|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Jan 1, 2020 19:07:18 GMT
Is that why Star Trek isn't as popular as Star Wars?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2020 19:26:41 GMT
I don't think of either as particularly violent. Things happen and people die but off the top of my head, the bloody hand print on Fin's suit in The Force Awakens is the first time I recall blood in all Star Wars. If there was blood in the original trilogy or the prequels, I missed it.
I never thought of one as being more popular than the other. I've no idea. My answer to Star Wars v Star Trek is usually Doctor Who.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 1, 2020 19:36:09 GMT
Star Wars isn’t more popular than Star Trek because it’s “more violent”. It’s more popular because its story is much more accessible to a mainstream audience. It’s a story about space wizards with cool laser swords and battles against an evil empire. Star Trek has always been much more niche in comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 1, 2020 19:41:37 GMT
Is that why Star Trek isn't as popular as Star Wars? Probably because Star Wars is Disney so Star Wars (like MCU) is more for kids while Star Trek (like DC movies) are more for mature audiences.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jan 1, 2020 19:44:28 GMT
Wrath of Khan and the Chris Pine Trek films are probably the most violent Trek has gotten.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2020 19:45:22 GMT
Star Wars isn’t more popular than Star Trek because it’s “more violent”. It’s more popular because its story is much more accessible to a mainstream audience. It’s a story about space wizards with cool laser swords and battles against an evil empire. Star Trek has always been much more niche in comparison. Star Wars grew into an overall setting. It's a backdrop like most wars and eras. Got a film about espionage, prisoners of war, a final attack or some secret battalion, you could deposit it into World War I, World War II or Star Wars. Make it work within that world. It's a canvas.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnspartan on Jan 1, 2020 19:50:55 GMT
It's really stupid to think violence has any bearing on the popularity of a sci fi property. SW is just cooler than Star Trek, therefore more accessible to mainstream audiences. Anyway Star Trek is probably more violent than SW with the transporter accident in TMP and ear slugs in Wrath of Kahn.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Jan 1, 2020 20:24:11 GMT
Star Wars isn’t more popular than Star Trek because it’s “more violent”. It’s more popular because its story is much more accessible to a mainstream audience. It’s a story about space wizards with cool laser swords and battles against an evil empire. Star Trek has always been much more niche in comparison. ^^^ You summed it up better than I could.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 1, 2020 20:30:33 GMT
One of the reasons Star Wars is more popular is because it's more "toy friendly", which makes it more accessible to kids. Kenner really struck gold when the made the action figures for the movies. Allegedly "Return of the Jedi" was made specifically to try and sell more toys, with Jabba's palace featuring a bunch of bizzare alien creatures to would become action figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 1, 2020 23:16:17 GMT
Star Wars isn’t more popular than Star Trek because it’s “more violent”. It’s more popular because its story is much more accessible to a mainstream audience. It’s a story about space wizards with cool laser swords and battles against an evil empire. Star Trek has always been much more niche in comparison. Wasn't the TV show really low-budget and tacky? Not saying the stories and characters aren't good, but I have seen it on TV and it looks really cheesy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2020 23:23:06 GMT
Star Wars isn’t more popular than Star Trek because it’s “more violent”. It’s more popular because its story is much more accessible to a mainstream audience. It’s a story about space wizards with cool laser swords and battles against an evil empire. Star Trek has always been much more niche in comparison. Wasn't the TV show really low-budget and tacky? Not saying the stories and characters aren't good, but I have seen it on TV and it looks really cheesy. That might depend on when you watch it. Maybe back in the day it was cheesy but on a modern high def TV with Netflix, the original series is great. With that level of definition, the age really shows in the color schemes and the Klingon makeup. The Next Generation is just as impressive. In fact there's really just one episode that dates it terrible. It's not even an episode either, it's a behind the scenes look after the series finale. It wasn't until giving up after a few minutes into it I remember how cheesy the 90's had grown in the passing decades.
It looked great in the 2010's. Maybe it looked worse on TV in the 60's but not my problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 1, 2020 23:31:41 GMT
Wasn't the TV show really low-budget and tacky? Not saying the stories and characters aren't good, but I have seen it on TV and it looks really cheesy. That might depend on when you watch it. Maybe back in the day it was cheesy but on a modern high def TV with Netflix, the original series is great. With that level of definition, the age really shows in the color schemes and the Klingon makeup. The Next Generation is just as impressive. In fact there's really just one episode that dates it terrible. It's not even an episode either, it's a behind the scenes look after the series finale. It wasn't until giving up after a few minutes into it I remember how cheesy the 90's had grown in the passing decades.
It looked great in the 2010's. Maybe it looked worse on TV in the 60's but not my problem.
Maybe pre-conceived notions have something to do with it being less popular. I watched Star Wars when I was very young and didn't watch the Star Trek movies until about 10 years ago, because they looked really "geeky" to me. I ended up liking most of the William Shatner Star Trek movies when I finally gave them a chance. Star Wars is a classic hero vs. villain franchise. Star Trek is a bit more interesting than that imo. There are more ideas floating around in the Star Trek franchise.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 1, 2020 23:43:49 GMT
I don't think of either as particularly violent. Things happen and people die but off the top of my head, the bloody hand print on Fin's suit in The Force Awakens is the first time I recall blood in all Star Wars. If there was blood in the original trilogy or the prequels, I missed it.
I never thought of one as being more popular than the other. I've no idea. My answer to Star Wars v Star Trek is usually Doctor Who.
Violence isn't just blood and gore though. The Dark Knight trilogy is VERY violent for example, it just does it without blood.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2020 23:48:24 GMT
That might depend on when you watch it. Maybe back in the day it was cheesy but on a modern high def TV with Netflix, the original series is great. With that level of definition, the age really shows in the color schemes and the Klingon makeup. The Next Generation is just as impressive. In fact there's really just one episode that dates it terrible. It's not even an episode either, it's a behind the scenes look after the series finale. It wasn't until giving up after a few minutes into it I remember how cheesy the 90's had grown in the passing decades.
It looked great in the 2010's. Maybe it looked worse on TV in the 60's but not my problem.
Maybe pre-conceived notions have something to do with it being less popular. I watched Star Wars when I was very young and didn't watch the Star Trek movies until about 10 years ago, because they looked really "geeky" to me. I ended up liking most of the William Shatner Star Trek movies when I finally gave them a chance. Star Wars is a classic hero vs. villain franchise. Star Trek is a bit more interesting than that imo. There are more ideas floating around in the Star Trek franchise. Oh yeah, for me personally Star Trek has mucho mucho more going on in it. It's probably not a stretch to say Star Wars is more popular but it wasn't immediately obvious to me because most of Star Trek is really fantastic. I've actually seen less than half of all there is (considering I haven't watched Deep Space 9, Star Trek Voyager or Enterprise) but the original series is great (especially on today's TV's) most of the Shatner crew films are good and at least one of them is either excellent or my favorite, The Next Generation is great and their movies are decent enough with at least one being pretty damn decent.
I blow hot and cold on the new movies with Christopher Pine, Zoe Saldana, etc. and try though I did, I couldn't get into the new series Star Trek: Discovery.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 1, 2020 23:48:35 GMT
This could be a good argument for Quentin Tarantino directing a Star Trek film. He'll make it violent.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2020 23:52:59 GMT
I don't think of either as particularly violent. Things happen and people die but off the top of my head, the bloody hand print on Fin's suit in The Force Awakens is the first time I recall blood in all Star Wars. If there was blood in the original trilogy or the prequels, I missed it.
I never thought of one as being more popular than the other. I've no idea. My answer to Star Wars v Star Trek is usually Doctor Who.
Violence isn't just blood and gore. The Dark Knight trilogy is VERY violent for example, it just does it without blood. It's not a complaint, just an observation Star Wars never struck me as exceedingly violent, despite the overwhelming number of lives lost, planets destroyed, etc. It's all in the delivery.
The Dark Knight also made excellent use of tone. There's a lot of implied violence off screen that feels relevant and powerful throughout.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 2, 2020 0:01:25 GMT
Violence isn't just blood and gore. The Dark Knight trilogy is VERY violent for example, it just does it without blood. It's not a complaint, just an observation Star Wars never struck me as exceedingly violent, despite the overwhelming number of lives lost, planets destroyed, etc. It's all in the delivery.
The Dark Knight also made excellent use of tone. There's a lot of implied violence off screen that feels relevant and powerful throughout.
We are on the same page then. I'd say Star Wars is more violent than Star Trek though. Like Darth Maul being cut in half and people being stabbed with laser swords and stuff like that. I admit that I am much more familiar with Star Wars though, so maybe Star Trek is equally as violent and I just don't remember. Star Wars is more action packed though, which is what I think the OP is alluding to.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 2, 2020 0:02:26 GMT
Violence isn't just blood and gore. The Dark Knight trilogy is VERY violent for example, it just does it without blood. It's not a complaint, just an observation Star Wars never struck me as exceedingly violent, despite the overwhelming number of lives lost, planets destroyed, etc. It's all in the delivery.
The Dark Knight also made excellent use of tone. There's a lot of implied violence off screen that feels relevant and powerful throughout.
It's a great example of the PG13 rating used effectively. They're more intense than a lot of R rated crap these days. Like The Predator or that Hellboy remake. 
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 2, 2020 0:05:48 GMT
It's not a complaint, just an observation Star Wars never struck me as exceedingly violent, despite the overwhelming number of lives lost, planets destroyed, etc. It's all in the delivery.
The Dark Knight also made excellent use of tone. There's a lot of implied violence off screen that feels relevant and powerful throughout.
Yup. Another example is Minority Report, which I sometimes forget is rated PG-13.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 2, 2020 0:12:45 GMT
Star Wars isn’t more popular than Star Trek because it’s “more violent”. It’s more popular because its story is much more accessible to a mainstream audience. It’s a story about space wizards with cool laser swords and battles against an evil empire. Star Trek has always been much more niche in comparison. Wasn't the TV show really low-budget and tacky? Not saying the stories and characters aren't good, but I have seen it on TV and it looks really cheesy. It was a sci-fi television show from the 60s, so yes, it was very tacky. Contrary to what J.J. Abrams and Alex Kurtzman have tried to suggest, Star Trek was never made to be some epic action franchise. It was envisioned as a show about exploration and solving problems through diplomacy. Captain Kirk and Spock were never action heroes like Luke Skywalker or Han Solo.
|
|
