logo Sign In

Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD** — Page 7

Author
Time
 (Edited)

No matter who they chose, people would complain. Even if it was George Lucas or Steven Spielberg. So, yeah, some of you are disappointed...so what? It was inevitable that a portion of the fanbase would feel that way about whomever was selected as director, in my opinion. We all have our own tastes and feeling about who is "worthy" or appropriate. And for those who want something unexpected or surprising...that's exactly what most of the fan base doesn't want. So whatever way it went, there would be unhappy people.

Personally, JJ Abrams is a very talented filmmaker that knows how to craft interesting, exciting action dramas with characters front and center. He isn't perfect--but then no director is--but as long as the guy directing the film can give it those qualities--qualities we haven't seen in a Star Wars movies in some decades now--we should all be happy. Star Trek, for example, was a pretty good movie, and certainly better than anything with the Star Wars logo on it for some time now. We all should be very, very jealous that Star Trek got something like that. Well, now it seems like we are getting that too. I refuse to see how this is a bad thing. I'm not a JJ Abrams fan per se but there is no way he could make a terrible film when it's being written by Michale Arndt from a George Lucas story. Maybe not the best film ever made, but it will take a serious effort of failure for this to turn out as bad as anything George Lucas has made since 1989. Sorry George, it's true.

Author
Time

Why do people keep harping on young Kirk driving his late father's car off the cliff? It was a perfectly reasonable way to keep his jackass stepfather(?) from ever getting his clutches on it.

I could have sworn the bar fight was started by cadet cupcake, who appeared to be human.

And now people are nitpicking Kirk's active libido? What's the universe coming to? ;)

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Hitler didn't add any lens flare to Europe, so...

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SilverWook said:

Why do people keep harping on young Kirk driving his late father's car off the cliff? It was a perfectly reasonable way to keep his jackass stepfather(?) from ever getting his clutches on it.

I could have sworn the bar fight was started by cadet cupcake, who appeared to be human.

And now people are nitpicking Kirk's active libido? What's the universe coming to? ;)

Yeah, plus the tv show was actually very stylish and flashy, especially the first season when they had more money. The lighting and camera and general style was not conservative at all, we don't think of it that way now but compare it to Gunsmoke or Dragnet or whatever. 

Author
Time

Really surprised (though not shocked, I suppose) by all the negativity in this thread. Speaking as a life-long Trek fan, I thought Star Trek 09 was fantastic (easily many times superior to any of the Next Gen-era films), and much more harmonious with the spirit of TOS than many Trek fans are willing to admit.

Besides, with the Star Wars franchise in tatters in the wake of the PT and related media, I can't say I've been holding my breath for a decent ST. Ever since the announcement of Ep. 7-9, I've been groaning, "not again!" Even with competent people like Arndt and Abrams at the helm, I'm not expecting anything spectacular out of these new films. The Star Wars legacy has already been so irreparably damaged, it's hard to see how things could get any worse than they already are, or how anyone could even begin to repair the damage already inflicted.

That being said, in my judgment the selection of Abrams as a director is a big positive. He's an adept, versatile director who's already demonstrated a competence for both character development (which was almost completely absent in the PT) and the Sci-Fi genre in general. Ep. 7 will still probably be an unworthy successor to the OT--chances are slim that it will avoid imbibing at least some of the pollution of the post-97 Star Wars franchise--but at least with Abrams heading things up it probably won't be a major crap-fest like Ep. 1-3.

How is that a bad thing?

Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Akwat Kbrana said:

 Speaking as a life-long Trek fan, I thought Star Trek 09 was fantastic (easily many times superior to any of the Next Gen-era films), and much more harmonious with the spirit of TOS than many Trek fans are willing to admit.

Really?

How was it that much different from Nemesis or Enterprise?

Time travel elements changing the established canon, bald Romulan bad guys with an overblown vengeance wish armed with superweapons housed in a giant spaceships threaten Earth. People leaping from on platform to another. The villain's slow realisation of his doom shot.

There was the novelty of seeing the old characters played by new actors and the special effects were 'up to date' but that's it really.

The main difference was the media being behind the project, selling the same rope as the latest thing. 

Author
Time

I can't speak for everyone, but my enjoyment of ST 09 stemmed purely from the film itself, not from the media. I've never given two rips about the media's opinion of any film.

As for similarities to Nemesis (can't comment on Enterprise; I watched the first two episodes and then stopped on account of their cringe-worthiness), those that you list are merely overlapping plot-points. It was not, IMO, the presence of those plot-points in Nemesis that wrecked it, but lousy direction, uninteresting characterization, overabundant pandering, a generally stupid script, etc. In the final appraisal, I found Nemesis to be an uninteresting and disappointing viewing experience, while I found ST 09 to be a fun and engaging action-adventure romp in outer space (which is basically what TOS consisted of, before the introduction of more cerebral elements into the franchise beginning with TNG) with relatable characters, good pacing that produced genuine momentum and suspense, and believable dialogue. And I didn't need the media to make that determination for me (actually, I don't recall reading any reviews prior to my first viewing).

Sure, I'll grant that there were a few groanworthy moments, but my impression was that they were the exception rather than the rule, and that generally speaking it was a quality film.

Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The pilot episode of Enterprise was really good.

Probably the best episode and at least as good as much of the 2009 film.

As I said in my earlier posts the problems I have with Star Trek (2009) aren't really directorial but the 'reboot' happened all in the media water as far as I can see because Nemesis (which wasn't brilliant but in no way deserved the hammering it got) and it (as with the better episodes of Enterprise) were of the same general quality.

Nemesis was notably better than Generations or Insurrection but the media was still on Trek's side back then.

Author
Time

It was unwise to open Nemesis anywhere near the second LOTR film.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

The Shadows had decided Klingons were out but Hobbits were in.

Who knows, by 2015 they will be feeling nostalgia for Jawas.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SilverWook said:

Why do people keep harping on young Kirk driving his late father's car off the cliff? It was a perfectly reasonable way to keep his jackass stepfather(?) from ever getting his clutches on it.

Wow.  I think that's the first time I've seen anyone describe the act of "driving a car off a cliff" as "reasonable". =P

That said, I've seen the movie at least 4 times, and I can't recall it ever being established it was George Kirk's car.  I always thought it was his stepfather's car.  Not that that changes anything, other than adding one more inadequately explained plot point to the pile.  And again I say =P

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time

Perfectly reasonable to a troubled ten year old boy who never knew his father, I should have said.

The deleted scene with the Uncle, (I was mistaken as to the relationship) set this up, so maybe it makes more sense in the movie once you've seen that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38M_Rw_Lx10

They really should have left this in the movie!

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

They didn't need to leave it in the movie though, for the type of movie it is, a kid driving a car off a cliff is perfectly reasonable. The movie is full of nonsensical and poorly explained things, the vast majority of the audience doesn't care and probably doesn't even notice.

Of course, leaving it in would have been nice for those who do care about that sort of thing.

;)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

My issues with TREK '09 are legion.  However, admittedly, the vast majority of them stem from a script that is unfit to even be used as toilet paper.  The writers, thoroughly incapable of coming up with an exciting, fun, fresh story which would have fit in with 40 YEARS' WORTH OF ESTABLISHED CANON, and instead decided to outright lie to fans (How many interviews did I read where they insisted vehemently, "Oh, we're TOTALLY respecting what's happened before, we promise we won't trash the universe that so many people love!") and then proceeded to put together a story which shat on and kicked out pretty much EVERYTHING which had been established before that with cheap plot gimmicks (Time travel?  AGAIN?  Really?  And a villain from the past bent on revenge?  AGAIN?).  The characterization of Kirk and Spock were horrendous - they were NOT the characters I had known and loved since I was 11 years old.  The production design veered from brilliant to bizarre (Engine room that looks like a brewery instead of a nuclear power plant, plastic meat locker curtains in the shuttles...?) and more plot holes and outright strange developments placed in solely because they wanted to give the visual FX team stuff to cream their shorts over trying to do.  It was a bland, brainless, soulless, generic action film for a generation of people ("This is not  your father's STAR TREK!" crowed the ads.  Yeah, you got that right.  I liked my dad's STAR TREK just fine, thank you.) who don't care about things like, oh, I don't know...  Stupid stuff like coherent plot, consistency with established franchise history and established characterization, and trying to stay true to the spirit of the original.

In other words, it was a perfect script for someone like Abrams to film.

With REAL writers at the helm of EPISODE VII, I have hope against rational hope that at least the story will be good, and not dumbed-down like TREK '09 was.  Besides, considering that TREK '09 was a wannabe SW film dressed in TREK's clothing, perhaps we can consider it Abrams' trial run before tackling the franchise he REALLY wants to do (...but just lied explicitly about it to the press to throw them off.  Sneaky, sneaky little man!). 

Look, I'm under no illusions here.  STAR WARS ain't CITIZEN KANE.  It's not some great literary work.  It's melodramatic space opera.  It's popcorn-munching fun.  But it was based upon great mythic underpinnings - the Hero's Journey.  EMPIRE STRIKES BACK especially honed the performances and story and a solid film was crafted around that.  I just hope that Abrams is capable of swallowing his ego and thinking about the story first.

But I won't hold my breath 'til it happens.

“I… I can’t believe it…!”

“That is why you fail.”

Author
Time

^^^  Agreed.  I enjoyed ST09 and thought it was a wonderful refreshing reboot.  I was intrigued the whole movie.  I excited that Abrams is directing ep-7 and hopefully he can put into the SW movies what Lucas couldnt, and turn things around for the better.  In the meantime, Im excited about discussing the potential storylines and speculation with fellow fans!

"There's no cluster of midiclorians that controls my destiny!" -Han Solo, from a future revision of ANH

Author
Time

This must be what it's like visiting a Trek forum.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Iron Pheonix said:

My issues with TREK '09 are legion.  However, admittedly, the vast majority of them stem from a script that is unfit to even be used as toilet paper.  The writers, thoroughly incapable of coming up with an exciting, fun, fresh story which would have fit in with 40 YEARS' WORTH OF ESTABLISHED CANON, and instead decided to outright lie to fans (How many interviews did I read where they insisted vehemently, "Oh, we're TOTALLY respecting what's happened before, we promise we won't trash the universe that so many people love!") and then proceeded to put together a story which shat on and kicked out pretty much EVERYTHING which had been established before that with cheap plot gimmicks (Time travel?  AGAIN?  Really?  And a villain from the past bent on revenge?  AGAIN?).  The characterization of Kirk and Spock were horrendous - they were NOT the characters I had known and loved since I was 11 years old.  The production design veered from brilliant to bizarre (Engine room that looks like a brewery instead of a nuclear power plant, plastic meat locker curtains in the shuttles...?) and more plot holes and outright strange developments placed in solely because they wanted to give the visual FX team stuff to cream their shorts over trying to do.  It was a bland, brainless, soulless, generic action film for a generation of people ("This is not  your father's STAR TREK!" crowed the ads.  Yeah, you got that right.  I liked my dad's STAR TREK just fine, thank you.) who don't care about things like, oh, I don't know...  Stupid stuff like coherent plot, consistency with established franchise history and established characterization, and trying to stay true to the spirit of the original.

In other words, it was a perfect script for someone like Abrams to film.

With REAL writers at the helm of EPISODE VII, I have hope against rational hope that at least the story will be good, and not dumbed-down like TREK '09 was.  Besides, considering that TREK '09 was a wannabe SW film dressed in TREK's clothing, perhaps we can consider it Abrams' trial run before tackling the franchise he REALLY wants to do (...but just lied explicitly about it to the press to throw them off.  Sneaky, sneaky little man!). 

Look, I'm under no illusions here.  STAR WARS ain't CITIZEN KANE.  It's not some great literary work.  It's melodramatic space opera.  It's popcorn-munching fun.  But it was based upon great mythic underpinnings - the Hero's Journey.  EMPIRE STRIKES BACK especially honed the performances and story and a solid film was crafted around that.  I just hope that Abrams is capable of swallowing his ego and thinking about the story first.

But I won't hold my breath 'til it happens.

 

As a huge, huge fan of the original STAR TREK (the real TREK, as far as I'm concerned), Abrams' film is a colossal failure for me. While it works as an entertaining,  well-made, brainless popcorn movie, it bears only the scarcest, most superficial resemblance to the characters and concepts of the original series.

It was not a good sign that Abrams came out right at the start and said he wasn't a fan of TREK. His coming off like a pretentious, arrogant jerk in interviews didn't help, either.

I get the impression that Abrams and company feel that they've finally made TREK "cool" for the masses...by taking it away from its loyal fanbase, and severely dumbening it.

 

Trying to have it both ways--a reboot that still spins out of existing continuity-- just makes it worse. Abrams treats time-travel as a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, which allows him to justify anything he wants.

Better, I think, to have started from scratch and do "Ultimate STAR TREK", as it were; a new film in a new canon that does its own thing, and just riffs on the original series.

But, then, we wouldn't have gotten Leonard Nimoy's presence in the film to help legitimize the whole thing, now would we?

 

NuTREK plays like Abrams and his screenwriting pals' "research" consisted of two things:

1. Briefly studying the broadest, most inaccurate pop culture cliches and misconceptions about TREK (Kirk is a womanizing rulebreaker! Sulu fences! Chekov has a goofy accent! Cheesy aliens! Kirk and Spock fight!).

2. Watching the fan-favorite WRATH OF KHAN about a hundred times, and then inserting tons of "clever" winks and references to that film to make the fans think they actually "get it".

 

It saddens me that much of the fandom would so readily embrace NuTREK as being such a "faithful" adaptation/reboot of the old series. For me, it feels much closer to a parody that secretly wants to be a STAR WARS movie. There's just no understanding of--or respect for--TOS in Abrams' film. The characters are wrong, the tone is wrong, the science (fiction) is laughable, etc., etc., etc.

 

The greatest crime of NuTREK is that Abrams essentially turned TREK into WARS. And, now that he's actually doing WARS, the two will perhaps become indistinguishable. Which is sad. Both franchises are two sides of the same coin, and scratch different itches for me. TREK is sci-fi/drama/action, WARS is space-fantasy/action.

 

The original STAR TREK is my single favorite TV series of all time, and I cannot forgive Abrams for sucking its brains out and misrepresenting it to the public as cheesy pap, while simultaneously supplanting it with a "cool", new version. And it pains me to see even self-proclaimed fans of TOS now call the old show "cheesy" and "corny".

 

As with most reboots/remakes/sequels in today's Hollywood, it comes down to the easy money of name-brand recognition. Instead of coming up with a new ship and a new crew and a new TREK for a new generation, Abrams and Paramount went back to TOS, and banked on the public's recognition of Kirk, Spock, and company.

 

I think a big reason that the Nolan Batman films (which, in my opinion, are largely terrible BATMAN films--pretentious, dark, violent, and embarrassed by the source material) have been so successful is because of the public's name-brand recognition of Batman, and because self-loathing fans were all too eager to forget the campy Schumacher films, and wanted to see Batman be "dark" and "cool" so that they would look "cool" for liking it. "See? See? We're cool! We don't like those stupid, campy comics! We like this dark and violent Batman! See how cool we are?"

Same with TREK. "See? See how cool we are? We don't like that goofy, cheesy old TV show! TREK is finally cool now, because it's dark and fast and sexy and funny and big-budget!"

And the masses don't know any better, nor do they care. Big, loud, and shiny= box office gold.

 

Now, not to say that Abrams might not make a good STAR WARS movie--indeed, I think he's much better suited to it than to TREK. But, based on what he did to TREK, I can't quite bring myself to support or be enthusiastic about this. Abrams seems to me like one of those "cult of personality" filmmakers; all style, no substance.

He may be able to ape the style of the previous SW films, but I get the feeling that he'll miss the undercurrent of ideas and themes from the earlier films, which all stem from Lucas' particular sense of history, religion, and morality.

 

For good or ill, Lucas completed the story he'd set out to tell (...well, the story he'd started to tell after he'd already started telling another story in the original film, at least...). Anything else will feel like a cash-grab addendum, I think. But, at least we might get some entertaining popcorn movies out of it.

It'll probably go down one of two ways:

1. An all-new, all-different STAR WARS, which completely reinvents the wheel, and maybe not in a good way.

2. The "safe" route, which leads to endless winks, nod, and retreads of previous material.

Author
Time

@Gregatron

Agree 100% with everything you say.

 

 

I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.

kurtb8474 1 week ago

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8


Author
Time

Yeah, the thing about Star Trek that made it different than Star Wars was that Trek was actually a utopian (or dystopian) future, a look at a possible destiny of mankind. The travel to alien worlds was often used to be a mirror for the virtues and vices of humanity, and almost every episode tried to tell us something about human nature through this lens.

Star Trek the Motion Picture did this in spades, but there is a balance to be had. The Wrath of Khan swung a little in the opposite direction to compensate for this heady cerebral installment, and ended up being the most popular entry in the franchise. The writer of Wrath of Khan didn't actually care that much for Star Trek, and so stripped out some of the utopian elements of Trek in favor of a more military aesthetic, something which remained for the rest of the original crew movies. Plot points such as the Genesis Device felt very much like TOS, however, so it was a hybrid of old Trek and a new more mainstream aesthetic.

Trek 09 went far beyond this, and stripped out almost every hint of human reflection and utopia, depriving the universe of its first best destiny: a commentary on human nature. Is it fun? Sure. Accessible? Absolutely. Thought provoking? Nope.

JJ's writers don't seem to understand Star Trek, and Abrams seems not to have cared. I only hope that he cares for both the style and the substance of Star Wars, that mythic story set in a well worn universe populated with archetypal characters.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time

As we are all firmly entrenched in our opinions on Trek '09, maybe we need to look at something where Mr. Abrams came aboard in an already established film franchise. How did Mission Impossible III compare to the other MI films?

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

As we are all firmly entrenched in our opinions on Trek '09, maybe we need to look at something where Mr. Abrams came aboard in an already established film franchise. How did Mission Impossible III compare to the other MI films?

 

Me and my friends all thought MI3 was the best one.  I really didn't have much of an interest in seeing it, but I ended up really enjoying it.  I haven't seen it since the theater though, so I can't really comment on it any further. 

“In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.” - George Lucas

Author
Time
 (Edited)

NeverarGreat said:

Yeah, the thing about Star Trek that made it different than Star Wars was that Trek was actually a utopian (or dystopian) future, a look at a possible destiny of mankind. The travel to alien worlds was often used to be a mirror for the virtues and vices of humanity, and almost every episode tried to tell us something about human nature through this lens.

Star Trek the Motion Picture did this in spades, but there is a balance to be had. The Wrath of Khan swung a little in the opposite direction to compensate for this heady cerebral installment, and ended up being the most popular entry in the franchise. The writer of Wrath of Khan didn't actually care that much for Star Trek, and so stripped out some of the utopian elements of Trek in favor of a more military aesthetic, something which remained for the rest of the original crew movies. Plot points such as the Genesis Device felt very much like TOS, however, so it was a hybrid of old Trek and a new more mainstream aesthetic.

Trek 09 went far beyond this, and stripped out almost every hint of human reflection and utopia, depriving the universe of its first best destiny: a commentary on human nature. Is it fun? Sure. Accessible? Absolutely. Thought provoking? Nope.

JJ's writers don't seem to understand Star Trek, and Abrams seems not to have cared. I only hope that he cares for both the style and the substance of Star Wars, that mythic story set in a well worn universe populated with archetypal characters.

 

Here's the thing, though--what happened to Roddenberry is essentially the same as what happened to Lucas--Roddenberry became typecast as "Mr. STAR TREK", and eventually began to believe the fan-hype being thrown at him about TREK featuring a "perfect future".

People really assume a lot about the original series, based largely on what came after. TREK is not really about a "perfect future". It's essentially a show about 20th-century people living in a future setting. Things may have improved ("We can admit that we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes." ), but the characters still wrestle with moral and personal problems.

James Kirk is one of the great heroes of sci-fi; the perfect Captain, who is brave, loyal, dignified, introspective, romantic, funny, and inspiring. Yet, he's plagued by loneliness and a strong sense of duty--he really feels the burden and responsibilties of command, and the lives in his charge. He was "a stack of books with legs" at the Academy, and clearly something of a Wunderkind who worked his way up through the ranks.

He was not a smartass, bar-fighting womanizer who went from Cadet to Captain in a matter of days.

And we laugh with him, not at him.

 

For me, the fundamental difference between NuKirk and Real Kirk comes down to this:

 

NUKIRK: "Nuh-tung!"

 

vs.

 

(from "Court Martial")

KIRK: Firstly, I am at a loss to explain the errors in the extract from the computer log. We were in an ion storm. Everyone here in this court knows the dangers involved. I was in command. The decisions were mine, no one else's. Charges of malice have been raised. There was no malice. Lieutenant Commander Finney was a member of my crew, and that's exactly the way he was treated. It has been suggested that I panicked on the Bridge and jettisoned the ion pod prematurely. That is not so. You've heard some of the details of my record. This was not my first crisis. It was one of many. During it, I did what my experience and training required me to do. I took the proper steps in the proper order. I did exactly what had to be done, exactly when it should have been done.


COGLEY: You did the right thing, but would you do it again?


KIRK: Given the same circumstances I would do the same thing without hesitation, because the steps I took in the order I took them were absolutely necessary if I were to save my ship. And nothing is more important than my ship.

 

 

 

Anyway, STAR TREK is essentially the Navy In Space. It's all about drama and character, not razzle-dazzle effects and heavy-handed metaphors.

Unfortunately, much of the public's (and, clearly, Abrams') perception of TREK comes from the third and final season, which is largely a campy, ill-conceived mess--almost a parody of the brilliant first two seasons.

 

By the 70s, Roddenberry started to take in what the fandom was feeding him, and decided that TREK was IMPORTANT--a show about a perfect future. STAR TREK- THE MOTION PICTURE was the result of that; a story about the perfectability of humanity, with little of the acton, fun, or characterization that made TOS so great. And, the creative failure of that film got Roddenberry kicked upstairs to a toothless Executive Producer position.

Nick Meyer and Harve Bennett, charged with making the sequel (with a very low budget, and under the wing of Paramount's TV--not feature--department), didn't really know TREK all that well.

But, because they weren't fans of the show, and didn't have the myopic view that Roddeenberry had developed, they studied it objectively, and saw straight through to the core of TREK. Meyer, in particular, totally got it: the intelligence, the fun, the humor, the characters, the action, the whole "Navy In Space" vibe. And, as a result, they crafted THE WRATH OF KHAN, which is rightly hailed as an all-time-great TREK story.

 

Roddenberry, meanwhile, upset that TREK had essentially been taken away from him, went and made THE NEXT GENERATION for TV, which was essentially THE MOTION PICTURE, Version 2.0. No conflicts between the characters, and a lot of pretentious talk about the nature of humanity and how perfect the future will be for us. Many of the cast and crew on the show felt hamstrung by this.

A good comparison between the original series and TNG's approaches would be this:

 

For Jim Kirk, the Prime Directive of non-interference was something that needed to be overcome to solve a story's problem in a dramatic and satisfying fashion. Because Kirk is a hero who always tries to do the right thing, the moral thing.

For Picard, the Prime Directive was a reason to say, "There's nothing we can do. On to our next heading. Engage!", and end the episode.

 

So, as with Lucas, Roddenberry got caught up in his own press about how IMPORTANT his creaton was, and, as a result, lost sight of what made it work.

It is no coincidence, I'm sure, that both TREK and WARS began to decline right when their creators had their respective "epiphanies". TREK became boring and pretentious, and WARS became an increasingly-convoluted "SAGA" that made the first film a square peg in a series of six round holes.