'Star Wars' (1977) vs. 'Star Trek' (2009)

[Ollie 1,059]

Ootini!!!!!

[Red 75]

A long, long way. And I like the prequels.

Abrams: "This is how you make a prequel, George."

[Datameister 2,042]

I have to vote Star Wars, simply because it changed the course of my life - got me into sci-fi, film scores, JW, visual effects...it just has such a spark.

That being said, I just got back from seeing Star Trek, and the more I think about it, the more I like it. I intend to see it again. So by voting for Star Wars, no insult is intended for its competition.

[Jeshopk 8]

Little do you realize, an Abramsized prequel would have been totally lambasted and shat upon by all. Star Trek only gets off being turned into a Bruckheimer styled production because it was NEVER widely popular. Very few people hold the original Star Trek dear enough to be lived up to in any way. What little dignity there was was gone as soon as they kept making cheap and crappy spin offs that had little resemblance to the original.

The prequels may plod at times, but they do not have that hollow Reboot quality that would have made Georgie the laughing stock of the world. Note that Lucas did something right. Just visit your local book store or toy isle and tell me the Prequels have no big following. Oh, and Star Trek never made me want to cry like ROTS did. Unless you fall for that hollow "epic" tone of the opening scene, it just doesn't have a lot of depth like each of the prequels gave us. Then again, most things that are applauded these days have paper thin attractions.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Little do you realize, an Abramsized prequel would have been totally lambasted and shat upon by all. Star Trek only gets off being turned into a Bruckheimer styled production because it was NEVER widely popular. The prequels may plod at times, but they do not have that Reboot quality that would have made Georgie the laughing stock of the world. Note that Lucas did something right. Just visit your local book store or toy isle and tell me the Prequels have no big following. Oh, and Star Trek never made me want to cry like ROTS did. Unless you fall for that hollow "epic" tone of the opening scene.

Comedy gold!

[Jeshopk 8]

Little do you realize, an Abramsized prequel would have been totally lambasted and shat upon by all. Star Trek only gets off being turned into a Bruckheimer styled production because it was NEVER widely popular. The prequels may plod at times, but they do not have that Reboot quality that would have made Georgie the laughing stock of the world. Note that Lucas did something right. Just visit your local book store or toy isle and tell me the Prequels have no big following. Oh, and Star Trek never made me want to cry like ROTS did. Unless you fall for that hollow "epic" tone of the opening scene.

Comedy gold!

What's hilarious is that you actually think people would have liked Star Wars to be done the same way that Star Trek (2009) was.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

What's hilarious is that you actually think people would have liked Star Wars to be done the same way that Star Trek (2009) was.

With passion, fondness and spiritual continuity for the works that preceded it? Hell fucking yeah I do.

[Jeshopk 8]

What's hilarious is that you actually think people would have liked Star Wars to be done the same way that Star Trek (2009) was.

With passion, fondness and spiritual continuity for the works that preceded it? Hell fucking yeah I do.

Clearly there was passion and spiritual continuity in the Prequels. There was far more continuity in tone and in feeling, themes and characters. There is no way in hell any of those Trek characters could possibly be the same people as in the original series. It is a fully cynically styled reboot for people who never liked Trek, and not a sequel at all. Trek fans get to feel cool, and "alienated" regular folk get to feel included. It is Paramount's way of farming its property for maximum profit. And to think Lucas is blamed for making SW into a cash cow.

Evidence:

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&a...=1&.intl=us

"Imagine for a moment the nationwide excitement as we look for the new Kirk, Spock and

McCoy, as well as the other characters. (“Search for Spock,” anyone?) As well as using

regular casting methods, we can open up a nationwide search, primarily for PR purposes. "

Hook, line and sinker. No soul to be found here.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Clearly there was passion and spiritual continuity in the Prequels. There was far more continuity in tone and in feeling. There is no way in hell any of those Trek characters could possibly be the same ones as in the original series. It is a fully cynically styled reboot, and not a sequel at all.

Let's see. The original trilogy had spades of heart, contextual humour, excitement, and actually taught some good moral values. The prequels have very little heart or true emotion whatsoever and resort to Mills and Boon romance and intelligence-insulting crap like 'she's lost the will to live', have ridiculous base humour that would not be out of place in the Holiday Special, are about as exciting as a RIPTIDE reunion special, and go to great pains to tell us that love and attachment to anything is automatically bad and will send you down a life of ruin where you will murder children, a complete betrayal of the original trilogy where the love and feelings of Luke for his father were the key to his redemption and the victory over evil.

Judging from your posts this argument is futile, but I just thought I'd put my two cents in.

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

Star Trek only gets off being turned into a Bruckheimer styled production because it was NEVER widely popular.

Don't you dare likening a movie I enjoyed to Bruckheimer's output!

[Jeshopk 8]

Clearly there was passion and spiritual continuity in the Prequels. There was far more continuity in tone and in feeling. There is no way in hell any of those Trek characters could possibly be the same ones as in the original series. It is a fully cynically styled reboot, and not a sequel at all.

Let's see. The original trilogy had spades of heart, contextual humour, excitement, and actually taught some good moral values. The prequels have very little heart or true emotion whatsoever and resort to Mills and Boon romance and intelligence-insulting crap like 'she's lost the will to live', have ridiculous base humour that would not be out of place in the Holiday Special, are about as exciting as a RIPTIDE reunion special, and go to great pains to tell us that love and attachment to anything is automatically bad and will send you down a life of ruin where you will murder children, a complete betrayal of the original trilogy where the love and feelings of Luke for his father were the key to his redemption and the victory over evil.

Judging from your posts this argument is futile, but I just thought I'd put my two cents in.

It seems there is a double standard here. Star Trek fans will make all the excuse in the world for prior outings of Star Trek being "boring" but as soon as somebody digs deeper than the surface in Star Wars, they are just searching.

If you don't understand the morals of the Prequels, then maybe it is just a bit over your head. No, it is not the OT, as there is nobody as righteous as Luke or as cynical as Han, but you are really missing the point I have to say. It ain't your standard popcorn fare, but neither was the original Star Trek - and neither was the OT. And if you think 'she's lost the will to live' is intelligence insulting, boy did you miss a bunch of stuff in Star Trek that anyone with half a brain would know is impossible.

That said, if you enjoy it, fine. Hell I did, too but not in a beyond the surface kind of way - sort of like a Con Air but with some more nostalgia pandering. The uniform reaction to this Trek says more about the audience than it does about the work in question. This is exactly the reason there is almost no originality in film anymore. This is sci-fi assimilated for the masses, which neither Trek or Wars ever were.

[King Mark 3,631]

I like the Prequels,and also like this new Trek film

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Hooray. Now the audience is dumb, and I completely missed the point of the prequels.

I imagine it's very satisfying to feel so superior to everyone else.

[Jeshopk 8]

I like the Prequels,and also like this new Trek film

I am not trying to make it a contest, but this is the perfect thread to compare. But please tell me that people would have let Lucas get away redefining Star Wars to that extent. I just think this is another example of critical groupthink that seems to happen around certain films.

[publicist 4,643]

If you don't understand the morals of the Prequels, then maybe it is just a bit over your head. No, it is not the OT, as there is nobody as righteous as Luke or as cynical as Han, but you are really missing the point I have to say. It ain't your standard popcorn fare, but neither was the original Star Trek - and neither was the OT. And if you think 'she's lost the will to live' is intelligence insulting, boy did you miss a bunch of stuff in Star Trek that anyone with half a brain would know is impossible.

The problem is that Lucas had some kind of lofty concept for the prequels, about the nature of political systems, democracy etc. - all rather ambitious - but then really fucked up his concepts with inane storytelling and filmmaking.

I don't care much for either 'Star Wars' or 'Star Trek', but the prequels are the bigger tragedy from a what-could-have-been standpoint.

[Jeshopk 8]

Hooray. Now the audience is dumb, and I completely missed the point of the prequels.

I imagine it's very satisfying to feel so superior to everyone else.

It is hard to be humble when everyone else constantly proves how stupid they are.

If you don't understand the morals of the Prequels, then maybe it is just a bit over your head. No, it is not the OT, as there is nobody as righteous as Luke or as cynical as Han, but you are really missing the point I have to say. It ain't your standard popcorn fare, but neither was the original Star Trek - and neither was the OT. And if you think 'she's lost the will to live' is intelligence insulting, boy did you miss a bunch of stuff in Star Trek that anyone with half a brain would know is impossible.

The problem is that Lucas had some kind of lofty concept for the prequels, about the nature of political systems, democracy etc. - all rather ambitious - but then really fucked up his concepts with inane storytelling and filmmaking.

I don't care much for either 'Star Wars' or 'Star Trek', but the prequels are the bigger tragedy from a what-could-have-been standpoint.

I'll take high concept and flawed filmmaking over no concept and flawed filmmaking.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Hooray. Now the audience is dumb, and I completely missed the point of the prequels.

I imagine it's very satisfying to feel so superior to everyone else.

It is hard to be humble when everyone else constantly proves how stupid they are.

Wow.

[Ollie 1,059]

I'm often reminded of the phrase "said the pot to the kettle".

[Datameister 2,042]

I'm often reminded of the phrase "01 - Personal attacks or offensive language will not be allowed. Please be RESPECTFUL of one another, allow for differences in opinions, and please don't make anyone feel that they cannot post their views in this forum."

4.

[Ollie 1,059]

Mr Saavik you go right on quoting regulations.

[Datameister 2,042]

[publicist 4,643]

I'll take high concept and flawed filmmaking over no concept and flawed filmmaking.

That's why i said 'bigger tragedy'.

[222max 1]

This Star Trek is not a better film than A New Hope.

Sure it is, because there's no such movie as A New Hope.

It is not, however, a better movie than Star Wars.

Uh, You do realize that Star Wars is called Episode One: A New Hope... don't you?

The biggest problem with the Star Wars prequels is that they spend painful amounts of time ponderously explaining the answers to questions nobody ever asked. Most of it is just Lucas masturbating to his own film making toys and gadgets. The actors don't act but simply talk while CG versions of themselves jump around with blasters and light sabers. Stilted, exhausting movie experiences which take themselves far too seriously. I can barely sit through any of them from start to finish.

[Trent B 337]

For the "Special Editions" it's called Star Wars Episode IV (NOT one) A New Hope. Of course for those of us that grew up with the theatrical version it's just Star Wars.

[Jeshopk 8]

This Star Trek is not a better film than A New Hope.

Sure it is, because there's no such movie as A New Hope.

It is not, however, a better movie than Star Wars.

Uh, You do realize that Star Wars is called Episode One: A New Hope... don't you?

The biggest problem with the Star Wars prequels is that they spend painful amounts of time ponderously explaining the answers to questions nobody ever asked. Most of it is just Lucas masturbating to his own film making toys and gadgets. The actors don't act but simply talk while CG versions of themselves jump around with blasters and light sabers. Stilted, exhausting movie experiences which take themselves far too seriously. I can barely sit through any of them from start to finish.

He could have gone either deeper into the mythology or stayed true to the original Star Wars' escapist tone. I think he went the right direction by going deeper, but of course it would not have the appeal the first three did in doing so. The more you explain, the less time there is for pure escapism. But each trilogy has their merits.

The new Star Trek did something that no other Star Trek movie except maybe 4 and 6 really managed, which was to be zippy fun. I guess that is why the reaction is so positive, but I would rather watch the old episodes on CBS.com which are not only lots of fun but have the real characters in them and not just repackaged facsimiles that remind me of kids play acting.

[Datameister 2,042]

I thought TWOK was pretty fun, too. But it certainly didn't have as much overt humor or boyish enthusiasm as this latest film.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I like Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, The Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country, First Contact, and Star Trek 2009 more than Star Wars.

Star Wars is a kids movie, and while I was a kid it was my life, but not anymore.

[Ollie 1,059]

Star Wars and Empire are still as good as they were when I originally saw them.

Star Trek is just a hair below.

I guess all that's left now is for a Star Trek movie poll.

[Quintus 5,399]

Star Wars, obviously.

[222max 1]

This Star Trek is not a better film than A New Hope.

Sure it is, because there's no such movie as A New Hope.

It is not, however, a better movie than Star Wars.

Uh, You do realize that Star Wars is called Episode One: A New Hope... don't you?

The biggest problem with the Star Wars prequels is that they spend painful amounts of time ponderously explaining the answers to questions nobody ever asked. Most of it is just Lucas masturbating to his own film making toys and gadgets. The actors don't act but simply talk while CG versions of themselves jump around with blasters and light sabers. Stilted, exhausting movie experiences which take themselves far too seriously. I can barely sit through any of them from start to finish.

He could have gone either deeper into the mythology or stayed true to the original Star Wars' escapist tone. I think he went the right direction by going deeper, but of course it would not have the appeal the first three did in doing so. The more you explain, the less time there is for pure escapism. But each trilogy has their merits.

The new Star Trek did something that no other Star Trek movie except maybe 4 and 6 really managed, which was to be zippy fun. I guess that is why the reaction is so positive, but I would rather watch the old episodes on CBS.com which are not only lots of fun but have the real characters in them and not just repackaged facsimiles that remind me of kids play acting.

But that's really not fair. You're talking about characters which have been defined by specific actors over decades of time. I assure you that none of these characters registered the way they do now from the very first episode of Star Trek. It took multiple episodes for them to become who they are. You can't compare these actors who are playing these characters at a stage in their lives in which we never knew them to deeply entrenched pop icons. This is their first voyage together. But, by golly, I already care more about them in this first adventure than I do for anyone in the Star Wars prequels through all three of those movies.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Little do you realize, an Abramsized prequel would have been totally lambasted and shat upon by all. Star Trek only gets off being turned into a Bruckheimer styled production because it was NEVER widely popular. Very few people hold the original Star Trek dear enough to be lived up to in any way. What little dignity there was was gone as soon as they kept making cheap and crappy spin offs that had little resemblance to the original.

The prequels may plod at times, but they do not have that hollow Reboot quality that would have made Georgie the laughing stock of the world. Note that Lucas did something right. Just visit your local book store or toy isle and tell me the Prequels have no big following. Oh, and Star Trek never made me want to cry like ROTS did. Unless you fall for that hollow "epic" tone of the opening scene, it just doesn't have a lot of depth like each of the prequels gave us. Then again, most things that are applauded these days have paper thin attractions.

Oh, no, clearly Star Trek was never widely popular at all, and nobody cares about it.

Are you kidding?

This is a textbook example of how to lose all credibility for your argument before it's even properly begun.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Little do you realize, an Abramsized prequel would have been totally lambasted and shat upon by all. Star Trek only gets off being turned into a Bruckheimer styled production because it was NEVER widely popular. Very few people hold the original Star Trek dear enough to be lived up to in any way. What little dignity there was was gone as soon as they kept making cheap and crappy spin offs that had little resemblance to the original.

The prequels may plod at times, but they do not have that hollow Reboot quality that would have made Georgie the laughing stock of the world. Note that Lucas did something right. Just visit your local book store or toy isle and tell me the Prequels have no big following. Oh, and Star Trek never made me want to cry like ROTS did. Unless you fall for that hollow "epic" tone of the opening scene, it just doesn't have a lot of depth like each of the prequels gave us. Then again, most things that are applauded these days have paper thin attractions.

Have you turned to drugs recently?

[Jeshopk 8]

But that's really not fair. You're talking about characters which have been defined by specific actors over decades of time. I assure you that none of these characters registered the way they do now from the very first episode of Star Trek. It took multiple episodes for them to become who they are. You can't compare these actors who are playing these characters at a stage in their lives in which we never knew them to deeply entrenched pop icons. This is their first voyage together. But, by golly, I already care more about them in this first adventure than I do for anyone in the Star Wars prequels through all three of those movies.

But those actors are Kirk, Spock and McCoy and they will always be. You could never put a different actor in as 20 year old Han. It's just too much of a stretch. Young ObiWan and Anakin are a different story. That could be done given the greater amounts of aging. So in essence, Ewan MacGregor IS ObiWan while Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto will never BE Kirk and Spock. It is more of a novelty act/reboot type deal. A curiosity. Kind of like seeing the Beatles stage show that's going around. It's not the real Beatles. But the Prequels are the real story from the original story writer. I guess it comes down to having a night of fun with nostalgia versus watching a constructed reality be completed which doesn't pander to the widest demographic. Play it again Sam? No thanks. Maybe this is populist stuff versus geek stuff, but it is a reason I have never been big into running TV series that never resolve. I don't want to get into something with no end in sight. Too big a commitment. To me, this is not a film. It is yet another cheap TV series such as Enterprise.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I like Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, The Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country, First Contact, and Star Trek 2009 more than Star Wars.

Star Wars is a kids movie, and while I was a kid it was my life, but not anymore.

But can you objectively say those are all better movies than Star Wars?

[Quintus 5,399]

Lol at the prequel trilogy comparisons with the new Trek. Only a blind nutjob would suggest that those crumby excuses for SW canon have anything over the Abrams reboot. I normally give anything to do with Star Trek a wide berth, but even I can see that the new movie knocks Lucas' recent efforts into the middle of next week.

I like Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, The Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country, First Contact, and Star Trek 2009 more than Star Wars.

Star Wars is a kids movie, and while I was a kid it was my life, but not anymore.

But can you objectively say those are all better movies than Star Wars?

No, because they're not. What Blum likes and what is actually the superior are two different things.

Star Trek never made me want to cry like ROTS did.

RotS didn't make me want to cry, but AotC did.

Lee - who was surprisingly quite moved by the opening events of Star Trek.

[Jeshopk 8]

Lol at the prequel trilogy comparisons with the new Trek. Only a blind nutjob would suggest that those crumby excuses for SW canon have anything over the Abrams reboot. I normally give anything to do with Star Trek a wide berth, but even I can see that the new movie knocks Lucas' recent efforts into the middle of next week.

See here you're comparing an "Abrams reboot" to original Star Wars films by George Lucas... Yeah, I am saying George did a HELL of a better job. Abrams has never made ANYTHING as worthy as any of the Star Wars films, period. He's just Aaron Spelling v2.0

[publicist 4,643]

See here you're comparing an "Abrams reboot" to original Star Wars films by George Lucas... Yeah, I am saying George did a HELL of a better job. Abrams has never made ANYTHING as worthy as any of the Star Wars films, period. He's just Aaron Spelling v2.0

He certainly did a better job in the 'clumsy directing' department.

[Jeshopk 8]

See here you're comparing an "Abrams reboot" to original Star Wars films by George Lucas... Yeah, I am saying George did a HELL of a better job. Abrams has never made ANYTHING as worthy as any of the Star Wars films, period. He's just Aaron Spelling v2.0

He certainly did a better job in the 'clumsy directing' department.

It also has some very good directing. I'll take it over JJ's small screen directing. ILM did a great job here, though. In some of their space shots, you could actually see what was happening. No, I honestly prefer Georgie's more static and distantly lensed approach (when he wasn't letting high school wiz kids direct the battles through animatics). It may not fit with Bad Boys 2, but it fits with Star Wars.

[Wojo 2,453]

an Abramsized prequel

Do you mean Abrams-ized? This is Abram-sized.

Star Trek only gets off being turned into a Bruckheimer styled production because it was NEVER widely popular.

Nope, not popular at all. NBC created a cartoon series and Paramount started to make a second TV show, which they turned into a movie, which spawned ten other successful movies and four more TV series because they felt bad at cancelling the three year run of a show that wasn't widely popular. I can't believe the history books got it all wrong.

If Star Trek was never widely popular, why did it get such royal treatment scarcely 15 years after its demise, when Lost in Space waited almost 30 years for a big budget production, and Gilligan's Island is still waiting?

Very few people hold the original Star Trek dear enough to be lived up to in any way. What little dignity there was was gone as soon as they kept making cheap and crappy spin offs that had little resemblance to the original.

You don't know many people outside the Star Wars clique, but we can't judge you based on who you know. You've got an unfair argument tying dignity to originality. If TNG had been precisely like TOS, fans would have been bored, or cried plagiarism. And Roddenberry himself had a large hand in both TNG and The Motion Picture. I hope you don't surmise that TWOK bears resemblance to a Bruckheimer production.

Just visit your local book store or toy isle and tell me the Prequels have no big following.

Availability of merchandise on the shelf for sale is not indication of a following. It's indication of a massive commercial juggernaut shoving movie products down the consumers' throat. You have to check the book shelves and toy chests of the buying public to see the following, because I reckon that the prequel-related products stagnate on store shelves longer than they get bought by the die-hard fans. They probably get bought more by mommy and daddy who think they're doing junior a favor by buying him anything with the Star Wars brand.

The prequels may plod at times, but they do not have that hollow Reboot quality that would have made Georgie the laughing stock of the world. Note that Lucas did something right.

You're saying the prequels aren't hollow, are you serious? Everything about the prequels is hollow. And Georgie lost all dignity with the character of Jar-Jar Binks, the fart jokes, and his deliberate decision to direct pixels better than people. After watching Starship Troopers and Total Recall all day yesterday, I think Paul Verhoeven could've directed Episode I more competently.

Oh, and Star Trek never made me want to cry like ROTS did. Unless you fall for that hollow "epic" tone of the opening scene, it just doesn't have a lot of depth like each of the prequels gave us. Then again, most things that are applauded these days have paper thin attractions.

If you love the characters enough, any work of fiction can make you cry. True, ROTS did want to make me cry. After watching Episode I, even the climax of Empire brought a tear to my eye. But so does the death of Spock. Or the death of Jadzia. Or the return of Geordi and Ensign Ro from the phase-cloak realm. And the unveiling of a new Starship Enterprise in ST IV.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

See here you're comparing an "Abrams reboot" to original Star Wars films by George Lucas... Yeah, I am saying George did a HELL of a better job. Abrams has never made ANYTHING as worthy as any of the Star Wars films, period. He's just Aaron Spelling v2.0

M:i:III alone is better than the prequels. They're that fucking bad. Hell, I'd rather watch the 2-part Pilot to LOST than the prequels any day of my life.

[Jeshopk 8]

Lucasfilm can't force sales of their toys or books. Look at the Indy toy line. It fizzled right away and Temple Toys never even went to shelves. I stand by my statement that Trek gets away with a drastic reboot only because it did not have as wide a fan base to begin with. Paramount could afford to lose the fanbase if necessary, because people who were not fans were in far greater numbers. I say this as somebody who liked the original series, most of the movies and some odd episodes. No Trekkie here, but I can see that Paramount treats Trek more like a cash cow franchise than Lucasfilm treats Star Wars.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Lucas is milking Star Wars for everything it's got. Hooray, another TV show coming soon!

[Jeshopk 8]

See here you're comparing an "Abrams reboot" to original Star Wars films by George Lucas... Yeah, I am saying George did a HELL of a better job. Abrams has never made ANYTHING as worthy as any of the Star Wars films, period. He's just Aaron Spelling v2.0

M:i:III alone is better than the prequels. They're that fucking bad. Hell, I'd rather watch the 2-part Pilot to LOST than the prequels any day of my life.

To each his own. Why not just put the Daredevil or Catwoman movie up there as the greatest superhero movie of all time. Seriously. JJ's series are go-nowhere con games, like X files became. All mystique with no payoff. Just a formula to get you to watch the next episode (or soon to be webisode). Just like Dallas or LA Law. Soap Operas. Star Wars (the films) is a self contained mythic saga with a beginning, middle and most importantly, an END. You know, that literary device called a resolution? But it is all about keeping things going these days, which is why I do not watch the Clone Wars cartoon, although at least they take place within the main story and not as an ENDLESS soap opera re-enactment. Reboots take the cult of ENDLESSNESS and take it to a new level.

We live in an era of disposable entertainment, and I only have so much time to waste. Give me authorship, even flawed authorship, or I'll pass.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

To be fair, the Timothy Zahn books were pretty good.

[Jeshopk 8]

To be fair, the Timothy Zahn books were pretty good.

I stayed away from all the books as well. I just could not bother to waste my time exploring an endless story with no point. If the real author didn't have anything else to say, there's no point in going on. From a literary viewpoint, every story has to have an end. Maybe Paramount could learn from Gene Roddenberry. Learn how to make something that garners a real following of ITS OWN.

Universal could let JJ "revitalize" JAWS. But would he really be making an accomplishment of his own?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Star Wars (the films) is a self contained mythic saga with a beginning, middle and most importantly, an END. You know, that literary device called a resolution?

Pff, the end to A New Hope isn't anymore of an end than Star Trek.

[Jeshopk 8]

Star Wars (the films) is a self contained mythic saga with a beginning, middle and most importantly, an END. You know, that literary device called a resolution?

Pff, the end to A New Hope isn't anymore of an end than Star Trek.

Take a literary writing course someday and get back to me. Moreover, I was talking about the film saga.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

So everything has to be a 6-part saga now to please you? There is a difference between a book and a film.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I'm gonna go by AI: Artificial Intelligence basher logic and say Star Wars should have ended before the Battle of Yavin even started... it just makes it more artistic.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Take a literary writing course someday and get back to me. Moreover, I was talking about the film saga.

I have, in fact an entire minor in it, and I still believe Star Wars is merely passable mythology-based storytelling with very little creativity or engaging characters. The fact that you cried during RotS tells me nothing about the literary value of RotS, merely the fact that you have an astounding ability to read meaning that isn't there into a work.

Your entire argument in this thread is that Star Trek is hollow, that it appeals to people who accept dished out simplicity. Yet you are completely oblivious to the fact that Star Wars is a product of the most simple and readily accessible storytelling concepts in our world: ancient mythology.

Come back and make your arguments when you've taken something more than a pretend literary writing course, Mr. Hopkins, because right now you're not providing any literary analysis, just fanboyish claims.

But can you objectively say those are all better movies than Star Wars?

No, because they're not. What Blum likes and what is actually the superior are two different things.

Quint, I actually believe that I can make that case for Wrath of Khan and even this latest Star Trek film. Not necessarily the other ones, but those two can easily surpass Star Wars as superior works. Don't confuse the superior experience with the superior movie. Star Wars is not just a movie to our culture, but an experience, and I believe when people nothing is better, they're confusing the experience with the movie.

As far as the movies go, let me give you an example of why I believe something like ST09 would be superior. There is one shot in the movie were the we have a close up the villain just lying on a slab of rock...and in those few seconds we see more emotion, depth, and story in his face than we do in all the actors throughout the entire movie of Star Wars. That to me is difference.

Star Wars to me is like Casablanca, it is a wonderful movie, it does what it does very well, but what it is doing is nothing out of the ordinary, nothing too daring. It's as if Microsoft released a flawless version of Windows 95 today. It's flawless, a perfect operating system, but it doesn't attempt to do anything but be a satisfying piece of software. Casablanca and Star Wars are that category of film...the ones that take everything that's there and present them in a very satisfying and polished package.

If you make this poll with ESB instead of SW77, I will have a much tougher time making my point, because I feel that despite its flaws, ESB is a far superior work to Star Wars (which has very few flaws)...because it is a bolder movie.