PT Is it just me or does the PT feel a little... Trek-like?

I've always considered Star Wars and Star Trek to be opposites in every single way, except the word 'Star' in the title and all that may imply. A thought occurred to me while I was considering how JJ's reboot is Star Trek at its most Star Wars-like, even aping on the star-streaking hyperspace effect in the 09 film.

The Prequel trilogy, in line with trek tropes, includes more relevent commentary on modern society, a greater frequency of aliens that are just funny-looking humans, the occasional protracted and logically-driven dialogue, more technological plot devices... and in lieu of the classic hyperspace effect, starships making the jump in the PT kind of look like a Trek ship flying to warp! Of course its still got all the classic Wars aspects front and center, but there's that undeniable shift in pacing in tone between the PT and OT. I cant help but wonder if the Wars consciously borrowed a thing or two from its cousin.

I'm both a PT fan and a Trek fan, so this is not a dig. I just want to see if I'm not the only one to make this connection.

 

I don't know about conciously borrowed ideas, but I know what you mean. Interesting trivia: At one point in ROTS, I believe it was, one of the animators did the hyperspace jump effect for Obi-Wan's starfighter. He prolonged it a little too much, so GL told him that he had to shorten it because it looked too much like Star Trek.
It's certainly possible that little ideas here and there were borrowed, but some similarities probably exist just because they're kind of hard to avoid. At least GL kept a watchful eye on those things and kept the obvious similarities at a minimum.





- Will I ever see you again?
- Soon, I'll be dead - and you with me.
/LM

 

It's kinda like early TNG where potentially cool characters (Panaka, Worf, Mace, Tasha Yar) stand around being assecories while the total knobs (Anakin, Riker, Obi-Wan, Wesley) get to do all the actual things.

But the PT didn't have the noxious levels of smug early TNG had, or the skin-crawling attempts at talking about sexuality, or the overt racism, so it's a bit better.

 

Um. What? If anything, the PT has an increased number of non-humanoid aliens, what with CGI and all.

 

I don't really see the similarities, to be honest. Mind you, the PT did focus more on politics than the OT. But both ST trilogies seemed more willing to view its main characters with a great deal more ambiguity, which is strange considering that the franchise's style is a lot more Saturday-afternoon matinee or operatic.

 

I never got that feeling despite the AOTC line, "Attack those Federation starships!"

To me the PT had a lil too much EU feel to it.

 

"So you wanna buy some deathsticks?"

Also: Baron Papanoida/pantorans in general, Palpy's aides, and a number of the jedi council members. There's more I'm forgetting I'm sure. Meanwhile the OT had twi'leks and... um... twi'leks?

My point is, sure the PT still had trademark SW gonzo-lookin aliens, but WAY more funny-forehead types.

 

Meaning what?

 

Most Trek fans have come to accept the JJ Abrams reboot, which are quite Star Wars like (in the sense of things happening for the sake of being exciting and not relying on reality or feasible science). Most will admit that a slow, plodding, deliberate movie like Star Trek: The Motion Picture will never be made again. Let alone an all-time great like 2001: A Space Odyssey

Yes, in a way the PT is slow and plodding in that way, at least for the Star Wars universe. I wouldn't compare it to ST:TMP or 2001, but relative to Star Wars, yes. And we're probably equally as likely to never see this kind of treatment in the Star Wars universe again, good or bad.

 

Wow - I never thought of it that way before, but you're totally right. Anakin in TPM is Wesley Crusher. Most viewers over the age of 13 or so find him unrelatable and irritating, yet boy genius gets to save the day on a regular basis.


Full disclosure: I started watching TNG when I was about 8, and embarrassingly, I did have a crush on Wesley for a while.

 

Interesting angle, but I gotta say I see no similarities between the two franchises. Both PT and Trek have their fair dose of hamfistedness but this results from completely different ideas and approaches to different subjects.
While I am a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek, I have to admit that Trek has way more cringe-worthy moments than even AOTC love dialogue can boast of so... can't really say that I see the connection between them.

 

I tried to watch 2001 A Space Odyssey on Netflix. I was getting bored after 17ish minutes of early humans doing nothing interesting and the same amount of time being annoyed with the space shuttle and the space station. The only interesting bit was the brief conversation between the American and the Soviets. Not even the American talking to his daughter was interesting. I stopped watching before the America arrived at the Moon.

I understand that it got better but I was feeling like I was wasting my time. It might not have helped that I wasn't impressed with the music they were playing and the tech was ancient looking compared with what we have.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

"The Starman and Moon Goddess."

 

There might be some plot similarities or background things that are related to each other.

But then you could also argue that non-Sci Fi films also share some similarities with ST/SW.

Personally, I don't really see any major similarities. I know they are there, but those two franchises are different enough to really not have much overlap, if any.

 

Space Odyssey is a masterpiece. I watched it quite a few times and only recently I got my hands on the BluRay version and that was probably the only time I ever watched a movie twice in a row, without a pause.
One of the best movies of all time.

 

As a film lover, I implore you to try again. But that movie is from a different time and age. It may have been the last big blockbuster with an opening interlude and a halftime intermission -- which used to be quite common. The pacing is glacial. It took me a long time to warm up to it.

Kubrick does overindulge in many spots, notably the opening overture and arrival at the space station.

As for the tech, the film was made in 1968 and most of what was imagined there blew people's minds at the time, and you'll see people were inspired by it (including George Lucas). That kind of gets lost in the fog of 2013.

If you get through it, you'll find many deep things to ponder. (Hint: the early humans were being touched by "god").

 

I'll see if Netflix still has it on live streaming.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

"The Starman and Moon Goddess."

 

2001: A Space Odyssey is interesting because it's sort of an extended music video. The main thing the viewer is supposed to pay attention to is the visuals and the music, not characters or dialogue. It's definitely a shock upon first viewing for modern audiences.

 

You might find the novel more to your liking but it is a good idea to give the film another chance. At the very least give it a go then watch 2010. It's pace is, sahll we say, faster.

 

I consider 2001: A Space Odyssey to be the most overrated sci-fi film ever. I think that film is where the "cult film" status started. The pacing is glacial, and really nothing happens for long periods. Because (as someone else mentioned) its really the visuals & the music that you're supposed to be paying attention to, that's where it also fails! The 60s visuals are unable to capture a post-2000s audience - and its probably the best example of where visual-driven sci-fi fails as time passes, and the music is more annoying than beautiful (there are few films who's music can stand on its own, LOTR and The Last of the Mohicans are two that come to mind). Also, its a Kubrick film - "sense" or "point" is tossed out the window!

But just to prove that I can actually enjoy long, slow sci-fi; I have a huge soft spot for the original 1972 Russian version of 'Solaris'. (though frankly a good half hour could have been shaved off at no loss to the content.)

Actually, a thread for assorted Sci-fi films (outside of SW, ST, Aliens/Predator) would be interesting

 

ANH fails to capture a post-2000s audience.

 

Visually, maybe - although I personally wouldn't agree, I'm also a "pre-2000s audience", if not by that much. But there's more to it then that, whereas if Jarren_Lee-Saber is correct (I've never seen it so I can't say for myself) that's not true for 2001.

 

The pacing of classic movies is just not what modern audiences with ADD have been trained to tolerate. I'll admit even ANH drags for me in the middle, but something like 2001, Planet of the Apes, Ben Hur, or Lawrence of Arabia utterly drags. Heck, something that was once a thrill ride like Jaws or Poltergeist is slow paced by today's standards. They are from a different time -- I think all of the movies I mentioned minus Jaws and Poltergeist have intermissions part way through the film, for the audience to get up and take a bathroom break. Ben Hur might actually have 2 of them, from what I remember.

TL;DR -- a defense of 2001 follows.

2001 is very self indulgent, which is Kubrick's style in so many of his films. Thee is indeed a very long sequence that opens the film, before the dawn of man, where primates stumble across an alien monolith that bestows them with intelligence, giving them their first tool -- a femur bone -- used as a weapon, which enables them to become predators instead of prey, and sets the human species on its path of evolution. It's quite ponderous and almost reflective of an acid trip. That is followed by an over-indulgent flight of a Pan-Am space plane to an orbiting space station (which is what we may get with Virgin Galactic 50 years later) set to classical music and what seems like endless approach and rotating. I may be wrong but that may be the first big use of classical music in science fiction, which obviously influenced George and his selection of, and direction of, John Williams. Anyway once these two over-indulgent parts are out of the way, we are treated to a slow, plodding journey in space to investigate the discovery of a monolith on the moon, and we realize it is alien in origin, and worse find a bigger one near Jupiter. The crew is sent to investigate, during which the ship's computer HAL goes crazy and tries to kill the crew. But it takes a lot of patience and thinking to grasp Kubrick's methods, as it does in many of his movies. Superficially it's a movie that's about 90 minutes too long about a ship computer that goes crazy and a space embryo for no reason. When you finally grasp it, it's a movie about creation, about the elevation of species by higher forces, about our creations being touched, about transcendence. Many of those themes are revisited 10 years later by Ridley Scott in Alien 10 years later, specifically the android David has much in common with HAL. And the look of the Nostromo interior is definitely influenced by 2001. As is George's vision in Star Wars, specifically inside the Tantive IV and Death Star.

 

In Star Trek you have them asking what is life every so often with Data and later on the holographic doctor and one or two other things. We really don't see that in Star Wars but we know that Anakin and Luke see R2 as a friend, talk to him as if he has feelings and worry over him. In TCW it's shown that to many other people/beings a droid is a droid is a droid. Heck, 3PO gets switched off at least once because no one wants to listen to him talk/complain.

 

Apparently this has become a comparative science fiction thread.

My 2 cents on 2001: Most definitely the the type of film which is crafted and directed with specific philosophical messages, absolute golden fodder for purveyors of fine cinemahh - which is not a bad thing - but will not serve to entertain an audience.

Trek asks, is an android a person? Wars says, an android is a person with an off switch.

 

If it feels Trek like, it's probably because the prequels show more of the politics of the Star Wars universe, something Trek does a lot.