Tommy Siegel | Bluesky

TranscriptA Helpful Guide To Star Wars vs Star Trek

Star Wars

[Image of Han Solo in Tommy’s style]

  • Don’t start with the ‘first’ movie, let me tell you where to start
  • Looks like ruined farm equipment in space
  • In summary: the past was horrible
  • JJ Abrams ruined it

Star Trek

[Image of Jean Luc Picard in Tommy’s style]

  • Don’t start with the first season, let me tell you where to start
  • Looks like a cruise ship in space
  • In summary: the future is incredible
  • JJ Abrams ruined it
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 8 hours ago (1 child)

First, you're falling for the trap of the mystery box. None of that is in or really even suggested by the movie itself - you're putting your own interpretation and expectations in to fill in the absence of any given by the door. It's exactly why Abrams uses it, and why it never pays off.

Second, being a fan of something doesn't make a director better. If anything, their previous connection is baggage that will need to be managed and avoided to move a forward. In the case of VII, it worked. It was a safe, comforting return to a long running franchise that could lead to something new. IX shows how that usually ends, though - clinging to the old patterns with little to no deviation, culminating in a disappointing outcome. If nothing else, the attempt of VIII to break off into something different is commendable. Personally I think the film is good and its successes get lost in the nitpicking and hysteria of diehard fans that won't ever be satisfied anyhow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 hours ago

    Agree to disagree. I don't begrudge VIII as a movie on it's own. In the theater I had an okay time and unlike the toxic fans I at least grew to appreciate things like Rose, but you can't consider VIII in a vacuum because it was never meant to be consumed that way. It's the center piece in a trilogy.

    I would argue that the fact that these interpretations can be rendered from the movie alone, means that we aren't dealing with a true Abrams style mystery box, and that even if we were, the general speculation about them doesn't leave us scratching our heads wondering about a narrative direction for these characters.

    It's not a polar bear on a tropical island. In the context of the Star Wars universe most of Abram's choices have implications.

    Those Implications where ignored by Johnson. It's misguided to blame Abrams for trying to leave questions that mirror the original film. If VIII had built on any of it, at all, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion. We would be talking about how VIII took the threads of familiar from the previous movie and actually made it good.

    It's not on Abrams for Johnson's narrative left turn. At release The Force Awakens was incredibly well received. It wasn't until after VIII dropped that people really started to tear into Abrams for not keeping narrative control, and deflecting the blame from Johnson onto Abrams.

    I find that outrageous.

    Any collaborative story teller worth their salt can draw the through lines for some of these characters and tropes. It's not on Abrams for choosing to leave the story about space wizards open ended on what is the opening note of a familiar trilogy. The worst thing you could say about the Force Awakens is that it plays too safe. Which, for an opening movie isn't a problem unless the rest of the trilogy sucks.

    I don't think it would have been perfect if Abrams held the wheel for all three films. It's the nature of fandom to nitpick and complain, but it at least would have been consistent. This trilogy is a narrative mess and it got that way because of Johnson having no skill as a collaborative story teller and likely little love for Star Wars.

    Johnson did to Star Wars what Abrams did to Star Trek.

  • source
  • parent