I tuned into Film 4's all day Star Trek Movie Marathon last night and caught The Wrath of Khan.
I've seen it before [sadly not at the cinema in the early 80's!] and I must say I enjoyed it a lot. The Khan character was really well acted and the eventual lethal dilemma had a great build up.
Spock's demise was touching and the return to the Kobayashi Maru scenario was clever. The Genesis planet gave lots of room for the sequel, The Search for Spock, which was on telly next but I fell asleep, no fault of the film I might add. It was nearly midnight!
Watching Star Trek I was struck by the thought, could it have ever been as big as Star Wars? Its already a big franchise but it isn't the behemoth that is the Gorge Lucas/ Disney franchise.
What does Star Wars have that Star Trek doesn't readers?
Star Trek doesn't do too badly, but it has always been better as a TV show rather than a film franchise for me. Mind you, I only really like the original series. Wrath of Khan is the best of the films. I saw the uk premiere of the first film, at the Odeon Leicester Square, in 1979!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kevin - classic Trek was way ahead of its time, stylistically and in terms of tv series production. Great storylines and over the top acting from Kirk. However, the move to the big screen didnt work - the first film was awful, both visually and in terms of story. Khan reset the bar, making it a lot grittier and action oriented, the final scenes in the nebula are reminiscent of a 40's submarine film. Unfortunately, it became drunk on its own success and the next few films just went overboard on FX and characterisation. Killing Spock in Khan was a brilliant move, but bringing him back, seemed pointless. The third film, Voyage Home was ridiculous and it just went from bad to mediochre from there. The reboot by Abrams could have been the making of the genre, but all the tv series which came before it and the hugely dedicated fanbase which had built up around the whole thing hampered its success. Trekkies take their sc-fi all too seriously, getting right down to the nuts and bolts and philosophy of the universe. Where Star Wars succeeds is that is action driven and despite some faltering steps with the Prequel series and the latest couple of films, it is doing extremely well again in the hands of Disney. Spin off TV series such as the Clone Wars, Rebels, The Mandalorian and The Bad Batch are redressing the flaws in the continuum and the future looks much brighter than ever.
ReplyDeleteStar Trek is a sraight Sci Fi series, TV or movies, whereas Star Wars is is a Sci Fi/Fantasy series, and appeals to a broader base. The Force adds a mystical element that appeals to mythical fantasy lovers of, say, Lord of the Rings.
ReplyDeleteStar Trek doesn't draw in this group so much.
Also,Trek is more complex intellectually than Wars, the latter being basically good vs evil, and so appeals more easily to larger numbers of children.
Sorry that didn't come out right.
ReplyDeleteI mean that Star Wars appeals more to kids with it's simpler concepts..
Where Star Trek wins out is in the fact there are not always good vs bad situations. There are dilemmas that make you think. Human versus none human. Humanoid vs none humanoid. Learning about new species and forms of life not yet identified.
ReplyDeleteMuch better than Star Wars offering
The first Star Trek movie could have been much better if the creators had not have the pressure of having followed the mega success of Star Wars. A Star Trek return to tv was planned before Star Wars was released. However, Star Wars changed the studios mind if I recall correctly and they decided to go with a movie. And of course the Star Trek movie had to compete with the abundance of special effects in Star Wars. But Star Trek is a different kind of show. Star Wars is about a conflict and that usually makes stories that need a lot of special effects (i.e. like with space battles). Star Trek is about discovery and that can can complicate how to put in special effects and have a good discovery story at the same time.
ReplyDeleteStar Trek was about the fate of a single starship, whereas Star Wars was about the fate of a whole galaxy, so there is a difference of scope, and therefore of possibilities, in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who with almost religious fervent waited for Star Trek TMP long before its premiere in Finland, I beg to differ with appraisals given here. Having been all into the TOS, the TMP was just sheer bliss! Just pure teenage pleasure.
I'm with those saying that Star Trek (when it's good...) has always been more cerebral and interested in ideas, rather than just action and melodrama, though it has those elements as well.
ReplyDeleteAll my favorite Star Trek episodes involved moral quandries or bizarre situations that needed to be solved... the space battles were fun, but I never wanted them to be the main focus.
So I think it comes down to why is an action-adventure war movie more popular than a movie about scientists figuring out knotty problems. The crowd who will tell you to 'just turn your brain off', who prefer pure entertainment without being asked to think about their own place in the universe, will always win out at the box office.
It's weird, but I feel that every iteration of Star Trek takes place in a parallel universe to the original series. Even the first follow up, the Filmation cartoon still felt a bit different to the original series (TOS). By the time we get to Star Trek Discovery, we're back in the TOS timeline, but the original Enterprise looks nothing like the TOS design!
ReplyDeleteFascinating insights everyone. Like Dr. Who and Thunderbirds, I grew up with Star Trek TOS in the Sixties and I remember many episodes clearly. My Missus did too on the Continent. Kids sort of got it. Star wars came a lot later for me. I didn't see the original film in '77 so missed that milestone. I was a late arrival to the Force. I suppose it is larger and simpler than Star Trek; Galactic, imperial, with more comic-like characters to get the kids excited. Interestingly in my thick film guide book from the early 1990's The Wrath of Khan gets 5 stars and is the only Star Trek film that gets than many and more than Star Wars!
ReplyDeleteOn one of my Faceplant groups I would say 'Trek is more popular than 'Wars, it has a membership with a lot of canadians, but also lots of Americans, several antipodeans and a few Brit's, ages from 40-60? So the apparent supremacy of Star Wars may be a UK-centric thing, with them more matched globally? It would be interesting to know what the worldwide DVD/Blue Ray sales-figures have to say on the two franchises . . . ?
ReplyDeleteH
Its all on this big list Hugh. Looks like SW is nearly 7 times bigger than trek in terms of dosh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_media_franchises
DeleteStar Wars has sense. Star Trek is senseless. Simples. And, yes I was a bit of a Trekkie/Trekker in my youth. I saw the first 4 ST films at the cinemabob before giving up on the trash that it had become. Wrath of Khan is the ONLY ST film of the first 10 that is worth watching. Star Wars wins out for consistency (at least their uniforms dont radically change every film) and the ability to tell different peoples stories, eg "Rogue One" instead of being stuck with Kirk and co.
ReplyDeleteStar Trek is senseless!? There is a large Federation fleet of starships heading your way Timmy to convince you otherwise!
ReplyDelete