Star Wars vs Star Trek

Which is Better?


  • Total voters
    95

(repressed memories of mispronunciation and other inexcusable flaws begin to resurface)

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Crap, now I'm going to have to watch that movie again.

Katara. Just Katara.

She went from a character who passed The Bechdel Test with flying colors to a character who serves no real purpose in the movie

Well, that's what happens when you cut 7.5 hours of material down to 2. A lot of chaff gets tossed, and worthless side-stories like the All-Girls' Ninja Club of Kyoshi tend to be first on the chopping block.

and generally do whatever the man in the particular scene tells her to do

Five minutes into the movie...

Sokka: "Do not hit that sphere!"
(Katara hits it anyway, thus setting the entire movie's plot in motion)

Yup. Does nothing important except what the men around her tell her to do :rolleyes:

magnetic water and fire and earth

?

the dragon that seems to serve no purpose other than being a dragon

Dude. It's a DRAGON. Simply being a dragon is a good enough purpose.

an empire which relies on an available source of fire at all times somehow managing to conquer 75% of the entire world; further bolstered by the fact that the King of the Water Tribe specifically points this out, and yet they still don't don't put out their fire

That seemed tactically unsound to me as well, but I just figured "meh, the fire dudes always bring their own fire sources anyway... putting out your own fires probably wouldn't make much difference"

The Dragon's unnecessarily cryptic advice

(suddenly remembers which dragon you're actually talking about; repressed memories of other inexcusable flaws begin to resurface)

STOP DOING THAT!

Or how about simplifying the entire reason for the Fire Nation's aggression?

I don't recall it being ever mentioned in the first season, which is as much as I could force myself to watch.

In the show it's about imperialism, and "exporting our success to the rest of the world".

So in other words, some Nickelodeon blowhards were making a shallow jab at the War on Terror and "exporting democracy". That's actually worse than whatever was in the movie.

80% of the movie was narration:

If you can't see this one, just rewatch the movie. There's a reason that one of the very first rules you learn in film school is "show; don't tell". The concept of saying more while doing less is fundamentally important, mostly because nobody wants to sit through 2 hours of goddamned narration/exposition.

In the first 10 minutes, I count 40 seconds of opening narration/scrolling text and 25 seconds of Katara talking about her background. That's hardly 80%.

I'll come back and edit this when I've finished re-watching the whole movie.

EDIT:

Okay, 30 minutes in and still at 65 seconds of narration. Even if the entire rest of the movie was narrated nonstop, that still wouldn't be 80%. Fail.

Also, I remembered that by far, the most disappointing thing about the firebenders vs. earthbenders battle was that it was so short and so little happened... not anything about the special effects. Oh, and Katara participates in the battle without getting her ass kicked, so there goes THAT claim.
 
Well, that's what happens when you cut 7.5 hours of material down to 2. A lot of chaff gets tossed, and worthless side-stories like the All-Girls' Ninja Club of Kyoshi tend to be first on the chopping block.

I didn't even mention the Kyoshi Warriors. I'm just talking about Katara.

Five minutes into the movie...

Sokka: "Do not hit that sphere!"
(Katara hits it anyway, thus setting the entire movie's plot in motion)

Only time she ever thinks for herself; and that was more for due to the fact that Shyamalan was constrained by the series than an attempt to make Katara into a more feminist character. Does she actually do anything after that? No.


I don't recall it being ever mentioned in the first season, which is as much as I could force myself to watch.

a.) I don't think it is explicitly, although it is hinted at and implied on several occasions
b.) You should really try watching the next two seasons. The first season is good, but the second season is far and away superior.

So in other words, some Nickelodeon blowhards were making a shallow jab at the War on Terror and "exporting democracy". That's actually worse than whatever was in the movie.

It has much more to do with the 1880s, or Imperial Japan of the early 1900s than it does with the 2000s.

In the first 10 minutes, I count 40 seconds of opening narration/scrolling text and 25 seconds of Katara talking about her background. That's hardly 80%.

I'll come back and edit this when I've finished re-watching the whole movie.

Just keep watching. And you're probably not including the exposition that literally every character gives every time they open their mouths. This is especially true of Zhao, Gran Gran, and Eeeee-ro.
 
I didn't even mention the Kyoshi Warriors. I'm just talking about Katara.

Well, how many other female characters are there? Granny is in the movie for like 30 seconds, the ice princess doesn't show up until the end, and that's pretty much the complete list of female characters that Katara can interact with once you get rid of the 70% of the Season 1 plot that went nowhere. Would you have preferred that a conversation between Katara and someone else be shoehorned into the plot specifically for the purpose of passing the test?

Only time she ever thinks for herself; and that was more for due to the fact that Shyamalan was constrained by the series than an attempt to make Katara into a more feminist character. Does she actually do anything after that? No.

Well, she starts the fight between the firebenders and earthbenders. She does it without being prodded and without getting her ass kicked.

a.) I don't think it is explicitly, although it is hinted at and implied on several occasions

:rolleyes:

b.) You should really try watching the next two seasons. The first season is good, but the second season is far and away superior.

So I've heard. Something about a new character, right?

I'll watch it when I'm done getting through Code Lyoko.

you're probably not including the exposition that literally every character gives every time they open their mouths. This is especially true of Zhao, Gran Gran, and Eeeee-ro.

Exposition is not narration.

Note: having sat through The Matrix Reloaded, I've developed a very high tolerance for exposition...

Edit: Katara also pwns the fire prince and saves Aang at about 1:17, without being told to do so.
 
I'm still curious about all the Star Trek 5 hate. I still say it isn't nearly as bad as Star Trek 9. I can't even remember Star Trek 9's plot. At least I can remember the plot of Star Trek 5. ST 9 was more of just a 2 part tv episode, it wasn't big screen quality plot (or acting).

I've yet to see Star Trek 9. I think 5 did good on bringing back Spock, but the "finding god" plotline was probably a bust. Roddenberry didn't like 5 for different reasons, according to its Wikipedia article.
 
Trekkie moment: Spock never left. His mind was still in existence his the protomatter of the Genesis planet resulted in his body being brough 'back to life'.
 
Wasn't his mind in Bones but his body was on the Genesis planet?
 
A little bit inaccurate, but yeah, that's the general idea.
 
A few people have said that AotC should have been Episode I, and RotS should have been parts II and III. I'm inclined to agree.

I've never considered this, but if you modify AOTC a bit I agree (Anakin can't just pop up out of nowhere.) But the "Episode I" stuff could be dramatically changed by removing Jar Jar, making Anakin older, and basically starting with the group stranded on Tatooine (For any reason, just make a ship battle at the beginning and let their butts get kicked.)

I'm not sure whether to include Qui Gon or not with this plan; not having him would be a shame but it'd be hard to fit him in.

Maybe when Lucas kicks the bucket, his kids will want to remake all six movies, and can adjust the PT accordingly... and remove Jar-Jar... and replace the Ewoks with Wookies...

While I agree with the theory that Lucas should have done Wookies in ROTJ, I wouldn't touch 4-6, for better or worse they are classics. 1-3 aren't, so I'd be a bit more tolerant of changes (It would REALLY have to be worth it, like you'd have to get 3 movies of similar quality of 4-6 for it to be worth considering) but that might affect the EU negatively.
 
There's nothing wrong with remaking classics, dude.

 
Just think, soon you will be able to see the Phantom Menace in 3D!! Wouldn't that be great?

Okay, I'm being sarcastic. I can't imagine Jar-Jar in 3d. *shudders*. At least Star Trek franchise hasn't been milked enough to be in 3D. Although I don't think people want to see William Shatner's wrinkles in 3d. Seriously, how much can they milk these franchises? Star Wars is the worst, because there is so little material there to milk.
 
Just think, soon you will be able to see the Phantom Menace in 3D!! Wouldn't that be great?

Okay, I'm being sarcastic. I can't imagine Jar-Jar in 3d. *shudders*. At least Star Trek franchise hasn't been milked enough to be in 3D. Although I don't think people want to see William Shatner's wrinkles in 3d. Seriously, how much can they milk these franchises? Star Wars is the worst, because there is so little material there to milk.

Did you mean to say "Star Trek" is the worst? I don't agree, really both franchise have been expanded upon since their original incarnations. Star Trek is quite a bit moved on since ToS and it's sequel, and actually can't go back except for the cartoons or a few cameos. A lot has been invented for the franchise since then (time wars, new sectors, Borg, etc...).

Star Trek's main problem (relative to Star Wars) is that the IP holder does a mediocre job of keeping the franchise alive with new incarnations; JJ Abrams is their main hope at this point since they kind of killed the tv presence with Enterprise (though I like that some of that series). If not Abrams, maybe Tarentino? :)
Abrams will do another one probably: http://www.avclub.com/articles/jj-abrams-definitely-directing-another-star-trek-f,57099/
 
Just as a note: Star Trek I is one of the best ST movies. Oh I surely can see how one can find it too long for its content, boring etc. But to me this movie actually tried to be art instead of the usually boring one-dimensional kit of standard movie elements. It was very daring in that, and quit appealing to me. Not without fail. But decently enough.

But of course, the masses hate what they don't understand and the next thing we get is a flat action flick called The Wrath of Khan. :(

But yeah, that was totally snobbish. ;)
 
The only redeeming quality of Star Trek I was that it made an effective cure for insomnia. It's okay to have scenes in which nothing happens and the characters just talk, but scenes in which nothing happens and the characters don't talk, and which serve only to pad the running time and waste celluloid, are inexcusable.
 
Just as a note: Star Trek I is one of the best ST movies. Oh I surely can see how one can find it too long for its content, boring etc. But to me this movie actually tried to be art instead of the usually boring one-dimensional kit of standard movie elements. It was very daring in that, and quit appealing to me. Not without fail. But decently enough.

But of course, the masses hate what they don't understand and the next thing we get is a flat action flick called The Wrath of Khan. :(

But yeah, that was totally snobbish. ;)

Far, far too snobbish. I'm fine with trying to be daring, with trying something new, but if it comes down to minutes-long shots of the Enterprise, the opening 'overture' and taking itself all a little too seriously I get a little irritated.

Wrath of Khan at least went for continuing the, er, continuity of Star Trek rather than trying to rip off 2001: A Space Odyssey.
 
It's okay to have scenes in which nothing happens and the characters just talk
Jeez I certainly hope so! :lol:
, but scenes in which nothing happens and the characters don't talk, and which serve only to pad the running time and waste celluloid, are inexcusable.
I enjoyed how the movie took its time. This gives opportunity to digest and reflect, a quality modern movies like to severely lack. But I won't argue that this artistic means hasn't been perfectly implemented in ST. For instance the opening 'overture' mentioned by Kan' Sharuminar is probably more enjoyable when you are really into ST and like to indulge this feeling of awe which is supposed to be created and I find it perfectly understandable if someone less enthusiastic gets bored at this point.
But the heavy antagonism resulting from such scenes seems to me as a sign of the typical modern approach of superficial quantity (lots of stuff happening) over mentally more challenging quality (reflection, digestion). I.e. people don't just not like what to digest, but that they are supposed to digest. That's of course a very general statement and won't apply on every individual like that. Just an impression I have.
 
It's some time ago since I saw ST1 for the last time (it gets cut from most marathons), so I apologize if I simplify things a bit, but the problem is that there is not much to digest in the event-less periods. It's not as if it has any engaging moral conundrum or interesting alien culture to ponder (things that actually make Star Trek great, and in the rare occasion of being done well, way superior to Star Wars).

It was a standard negative space wedgie plot with the "alien life form trying to understand mankind" aspect tacked on later on. Both of which have been done to death already, and imo in a more interesting way. So even without all the padding it wouldn't have made a good movie. The fact that they shifted much of the main action to characters they salvaged from Phase II that nobody knew and therefore didn't care about (while TOS's appeal mainly comes from the dynamic of its power trio) makes things even worse. Plus, Decker is basically Kirk 2 and Ilia is so uninteresting that I didn't care for her sacrifice in the slightest.
 
movies aren't food, you shouldn't need to digest them. :p

I don't mind the long opening sequence too much (although if I watched it now days I'd probably just fast forward through it :D ). You can argue that the series had been gone for over a decade, so it's okay to have a long sequence to get people acquainted with the Enterprise again.

I love the parts with characters talking (assuming the dialogue is halfway intelligent, witty, or amusing). I love the political intrigue. Some people didn't like all the political stuff from Star Trek 6, but I loved it. Some people just want an action scene every 5 minutes. And that's what the new Star Trek movie was unfortunately. There was some decent stuff in the new Star Trek movie, but far too much action, and shaky cam stuff I couldn't stand. Here's and idea: How about you just leave the friggin' camera in one place so I can tell who is hitting who, you bastards.
 
How about you just leave the friggin' camera in one place so I can tell who is hitting who, you bastards.
Good fighting choreographies really are an art, because often, if you really follow the moves, it is easy to tell the faked nature. But if you can't see what is actually happening / are busy maintaining orientation, that makes it a lot harder.
People talk about how those camera moves make the fighting scene more dynamic, but it really is just a way to hide how crappy they actually are by making one loose sight of what is happening.
 
Top Bottom