The Geek Life: The Star Trek Train Comments -


Showing items 11 - 20 of 42
<<  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  >>  
Hobbs 1/4/2012 11:59:08 AM

Eage, agreed Lucas sucked as a director but even a bad director needed a better script. Again, Lucas fault. I watched those clips for the old republic game and those three clips are better than all the prequels put together. I couldn't help but think after I saw them that this is what the prequels should have been. Imagine if the first prequel would have opened the way of those clips?  Fans would have been screaming with joy instead of saying WTF when that asian speaking alien appeared on screen and the roger roger droids showed up.

So even though ST has more movies, I would say half of them weren't that good and half of the SW movies were not good period.  Both franchises are still great however even if they have fallen off.

Meegle 1/4/2012 12:24:52 PM

That list of 10 best ST eps....

How can it NOT have City on the Edge of Forever or Devil in the Dark on it?

themovielord 1/4/2012 1:06:03 PM

 Meegle, good call on those episodes. I thought it too lacked both. Devil in the Dark is a good example of Star TRek, COTEOF is great writing. I would put "City" on the last one to watch. Give the new vieer a chance to discover the characters. Mirror Mirror be a following up one as well. 

SarcasticCaveman 1/4/2012 1:45:20 PM

 I was always a fan of the ST movies after seeing Wrath of Khan on HBO about every other day when I was a kid, as was Star Wars...I loved them both.  My first Trek movie theater experience was Search For Spock.  I would go so far as to say the only two TERRIBLE Trek movies (in my opinion) were The Final Frontier and Insurrection...sorry, I'm a fan of Nemesis...really don't see what all the hate is over.

As for that list, City on the Edge of Forever REALLY needs to be on it!  

monkeyfoot 1/4/2012 2:07:26 PM

Always a fan of both like others have said. Just been a sci-fi fan period and personally have felt no conflict in liking them both. They are not competing sports teams so you do have to hate one. It all comes down to personal choice.

I think SW has more of a general public appeal becuase at its basic level it is just meant to be fun adventure. You can love it as a 5 year old, even JarJar. You can get into the depth of the philosphies of the Force and the mythological aspects of the characters later if you wish. But it is meant to be a sci-fi fairy tale - a Once Upon A Time story told at bedtime or around a campfire that resonates in the human unconscious.

ST, according to Roddenberry's vision, is supposed to be an allegory of contemporary human problems set in a sci-fi world. They happen in the context of a universe where humanity has grown out of its childhood and acts like mature adults  (for the most part) when confronting these difficulties and give perspective and hopeful optimism for the modern day audience still dealing head-on with all these things. It has also been a source for lots of technobabble that has inspired plenty of scientists and engineers to create some of the tech seen on the shows.

Now whether current ST mantle holder JJ Abrams will contnue this tradition remains to be seen.

chervil 1/4/2012 2:26:28 PM

Well said Monkeyfoot!
While they are both science fiction, and therefore the same animal, they are really just different aspects.

It's like choosing between a thick juicy steak and a really good hamburger.
Yes, they are both beef.Yes, they will both fill you up.
And while you can praise each in their own rights agains the other, it usually boils down to either:
1. What you are hungry for at that moment
2. How picky of an eater you are

Star Wars is science-fantasy.
Epic and sweeping.
Lightsabers and starfighters.
It is designed to evoke the feeling of a grand adventure set in space.

Star Trek is a grand adventure, but based more on science fact.
How many of the futuristic devices do we actually have now?
As noted before, many designers and engineers were inspired by what they saw, because Rodenberry looked ahead at what just might be possible in the future, not just what might look cool today.

So it really boils down to personal preference.
Do you want to be just entertained?
To let your mind float free of what is "possible" and "achievable"?
Or do you confine your entertainment to things that only have a possibility of actually happening?
Or, like most people, do you prefer a nice juicy steak, but enjoy a tasty burger as well?

Meegle 1/4/2012 3:00:41 PM

Chervil I love the direction your going but I kind of disagree on your assessment of Star Trek.

IMHO Trek is about grand adventure second. I believe Roddenberry wanted to examine the Human condition now by placing it in the future and displaying the direction that Humanity COULD go in and the adventures that may come up in the wonder and mystery that is the unknown of space.

Star Wars is Lucas' version of Flash Gordon. Period.

I love both franchises truly.

chervil 1/4/2012 3:30:18 PM

I didn't mean to imply that Star Trek was mainly a "grand adventure", merely to display the difference stylistically between the two.

I really didn't go into it, since I thought Monkeyfoot had already explained it pretty well.

But I do agree that Star Wars is a fun type of escapism sci-fi, while Star Trek really teaches you about the human condition even as it projects the problems and issues humanity is currently dealing with onto alien races.
I have always found it interesting how ST was able to take modern issues ( like racism, sexism, corporate corruption, fascism, etc.) and make you look at the problem from the outside by removing humanity from the core of the problem. It essentially made them third party observers (and sometimes mediators) to many problems, showing both sides of an issue. (although heavy-handed in some of its messages - see "Let that be your last battlefield").

And I have to say that I too have never understood why it is one or the other.
They each have their place.

chervil 1/4/2012 4:11:20 PM

Oh, and I almost forgot that while I am a big fan of the ST series except for Voyager (even Enterprise) I really did like the new movie.
Paid to see it twice on the big screen and if you know me, that says a lot, since I only pay to see about 5 movies a year. I usually just wait for netflix or video.

Karl Urban absolutely nailed Bones and Simon Pegg was hilarious as Scotty.
The whole point was that this is who the characters would have become if the time shift had occured, instead of who we have known them to be up til now.
And it worked well.
I really look forward to the next one, and while there can't really be a WoK movie since the timeline hasn't reached that point yet, it would be interesting to use Spaceseed as the basis for one of the sequels.
Show how things would have happened differently with the new crew.

Also I agree that the PT felt like it was stretched.
Like when they do a mini-series, and they take about two hours of actual material and add a ton of filler and draw things out into 6 hours?
He should have started with the grown Anakin of Clones and then stretched the Clone Wars over three movies instead of parts of two.
RotS was well-done though, and I have to give huge kudos to SW:The Clone Wars cartoon series, as they really capture the feeling of SW.
Too bad the movie Anakin wasn't more like his cartoon counterpart!

SarcasticCaveman 1/4/2012 5:11:11 PM

 It always cracks me up when people play the "except for Voyager" card...why?  Because somehow, even though it is my LEAST favorite of the series overall, it somehow managed to have quite a few of my favorite's a conundrum.  I think it's got the fewest characters that I actually give a crap about, but I LOVE episodes such as "Drone", where Seven teaches the 29th century Borg drone how to be an individual, and the 2 parter "Year of Hell"...just excellent.  I would have to say my favorite thing about Voyager is The Doctor.  He's like a sass-mouth Data in many ways.

<<  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  >>  


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.