ST Star Trek Into Darkness vs. The Force Awakens

I.Am.Snoke!

Dud duh duh.

 

Yeah I didn't mean that it makes the films objectively better...just that JJ understood what about the OT appealed to people.

 

ID made me laugh for all the wrong reasons. I'll still watch it but if I want my 'Trek fix' the original WoK stands head and shoulders above it. TFA and WoK are pinapples to bannanas.

 

And again I think thats true, it's just that I think it's true about Simon Cowell too... I.e I think Cowell has reduced pop music to the lowest common denominator which has allowed his shows/music to be hugely popular (generally). Not that I think TFA is X Factor etc...

 

You mention Zep and I think that's actually a very good example or why TFA can't really follow directly in the path of the OT. Great films like great bands are really about a collection of interesting influences coming together at the right time, to try and replicate them years down the line almost always ends up becoming a bit of a caricature losing those influences in favour of more simplified ideas of what the core appeal was. In this case as well you have the studio having very definite control of the film seeming to have a clear desire for mass appeal and picking someone good at delivering that.

Whilst I think Abrams modern ADHD blockbuster style was a bit more grating in the Trek films and toned down for TFA(where I think similarities are more structural than visual) one thing I think you can say is that the original 2009 film was actually quite original. The idea of time travel in Trek changing history isn't very original I spose but reverting to younger characters who's stories had been altered hadn't really been done before. Equally in terms of design I think theres a lot of originality in that film with the look of the Narada, Spocks future ship and the concept of drilling into a planet and creating a black hole, maybe not very "hard science" but still not something we'd seen before.

Ironically of course Abrams seemed to draw a pretty clear influence from that film in terms of the Starkiller base. Indeed I suspect that if we hadn't already seen it in Trek he would have had the Starkiller collapse into a black hole when destroyed.

 

Into Darkness is a decent action movie, but The Force Awakens is better on every level (directing, acting, writing (!), cinematography, music (!), etc). Everybody on working on ID was on autopilot.

 

I'm one of those old school Trekkies since way back when there was only one TV show and no movies. I didn't like either of the nuTrek movies. They totally missed the point of Gene Roddenberry's vision of a utopian future full of hope for the betterment of humanity and just gave us "pew pew pow pow" action sequences. There's nothing wrong with good action, but it has to mean something to make a good story, especially a good Trek story. As for ID, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

JJA was much better suited for SW than Trek. TFA managed to be fun and action-packed with likeable characters, and while it wasn't as deep as a good Trek story, that's OK, cuz Trek is Trek and Wars is Wars and never the two should meet.

 

I liked JJ's trek but I think they should of went about it a different way.

They should of locked down a cast of unknowns for 7 years to do a TV show that was less action based but also had them do a movie every so many years for the big budget action movie. So maybe do the first movie, then parlay that into season 1, then do a sequel somewhere in the middle of the shows run, then do the third movie right after the new series ends.

 

I don't think there's anything in the Star Trek franchise that can beat the quality of the original series. There are fan made imitations of the original series such as Star Trek continues. But they only match the original series, not beat them.

Speaking of original, I think the same is true for Star Wars. Nothing about Star Wars produced by Lucasfilms matches the original trilogy.

 

Oh Lucas understood alright. He just wanted his way.

 

The two films share some of the same problems but The Force Awakens is a better film. Into Darkness is a cynical film; The Force Awakens has some cynicism but its totally overshadowed by the fun; Into Darkness is shot frenetically and with copious amounts of lens flares; The Force Awakens is shot much more stable (traditional) and with fewer lens flares; Into Darkness had characters move from plot point to plot point with little established motivation; The Force Awakens also does not flesh out the motivations for its characters but it does quickly give them placeholders in between the action to at least fill the surface of the narrative voids. I can go on and on but The Force Awakens, though sharing similar problems with Into Darkness, plays better in the end because Abrams is relying more on the universe and characters to carry the bulk of the film, requiring him to rely less on cheap camera tricks and so on to achieve the vibe. I think both movies are very unremarkable from a cinematography perspective but at least The Force Awakens doesn't give the viewer a headache. I think JJ perhaps tried to hem closer to Lucas' style, and so even though he rehashed elements of other films in the franchise just as he did with Into Darkness, it didn't feel as jarring as with Star Trek. I don't think JJ got close to Lucas' style but he got as close as he could come, which for JJ is Spielberg. And I suppose, even though I have my serious reservations about TFA, that's not the worst thing in the world.

Also, from what I know about TFA's post-production, I think JJ rescued TFA more in the editing room than he could with ST:ID.

I don't think JJ has a particularly profound understanding of Star Wars that Lucas lacked. Lucas was subverting expectations on purpose, knowing fully well that some people wouldn't like it, from day one. This carried on even as early as ROTJ and the prequels. As for JJ, in every interview I've heard from him, he understands only the most basic elements of Star Wars and not much more (similar situation to his relationship to Star Trek). You'd never get an Empire Strikes Back or even Return of the Jedi from Abrams. And the prequels could definitely not be made by him. I think there's a reason he went beat-for-beat with ANH's story in TFA, as it is the most simple of the Star Wars films to understand and copy.

The reason he is probably more suited for Star Wars is that JJ's style is primarily emotional and he hems close to a Spielbergian understanding of cinema. Spielberg is not a far cry from Lucas -- they aren't terribly different (though they do have important differences). I think JJ can do a somewhat passable cover band version of Spielberg -- he showed that with Super 8. JJ likes relentless action and a fast moving plot based on character interaction. All of these things allow him to do a basic version of Star Wars, because the OT's style is not that far different from early-80s Spielberg -- let's say, maybe at least 50% similar, if not closer to even 70%. It's worth remembering Spielberg was the only one of Lucas' friends who got what he was doing with ANH's test screening. The trouble JJ had with Star Trek is that Star Trek is a thinking man's sci-fi series, it's not fantasy, and it doesn't have Spielberg in its veins. So I think all of that allows JJ to do an alright, even pretty good version of Star Wars, his natural Spielbergian leanings. Those are also the things that didn't help him when it came to Star Trek, when it came to preserving the spirit of that franchise.

 

I don't think there's even a comparison. TFA is a better, more visually striking, and more coherent film on nearly every level.

 

I enjoy both Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness in spite of their obvious flaws, and the former is better than the latter. I also recognize that both are hugely flawed as Star Trek films specifically, but never having been a huge fan of Star Trek that doesn't bother me so much. In fact, they got me to watch the original series, so as films meant to make Star Trek accessible to non-fans, they were successful for me at least. However, I think Star Wars: The Force Awakens is both a better installment in its respective series, and an all-around better film period. I'll echo what Jabba said above, it's "a better, more visually striking, and more coherent film on nearly every level," particularly in comparison to Into Darkness, but I'd say in comparison to Abrams' first Star Trek as well.

 

in my thoughts star trek is boring and star wars is all ways better

 

Although I did watch The Next Generation on TV (the series that introduced Patrick Stewart to the world), back in the 90s, I was not a fan of Star Trek actually... Even if the USS Enterprise is a favorite spacecraft of mine!

Star Wars, though, is a different story altogether... Whether it's the Death Star II going BOOM!, the Millennium Falcon making her long awaited appearance in TFA, Obi-Wan finally using a blaster against an enemy (General Grievous), or even how Anakin became everyone's favorite villain, these are all memorable moments of the epic space opera that we all appreciate and enjoy... Something that I can't really feel when watching the two Star Trek movies, for instance!


Sent from MillenniumFalcon AI using Tapatalk

 

I have always been a Trekkie first and foremost (Star Wars being only a close second). I loathe the Abramsverse Star Trek movies on many levels. First of all, they are not good Star Trek movies in any sense of the phrase. They may be popular with non-fans, but so were Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, and First Contact, movies that were not only in the spirit of the franchise they were a part of, but reveled in the original continuity as well. Secondly, they are badly written. The stories don't make that much sense, and have no greater meaning (the best of Star Trek has always been the stories that made the viewers think, that asked questions about life through the guise of sci-fi, were more then just the pretty explosions). The movies also don't know what they want to be; they contradict the world-building rules they're built on, make a point of breaking away from the old franchise to ostensibly do new stuff, then just rehash old story beats that were better done in the original material.

So, suffice to say, I was very unhappy when they announced Abrams as the director for Episode 7; he was the one person I did not want involved in the movie in any shape or form (it didn't help that Trek how I learned that Abrams even existed, much less was a filmmaker). And then the trailers came out and began to feel a little better; it looked okay. I then got to see the movie and loved it. Where the heck was the guy who had made those other movies? This film was exactly the kind of Star Trek movie I had wanted back in '09.

Why the different reactions to his movies? First of all, Force Awakens was a continuation, not a reboot. I was never onboard with the idea of a Star Trek reboot (and didn't discover it was on until the day I saw the '09 picture). In my opinion, the blame for the asinine idea of the reboot in the first place rests with Paramount, though. Abrams was simply contracted to create a Star Trek reboot and did just that. I think that Force Awakens had better writers. The guys who wrote the Abramsverse Trek movies also did Amazing Spider-Man 2, another badly written and edited movie. There's also the personal factor in the director's involvement. Star Trek was just another job for him (one I think did the best he could, despite not being pleased with the results). Star Wars, I think, was a labor of love for Abrams. There's a lot more attention to detail, clever touches, little bits, etc.

The characters in Force Awakens are also much more engaging and play off each other better. For example, both sets of movies are supposed to show the formation of a friendship between the main characters. The Kirk and Spock dynamic is pretty stiff and we're given little reason to believe that they're friends (beyond the fact that they're "supposed to" be, since that's how it was on the TV show, where it actually worked). On the other hand, Finn and Rey becoming fast friends is one of the things nearly-universally loved about the movie and effortlessly worked for comedy and drama, with a lot of speculation as to what they're going to be in the future (a couple, best friends, drifting apart, etc.?). Of course, in reality, everyone really interacts well with everyone in this movie; most of the enjoyment of the fight scenes is the interplay as the heroes work together to pilot the stolen TIE, escape Jakku in the Falcon, borrow the bowcaster, etc. I mean, LucasFilm even modified the script for Episode 8 just to keep as much focus on the leads as possible. Even the best received characters in Abramsverse Trek have been as warmly welcomed.

Finally, there's the joy that Force Awakens has for fans that a Trek reboot can't have inherent to the concept of a reboot: In Wars, we get to see the same Falcon from the original movies. In Trek, we got a new ship called the Enterprise that looks nothing like the NCC-1701 that it was supposed to represent. It's the same principle. Force Awakens continues what we saw before and faithfully recreates the stuff we knew from before. Trek is simply a re-enactment that wants to re-invent the thing that people love so much. There'll never be a "Chewie, we're home" moment or anything that hits as hard as Han dying, since it's all just copies and reflections and pop culture's ideas of what Trek is onscreen.

Put it this way, I am seriously considering re-ranking Star Wars as my favorite fandom; the new movie and related tie-ins have got me really energized for what's coming next. On the Star Trek front, I have nothing I'm looking forward to. I can't even get interested in the upcoming TV show that is rumored to be returning to the prime universe It's dead, Jim. It just hasn't been buried, yet.

Okay, rant over. It is pretty interesting that the marketing for Into Darkness and Force Awakens have one key similarity; misleading about a main character. With Into Darkness, the fact that "John Harrison" was Khan was meant to be a surprise, while Force Awakens made it look like Finn, not Rey, was the new Jedi character. I'm not really sure why the later was so much better received than the former was, though.

P.S.: Abrams does deserve credit for two good things with his Star Trek movies: Michael Giacchino is without a doubt one of the best movie composers in the business today. Karl Urban playing Dr. McCoy was genius casting. Not only is he really good, to the point it's obvious that he's criminally underused, but he also captures his character better than anyone else; he's the only actor (besides the late Leonard Nimoy as Ambassador Spock) who is playing the same character from the old TV show and movies.

 

A bit old but I can't agree with this, ROTJ is a hell of a lot deeper than TFA when it comes to Luke's story for me, theres a moral depth to his becoming a Jedi via compassion rather than just beating the badguys though ability that obviously isn't present in Abrams film.

Its true ANH is a simpler film but even there I think it has significantly more depth of character and environment than TFA.

 

ROTJ is the ending of Luke's story, where everything he's learned over the course of the series sets this up. TFA is the beginning of the new character's journeys. It doesn't seem like a fair comparison, given that TFA's job is to introduce the characters and set the groundwork for what happens to them next, and it succeeded at that.

In all honesty, I think that ANH and TFA were pretty comparable in terms of character and environment. TFA arguably even had more character development for its leads then the original movie did for its.

 

Well if your looking at Trek and Wars comparisons, then JJ has got with Wars what he tried and failed to get with Trek (where he tried to wipe TOS from existence)

http://www.thewrap.com/how-web-star-trek-rights-killed-jj-abrams-grand-ambitions-91766/

 

Besides trying to fit in as much action, humour and nostalgia as possible though a lot of the problem TFA has for me is that it tries to jump too far ahead in terms of the characters stories.

Despite it having to introduce the world in the first place I think we get a much better sense of Luke as a character and where we think he's going than he do Rey by the end of TFA. Luke is dreaming of a wider world but mired in a backwater then he learns of his force potential and its link into his family history. With Rey we get the intro of her waiting on Jakku for her family but then this is dumped and we never really get to see what the force means he her or any idea of how you views herself as part of the wider conflict.

ESB obviously shifts Lukes story but a lot of the reason that's so effective is that its playing off of the audience thinking they knew were Luke was going after ANH. I think with Rey you can also see my first point, not only don't we get much focus on her character but what we do get is mostly self contained, she's a bit afraid of the force and then accepts it defeating the badguy. Theres very little there for Rian Johnson to work with IMHO and if Rey is going to have a story of much depth from now on he's going to have to invent in almost entirely.

TFA to me comes across as Abrams desperately trying to introduce his takes on the best bits of the OT whilst trying to keep the audience entertained constantly, it doesn't come across as an attempt to kick start a new story.

 

My two cents (even though I'm English): Loved TFA despite the new hopeness about it. Loved Star Trek 09 and Really enjoyed Into Darkness despite the dumb super blood and recasting of Khan. Cumberbatch was a good villain. If he would have just been a Federation turncoat it would have been way better. People blame Abrams, I blame Lindelof. He ruined Prometheus as well. Goon.

 

I'm a huge Star Wars fan that is also a Star Trek fan well versed in TOS.

I found JJ Abrams's first Star Trek rather lack luster. It was missing something that TOS Star Trek always had even in its lowest budgeted or bizarre episodes. A charm and camaraderie for the crew mixed set against a spirit of exploration equal parts responsibility and adventure that always made the TV series work. For the first Trek film that was replaced with a slick FX action veneer that didn't feel very Star Trek and seemed soon to be dated. Add to that the generic Romulan villains from the future, destruction of Vulcan, and other changes the movie was an okay start. Still it was a nice set up for the new old crew, and the return of Leonard Nemoy as Spock is always welcomed. Seeing the movie again on home video I liked it more.

Star Trek into Darkness - I liked much better. For me it more successfully mixed that charm of character dynamics with the new more action oriented slickness.


I was pretty much spoiler free going into the movie so didn't know for a fact Khan was in the movie. I found mixing the plots for the episode Space Seed and the film Wrath of Khan inspired. Seeing Khan, Kirk, and Spock work together was riveting. I understand some fans complaint that Khan could have been saved until the 4th or 5th movie. And while yes I'd of liked more adventures before this (Maybe a 10 episode tv series with the new old crew) I liked the crew meeting their most dangerous adversary while they are still so green and impressionable.

The portrayal of Khan was a complete departure from the series. Ricardo Montalban's heroic macho tyrant king Khan would be more at home in ancient Rome or Mongolia then in a future space - and no doubt seemed out of place in his own time. That Khan's persona was like an inflated caricature of Kirk. Cumberbatch's Khan was much more a calculated general, with equal parts Spock and Kirk, it seemed like he was from the future not the past. And this Khan was trapped by a corrupt Federation with all his people held ransom. It was very different dynamic but somehow for me the same threat.


On Star Trek TOS - Kirk was probably at the peak of his command swagger when he faced off against Khan. The right mix of his younger physically stronger self and the more experienced commander he would become later. And in the episode Kirk needed everything he had in equal amounts both brain and brawn to just barely win against a Khan who'd not yet regained all his strength.

In Wrath of Khan, Kirk and Khan never meet face to face. Their fight is like a chess match played by Starship. Except Kirk plays poker not chess. It seems Kirks cunning wins the day, but that's only because Spock is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice - his life - to save the crew. Kirk doesn't doesn't defeat Khan alone. It takes the crew and the something special which makes Star Trek - Star Trek.

I love how Star Trek into Darkness switches all this around. Kirk at this time is too young and inexperienced to face off against Khan, especially a full strenght Khan. So Spock - with his super Vulcan strength - gets to play the swashbuckling role and face off against the Earthly Superman. It's Kirk that stays behind to save the ship and crew . This young Kirk has the spirit of exploration and love the adventure we know in the character but not the responsibility. Not until the end of the film. The reversal of Kirk going into the reactor to save the ship. I loved how the same it was to Wrath of Khan but totally different. In a lot of ways The Wrath of Khan is the last regular adventure for TOS crew. (I know Star Trek 5 and 6 - but psychologically the crew are different after Khan.)

Facing Khan in Star Trek into Darkness - Kirk and the crew are now ready for the first of their regular adventures. Khan galvanises and matures them. So I'm looking forward to the new Star Trek movie.

Also the Spock / Khan fight is amazing. Using the Vulcan mind meld mid as an attack was amazing.

Now some things still bothered me. All the rules of travel and transporting established and followed in I don't know many hours or months of serialised TV are our the window. It is now possible to transport across the void of space seemingly faster than a Starship. Every point on the map is just hours away for the Enterprise now. Star Fleet the once idealised utopian future government is rotten with corruption. The universe of Star Trek has been changed greatly. It's not the future we aspire for anymore. It's what we have now in the future.

The Force Awakens - JJ being hired to direct this didn't fill me with total confidence. Man was I wrong. He was a great choice. JJ did for Star Wars just what he did for the start of Lost. And we all think - who would possible pass on directing Star Wars. But really who wouldn't pass???? Especially the 1st one without George Lucas. That's all or nothing there. It could end your career if it didn't work. Who knows what JJ will do next. But his career is not ended.

TFA is the best of JJ's the three Star movies. It feels more like a Star Wars film than either of the Star Trek films feel like Star Trek. For me it continues the previous six films and tv shows / and doesn't overwrite them. JJ set a great standard and way of working for the other directors to emulate. I wonder if he will ever direct another Star Wars film? In some ways - visually especially - TFA plays it much safer than anything George Lucas did. And as we know a lot of fans didn't agree with the choices George made. I think playing it safe was smart - especially for starting out what is going to be much larger than anything we've see for Star Wars so far. We have years and decades for new Spaceship to be introduced. Let's enjoy the modified versions of what saw in Return of the Jedi. I'm sure they won't last forever.

The characters, old and new, are handled phenomenally in the TFA. It really sets us up for the next two films.

 

Well I've been a Trek fan for a long time too and the most pure version of Gene's vision of Trek would the first season of TNG. Where humans are perfect, they never grieve, even a ten year old shouldn't feel sad when both their parents die. Humans are so perfect they don't even get headaches anymore.
Sorry, to me, first season TNG is the weakest season of TNG and quite bad overall.
The human characters often came across as insufferable, pompous and full of pride of how more evolved than everyone else they were.

TNG got better around season 3 and that and DS 9 are my two favorites of the "modern" Trek series.
Voyager and even more so Enterprise got stuck in a creative void. They took very few risks, it was always "stay the course, don't deviate too much."
Same with the films and in the end Trek was pretty much dead.

JJ gave it a shot in the arm and reinvigorated it and he changed things that lasted. Far too often on Voyager and Enterprise the "Magic reset button" was pushed that reverted everything back to the way it used to be.
His films have flaws and plenty of them, the villain in 09 is rather weak and under developed. ID's biggest flaw is that they tried to make their Wrath of Khan. It was a mistake when Nemesis tried it and it was a mistake here.
But I think it had some interesting things in it. How far should you go in obeying orders? When is following orders wrong and can violating orders be right?
The more militarized Star Fleet was also interesting. They suffered a major loss of ships plus one of the most important worlds of the Federation was destroyed. How does a loss like that affect it?

It might have been interesting if they had kept Khan but that he didn't turn into an enemy at the end.
That Kirk and Khan worked together and won but no betrayal. This would be a big surprise to many as they would expect Khan to do that but he didn't. So Kirk and Khan are not friends but not enemies either.

RE: TFA, Star Wars was clearly in no way in anything like the position that Star Trek was when JJ made his film. I don't think there was much worry about whether or not TFA would do well.

But JJ made a film that was very popular, possibly more popular than people might have thought.
That doesn't mean that those that dislike are wrong or anything. Same with the PT bashers and gushers, no side is "right". People just like different things.

Personally, JJ's Trek films are not the worst but not the best either. ST II and VI are way better.
ST V, VII, IX and X are all worse.
TFA is, maybe "better" isn't the best word, I enjoyed it more than the PT. Simply because the film hooked me and I was invested throughout. This didn't happen with the PT much.
It isn't on the level of the OT. Ex, ANH did a better job with the political situation even if that wasn't the focus of the story.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface