"We have to bring more Star Wars into Star Trek."
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
OMG DIS MEANS HE'S GOING TO HAVE JAR JAR IN STAR TREK OMG WHAT A JERKHOLE DIS ORCA GUY IS!!!1
Star Trek needs to get some of it's energy or excitement back. If this is the way they want to do it, I'm all for it. There's probably a reason Star Wars is so popular, and if Trek can get some of that going, we may be in for some good movies... just so long as we don't get any of Star Wars' trademark horrible dialouge. 
Do you know what's sad? I'm bet that somebody somewhere on another trek board posted something similar to this, and was serious.
I wonder exactly what JJ and crew think you are...
Probably the same thing they think of all those Trek fans who aren't their sycophants.
I wonder exactly what JJ and crew think you are...
...all those Trek fans who aren't their sycophants.
All six of them.
number6
Vice Admiral
Seven. They used to have meetings in an old barn up the street.I wonder exactly what JJ and crew think you are...
...all those Trek fans who aren't their sycophants.
All six of them.
Oh, I thought that was the "He-Men Woman Haters Club."
number6
Vice Admiral
That's on Saturdays.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
So why don't they just say that they're making this more epic and action-packed than the previous movies without bringing up Star Wars? I'm sure there are already fans out there worried that this movie is going to be a Star Wars rip-off that uses Star Trek names to cash in on the recognition. Why compound that?
The OT, with warm, human characters and kick-ass space battles? Sure, why not. Just ignore the more recent garbage.
Really Star Trek has done kick-ass space battles. In DS9. No reason to go to another franchise for examples.
Really Star Trek has done kick-ass space battles. In DS9. No reason to go to another franchise for examples.
Writers like to be concise. They like to show instead of tell. They like to use analogies to illustrate their points. Star Wars seemed like a way to do that. It's also vague enough that it could serve as a Rorschach test to fans of both.
To me Star Wars is about people who would never have met each other that come together to save their own lives, while working towards something bigger than themselves. They're relatable because they seem like regular folks that become reluctant heroes instead of military personnel as in Star Trek. For that reason, and because it was a movie, the technobabble was simpler, the action sequences were bigger, and universe felt lived-in and real.
This Star Trek movie is supposed to be about how the crew came together, but I think this movie will try to make the crew more relatable by showing how they came to Starfleet. It looks to show what motivated them through the rest of the stories we all know. I welcome a peek into the pre-Starfleet civilian lives of the crew.
It doesn't matter. I plan on seeing the movie anyway, but that wasn't my point. I'm not discrediting the movie, but I don't see the point in mixing the two universes is what I'm saying. If they do, before you know it, we'll end up with "Star Trek XII: Attack of the Klingons"
It's not like there's going to be a Star Wars/Star Trek crossover with this movie. The quote from Orci is below:
Orci:
All he's talking about is evoking the tone of Star Wars, specifically the awe and wonder that's often lost when the main characters of Star Trek are people who's job is in space. They want to make sure it's not a procedural that happens to take place in space, but that it's a movie that's in space because it's the most amazing place to set a movie.
Orci:
All he's talking about is evoking the tone of Star Wars, specifically the awe and wonder that's often lost when the main characters of Star Trek are people who's job is in space. They want to make sure it's not a procedural that happens to take place in space, but that it's a movie that's in space because it's the most amazing place to set a movie.
It's good that Orci said this. I mean really what Trek has been in the past is stories set on a ship. There is a whole universe outside the ship that the characters need to explore. I think people are sick of the "Ship goes to place...things happen...ship leaves." The ship needs to be part of universe, not the whole solitary location in the film.
Much of what they've said leads me to think that Abrams and the writers are overestimating the Trek fanbase.
Isn't it also the question Paramount executives had for Gene Roddenberry after ST:TMP?
The ST reunion sequel was humming along, variously as a medium budget feature film, a telemovie, a series of telemovies, a TV show called "Star Trek: Phase II"... and suddenly got the greenlight to be a big budget feature film after "Star Wars" hit. TMP came out, had a very long box office run, made a lot of money, incredibly made a profit and rebuilt the budget squandered on the abandoned TV series sequel and the abandoned first SPFX for TMP.
But TMP didn't sell as many toys, and didn't attract enough kids, even though it was a "G"-rated movie. Paramount asked, "Why isn't this like 'Star Wars'?
So they fired GR and brought in Harve Bennett, who brought them a brighter, faster, more energetic, more character-driven movie called... ST II.
Last edited:
