Star Trek and Star Wars, the mother and father of contemporary SciFi cinema and television, but not the grandparents...
Please see my lengthy response to a couple of replies to my last post.
: )
K.
posted by Ravings of Ki @ 6:42 AM
Ravings of Ki
Previous Posts
- Slap in the face followed by a cream pie, and then...
- Hail and thunder, and little bit of rain.
- In between life and death...
- Where Have I been?
- It's the most wonder full time...
- Cold weather, mmmmmmm....
- Nothing particularly special
- To be employed or not to be employed, that's no lo...
- Overqualified or underexperienced?
- Carrboro, Durham, and Chapel Hill
Thursday, June 22, 2006
: )
K.
4 Comments:
I was speaking of the Star Trek TV series mostly. The one that really gave birth and was way ahead of its time was 2001 Space Odyssey. I agree with you on the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek. But making it simple again and staying away from the complex and in depth analysis, I did not like nor did anyone that saw it like the reveal of Darth Vader. It was a big disappointment. And believe me I loved the movie and the characters. And wouldn't change anything else but that. And George got a lot of negative comments because of the reveal. It would have been better not to show his face and let us picture him in our own mind. That is my only point and you would not understand unless you lived it.
It still speaks to the optimism that Lucas possessed when he made the original trilogy to include what could very easily be viewed, and has been viewed by many, as a tacky vehicle for melodrama in revealing the familial connections between Luke, Leia, and Vader/Anakin. What has drawn people to those films is that optimism and willingness to have fun. The tone of the prequels is unbalanced, indecisive until the last chapter as to whether it should be a true tragedy or an adventure. This is what hinders Eps I and II. However, these films have an entirely different intent than Star Wars-Jedi.
They are intended as fun, not to be taken so seriously. They also achieve this very well, while many contemporary films attempting the same fail when there is too little depth. You don't need a whole lot to be able to care about the characters in a film, but there's something wrong (unless it's intentional) when you don't or can't care about any of the them.
Star Trek's original series was fantastic at developing their characters over time, and was certainly ahead of its time. Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey is a fantastic novel that covers so many different areas of science that one can't ignore the influence of preceding science fiction writers such as Assimov and their works in creating a masterpiece. Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation was a cinematic revolution in portraying life in space in such a believable and surprisingly accurate (Did they foresee the technological and communications advancements being made or did they inspire others to make them reality) way that has obviously inspired many film makers to follow.
As implied by the post's title, neither Star Wars nor Star Trek establish the foundation for modern and post-modern scifi, but they did provide some framework. Chronicles of Riddick is more influenced by the "entertainment" aspect of Star Wars while Pitch Black is more closely allied to Alien (Ridley Scott's expansion on Stanley Kubrick's 2001 in showing a less attractive reality of life in space) and Aliens (Action survival horror genres pay homage to this piece repeatedly, intentionally or not). These two films feature some of the same characters but their intent and their context are drastically different.
There isn't a lot that can be done to either of those two Riddick films to necessarily "improve" them, but they don't really need to. The prequels and the original Star Wars trilogy share the same relationship. My qualm with Lucas making radical changes to Star Wars is that he's removing them from context. Sure, he's not changing them to the point that you lose the basics, and certain details can be accepted if not applauded.
It's the fact that his company does not seem to fully respect or understand the fact that each film has it's own merits that truly affected some generations of movie goers and the film industry as a whole. These films should not be virtually butchered and then spit upon with so many people working hard to revive them, but rather they should be preserved for those who do appreciate them for what they are. There would undoubtedly be an outcry if someone went back and did an official posthumously re-editted version of 2001 because "they didn't have the same technology that we have now" to include better action sequences with Hal, or to make the space station reflect the commercially driven direction of our current society, and then destroy or hide the original prints. This would have to take place before 2001 was originally released on DVD. It would be an insult to writer, movie-makers, and movie-goers alike.
The visceral reponse of "You gotta be kidding me!" to the fateful line spoken by Vader with his outstretched hand is priceless, as are the post movie debates it inspired. However, there is meaning to a film that can illicit such reactions.
I'm not discouraged by what other people think about the films, negative and otherwise. It's a joy to take part in those same debates.
What dissappoints me the most is that the company's statements make it seem as though George Lucas who did LIVE it does not seem to UNDERSTAND it HIMSELF.
Well, Darth Vader is a fascinating character. To be honest, separating the Sith Lord from his former Jedi identity leaves the original intrigue that drew so much attention. The idea of humanizing him provided a sense of unexpected depth. The absence of this in the Ep I with Maul, Ep II with Jango (though an attempt was made by showing Boba's reaction to his defeat), and Ep III with Grievous may have actually removed a sense of potential intrigue by not allowing each character to develop into mythical characters like Darth Vader. The fact that he managed to escape and fight another day, or another two films as the case may be, only strengthened Vader's stature.
These other characters were still "Bad@$$" but nowhere near as enduring. Even in the end of Return of the Jedi, Vader still escaped, philosophically. He was defeated on his own terms, and no one else's.
And to go completely geeky here, I still think that Anakin should have been played by someone older in Episode I, or at least make Padme as young as he.
I finally had a moment to glance over some of the commentary on this subject. Well said, Ki. And even though it was off-topic from your orignal post, I particularly liked your distinction between Star Trek and Star Wars (one being focused on the science, one being focused on the fiction). Folks all too often try to compare them like apples to apples, when they are truly two different entities in the sci-fi universe.
I read that it was your birthday recently, so Happy Birthday! If you do not yet have this t-shirt I think you've earned with your commentary here. Let me know if you like it, and I'll send it to you as a belated birthday present from yours truly.
Post a Comment
<< Home