Conquer Club

I just saw the new Star Trek Into the Darkness, really good special effects. Director JJ Abrams did a good job. But I have one glaring beef with him: sure he did well bringing all the old characters back pretty & young, but the amountif copying he did with The Wrath of Khan is a huge let down. Both movies have warp core drive off line. Both have radiation leaks. Both have "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one". Both have glass shielding the dying from the living. Both have the hand touching the glass. Both have the one saving the ship die. Both have the one who saved the ship resurrected.

Its silly how unoriginal JJ Abrams was.

The other flaw is Khan in the original was olive skinned, deep speaking with a Spanish draw. The new Khan is white skin, higher pitched VII e & doesn't sound the same. You mean to tell me they couldn't get off their butts and find talent that matched the original Khan? That's just lazy casting.

They did do a nice job of introducing Dr. MARCUS, Captain Kirk's mother of his child.


Star Wars has Jar Jar Binks. +1 point Star Trek....
Star Wars has a death star +1

Let the debate commence. State your opinion of why a movie gets a +1 or -1... I will tally up the votes...

Not quite sure you can blame the director for copying a story line? He makes the best film he can from the script surely?

Director has say about script. But also JJ Abrams was the producer too. But this isn't about one person, its about which series you like best and why? By the way JJ Abrams is directing the new Star Wars Episodes 7-9.

all i know is that i never understood how people could find star trek remotely interesting... i watched a little the old show from the 60s when I was a kid, but probably because there was nothing else on or just because kids have poor tastes. each time i've seen bits of the next generation I couldn't last 2 minutes... I think it's really really bad.... and the movies... I guess they were all directly distributed on tape and couldn't ve stayed a week in theaters here in europe.

I mean you can't even remotely compare that to star wars. Oh yeah you can, if you refer to the crappy second trilogy (I,II,III) lucas came up with. I can imagine disney will make a great job continuing to cover this saga with cow poop.

If you wre a kid in the 80s, nothing can beat star wars, indiana jones & back to the future! (maybe james bond can)

I never really enjoyed the star trek series, even though I like science fiction. I guess the oldfashion images are just such a turn-off compared to the awesome visual effects you get nowadays. I don't really have that problem with star wars.(although I do have to admit I liked the 2009 star trek movie)

+1 star wars better special effects there are

betiko wrote:all i know is that i never understood how people could find star trek remotely interesting... i watched a little the old show from the 60s when I was a kid, but probably because there was nothing else on or just because kids have poor tastes. each time i've seen bits of the next generation I couldn't last 2 minutes... I think it's really really bad.... and the movies... I guess they were all directly distributed on tape and couldn't ve stayed a week in theaters here in europe.

I mean you can't even remotely compare that to star wars. Oh yeah you can, if you refer to the crappy second trilogy (I,II,III) lucas came up with. I can imagine disney will make a great job continuing to cover this saga with cow poop.

If you wre a kid in the 80s, nothing can beat star wars, indiana jones & back to the future! (maybe james bond can)

Star wars II wasn't all that bad in my opinion... star wars I and III were indeed a dissapointment though
and I'm pretty sure a lot of movies can beat "back to the future"

waauw wrote:

betiko wrote:all i know is that i never understood how people could find star trek remotely interesting... i watched a little the old show from the 60s when I was a kid, but probably because there was nothing else on or just because kids have poor tastes. each time i've seen bits of the next generation I couldn't last 2 minutes... I think it's really really bad.... and the movies... I guess they were all directly distributed on tape and couldn't ve stayed a week in theaters here in europe.

I mean you can't even remotely compare that to star wars. Oh yeah you can, if you refer to the crappy second trilogy (I,II,III) lucas came up with. I can imagine disney will make a great job continuing to cover this saga with cow poop.

If you wre a kid in the 80s, nothing can beat star wars, indiana jones & back to the future! (maybe james bond can)

Star wars II wasn't all that bad in my opinion... star wars I and III were indeed a dissapointment though
and I'm pretty sure a lot of movies can beat "back to the future"

I mean for the first time you see them and putting them back in the context of their issue! ( otherwise there are tons of sagas that would beat those)

Star Wars is utter shite.

Star Trek is okay to pretty good, depending.

-TG

betiko wrote:all i know is that i never understood how people could find star trek remotely interesting... i watched a little the old show from the 60s when I was a kid, but probably because there was nothing else on or just because kids have poor tastes. each time i've seen bits of the next generation I couldn't last 2 minutes... I think it's really really bad.... and the movies... I guess they were all directly distributed on tape and couldn't ve stayed a week in theaters here in europe.

I mean you can't even remotely compare that to star wars. Oh yeah you can, if you refer to the crappy second trilogy (I,II,III) lucas came up with. I can imagine disney will make a great job continuing to cover this saga with cow poop.

If you wre a kid in the 80s, nothing can beat star wars, indiana jones & back to the future! (maybe james bond can)

Dunno what bits you saw, but Star Trek TNG actually explores some interesting issues. There's episodes regarding the rights of other species and artificial lifeforms vs. humans. There's a shitload of stuff about their "prime directive" i.e. basically interventionism vs. non-interventionism. And much more stuff like that. Granted those are probably only 10-20% of the episodes, but I'd say 70-80% of TNG episodes are better than most star wars stuff. (there are a few atrocious one though).

Haven't watched much of the other Star Trek (other than TOS, but I don't think you can judge that as anything other than a product of its time and circumstance)

Star Wars is just a decent scifi flick with a couple good moments. I'd place it pretty much in the same category as TOS. Maybe it was groundbreaking for its time, but it doesn't stand up today.

Never got into Star Trek.

nerrrrrds

Both are very bad attempts at science fiction.

universalchiro wrote:sure he did well bringing all the old characters back pretty & young

I haven't seen the latest iteration, but f*ck that noise. This whole "different timeline" thing is embarrassing and unnecessary. Should've just went with different names and treated them like a "new next generation".

universalchiro wrote:The other flaw is Khan in the original was olive skinned, deep speaking with a Spanish draw. The new Khan is white skin, higher pitched VII e & doesn't sound the same. You mean to tell me they couldn't get off their butts and find talent that matched the original Khan? That's just lazy casting.

The only talent I thought they've found that was reasonably good for any of the crew members was Scotty. The rest are just faking it poorly.

universalchiro wrote:Star Wars has Jar Jar Binks. +1 point Star Trek....
Star Wars has a death star +1
Let the debate commence. State your opinion of why a movie gets a +1 or -1... I will tally up the votes...

I like them both, actually. I'm probably a bigger fan of Star Trek, but that's likely because I was introduced to Star Trek as a weekly television show rather than as a movie with many years before the next one in the series. That makes it a lot less interesting.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Dunno what bits you saw, but Star Trek TNG actually explores some interesting issues. There's episodes regarding the rights of other species and artificial lifeforms vs. humans. There's a shitload of stuff about their "prime directive" i.e. basically interventionism vs. non-interventionism. And much more stuff like that. Granted those are probably only 10-20% of the episodes, but I'd say 70-80% of TNG episodes are better than most star wars stuff. (there are a few atrocious one though).

Haven't watched much of the other Star Trek (other than TOS, but I don't think you can judge that as anything other than a product of its time and circumstance)

I would suggest that TOS explored at least as many interesting issues as TNG did on a consistency basis, though of course TNG had a much longer run to give it many more interesting episodes and issues with them. I might be biased.

Star Trek gets +1 for diversity of characters & ethnicity
Star Wars gets +1 for foundational theme of Force users (Sith Vs Jedi)
Star Trek gets +1 for transporters & "beam me up"
Star Wars gets +1 for light sabres
Star Wars gets +1 for costumes
Star Wars gets +1 for the villian being heros father
Star Trek gets +1 for quoting more Shakespeare novels
Star Trek gets +1 for The Wrath of Khan.
Star Trek gets +1 for Spock
Star Trek gets + for the phrase " are you out of your Volcan Mind?"
Star Wars gets +1 for musical score by John Williams.
Star Wars gets +1 Pod racing.
Star Wars gets +1 Sith's shooting lightning bolts out of their fingers.
Star Wars gets +1 for all the movies run along related story-line.

Star Trek gets -1 for V-ger alien seeking home of V-ger (1st movie)
Star Wars gets -1 Jabba the Hurt, the slithering gangster that has a blue elephant playing keyboard.

Please add to the list. Thank you.

universalchiro wrote:Star Trek gets +1 for Spock

You...you I like.

john9blue wrote:nerrrrrds

how very mature of you

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

betiko wrote:all i know is that i never understood how people could find star trek remotely interesting... i watched a little the old show from the 60s when I was a kid, but probably because there was nothing else on or just because kids have poor tastes. each time i've seen bits of the next generation I couldn't last 2 minutes... I think it's really really bad.... and the movies... I guess they were all directly distributed on tape and couldn't ve stayed a week in theaters here in europe.

I mean you can't even remotely compare that to star wars. Oh yeah you can, if you refer to the crappy second trilogy (I,II,III) lucas came up with. I can imagine disney will make a great job continuing to cover this saga with cow poop.

If you wre a kid in the 80s, nothing can beat star wars, indiana jones & back to the future! (maybe james bond can)

Dunno what bits you saw, but Star Trek TNG actually explores some interesting issues. There's episodes regarding the rights of other species and artificial lifeforms vs. humans. There's a shitload of stuff about their "prime directive" i.e. basically interventionism vs. non-interventionism. And much more stuff like that. Granted those are probably only 10-20% of the episodes, but I'd say 70-80% of TNG episodes are better than most star wars stuff. (there are a few atrocious one though).

Haven't watched much of the other Star Trek (other than TOS, but I don't think you can judge that as anything other than a product of its time and circumstance)

Star Wars is just a decent scifi flick with a couple good moments. I'd place it pretty much in the same category as TOS. Maybe it was groundbreaking for its time, but it doesn't stand up today.

I guess it depends on our age I m from 1980, what about you? When I was a kid, all the big brothers were hard core into Star Wars. All the kids had all these cool Star Wars toys, and I was so proud to go watch Star Wars for the 15th time with guys 4-5 years older. I remember I had a babysitter that would just bring Star Wars VHS so he knew I wouldn't be a pain in the ass. I don t know it depends on the age and all, but the music, the toys, the costumes really impressed me at the time.

Regarding Star Trek, the bad acting, the z-movie costumes, special effects, make ups, stages just looked uber ridiculous. No way I could ever take it seriously.

I am a fan of both,I would probably say I favor Star Trek over Star Wars because the story lines are more in depth and complex to me.If you are a Fan of Star Trek and know its very long existing Story Line,I can not recommend higher that you give "Enterprise" a look.They even have episodes on why the the prime directive came about.

universalchiro wrote:I just saw the new Star Trek Into the Darkness, really good special effects. Director JJ Abrams did a good job. But I have one glaring beef with him: sure he did well bringing all the old characters back pretty & young, but the amountif copying he did with The Wrath of Khan is a huge let down. Both movies have warp core drive off line. Both have radiation leaks. Both have "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one". Both have glass shielding the dying from the living. Both have the hand touching the glass. Both have the one saving the ship die. Both have the one who saved the ship resurrected.

Its silly how unoriginal JJ Abrams was.

The other flaw is Khan in the original was olive skinned, deep speaking with a Spanish draw. The new Khan is white skin, higher pitched VII e & doesn't sound the same. You mean to tell me they couldn't get off their butts and find talent that matched the original Khan? That's just lazy casting.

They did do a nice job of introducing Dr. MARCUS, Captain Kirk's mother of his child.


Star Wars has Jar Jar Binks. +1 point Star Trek....
Star Wars has a death star +1

Let the debate commence. State your opinion of why a movie gets a +1 or -1... I will tally up the votes...

Its not easy responding to this because of not wanting to ruin it for others who have not seen it.The story lines being similar is a long standing idea in Sci-FI that yes this is is a alternate future but you still cant avoid experiencing the events you are destined to experience.as for Khan not looking like Ricardo Mountabon,well my best answer is The film makers did not want to give it away that this movie was about Khan,they would not be able to show him in any film trailers and they also changed his name to disguise who he really is.

betiko wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

betiko wrote:all i know is that i never understood how people could find star trek remotely interesting... i watched a little the old show from the 60s when I was a kid, but probably because there was nothing else on or just because kids have poor tastes. each time i've seen bits of the next generation I couldn't last 2 minutes... I think it's really really bad.... and the movies... I guess they were all directly distributed on tape and couldn't ve stayed a week in theaters here in europe.

I mean you can't even remotely compare that to star wars. Oh yeah you can, if you refer to the crappy second trilogy (I,II,III) lucas came up with. I can imagine disney will make a great job continuing to cover this saga with cow poop.

If you wre a kid in the 80s, nothing can beat star wars, indiana jones & back to the future! (maybe james bond can)

Dunno what bits you saw, but Star Trek TNG actually explores some interesting issues. There's episodes regarding the rights of other species and artificial lifeforms vs. humans. There's a shitload of stuff about their "prime directive" i.e. basically interventionism vs. non-interventionism. And much more stuff like that. Granted those are probably only 10-20% of the episodes, but I'd say 70-80% of TNG episodes are better than most star wars stuff. (there are a few atrocious one though).

Haven't watched much of the other Star Trek (other than TOS, but I don't think you can judge that as anything other than a product of its time and circumstance)

Star Wars is just a decent scifi flick with a couple good moments. I'd place it pretty much in the same category as TOS. Maybe it was groundbreaking for its time, but it doesn't stand up today.

I guess it depends on our age I m from 1980, what about you? When I was a kid, all the big brothers were hard core into Star Wars. All the kids had all these cool Star Wars toys, and I was so proud to go watch Star Wars for the 15th time with guys 4-5 years older. I remember I had a babysitter that would just bring Star Wars VHS so he knew I wouldn't be a pain in the ass. I don t know it depends on the age and all, but the music, the toys, the costumes really impressed me at the time.

Regarding Star Trek, the bad acting, the z-movie costumes, special effects, make ups, stages just looked uber ridiculous. No way I could ever take it seriously.

you're probably right. I'm a 90's kid and I prefer the Stargate-series, probably because I grew up with it.

waauw wrote:you're probably right. I'm a 90's kid and I prefer the Stargate-series, probably because I grew up with it.

Stargate was pretty decent, up until Daniel "ascended" or whatever the hell he did. Then it started getting a little stupid.

Woodruff wrote:I would suggest that TOS explored at least as many interesting issues as TNG did on a consistency basis, though of course TNG had a much longer run to give it many more interesting episodes and issues with them. I might be biased.

I agree and raise you one point; it is said that Star Trek made "All in the Family" possible. There were a lot of issues that television was literally prohibited from discussing. Star Trek had the first inter racial kiss on TV (Plato's Stepchildren) and addressed the stupidity of racial divides in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" where the person who is black on the right side and white on the left side battles the person who is black on the left side and white on the right side. While the Roddenberry dream was always important, current topics generally drove the episodes.

I found that when you got to TNG, Roddenberry's dream was the overriding plot line. (You could really see this in the first episodes, in spite of the greatest sci fi promotional blunder in all of sci fi history ... kids in space.) You can see a radical change start to happen around the season (or perhaps the season after that) after the death of the "Great Bird of the Galaxy'."

One other point to make; the standards for TV during TOS was horridly low. The pilot was considered "too cerebral" on it's first showing to the network and it's so bad it deserves it's own MST3K remake.

Of course the first episode (then expanded into a "tri-trillogy" and then into a bi-trillogy when they could not stretch the original plot line far enough) has no redeemable value; it's an serial action movie.

You have to look into the history of network sci fi television series. They would include the original Battlestar Galactica, Seaquest DS9 (which started out by the cast saying "we're going to be pure science fiction, not crappy science fantasy and then threw in psionics and space aliens) and finally the great mega plot of Babylon V.

Tzor what do you mean about the kids in space as a blunder?

I'm mostly going back on my old memories here; this isn't the kind of stuff they put into Wikipedia generally.

There are a couple of odd things in the first few episodes, especially the Picard being uncomfortable with children plotline. Episode 5 where the captain is stuck in the elevator with three children is one example. I think there was another one where at the end a whole bunch of children were on the bridge.

Around the showing of the pilot there was this "contest" for children where the winners would appear on an episode. The notion of making such "kid" contests seemed radically un Star Trek like, at the time, to me.