Will Star Wars Surpass the Critical Acclaim of Star Trek 2009
- Thread starter Dales
- Start date
The critics are already sharpening their knives for Star Wars TFA.
Just in time for Christmas dinner
The dictionary? 
its more science fantasy than science fiction but wars still has some science fiction in it not just as prominent as trek. trek actually uses real science hypothesises and references the great like newton and Einstein.
It worked for the TOS Star Trek movies, with characters involved, but also aware of their age, culminating with the ST6.
That would be unfortunate, but expected. The prequels' world has been so heavily promoted, that there's no way those "all-important" events would be wiped away.
To me, nerd porn is any reference to the overblown Fett (Boba, Jango, or anyone else ever associated with their background), or the equally overblown snarling, "badass" Sith in the vein of Darth Maul. A villain has to have a mind in action, not just jump around with flashy swordplay like a video game.
Don't be surprised if action is used to serve two purposes:
1. Try to erase any negative memories of the prequels with loud bells and whistles, and--
2. Ease any fears of the OT leads being "slow" or "boring" by having one or all of them engaging in bigger action set pieces (that super weapon).
EU over saturation is something even average moviegoers will know is a cheap plug. The films' events are what everyone knows, so the sudden rainstorm of crap known only the rabid nerds will seem like a call to run to Toys R Us or a comic store, more than the elements having a legitimate part in moving the story forward.
Too many movies suffer from that letdown. Maybe you should judge the potential for depth based on Abrams' other sci-fi films, and ask if any had depth of note.
And..."It's too much like Star Wars"
Which is what i'm putting my money on. A homage to the original rather than being original.
Science fiction is a pretty broad genre, "science fantasy" is a subset of that, not a separate genre.
What does Avengers have to do with Star Wars? Abrams was not even involved in that one. We have no idea what Disney's involvement has been with TFA, and we do know that Kathleen Kennedy is still the head of LFL and is directly overseeing the project.
Based upon promo material, I see little (if any) EU nods, or concepts being presented. I see little that indicates studio meddling, and even less that are going to be Abrams having "fan boy" moments-the man is a professional.
So, really confused at those conclusions.
The Star Wars Expanded Universe was nullified over a year ago, so that won't be happening.
-Science fiction and science fantasy mean the same damn thing.
-Trek science is hardly any more "real" than Wars science.
-Referencing Newton or Einstein doesn't mean anything at all.
Ooh, good one. Yeah, that comment will be made. Likewise, any scene which bears any kind of similarity to anything seen in the OT will be called a "blatant rip-off."
Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.
The only difference is that Trek tries to make their science at least sound plausable in some form, Wars doesn't waste it's time doing that. Not that I have a problem with that, I love both franchises.
Thank you, Disney, for that, by the way.
I was going to post something along the same lines, but that works.
Trek started out by expanding upon some scientific ideas, and inserted their own made up words when real scientific principles would not work for them (dilithium instead of lithium, phasers instead of lasers, etc).
Star Wars is not somehow less by being "science fantasy" than "science fiction." Not sure why the grammatical gymnastics over a term
Similar threads
