Wars vs. Trek

[anotheranon]

My time being sick this week was not wasted. Between coughing and Nyquil naps, I watched the first 6 Star Trek movies (i.e., the ones with the tv show's original cast).

Disclaimer: while I was raised on Star Wars, I only have dim memories of the pre-TNG movies. I think I'd seen all of them before this week as I remembered bits from most, but they weren't ubiquitous in my childhood home the way the Star Wars trilogy was. As such I'm not super-aware of the context in which they were released, though I'm sure for fans of the TV show the first one was a huge, huge deal. Having said this:

• I do think the Trek films got cheated by not having the best special effects available. Maybe I was spoiled by early Industrial Lights and Magic, or I just have nostalgia goggles on, but the first Star Trek movie (1979) looks downright cheesy compared to A New Hope (1977).
  
• Most of the acting in both properties was...lacking, but Star Trek had fun with it: the scenery chewing face-off between Ricardo Montalban and William Shatner in Wrath of Khaaaaaaan was magnificent! In the SW franchise, the truly bad acting was just bad (the deleted scene of Luke and Biggs is just painful).
  
• The Star Wars movies are stories within a larger arc (the fall of the Empire/redemption of Darth Vader), but the Trek films have much more a stand-alone feel to them, even though 2, 3, and 4 take place one immediately after the other.
  
  Indeed, some of them read as fillers for episodic tv at best - IMHO ST 3 and 5 are rather forgettable. 2 has the most fun. 6 has the most internally coherent/interesting storyline.
  
  
  
• I can't make up my mind whether the nods/winks to earth's history are fun or annoying. In the case of ST 4 ("the one with the whales") I found it painfully anachronistic all the way through - how did it read when it originally came out?
  
  
  
  • I'm aware that all costumes in sci-fi movies reflect the times in which they were made, but the women's hair SCREAMED 80s from start to finish (Except for Ilia, obviously). SW looks more timeless to me, but again - that could be the nostalgia talking. Could it have been budget constraints? (though it seems odd to me that franchise popular enough to spawn 6 films would have problems getting good costuming).
    
  
  
• DeForest Kelley's Bones was easily the funniest character throughout - Karl Urban nailed his cranky put-uponedness. And the writers gave Nimoy's Spock a pleasantly surprising amount of dry humor to play with.
  
  
  
  • I now "get" most of the ST reboot movie's "call-backs" to the original now.
    
    • And the Kirk/Spock subtext is greater in the original films :P Maybe it's just Shatner emoting all over the place.
    
    
  
  
• Was I the only one to notice that in movie 6 it seemed like Uhura and Scotty were awfully affectionate? Frankly I think the new movie's Uhura should dump Spock for Scotty, if only 'cos dating your teacher is unprofessional.
  
  • Besides, there'd be Moar Pegg on screen!
    
  
  

I still like Star Wars best. Yes, even after the prequels: the story seems tighter and has more of a definite trajectory, and I think they also had more budget/effects magic to realize Lucas' vision (even before all of the recent remastering/meddling). Yes, I do realize that Trek was coming out of episodic tv. That, and I grew up with the characters - for me there was never a time that there WASN'T Star Wars.

Still, Trek does have a lot of fun in it's little 'verse galaxy quadrant :)

Comments

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Bones is hilarious, like a sarcastic voice-over in some of the movies. Movie six (the one with the wales) has often been highly criticized by trekkers, among other things for the Uhura/Scotty thing, they felt it came from totally out of the blue, and in general trekkers didn't seem to like romantic meddling between the crew of Enterprise.

If you wonder why I have all these impressions, it's because I once sat in on a big Star Trek convention movie marathon where all the movies were watched during a day and discussed in between and after. Personally, I still really like First Contact, it brings me huge wads of Star Trek universe nostalgia and nostalgia for that part of my life.

I too am an old Star Wars fan, (I was even a member of the Star Wars fan club when I was a little kid!), so I agree with you on lots of your points, particularly the costumes and hair. Star Wars has always been unusually good with the styling however, no matter how bad the rest of the ideas were. I must say though, that since the "new" Star Wars movies arrived on the scene, my preferences have distinctly moved toward the Star Trek universe. I think, among other things, I detest the insane crappyness of the last two Star Wars movies, the script, the acting, the storylines, ideas, everything except the special effects and costumes basically. Lucas did so badly I vouched I'd never touch another Star Wars product again in my life (except for the original 2 movies), and I've not felt like changing my mind on that point. Sadly I think the Star Wars universe died for me when I walked out of the theater after Revenge of the Sith. One of the worst movies I've ever watched, in any genre.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

The best of Star Wars was when George Lucas stuck with what he's good at: broad story arc plus art direction/world building. That he tried to write dialog and direct the prequels was his downfall: it takes rare lack of talent to squeeze bad performances out of the likes of Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman :P

[tommdroid.livejournal.com]

For me it's very hard to compare, like comparing seafood with a medium rare steak.

But in general I agree with what both you and Seal wrote. The ST whale movie was just...so 80 it hurt. I'm not disliking the SW late movies as much as Seal though, which could be because I saw them with my kids. When comparing to Pokemon they are really really good.

[timcharmorbien.livejournal.com]

Almost anything is better than Pokemon! :) I grew up watching Star Trek reruns, so that was my introduction to televised science fiction - - along with Lost in Space (Danger Will Robinson!!). :) So Star Wars just built on what was already there, but it was a dirtier, more beat up universe, a Millenium Falcon to Trek's glossy white Enterprise, a less utopian setting. I don't think either setting is superior, though they have different strengths. And my favorite Star Trek movie was Wrath of Khan, which was probably a lot closer to a classic Star Trek episode in tone than the first film.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

So Star Wars just built on what was already there, but it was a dirtier, more beat up universe, a Millenium Falcon to Trek's glossy white Enterprise, a less utopian setting.

THIS. I love that SW looks lived in, but each Star Trek movie looked like it was just opened out of shrink wrap.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

I'm harsh about the prequels mostly because of my fond memories of the original SW trilogy. Taken alone, they're fun summer action movies but they can't compete with childhood nostalgia, you know?