Bridget 1Is the new Star Trek better than the Star Wars Prequels?
May 27th 2009 17:08
Don't get me wrong. I'm a huge Star Wars fan. One of my favorite books is Aaron Allston's superb Starfighters of Adumar.
And I've also never been able to sit through an entire Star Trek episode, though I watched a Family Guy with the cast of a Star Trek show, once. And I have seen Galaxy Quest enough times to quote entire scenes. (Yes, the entirety of my familiarity with Star Trek is through the lens of Tim Allen and Alan Rickman and the beryllium sphere.)
Regardless. Walking out of the theater last week, I couldn't help but wonder if JJ Abrams' Star Trek was actually better than George Lucas' Episodes I through III. Or rather, if I was allowed to say it. Maybe the question is better asked as "Is the new Star Trek good enough to persuade Star Wars fans to admit that it's better than the prequels?"
I think it is. Of course, I live with a man who claims that Revenge of the Sith is better than Return of the Jedi, so you can see where my old-school loyalties lie. Still, it's not that easy to dismiss a fandom for a totally new, alien even, series.
In terms of production value, both of them are very shiny. The progression makes sense and the explosions are big and the fights epic and you can understand what people are saying, and stuff. Everyone can geek out about cameos, locations and the shininess. And never underestimate the value of geeking out, especially with ticket sales.
So what is it about this new Star Trek movie, the first film since Hellboy II that I've come out of the theater thinking it has genuine re-watch value, that makes me willing to betray the Star Wars universe etc. (Ignoring the fact that the only movie I've seen in the theaters since was like, Max Payne, for some reason- oh I remember, because I couldn't get into Scott Sturgeon's new band's show; I guess Max Payne was my pint of Hagen Daas.)
But I think it boils down to three main factors.
1. Good acting. There are no weak points in the Star Trek cast. Each actor is on point and delivers even outrageous lines about beaming and alternate universes with a pitch-perfect seriousness. Natalie Portman, on the other hand, couldn't muster any inspiration from her bazillion dollar salary and award-winning career to give what were admittedly terrible lines like "I'm pregnant" a go.
2. No Jar Jar. No bizarre marketing ploys aimed at five year olds. Not only is it oriented around mature people doing mature things, Star Trek's storyline is for the most part pared down and straight-forward, concerned with drama and action and the occasional chuckles-- the ingredients of good storytelling. This allows comic moments to sparkle more and background and local color to be just that, unlike the massive, heavy-handed mess that Jar Jar Binks became for the films and the embarrassment he came to represent for the whole series.
A counter-argument could be Keenser, Simon Pegg's Scotty's assistant on the ice planet Delta Vega--more reminiscent with its crazy ice creatures of Hoth than the three prequels were able to be of anything IV-VI-- but Keenser is used effectively, an example on a micro scale of good timing--his touching if temporary farewell to his colleague-- and good background detail--Scotty scolding him for sitting on the bulkhead (or whatever) and Kirk helping him down-- that creates a well-rounded, emotionally significant character in a matter of minutes. Lucas failed to do this for most of the characters who appeared in all three movies.
3. Better writing. From reactions from fans, it seems that a lot of the phrases and ideas were translated well onto the big screen. But in general, Star Trek is paced tighter and remains more interesting throughout than I-III are. What took Lucas three movies and 6 years to do-- a back story, a transformation-- Star Trek achieves in under 2 snappy, exhilarating hours.
With the general rejection of the prequels by Star Wars fans (despite a grudging acceptance--or complete denial-- of its canonical power), I don't feel too bad about the inevitability that I will own the Star Trek DVD and continue to snub the prequels in the DVD section at Costco. Star Trek is really a great triumph in movie making, bringing depth and fun to a genre that so often gets it wrong. And perhaps its greatest boast is that it has drawn in and captivated newcomers like me; it is its own story and its own movie. Recognition of such factors during production makes for a quality movie.
And don't worry. I will take the stand on this issue: the prequels are better than Kingdom of the Alien Monkeys Prairie Dog Nuke the Fridge Crystal Skull.
Related Links:
from the Onion: "Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film as 'Fun, Watchable'"
from Geeks of Doom: "11 Reasons Why I Didn't Completely Hate the Star Wars Prequels"
| 96 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
