The Star Wars Prequels vs The Star Trek Pre-boots?

[Bruce Malone]

When the first Star Trek reboot came out a lot of people compared it towards the Star Wars prequels, in that it had a strong star wars sensibility and of course with JJ being a big star wars fan and now the next star wars director.

Overall which do you prefer the 3 star wars prequels or the so far 2 nu-trek films?

 

[Drizzle]

I was always more of a Star Wars guy, but I much prefer the Abrams Trek films to the prequels. Revenge of the Sith is the only worthwhile one for me.

 

[Sawyer]

I feel like JJ brought alot of Star Wars elements to Trek and did so swimmingly, whereas the prequels attempted to bring some of the more cerebral Trek-like aspects (political element, for one) to Star Wars and it all just fell flat on its face.

New Trek, for sure.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

SW prequels are crap.

 

[sueb1863]

Star Trek. I loved the original Star Wars (saw the first one thirteen times in the theater in 1977!) but I thought Lucas went all wrong with the prequels. The Star Trek movies were better all around, although I disagree with the idea of reusing old plots for the second movie. Hoping they do a completely original story for the third one.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Isn't this thread going to be a little unfair, the amazing Star Trek reboots hands down not even a comparison.

 

[Thundarr]

SW prequels are crap.

Agreed!

 

[Deserana]

Star Trek reboot. I love Star Trek 09 but don't love any SW prequels. Revenge of the Sith was good but Clones was so bloody boring and I don't have fond memories of Menace.

Into Darkness really disappointed me, like I said I loved 09, I think Cumberbatch is an amazing actor (and I'm not basing that on just Sherlock, I've seen a lot of his stuff) and after 4 years I expected greatness. So I was disappointed to see such a by-the-numbers sequel that essentially copied and pasted the final act. The film took 1 hour and 50 minutes it seemed to get into its stride and was surprised to see that Cumberbatch was actually barely in it.

It took 2 hours to do... not much at all IMO.

 

[Soapy]

For better or worse the Abrams Trek movies are better Star Wars movies than the Star Wars prequels.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I will say this, the Star Trek pre-boots, while nowhere near as bad as the Star Wars prequels, are nowhere near as memorable.

So, decades from now, no one will remember Star Trek, but we will all painfully remember the Star Wars prequels.

 

[Sawyer]

So in your mind, it's better to be bad and potentially memorable than good and potentially not?

Or are you just making an observation?

 

[Thundercrack85]

More of an observation. But that's something to think about.

These new Trek movies are pretty damn forgettable though.

 

[TheDreamMaster]

This gonna be a massacre of a thread I can already tell. To be fair, Star Wars is my first love, the OT is great and frowing up, I love the prequels. I was never a Star Trek fan. that said, the new Trek films are honestly more well made, and pretty much did the opposite for Trek of what the prequels did for Star Wars.

 

[Sawyer]

More of an observation. But that's something to think about.

These new Trek movies are pretty damn forgettable though.

I disagree.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You love the prequels? I'm not trying to be facetious here, but what did you love about them? I mean, I suppose they had some... things that could be salvagable, but they were just such a disaster - and why (not how) is anyone's guess.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I disagree.

Okay, but let's have this discussion in about ten, twenty years. Provided we remember.

 

[Sawyer]

Okay, but let's have this discussion in about ten, twenty years. Provided we remember.

That's not really fair. By then Spike TV will be airing nothing BUT Star Wars marathons. How will I be expected to remember anything else?

 

[DCW]

They're both great, but I love the Star Wars prequels more. By far.

 

[Soapy]

As far as the uh, memorablity... memorableness... whatever of the Abrams Star Trek movies goes, it's impossible to say whether they'll be memorable or not. For all we know, something much bigger and better could come along for Star Trek after Abrams has had his way with the franchise, and twenty years down the road Abrams stuff might end up just being a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things. No one will know until we get to that point whether they'll be memorable or not.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well I say it mostly because i see them as nothing more than cold, soulless, products of marketing. Abrams had no particular investment in the franchise. In fact, he even says so. Not to say they aren't competently made, just nothing remarkable about them.

Star Wars is Lucas' baby. Might be an ugly baby (the prequels, that is), but the man had passion, and a unique vision.

 

[MrMaooz]

I love SW a lot more than Star Trek, but damn are those 2 Trek movies really good. I haven't seen the prequels in 10 years so I got to go with Star Trek.

 

[Octoberist]

JJ's Star Trek.

 

[Ipodman]

Star Trek reboots for sure. They practically resurrected Star Trek

 

[CGHulk]

What Star Wars prequels? I'm still waiting for them to be made! Maybe Kathleen Kennedy will get Lawence Kasdan to write them?

 

[dark_b]

if the Star Trek reboot movies are better Star Wars movies arent they by definition bad star trek movies?