Star Trek vs. TF: ROTF, Nostalgia vs. Novelty

Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Autobot HipHop, Dec 9, 2009.

  1. Autobot HipHop

    Autobot HipHop Covert Operations

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Posts:
    672
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +0
    Just wanted to share my 2 cents on what works and doesn't work with these 2 movie franchises. (forgive me if this topic has come up before, I have been away from the boards for a while and searched for a topic similar to this one)

    First off, I liked both movies a lot but J.J. Abrams Star Trek struck a nostalgia chord with me. I feel the movie was spot on. It embodied everything a Star Trek movie should be and then some in my opnion. Good Characterization, accurate character portrayal, good script, top notch action etc. It took me back to that "Wrath of Kahn" feeling and also gave Star Trek a fresh new spin with the new cast who helped capture the spirit of the original actors. I kept thinking to myself, why couldn't Tranformers 1 & 2 give me this feeling?

    Transformers, while bringing us novelty to the franchise, steered away from the original characters and spirit of the G-1 series. I know change can be good and it doesn't always have to be like "G-1" but I think if you are going to steer away from G-1 at least make interesting characters with fleshed out backgrounds and story. The only 2 Transformers with average depth, characterization and substance are Optimus and Bumblebee. Every other character is relegated to the background with little more then a sentence or 2 describing WHO they are not what they are or why they are doing what they are doing. For example- calling Ratchet a medical officer shouldn't suffice as the only character development aspect for this character. We know he's a medic, just like Bones in Star Trek is a medic BUT we also know that Bones is pessimistic, always pissed off, but very loyal. I have no idea what Ratchet's personality is.

    And this is where BAY's movies falter, in plot and characterization. I really like the designs of Michael Bay's Tranformers movies ( i know some fans don't) but that alone is not what keeps people coming back for more. It's the characters that are the most important aspect of any story, it's what makes Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and other stories like them become great stories and mythologies that can be enjoyed by generations. Not just another summer blockbuster that ends up collecting dust in your Blue Ray collection.

    What do you guys think about both movies? Do you like Michael Bay's approach better then J.J. Abrams? What works and doesn't work with both movies?

    Thanks for reading my babble!
     
  2. bellpeppers

    bellpeppers A Meat Popsicle

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Posts:
    13,571
    News Credits:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    257
    Likes:
    +239
    Personally, I thought Star Trek was a mess of a movie, and was only o.k.. I felt better with Terminator Salvation actually.

    However, when discussing my issues with TREK with a friend of mine (who is usually more critical than I am) he was more forgiving of TREK's problems simply because it was Kirk and Spock.

    Transformers, on the other hand, re-invented the franchise into something new, only borrowing certain names from the past.

    So, I think the OP might be on to something.
     
  3. Autobot HipHop

    Autobot HipHop Covert Operations

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Posts:
    672
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +0
    Could you briefly explain why you thought Star Trek was a mess of a movie? I thought the movie was great, it wasn't perfect, but the flow from action to dialogue reminded me of Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back. Kirk and Spock had substance and background as opposed to Transformers. Im still trying to figure out the bots personalities.
     
  4. Dran0n

    Dran0n Junk male

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Posts:
    13,284
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    217
    Location:
    Cygnus X-1 (ya bish)
    Likes:
    +6
    As mush as I hate to admit it, Star Trek was way better than TF 1 and 2. Though, I never got in to Star Trek so there isn't any nostalgia there, though it was nostalgic to Transformers because I was fan of Armada (skipped Energon and Cybertron though). I was barely aware of G1. So, it was sort of nostalgic. Plus, for a 14 year old boy watching TF 1 it was mind blowing, because, well, robots + massive amounts of destruction + Megan Fox = WIN. While they aren't as good as they were back in '07, I still LOVE the TF movie series.
     
  5. ZeroMayhem

    ZeroMayhem Henshin a Go-Go Baby!

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,365
    Trophy Points:
    202
    Likes:
    +8

    Thank you lord yes, a thousand times YES! :bowdown: 
     
  6. bny888

    bny888 バグバイト

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Posts:
    6,548
    News Credits:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Likes:
    +24
    the latest star trek movie is still on my "to watch" list, so i can't comment right now...
     
  7. jazz4ever

    jazz4ever I'm turned on by numbers

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Posts:
    1,818
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +0
    I liked Star Trek more than TF2. Simply because it was not all explosions and giants things beating eachother. It had characters with substance cool looking starships and just a dash of realism.
     
  8. Autobot HipHop

    Autobot HipHop Covert Operations

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Posts:
    672
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +0
    Couldn't agree more. That is what is missing in Transformers...characters with substance.
     
  9. Tyrannosaur

    Tyrannosaur 100% Sarcastic Saurian

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Posts:
    4,110
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Likes:
    +0
    [​IMG]
    (I love using this image :D )

    So true. So freaking true it's not even funny. Spot on with this one. This is what this continuity needs dammit!
     
  10. G1Wheeljack

    G1Wheeljack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    9,819
    News Credits:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    196
    Likes:
    +29
    Unfotuantely we probably won't get that considering Joe Schmoe needs humans to relate to(or at least that's what Hollywood thinks), that's why the movie's are told from the human perspective.
     
  11. Darthbane2007

    Darthbane2007 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Posts:
    734
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Likes:
    +0
    I never understood the need to compare these 2 movies. Both are different franchises. They were both made to revive interest in their respective franchises, and from the looks of it they have succeeded..
     
  12. Autobot HipHop

    Autobot HipHop Covert Operations

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Posts:
    672
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +0
    I wasn't aware that there was such a need to compare the 2 movies. I haven't seen any other threads like this one. I chose to compare the two because, for one I am a fan of both franchises. Second, they are written by the same writers. And third there is a distinct difference between the two creative approaches to the 2 movies.

    Why not compare the two?
     
  13. Coeloptera

    Coeloptera Big, bad beetle-bot

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Posts:
    2,613
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +0
    Yes, which is why Wall-E was such a huge failure.

    Look, it's really simple. To Bay and I think, to Spielberg to some extent, the Transformers are not characters.

    Spielberg does create wondrous imagery and ideas, but really look at some of his films, even really great ones. Did E.T. honestly come across as having much of a personality? I don't really see it. He was an endearing element, a "cute MacGuffin", but he really wasn't so much of a character in his own right.

    So it went with the TF films. They are not about the Transformers, not really. Heck, the last scene of the first movie sort of clinches it. Sam made out with his new girlfriend on top of Bumblebee. The movie was more about Sam's journey, Sam's life, than any of the TFs. Remember, Bumblebee never really spoke. This doesn't automatically have to make him harder to relate to (Wall-E and Eve certainly were easy to relate to), but there it is. His thoughts, his inner life is effectively severely truncated. He is a cypher and deliberately so.

    That's how it goes. That's the movie incarnation. The TFs themselves, almost without exception, do not get to have complex motives, pasts, or inner lives. They are not "people" and thus, are assumed not to have these things.

    - Coeloptera
     
  14. Takeshi357

    Takeshi357 "Research"

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Posts:
    4,546
    Trophy Points:
    172
    Likes:
    +19
    And if anyone ever asks me why *I* don't like the live action movies, I know what to say.
     
  15. Darthbane2007

    Darthbane2007 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Posts:
    734
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Likes:
    +0
    Well, keep in mind that they have less than an hour, or an hour and a half at most to show these characters on screen. This isn't like TV, where you have a whole season to write and develop Optimus Prime, or comics where you have months and tons of issues to do the same thing..
     
  16. Takeshi357

    Takeshi357 "Research"

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Posts:
    4,546
    Trophy Points:
    172
    Likes:
    +19
    That's a pretty lame excuse isn't it?
     
  17. Sizzle

    Sizzle Sparkabot

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Posts:
    1,577
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +1
    [​IMG]
     
  18. Sideswipe80

    Sideswipe80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Posts:
    10,367
    News Credits:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +27
    Star Trek was light years better than ROTF. No crude immature dirty humor. And this is coming from a fan of the original Trek series.
     
  19. G1Wheeljack

    G1Wheeljack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    9,819
    News Credits:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    196
    Likes:
    +29
    Good point, I forgot about that. Odd enough, most of the people I know found it quite boring. Still, I agree with your post 100%.
     
  20. ams

    ams Generation All Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Posts:
    6,806
    News Credits:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    221
    Likes:
    +6
    Ebay:
    All these things are subjective to preference, of course... I enjoyed Star Trek very much, ROTF less so. The component I don't care for in modern movies is that the light and jokey moments are just poorly executed. I certainly enjoy a good laugh, and believe those lighter moments have an important, necessary place in the pacing of a movie or a show. But they seem to always be overdone... Chekov's character & Kirk's injection scene, Leo, Simmons, Skids & Mudflap, etc... there are plenty more - Peter's emo dance from SM3 comes to mind.

    Take half as long to tell the joke and then get on with things. It stops being funny if it takes a long time to get there, or if it's in your face the whole time (the twins).

    I was watching an old Beast Wars episode the other day and saw a perfect example of an excellently paced joke. Rattrap and Silverbolt are facing some imminent threat, and Rattrap exclaims, "What do we do now?" to which Silverbolt deadpans, "Well, given our proximity, I hold my breath and try to stay downwind." It comes out of nowhere, it doesn't interfere with the scene, and the action can continue unimpeded. Perfect. No reason why that "quick hit" approach couldn't work tossed into a movie half a dozen times in the right places.
     

Share This Page