The Ultimate Poll: JJ Vs. Bay

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You know, I don't care - as long as the studio doesn't go back to what it was doing with Star Trek on the big screen prior to Abrams's movie, I'm fine with it. Bay is worse than letting the actors take turns directing movies, or fans pining for a guy who hasn't directed a successful film in twenty years and never a big-budget movie? Don't think so.

 

[shadowedgalaxy]

It's a question because I suspect the point behind it was to be a stealth troll. Just another jab at ST09 basically.

Leave ST09 alone, what has it ever done to you!!??

How about Stuart Baird for ST12

 

[JarodRussell]

Bay is worse than letting the actors take turns directing movies?

So you're not a fan of giving people in the business opportunities?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Ah, the old "have you stopped beating your wife?" interrogative.

 

[JarodRussell]

You were the one implying that letting actors direct is bad, not me, so no, it's not the hysbyw fallacy. Just want to know if you're serious.

 

[number6]

It's time to Bring Back Shatner!!

 

[Bishop76]

You know, I don't care - as long as the studio doesn't go back to what it was doing with Star Trek on the big screen prior to Abrams's movie, I'm fine with it.

This is correct.

 

[Ryan8bit]

They've never influenced each other quite in this way. It's usually been on a superficial level. This movie was influenced on both levels.

Sure they have.. This is equally superficial, and coincidental.

We'll simply agree to disagree. I will enjoy future Star Trek films and you're free to complain.

You have a strange definition of superficial.

What I refer to as superficial: Starship designs (or various starships in the background), common words like photon torpedos, lines like "Punch it", or visual themes like looking at the binary sunset / looking at the Enterprise being built.

What is more than skin-deep: Star Wars has always been straight up action/adventure, and has never really contemplated anything moral or had any themes that make you think. It also had a complete degree of fantasy and nothing close to science fiction except for its setting. Star Trek has had action/adventure, but it had not strictly been the focus, and there usually was a moral or theme behind everything. And while it too has a large degree of fantasy, there have been more attempts at making it at least lite science fiction. At least, it's quite a bit heavier than Star Wars.

These are the fundamental divides that make these series what they are, and the lines between them have blurred a bit. They're not just superficial differences.

Also, pointing this out isn't exactly complaining, especially since I like Star Wars a great deal (and enjoyed ST09). I'm pretty sure I prefaced with that, so I don't know what you're on about.

 

[Gepard]

Bay is worse than letting the actors take turns directing movies, or fans pining for a guy who hasn't directed a successful film in twenty years and never a big-budget movie?

Yes. Because giant. Robot. Testicles. And because Bay is worse than everything.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

'michael bay is the antichrist' - mark kermode.

What about "McGEEE"?

Mind you, if the Good Doctor had his way, he'd want to bring back Jeffrey Hunter as Pike.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Bay is worse than letting the actors take turns directing movies, or fans pining for a guy who hasn't directed a successful film in twenty years and never a big-budget movie?

Yes. Because giant. Robot. Testicles. And because Bay is worse than everything.

Nope. I don't like Michael Bay, but recent history provides no reason to think that trekkies have a better idea about anything. A lot of us seem to just want Mama Roddenberry's (or Meyer's) macaroni-and-cheese recipe.

 

[Alex1939]

I still have yet to see proof of that, beyond a few pissed off fans taking things out of reasonable context about Abrams being "more of a Star Wars fan." TrekXI was a good film. I am convinced the creative team "gets" it and will make a sequel I will look forward to.

How could anyone not see more of a resemblance to star wars?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ To the extent that Star Wars is almost totally unlike Nemesis and Insurrection (i.e. watchable) then yes, I do see the resemblance.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^ To the extent that Star Wars is almost totally unlike Nemesis and Insurrection (i.e. watchable) then yes, I do see the resemblance.

Yep. Star Wars is a fun, well-made movie with a great deal of action. This definitely separates it from much of big-screen Trek.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM[/yt]

 

[Bishop76]

^ I *LOVE* that video.

 

[Alex1939]

Uh that's not at all what I meant. I do agree Star Trek 2009 and original Star Wars are much more watchable than Nemesis or Insurrection.

In Trek 2009, the ships even "warp" like hyperdrive from Star Wars. The feel is also much quicker in pace than prior Star Trek movies. Mainly, there is just much more of a fantasy element than the "science" that prior Trek prided itself on.

Regardless I'm not a hater (not an uber fanboy like Dennis either) but I just have a hard time understand that people see no resemblance whatsoever to Star Wars.

(That is a good video, but not nearly as funny as the Trek 90210 video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAjmbASkkLY

 

[Bishop76]

I got news for ya - most of that "science" stuff in old Star Trek is just as much of a fantasy as the Force is.

I guess I just don't see that big a connection either other than that they decided to make Star Trek fast paced, action packed, and fun like the OT was.

 

[Alex1939]

I got news for ya - most of that "science" stuff in old Star Trek is just as much of a fantasy as the Force is.

I guess I just don't see that big a connection either other than that they decided to make Star Trek fast paced, action packed, and fun like the OT was.

Well a lot of work went into trying to make some of the TNG tech as real as possible, biggest example was the warp drive, matter and anti-matter.

In Star Wars, ships just go. There is no explanation. It's just to move characters from point a to point b to advance the plot.

In trek 2009, we just accept "red matter" with no real explanation behind it. The same way in which the black holes "work".

(basically all of this paraphrased from RLM)

 

[Bishop76]

Oh, sure - I've seen the RLM review as well - I particularly agree with the sentiment that JJ Abrams should have directed the new Star Wars movies while George Lucas should have directed people to their seats.

Other than picking up the pace, though, I just don't see that big a connection. Even the Kirk/Luke connection that people point out doesn't really indicate a connection to Star Wars to me so much as it indicates a connection to the monomyth.

Edit: As for the technology, I just don't see red matter as any more of an obstacle to get over than the transporter. One was used as a plot device to make a black hole, the other was used because the ship was just too big to land. Sure, later writers came along and made up some BS about how the transporter "actually" works, but that's really just for the spazzes who need to know every little detail about Trek.

 

[1bulma1]

I got news for ya - most of that "science" stuff in old Star Trek is just as much of a fantasy as the Force is.

I guess I just don't see that big a connection either other than that they decided to make Star Trek fast paced, action packed, and fun like the OT was.

I disagree pls watch the universe episodes on the history channel, especially the episode science fact vs science fiction. The fantasy in star trek has some element of true science to it eg blackholes, trans warp beaming, wormholes ,the fabric of space-time, parallel universes and quantum mechanics. I have always said that star wars was better as an entertainment franchise but star trek is more intellectual and more complex than star wars