definitely agree that this was better for Trek than the prequels were for Wars.

Ironic that ILM did so much of the visual FX for this film, though. Does that mean a victory for Trek over Wars or Wars over Trek? (Not that it too much matters, lol).
 
I definitely agree that this was better for Trek than the prequels were for Wars.

Ironic that ILM did so much of the visual FX for this film, though. Does that mean a victory for Trek over Wars or Wars over Trek? (Not that it too much matters, lol).

It means a victory for business, as in ILM is a business, and it's trying to make money.
 
Well at least Nero had a reason for being the way he was, not "I follow a philosophy of hatred, mwahaha". What's the point of the Sith anyway? And don't give me that "abolute poweeeeeer" crap.
Star Wars, unlike Trek, is a basic good versus evil story. The Sith are, quite simply, the untilmate personification of evil, one of the elements of which are cruelty and domination over others. I don't think Lucas, for all the chinese and japanese psuedo religious themes, really meant for it to be any more complex than that.

I realise that, but the way it was done was less than convincing at times.
 
I would think that after 30 years, Star Trek vs. Star Wars would get old... but I guess not.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top