Everyone who has a TV and uses Internet, even if it’s just to check weather in Iceland or tell the world how awful that ham was in their sandwich today, knows what is coming to the big screens this year. Ok, in May? No, the new Terminator is in summer. Ah! Star Trek! With the much hotter, younger and, admit it, totally unknown to the world, Chris Pine. And let’s not play nerds here – can you name one of his films without googling?
Right, where am I going with this? Here: Why is Star Trek cooler than Star Wars? It’s not. I mean, it’s not yet. And even the box office figures won’t tell you, because what Paramount Pictures are building is… a franchise empire – forgive me for this – to strike back. Fox have been exclusively exploiting the “ultimate space saga” genre for too long; it’s time for another cult hero to use some... federal forces.
If you are a “live bored - die hard” fan of either of the camps, in their original “pure” version, there is a risk that you will be disgusted by the cynicism and the “she has no clue” factor of the rest of this article, but here is a little treat to take your thoughts off my sad theories: An essay on Star Wars vs Star Trek, which will take you through the details of Acclamator troop transport engines vs Enterprise D, including the sublight acceleration capability and size. Tasty!
Being a self-confessed Star Trek fan to a reasonable extent (for starters, I can not even name all the characters), I will try to guess the future: Will Star Trek the movie be more successful than, say, Star Wars III – Revenge of the Sith?
Let’s start with timing. The industry is going wild and the audience is now much more spoiled by all sorts of Sci-Fi and Fantasy blockbusters than in 2005. Everyone has seen all the Star Wars, all the X-Men, all the Spidermen and various ends of the world in cinemas, on DVDs, at themed screenings and online. We then had an incredible number of “Star Gates”, “Battlestars”, “Eurekas”, cooler “Doctor Whos” and other telly-injections. Also, Watchmen may have shaken some of the shivering excitement off the hungry eyes of those in the search of the mind blowing cinema experience. “Star Trek” re-runs are still a regular thing too; only - what a bummer - the big theatrical brother is being positioned as “not really” for those who watch them.
Next – back story. Very brief. Star Wars initially were born HUGE: A feast for the eyes, a unique piece of cinema in the form of a massive visual brain attack. The fragile and high (ahem) minds of the 1970s were won over forever. The level of the show and presentation of Mr. Lucas’ multi-million dollar baby has never let us down.
“Star Trek”? Funny in a bad way, a low-budget TV burp. Why was, and is, this joke of a Sci-Fi telly novel so adored all over the world? Story. Every episode told the most unbelievable and yet real story with as little money as it could, and told it brilliantly. It was an honest, bizarre, mad and fascinating show every time. You can’t get bored. It’s too short; you get the story because it is told in simple words (sounds); you love the characters because they are out-of-this-world weird, yet oddly human.
Finally, cast. Do you care if Anakin Skywalker is related to Luke? Besides loving the phrase “Luke, I am your father”? If you are still reading that comparative analysis mentioned above, you definitely do. The rest of the world just cares about who plays the parts of both. Young, sexy and blue-eyed – perfect package. Add one more cute blue-eyed face with a famous name (Ewan McGregor) and a stunning female beauty, and you are safely equipped with the right heroes set. For marketing, I mean. And it worked.
Now, take a look at good old William Shatner when he was young. Stop for a second to “hm!” at the fact that he was, too, very much blue-eyed. But, in 2009, right next to the blondie, we also have the “he looks - you die” Zachary Quinto. Luckily, the story demands it so. What a blessing. Especially if “Heroes” is still running. Pretty much in every country.
So, in fact, before 2009 it was a battle of the story vs. the show (ok, and another story). Now, it’s the story (fingers crossed!), the show, the unknown cast, the years and years of anticipation of the fans who this film is “not really” made for, and the story (fingers crossed again!) versus… the show? Star Wars III – Revenge of the Sith cost over $113 million and made almost eight times more in the international box office. Star Trek, with all the economical silliness of modern days, according to the latest reports, cost $150 million. It will not make $800 million in the cinemas, but the sequel may. Let’s just make sure there will be one and go to see this dream come true on big screen in May.
Posts
