New Star Trek Movie, plus Star Wars versus Star Trek.

I really should have posted this sooner, but I really loved the new Star Trek movie, as did the wife. We actually went to see it in the theater 3 times, the last two of which were late night affairs with the entire joint to ourselves. Great date night, right there.

Anyway, I've never been a huge Trek fan, so what did I like about it? Well first off I thought did an excellent job of balancing the old with the new. The look of the movie was obviously updated for the 2009 audience, yet the details, down to Enterprise itself and the uniforms seemed to be very loyal to the original designs. I also really enjoyed every single character. I was a bit surprised to see one of the MILF guys from American Pie turn up as Sulu, but even he was spot on. The actors obviously bought into the established characters, yet still seemed to make them their own, particularly Zachary Quinto as Spock. In the original series, Spock doesn't get in on the action a ton. He's more of a side line commentator. It was nice to see him right next to Kirk in the Battle on Nero's ship. Plus I think the relationship between him and Chris Pine has a chance to be every bit as good and dynamic as Shatner and Nimoy are.

Plus, hell, the story was awesome. It was an action movie with a plot! An effects movie with a plot even! Wow, is that allowed? I also really enjoy the idea of rebooting the franchise in an alternate reality. That's really going to let the writers and actors shine, without having to be pinned down too much by the existing Star Trek Canon.

So why can't Star Wars do this? After all, it has a huge fan base too. For me, it's all in the way the franchise has been handled. Star Trek has lived on as a steady presence on our TVs or Movie screens since at least the late 70's or early 80's with the original movies, then through The Next Generation and all the other spin off series. Star Wars hits us suddenly, stays through the mid-80's, then takes a break until the mid 90's. Thus, while Star Trek has not only kept it's core fans from the late 60's interested, it's been steadily creating more fans and younger fans over the years. The 2009 movie is a master-stroke of that. In the coming years, the new Star Trek Franchise will be viewed by young people who weren't even a twinkle in their parent's eyes the last time Shatner and Nimoy were together on the big screen. Kirk will be Chris Pine, and they'll chuckle to hear the original Kirk was that guy on Boston Legal. (No offense to Shatner, he's absolutely FANTASTIC as both Kirk AND Denny Crane).

Star Wars has flubbed this. There was no real running Star Wars media between the original three films and the prequels. Yeah, there were books, but they were pretty much the realm of the uber nerd, and not talked about much in the mainstream media. Then, when the prequels hit, a new generation was finally introduced, but despite the Franchise name and a huge budget, the movies kind of stunk. The plots were convulted and bogged down with Lucas's politics-heavy story, and the casting/acting were pretty much atrocious. Now, they have the Clone Wars animated series, which is a bust for a lot of die hards, and the animated movie, which was a flop.

So this begs a question. Could Star Wars have pulled off what Star Trek has pulled off? You know, rebooting the franchise with different actors in those main roles of Luke, Leia, and Han? I'm not sure it would, at least not with Lucas at the helm. They'd have to have a better story. The stories are out there, some of the books are really good. Timothy Zahn's Thrawn trilogy would make an excellent movie trilogy, with the right director and cast. It'll never happen though. Pity. It pains me to say this, but I guess Star Trek is indeed the superior SciFi franchise.