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

[Jeshopk 8]

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.

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.

You're clearly familiar with the Straw Man Argument technique. The Star Wars film series managed to tell a contained story about the rise and fall of an Empire. The fact that it is based on myth says nothing about whether it tells a story. It does not all of the sudden go off and show the origins of Lando's mining facility just for kicks.

Star Trek was a great Anthology series that was culturally pertinent. It gained a slow, but steady following of loyal fans who saw its virtues. It became the poor man's Star Wars after 1977, with some exceptions, and now it is disposable entertainment media in a culture that seems more obsessed with its pop culture origins than it does in creating pop culture of its own. We will look back at ourselves and say, we were the generation that left nothing for the next. This is the summer of G.I. Joe, Star Trek and Transformers - and not extensions of the story, but full blown square one reboots. At least Lucas and Spielberg expanded their own creations, like it or not, it is not JAWS Unleashed. And are we not on Halloween 2 now? Oh I thought that movie already existed. Parallel universes... indeed.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Star Wars is rated and analyzed as an experience, rarely if ever as the movie it actually is.

This is the summer of G.I. Joe, Star Trek and Transformers - and not extensions of the story, but full blown square one reboots. At least Lucas and Spielberg expanded their own creations, like it or not, it is not JAWS Unleashed. And are we not on Halloween 2 now? Oh I thought that movie already existed. Parallel universes... indeed.

Well obviously if you believe Transformers was made to leave something for future generations....you're not looking in the right place.

[Wojo 2,453]

But the Star Wars film series is not a self-contained story about the rise and fall of an Empire. It's about the rise and fall and redemption of one man, Anakin Skywalker. By Episode I's beginning, the Empire/Republic was already in great decay because one corrupt man was able to manipulate it. And by saga's end, the Empire persisted for many more decades, because its story continued in countless novels and comic books that Lucasfilm peddles like the cash cow that Star Wars is. Anakin Skywalker's story, however, came to a relatively satisfying conclusion.

I fail to understand and appreciate how Star Wars is based on myth. Where are the gods and goddesses of most of our myths? Where is the tale of creation? How does Star Wars explain an afterlife? It has a Force, which is a catch-all for unexplainable magic used by the wizards of the story. But it only generalizes it by comparing it to an energy field that surrounds us and binds us together depending on the concentration of a special kind of cell in our body. That's not myth, that's hackneyed science. Star Wars steals plot elements from other generic fictional works, throws it into space, adds a little political intrigue loosely based on the fall of the Roman Republic into despotism, adds some kickass special effects that heretofore didn't exist before 1977, and whamo, creates an absolutely dynamic experience unprecedented in movies.

Star Trek is most certainly not a poor-man's Star Wars. Star Trek came ten years before Star Wars. So did Frank Herbert's little sci-fi story called Dune. If anything, Star Wars is a poor-man's distillation of science-fiction. Star Trek is an optimistic view of a possible future for mankind. All Star Wars is is tell a six chapter story of a decrepit human galaxy already gone to pieces and just getting worse.

[Quintus 5,399]

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

Lol okay, whatever you say. Maybe if you tell yourself that stuff enough it'll make it true huh! I love how you say "original Star Wars films by George Lucas" as if he's some kind of deity, bless. Have fun in Lucasfilm Land

Quint, I actually believe that I can make that case for Wrath of Khan and even this latest Star Trek film.

Sorry Blum, (aside from the fatal Casablanca comparison) I simply and strongly disagree, Star Wars is/was indeed an experience and it remains about as good a cinematic experience as movies get; it was a movie borne of big screen celluloid, which is how I personally get my filmic rocks off. There are a number of reasons why Star Wars is iconic and Wrath of Kahn isn't, but the major difference is this: the whole of Star Wars is greater than the sum of its parts and that's what can make a movie special. Star Wars has it all, whereas Kahn was only ever going to appeal to the target audience, as good as it is. You say SW is a kids movie, but I believe that suggestion to be the belief of a cynical mind and audiences back in '77 would appear to back my theory up. People of all ages and all walks of life loved it.

Mainly Trekkies loved Kahn, which is perhaps a terrible shame, but by my math, it makes the legendary Star Wars the superior movie in every conceivable way. Honestly, I doubt I will have this discussion again in my life, which sums it up perfectly.

[Jay 37,287]

I've seen Star Trek now. I vote Star Wars.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Star Wars 1977 vs Star Trek 2009

Star Wars by far the better motion picture, not even close. 4 of you are idiots

Score wise, Star Wars by a mile.

Acting, Star Wars again, maybe close, but regardless of the cheese, Mark, Carrie, and Harrison, made the roles of Luke, Leia, and Han forever memorable, as good as Quinto, Pine, and Urban are Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelly made the roles of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy

Direction, its easy to trash Lucas, but what he did with Star Wars he's never been able to approach since, Abrams was ok.

Effects, Star Wars broke new ground, Star Trek is stuff we've seen before because of the seeds Star Wars planted.

Overall movie going experience, popcorn and drinks, 12 bucks, Star Trek tickets $7.50, Star Wars experience, Priceless.

I forget to add that Star Wars may be better but Star Trek is still a great time in its own right.

[Datameister 2,037]

Star Wars by far the better motion picture, not even close. 4 of you are idiots

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.

5.

- Datameister, who was referring to the running count, not the number of idiots in this thread.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

This is the summer of G.I. Joe, Star Trek and Transformers - and not extensions of the story, but full blown square one reboots.

That's true of neither Star Trek nor Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

Why should anyone take anything you say seriously when you get such basic facts wrong?

[Wojo 2,453]

Datameister, please change your avatar:

Why is GI Joe being considered in with Star Trek and Transformers as a major summer box office contender? Do you honestly think GI Joe is going to do that well? I think it's just a sign of Hollywood trying to turn all 80's toy lines into blockbuster movies, riding on the coattails of 2007's Transformers as the precedent. Or were you just trying to make a case for reboot? Transformers 2 is a sequel, and Star Trek offers so many centuries of stories to tell that any installment is a legitimate standalone episode, not simply a "reboot." It's more of a reboot to a film franchise than a total reboot to the story, per se'.

[Quintus 5,399]

Datameister, please change your avatar:

Snigger!

[Ollie 1,059]

Star Wars by far the better motion picture, not even close. 4 of you are idiots

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.

5.

- Datameister, who was referring to the running count, not the number of idiots in this thread.

The Admiral is well aware of the Regulations.

[Wojo 2,453]

"Admiral? Admiral! Admiral?!?"

[Jeshopk 8]

This is the summer of G.I. Joe, Star Trek and Transformers - and not extensions of the story, but full blown square one reboots.

That's true of neither Star Trek nor Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

Why should anyone take anything you say seriously when you get such basic facts wrong?

They are both reboots. Trek half heartedly pretends to be a sequel very loosely based on the original show (with far too many things changed to be explained by the plot), and Transformers is a reboot sequel (still in a series recently rebooted from the original story and toy line).

I cringe to think something like Ben 10 the movie will be the big Hollywood franchise in 20 years, and this cycle will never end. Who will play Ben 10!? Ga!

I remember a time when imagination was in no shortage. Now, Clash of the Titans is coming soon to a theatre near me. Again. In IMAX!

Hollywood is becoming Broadway. Just playing the same shows with different directors over and over. At least there, there is respect for the writer.

[Wojo 2,453]

They are both reboots. Trek half heartedly pretends to be a sequel very loosely based on the original show (with far too many things changed to be explained by the plot), and Transformers is a reboot sequel (still in a series recently rebooted from the original story and toy line).

What the phuck is a "reboot sequel?" The sequel to a movie that was a rebooted franchise? By that flawed logic, Star Trek Nemesis is also a "reboot sequel" because it's the ninth sequel to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which was a film reboot of a television franchise, which got rebooted as a film because the success of Star Wars: The Movie made Paramount aim higher than a rebooted second TV series.

All you have to do is play the alternate universe/time travel card in the Star Trek world, and you can do whatever you want. Like I said before, an altered Star Trek universe does not undermine the 40-year-old videos you've got sitting on your shelf at home. Watch those, cherish them, enjoy them, but they don't make Paramount nearly as much money as a new big budget movie or franchise.

That makes The Dark Knight a "reboot sequel" because Batman Begins rebooted the Batman film franchise. A-ha, but there was a Batman movie made in the 60s with Burgess Meredith. That means Tim Burton's 1989 classic is itself a reboot of Batman, making Batman Begins the reboot of a reboot.

So you're considering Transformers 2 to be a reboot sequel, just because there was a cartoon movie in the 1980s about Transformers?

Where does it end?

And what's wrong with a reboot anyways? Sometimes you've just gotta hit Control Alt Delete before you really get anywhere.

[Quintus 5,399]

I often reboot my pc.

[Wojo 2,453]

That explains a lot.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

They are both reboots. Trek half heartedly pretends to be a sequel very loosely based on the original show (with far too many things changed to be explained by the plot), and Transformers is a reboot sequel (still in a series recently rebooted from the original story and toy line).

What the phuck is a "reboot sequel?" The sequel to a movie that was a rebooted franchise? By that flawed logic, Star Trek Nemesis is also a "reboot sequel" because it's the ninth sequel to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which was a film reboot of a television franchise, which got rebooted as a film because the success of Star Wars: The Movie made Paramount aim higher than a rebooted second TV series.

All you have to do is play the alternate universe/time travel card in the Star Trek world, and you can do whatever you want. Like I said before, an altered Star Trek universe does not undermine the 40-year-old videos you've got sitting on your shelf at home. Watch those, cherish them, enjoy them, but they don't make Paramount nearly as much money as a new big budget movie or franchise.

That makes The Dark Knight a "reboot sequel" because Batman Begins rebooted the Batman film franchise. A-ha, but there was a Batman movie made in the 60s with Burgess Meredith. That means Tim Burton's 1989 classic is itself a reboot of Batman, making Batman Begins the reboot of a reboot.

So you're considering Transformers 2 to be a reboot sequel, just because there was a cartoon movie in the 1980s about Transformers?

Where does it end?

And what's wrong with a reboot anyways? Sometimes you've just gotta hit Control Alt Delete before you really get anywhere.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

My head's exploded.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Ah Drax, all over the floor!

[Olivier 5]

Obviously, don't vote unless (until) you've seen both films.

I voted anyway. What are you gonna do about it?!

Darn, I thought we were voting for the score.

Sorry.

[Jeshopk 8]

They are both reboots. Trek half heartedly pretends to be a sequel very loosely based on the original show (with far too many things changed to be explained by the plot), and Transformers is a reboot sequel (still in a series recently rebooted from the original story and toy line).

What the phuck is a "reboot sequel?" The sequel to a movie that was a rebooted franchise? By that flawed logic, Star Trek Nemesis is also a "reboot sequel" because it's the ninth sequel to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which was a film reboot of a television franchise, which got rebooted as a film because the success of Star Wars: The Movie made Paramount aim higher than a rebooted second TV series.

Star Trek: TMP and The Next Generation were sequel/spinoffs. They were not reboots, nor an attempt to start completely over to gain a different audience.

All you have to do is play the alternate universe/time travel card in the Star Trek world, and you can do whatever you want. Like I said before, an altered Star Trek universe does not undermine the 40-year-old videos you've got sitting on your shelf at home. Watch those, cherish them, enjoy them, but they don't make Paramount nearly as much money as a new big budget movie or franchise.

The alternate timeline card does not explain the many glaring inconsistencies that exist. The Prequels are far more logically consistent with the OT. Paramount and JJ are just pretending not to reboot, and not doing a very good job at it. Most viewers don't notice because there as not the same public awareness of particulars like there was with Star Wars. All they had to do was get a few things right, like the iconography of the costumes and the basic ship exterior, and the rest they could treat as a straight reboot. It is all about rebranding using familiar iconography.

Yeah, this made them money, but why did they need to make money using Star Trek? If Paramount really wants to make money, they will create something from scratch with just as big a following as Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. Otherwise, Paramount and JJ are just piggybacking on someone else's success. I have similar quibbles with Lucas not making a new original property of some kind, but at least Star Wars is his.

That makes The Dark Knight a "reboot sequel" because Batman Begins rebooted the Batman film franchise. A-ha, but there was a Batman movie made in the 60s with Burgess Meredith. That means Tim Burton's 1989 classic is itself a reboot of Batman, making Batman Begins the reboot of a reboot.

The source material is a comic book. The films and cartoons are all various tries at adaptations of a totally different form of media, not reboots. I don't see why Batman needs to continue either, in comic form or otherwise, but when the source material is comic book, it is not trying to sell reality the way original film and TV are. They require enough interpretation from the reader that multiple video adaptations make more sense.

So you're considering Transformers 2 to be a reboot sequel, just because there was a cartoon movie in the 1980s about Transformers?

Where does it end?

And what's wrong with a reboot anyways? Sometimes you've just gotta hit Control Alt Delete before you really get anywhere.

You say that as if Paramount HAD to keep Star Trek going. Anybody COULD reboot anything and make more money (given they push the right buttons) but that doesn't mean that they should. Just waiting any day now for JAWS (200x), directed by McG, score remixed by Brian Tyler. The boards will be all aflutter with excitement. I just think all this repackaging of classics sets the bar far too low.

And where is JJ's Star Trek? Spielberg made Close Encounters from his imagination. Lucas made Indy and Star Wars. Is it Felicity? Regarding Henry maybe? LOST? Is that his outstanding contribution? Or is he just somebody with too much inherited power and his finger on the pulse of the Hollywood buzz machine.

[Quintus 5,399]

Snigger

[Charlie Brigden 7]

The alternate timeline card does not explain the many glaring inconsistencies that exist. The Prequels are far more logically consistent with the OT.

Please.

'When I first knew him, your father was already a great pilot, but I was amazed by how strongly the Force was with him. I took it upon myself to train him as a Jedi.'

So how does that match up with 'When I first knew him, your father raced in some competition, I thought he was a fucking liability, and I only ended up training him because my misguided master made me do it as his dying wish.'

Or let me see:

'General Kenobi, years ago, you served my father in the Clone Wars'

'Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough, but your uncle wouldn't allow it. He feared you might follow old Obi-Wan on some damn fool idealistic crusade like your father did.'

'I haven't gone by the name of Obi-Wan since, oh, before you were born. '

'The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together. ' None of this midichlorian lark.

'Leia, do you remember your mother? Your real mother?' 'Just a little bit. She died when I was very young.' Man, that's some memory.

[Wojo 2,453]

Jeshopk, just get your thumb out of George Lucas's bum, please. Thank you.

[Quintus 5,399]

No, let him leave it "wedge"d up there.

[Jeshopk 8]

I have respect for someone as independent as Lucas who can pull of what he pulled off. Who wouldn't want to achieve the same artistic and financial success? All I see are people lapping the labia of a hipster hack named JJ Abrams *cough*nepotism*cough*

[Quintus 5,399]

Lucas' artistic success ended in 1977. His financial success is another kettle of fish. Indeed, he continues to milk that cow to this day, the clever fat bastard!

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Yeah, because we're all suddenly BFF or relatives to JJ Abrams.

If you want to go down that route, Lucas only got his chances because of Coppola and Zoetrope.

Lucas' artistic success ended in 1977.

No love for ESB?

[Quintus 5,399]

I want JJ Abrams' babies.

Lucas' artistic success ended in 1977.

No love for ESB?

Kershner.

[Jeshopk 8]

The alternate timeline card does not explain the many glaring inconsistencies that exist. The Prequels are far more logically consistent with the OT.

Please.

'When I first knew him, your father was already a great pilot, but I was amazed by how strongly the Force was with him. I took it upon myself to train him as a Jedi.'

So how does that match up with 'When I first knew him, your father raced in some competition, I thought he was a fucking liability, and I only ended up training him because my misguided master made me do it as his dying wish.'

Or let me see:

'General Kenobi, years ago, you served my father in the Clone Wars'

'Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough, but your uncle wouldn't allow it. He feared you might follow old Obi-Wan on some damn fool idealistic crusade like your father did.'

'I haven't gone by the name of Obi-Wan since, oh, before you were born. '

'The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together. ' None of this midichlorian lark.

'Leia, do you remember your mother? Your real mother?' 'Just a little bit. She died when I was very young.' Man, that's some memory.

LOL. None of those are on screen paradoxes with no possible explanation.

[Wojo 2,453]

Actually, you know what? Star Trek's fan base started degrading a lot earlier than now. First Contact was a success, but its follow-ups were critical and commercial duds in comparison. DS9 had a hardcore fan base, but the mainstream public didn't care. Less people cared for Voyager. Both shows were completely liberal in what elements of canon they followed, and which they ignored or undermined. So did TNG, so did the movies, and so did TOS. Star Trek is not, never was, and never will be Babylon 5. It does not stem from the mind of one single human being who has complete creative control over everything Star Trek, because there is no such person. Not even Roddenberry, Berman, Okuda, or now Abrams could ever hold such a title. So there will be flubs, yes. There will be gashing plot holes. Because it's fiction about people by people for people, there will be problems that people find. As a fan of Star Trek, I accepted that about a decade ago.

So anyways, what was I saying. Oh yes. Nemesis was supposed to be a shot in the arm, from the people "inside" Star Trek's inner circle of established lineages. It flopped. Enterprise was supposed to be two snorts, three shots in the arm, and five cups of coffee from the same group of people, but it suffered an inglorious, slow death spread over four years, and really got good by the time Dr. Paramount had turned from the bed to pull the plug. And it was too late. Paramount's inner circle could not save Star Trek.

There were two options. Let it linger and die forever, or turn to an outsider to resurrect the franchise. There was no third option of letting another Paramount insider Star Trek junkie try again. You may wish that the lid stayed nailed over Star Trek for the rest of your life, and that's fine. But as special effects continue to get better, and Hollywood slips deeper and deeper into the abyss of unoriginality, there are a closeted group of people that really wanted to see Star Trek get reborn and put back onto the silver screen and onto our television. I count myself among that group of people, and while I'm not yet part of the $75 million or so, I will make up for it.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Never said they were.

I want JJ Abrams' babies.

Lucas' artistic success ended in 1977.

No love for ESB?

Kershner.

Lucas still had a big part of it. There's not loving the man, and there's not recognizing his contributions.

[Jeshopk 8]

I want JJ Abrams' babies.

Lucas' artistic success ended in 1977.

No love for ESB?

Kershner.

Lucas wrote ESB with Kasdan and micromanaged the pre and post production. Return of the Jedi is brilliant, and the Prequels are over most forum trolls' heads. Indy 4 > Star Trek 0.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

the Prequels are over most forum trolls' heads.

[Jeshopk 8]

There were two options. Let it linger and die forever, or turn to an outsider to resurrect the franchise.

I choose the first option. Boldly go where noone has gone before and create something new in the same spirit. I may not be a Trekkie, but I did appreciate its unique qualities.

[Quintus 5,399]

I'm going to go ahead and call Jeshopk a plonker. No offense, Jeshopk.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I'm going to go ahead and call Jeshopk a plonker.

Now that's what I call restraint.

[Wojo 2,453]

There were two options. Let it linger and die forever, or turn to an outsider to resurrect the franchise.

I choose the first option. Boldly go where noone has gone before and create something new in the same spirit. I may not be a Trekkie, but I did appreciate its unique qualities.

And that first option is selfish. Why don't you go back to Lucas Land, and just forget that there is a new Star Trek movie? Don't worry, in another ten years, somebody else will reboot it, and it might be to your liking then. Paramount really doesn't care. Neither do I.

Indy 4 > Star Trek 0

Learn better math. There are four Indy movies but 11 Star Trek films. What were you trying to say?

[Jeshopk 8]

Yeah, because we're all suddenly BFF or relatives to JJ Abrams.

If you want to go down that route, Lucas only got his chances because of Coppola and Zoetrope.

Just for accuracy, JJ's inexplicable career began as the son of Gerry Abrams, an Emmy winning TV producer, and Carol Abrams, Peabody Award-winning producer.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Yeah, because we're all suddenly BFF or relatives to JJ Abrams.

If you want to go down that route, Lucas only got his chances because of Coppola and Zoetrope.

Lucas' artistic success ended in 1977.

No love for ESB?

Just for accuracy, JJ's inexplicable career began as the son of Gerry Abrams, an Emmy winning TV producer, and Carol Abrams, Peabody Award-winning producer.

Oh no, he had famous parents. That's never happened before. WHAT WILL WE DO?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Williams_(drummer)

[Jeshopk 8]

Learn better math. There are four Indy movies but 11 Star Trek films. What were you trying to say?

Star Trek 0 was a working title for the project. Star Trek was a television show that ran in the late 1960's. If they aren't going to put an number on it, then it's 0.

[Henry B 50]

Yeah, this made them money, but why did they need to make money using Star Trek? If Paramount really wants to make money, they will create something from scratch with just as big a following as Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. Otherwise, Paramount and JJ are just piggybacking on someone else's success. I have similar quibbles with Lucas not making a new original property of some kind, but at least Star Wars is his.

And Lucas is just piggybacking off of his own success. Wait... scratch that: the success of Lucas himself, but also of Gary Kurtz, Ralph McQuarrie, Ben Burtt, John Dykstra, Phil Tippett, John Williams (!), the original cast and many, many more. That's right: Lucas didn't make Star Wars single handedly! He's not as omnipotent as he pretends to be.

The source material is a comic book. The films and cartoons are all various tries at adaptations of a totally different form of media, not reboots. I don't see why Batman needs to continue either, in comic form or otherwise, but when the source material is comic book, it is not trying to sell reality the way original film and TV are. They require enough interpretation from the reader that multiple video adaptations make more sense.

This is one of the most pointless distinctions I've ever seen. Comics can be adapted and reinterpreted but TV/film series cannot be?

Lucas wrote ESB with Kasdan and micromanaged the pre and post production. Return of the Jedi is brilliant, and the Prequels are over most forum trolls' heads. Indy 4 > Star Trek 0.

...

"Yousa thinkin' people gonna die?"

"I wish I could just wish away my feelings."

"It's all Obi-Wan's fault! He's holding me back! Some day I will be the most powerful Jedi ever."

"Dellow felegates..."

"This party's over."

"No, no, no, you have lost!"

"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!"

"What have I done? ... I will do whatever you ask."

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

"Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is EVIL!"

"From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!"

And of course...

Yeah, that's high brow entertainment. Way too much for the trendy kids on this forum.

[Wojo 2,453]

So the whole time you're defending Star Wars in an attempt to discredit Star Trek, you pull the "Indy 4 is better than" argument out of nowhere? I apologize, that's not George's thumb.

I'm through trying to argue with you. You're just not worth it.

[Jeshopk 8]

Yeah, because we're all suddenly BFF or relatives to JJ Abrams.

If you want to go down that route, Lucas only got his chances because of Coppola and Zoetrope.

Lucas' artistic success ended in 1977.

No love for ESB?

Just for accuracy, JJ's inexplicable career began as the son of Gerry Abrams, an Emmy winning TV producer, and Carol Abrams, Peabody Award-winning producer.

Oh no, he had famous parents. That's never happened before. WHAT WILL WE DO?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Williams_(drummer)

LoL. There is a difference between following in dad's footsteps and having dad hand you the keys to the kingdom. Who has more power in Hollywood - a session musician or a pair of acclaimed Producers?

So the whole time you're defending Star Wars in an attempt to discredit Star Trek, you pull the "Indy 4 is better than" argument out of nowhere? I apologize, that's not George's thumb.

I'm through trying to argue with you. You're just not worth it.

The conversation had to go there. If you don't want to debate this stuff, maybe you shouldn't hang out in a Star Wars vs Star Trek internet forum thread.

Yeah, this made them money, but why did they need to make money using Star Trek? If Paramount really wants to make money, they will create something from scratch with just as big a following as Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. Otherwise, Paramount and JJ are just piggybacking on someone else's success. I have similar quibbles with Lucas not making a new original property of some kind, but at least Star Wars is his.

And Lucas is just piggybacking off of his own success. Wait... scratch that: the success of Lucas himself, but also of Gary Kurtz, Ralph McQuarrie, Ben Burtt, John Dykstra, Phil Tippett, John Williams (!), the original cast and many, many more. That's right: Lucas didn't make Star Wars single handedly! He's not as omnipotent as he pretends to be.

The source material is a comic book. The films and cartoons are all various tries at adaptations of a totally different form of media, not reboots. I don't see why Batman needs to continue either, in comic form or otherwise, but when the source material is comic book, it is not trying to sell reality the way original film and TV are. They require enough interpretation from the reader that multiple video adaptations make more sense.

This is one of the most pointless distinctions I've ever seen. Comics can be adapted and reinterpreted but TV/film series cannot be?

Lucas wrote ESB with Kasdan and micromanaged the pre and post production. Return of the Jedi is brilliant, and the Prequels are over most forum trolls' heads. Indy 4 > Star Trek 0.

...

"Yousa thinkin' people gonna die?"

"I wish I could just wish away my feelings."

"It's all Obi-Wan's fault! He's holding me back! Some day I will be the most powerful Jedi ever."

"Dellow felegates..."

"This party's over."

"No, no, no, you have lost!"

"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!"

"What have I done? ... I will do whatever you ask."

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

"Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is EVIL!"

"From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!"

And of course...

Yeah, that's high brow entertainment. Way too much for the trendy kids on this forum.

FAIL. Lucas is not piggybacking his own success. It's like calling your own 401k cashout a heist. So funny how people will discredit the actual creator of something with continued success just cause its fashionable, but then overpraise JJ for turning someone else's work into Star Wars just cause its fashionable.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

What a comeback!

[Henry B 50]

FAIL. Lucas is not piggybacking his own success. It's like calling your own 401k cashout a heist. So funny how people will discredit the actual creator of something with continued success just cause its fashionable, but then overpraise JJ for turning someone else's work into Star Wars just cause its fashionable.

... I have no idea what you're talking about. It's like you lump everyone who doesn't uphold your childhood memories to a tee into the same category: a caricature of the trendiest, most vapid teenager you can imagine. Just please explain why Lucas deserves credit for reusing his own creation (or, again, the creation of many people who he now pretends do not exist) while Abrams is a dirty thief for adapting somebody else's intellectual property in a very fresh but respectful way. That's like saying Guillaume de Machaut was a hack for using existing plainchant melodies in his Messe de Nostre Dame, or that Monteverdi was a thief for adapting L'Orfeo from an ancient Greek myth, or that Beethoven was too lazy to write lyrics for the ninth symphony, so he stole "Ode to Joy."

I mean, what is it about the prequels that's so great? I think Lucas made amazing films in 1977, 1980 and 1981, but I don't think that excuses what he does decades later. Do you listen to the dialogue and think, "Well, this is clunky, but Lucas wrote good scripts thirty years ago so he must know what he's doing"?

[Wojo 2,453]

I'd like to know who the one person responsible for Star Trek is. I know that George Lucas has had an iron grip on Star Wars for 30 years, much to the chagrin of people intellectually responsible enough to see the latest installments for the money-grubbing disappointments they are.

But Roddenberry died in 1991. Show of hands, who wanted to see Star Trek die with him then? Ever since banishing Roddenberry to consultant for Star Trek II, the franchise has been operated by a number of people and not any single person. And since 1991, that has been true. Look to Babylon 5 for a short, sweet sci-fi world run by one person, and tell me how many hundreds of millions it makes in big budget motion pictures.

You can try to say that Star Trek 11 is simply using only Roddenberry's original notes to reboot the TOS part alone, but I don't believe that.

And I never knew that Indiana Jones had become synonymous with Star Wars when making Trek-bashing arguments. If you want us to think you're not a George Lucas loving deranged fanboy, Jeshopk, please don't argue like one.

[Quintus 5,399]

You know, I might actually block my ability to see Jeshopk's input into this forum, because his stuff isn't even funny bad. Which is fucking damn near impossible to accomplish, but he went and achieved it anyway, against all the odds.

I need to sleep on it.

[Wojo 2,453]

I wouldn't go that far. No need to get personal on the guy. I just don't think he's structuring his arguments that well. Because bashing a widely appreciated film in a forum by raising a collection of movies onto a pedestal above that one, movies which the general public of the forum hold in general contempt, simply because twenty years prior the creator of those movies did in fact create three superior works...it's not a very compelling argument.

[Quintus 5,399]

Don't worry, I wasn't ever gonna go that far, since I never would in any case. But I am being personal when I say that I think he talks gobbledegook. I think there is every reason to get personal on the guy, in the gobbledegook stakes.

Especially when he decided to call me a troll. A personal attack to me and you both, yay!