Why is Star Trek fandom different than Star Wars?
- Thread starter Shawnster
- Start date
I've been thinking about how Star Wars and Star Trek camped on two different ends of sci-fi: Flash Gordon vs. space patrol.
Star Wars is fantasy. Wizards, knights, elves, evil overlords and magic powers. The nature of good and evil is not in doubt.
Star Trek is us. It's we humans in the future, exploring space and pondering the questions raised.
When Star Trek protagonists encounter a new situation, the question put to the viewer is: What does this say about us? What does this say about them? What does this say about the universe we live in? How can we know what is right?
When Star Wars encounters something new, the attitude is: Oh, that's cool.
No questions asked.
I was thinking about this in relation to that blog post of Simon Pegg's that blew up the internet that day, when he speculated that maybe obsessing about toys and what's "cool" is childish. I think that's a good frame of mind for approaching a new Star Trek script. Hopefully he realised that Star Trek is a forum where you can explore ideas and say something, while still being entertaining.
Star Wars is fantasy. Wizards, knights, elves, evil overlords and magic powers. The nature of good and evil is not in doubt.
Star Trek is us. It's we humans in the future, exploring space and pondering the questions raised.
When Star Trek protagonists encounter a new situation, the question put to the viewer is: What does this say about us? What does this say about them? What does this say about the universe we live in? How can we know what is right?
When Star Wars encounters something new, the attitude is: Oh, that's cool.
No questions asked.
I was thinking about this in relation to that blog post of Simon Pegg's that blew up the internet that day, when he speculated that maybe obsessing about toys and what's "cool" is childish. I think that's a good frame of mind for approaching a new Star Trek script. Hopefully he realised that Star Trek is a forum where you can explore ideas and say something, while still being entertaining.
The more I watch the world spin, the more I realize that Star Trek is every bit as much fantasy as Star Wars. It tries to make us believe we can become better, when it seems in reality we are getting worse every day.
I think the Mirror universe is more representative of humanity.
So there we have the difference between the two fandoms: Star Wars fans know their franchise is fantasy and don't pretend otherwise, Star Trek fans are in denial and act as though they're deep philosophers who don't have time for fun and exciting. You know, like in that Onion video.
Pretty much.
Though rewatching the Star Wars movies lately, I've realized that Star Wars actually has far cooler villains than Trek. Yet their good guys are really dull and uninspiring.
Need a way to fuse the good guys from Trek (TOS) with the bad guys from Star Wars.
Yeah, and what's worse is that if we keep going the way we are, we have the potential to make the Mirror Universe seem like paradise in comparison.
I seem to remember a time in the '90s when I was ostracized in school for liking any genre fiction at all, be it Trek, Wars or whatnot. In fact, I've met plenty of people (to this day) who don't know the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars!
I think Trek lost its appeal at some point when the franchise became over-complicated with hundreds of hours of self-referential bloat and nonsensical technobabble, with the general perception (whether right or wrong) that if you weren't already familiar with all of Trek, then a new Trek show or movie wouldn't make any sense to you (incidentally, that's why I totally gave up on the SW Expanded Universe). ST09 arguably brought Trek back to a more human, relatable level.
I prefer Star Trek myself (and by that, I mostly mean TOS). But I don't think people should be too quick to dismiss that other franchise.
Star Wars apparently has a broader popular appeal. To what can that be attributed? People who simply dismiss it as "pew pew" don't take into consideration that it was thoughtfully created as a "hero's journey" with mythic themes, along the lines of Joseph Campbell. In fact, Joseph Campbell once said that George Lucas was one of his best students.
Mythology itself is an ancient and primal part of the human experience, and as such it is an area of serious, respected intellectual study. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a sci-fi/fantasy story having that kind of orientation (though there was something wrong with the execution of the idea when it came to the prequel trilogy
).
Also, Star Wars was like a breath of fresh air in the context of the jaded, post-Vietnam and post-Watergate 1970s in which it first appeared.
And if Star Trek fans dismiss Star Wars out of hand for not having an "adult," scientific orientation, than I would kindly suggest reading some literary hard science fiction sometime. You will see that, as previously indicated in this thread, Star Trek is just as much a fantasy as Star Wars is.
Kor
I think Trek lost its appeal at some point when the franchise became over-complicated with hundreds of hours of self-referential bloat and nonsensical technobabble, with the general perception (whether right or wrong) that if you weren't already familiar with all of Trek, then a new Trek show or movie wouldn't make any sense to you (incidentally, that's why I totally gave up on the SW Expanded Universe). ST09 arguably brought Trek back to a more human, relatable level.
I prefer Star Trek myself (and by that, I mostly mean TOS). But I don't think people should be too quick to dismiss that other franchise.
Star Wars apparently has a broader popular appeal. To what can that be attributed? People who simply dismiss it as "pew pew" don't take into consideration that it was thoughtfully created as a "hero's journey" with mythic themes, along the lines of Joseph Campbell. In fact, Joseph Campbell once said that George Lucas was one of his best students.
Mythology itself is an ancient and primal part of the human experience, and as such it is an area of serious, respected intellectual study. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a sci-fi/fantasy story having that kind of orientation (though there was something wrong with the execution of the idea when it came to the prequel trilogy
). Also, Star Wars was like a breath of fresh air in the context of the jaded, post-Vietnam and post-Watergate 1970s in which it first appeared.
And if Star Trek fans dismiss Star Wars out of hand for not having an "adult," scientific orientation, than I would kindly suggest reading some literary hard science fiction sometime. You will see that, as previously indicated in this thread, Star Trek is just as much a fantasy as Star Wars is.
Kor
Last edited:
I prefer the original Star Trek to Star Wars, though there is definitely room in my world for both. I can't imagine life without Trek, it is the single longest relationship I've had with anything.
My problem with later Trek was that it quit being fun and exciting to me. It was like it bought into the hype that it was somehow socially important and quit being entertaining (for the most part).
A lot of it is in the presentation. Star Trek (even nuTrek, to some extent) is rather stiff and rigid in the way it's presented. Star Wars, on the other hand, is chaos (read: excitement) on the screen.
Granted, order and structure are highly appealing to nerds, but largely off-putting to the average Joe.
Granted, order and structure are highly appealing to nerds, but largely off-putting to the average Joe.
Obviously not, because there are a ton of nerds that love Star Wars as well. My wife being one of them.
Well, it's not literally us, but it's aspirational; it's what we could be. OTOH we could never really be a roguish space smuggler or mystical space knight. And Trek plots often revolve around speculative science, whereas Star Wars makes no effort at all to dress itself in scientific credibility (except for midichlorians
).OTOH, I will agree that Trek at its worst is painfully didactic and suffused with banal technobabble, which SW is not (at least not in the original trilogy).
I agree about the MU. Some Trek fans deride it as irrelevant fantasy, but I think the MU does raise interesting issues about the effect of different moral choices on character.
Star Wars is sometimes praised for its use of mythical tropes, and the "hero's journey", but I don't see how simply using these is praiseworthy.
I think both franchises and their fanbases face some general public criticism/resentment (they're dated, cheesy) but agreed that Trek faces some further disadvantages in that there's been so much more of it and generally more fan interest in the fake technology.
It's also interesting that Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are clearly fantasy and there wasn't much general public backlash/mockery, the presumption may be that fans of those are more moderate in their liking or again just that there's not too much of them. Alternately fantasy could be perceived as younger-skewing and thus something most people grow out of.
I think Trek is (generally) science fiction and SW space fantasy and those are different genres but both genres can intelligently, provocatively speak to and about us and both franchises do.
It's also interesting that Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are clearly fantasy and there wasn't much general public backlash/mockery, the presumption may be that fans of those are more moderate in their liking or again just that there's not too much of them. Alternately fantasy could be perceived as younger-skewing and thus something most people grow out of.
I think Trek is (generally) science fiction and SW space fantasy and those are different genres but both genres can intelligently, provocatively speak to and about us and both franchises do.
I think one difference in the two franchises is "new media". SW is much more successful at video games and I guess the argument could be made that it was more adaptable to the format . A large part of the SW fanbase grew up with the video game industry. In Lucas Arts the SW franchise had a major hand up in video games and became integrated into the gamer generation.
Since some of that praise came from no less than Joseph Campbell, one of the world's pre-eminent scholars of mythology, it might be worth a bit of consideration.
Kor
TL;DR/DC? The OT of Star Wars had a revelation that shook the movie going world to its core. No other story/film continuity has done so before or since to my reckoning. (Although Star Trek did take a pretty decent swing at it.)
Interested? Read at thine own peril.
As I recall, the initial concept of Star Wars was a simple story of good vs evil. A boy, a girl, and a galaxy at war. An imperiled princess, and a black knight. The galaxy under the rule of a merciless Empire. Keeping it simple is what helped Star Wars win such universal appeal, and put science fiction back on the map, even though Star Wars is space fantasy.
The story matured a bit with Empire Strikes Back. A bit more dimension was given to the characters and their relationships. And a revelation was made that shook the movie going world.
It took some folks going back to the original Star Wars, and listening to certain bits of dialogue to see if this revelation suddenly came from out of nowhere. All one needed do was listen three elements:
Aunt Beru: He's just not a farmer, Owen. He has too much of his father in him.
Uncle Owen: That's what I'm afraid of.
At Ben Kenobi's hovel:
Luke: My father didn't fight in the Clone Wars, he was a navigator on a spice freighter.
Obi-Wan: That's what your uncle told you. He didn't hold with your father's ideals. Thought you should've stayed here and not gotten involved.
Also, watch Ben Kenobi's expression when Luke asks Ben how his father died. There is a brief hesitation....very subtle, but very much there. Then he concocts the story of a "pupil of his". A young Jedi named Darth Vader who turned to evil.
Once I watched those scenes again as a kid, I knew that there could be no other answer. Darth Vader was Luke's father. Uncle Owen's overbearing overprotectiveness of Luke was the first clue. Obi-Wan's brief hesitation was the second. This was confirmed in Return of the Jedi with Yoda's confession, and ghostly Obi-Wan's revision of his own story.
It was all so subtly done that the initial dialogue in Star Wars flew right over moviegoers' heads. This was no accident.
Such events are what shook the moviegoing world at its core. Simplicity, mythological facing, and subtlety.
I'd say it was very praiseworthy, because the only story/movie series I've ever heard that came anywhere close would be the Harry Potter novels/movies.... and then at that, it's a pretty distant closeness... and then at that, it was a minor tremor, not a world rocking revelation of things like Star Wars.
However, Star Trek did take a pretty good swing at it. (And please note, that I do not say any of this as disparagement towards Star Trek, because I love Trek as well.)
The producers of Star Trek realized that Star Wars was their buy-in to bring Trek back to the visual forefront of sci-fi entertainment. Every company wanted a piece of Star Wars' action.
Universal-- Battlestar Galactica
Walt Disney Co.-- The Black Hole
New World Pictures (minor movie company)-- Battle Beyond the Stars
Paramount-- Star Trek.
Star Trek The Motion Picture was a visual feast, but many felt the story was dull and plodding, the characters were flat and wooden shadows of their past TV selves. ST TMP was a financial success, but a critical flub. It's gotten a lot more love in recent years though.
What Paramount needed was something to truly stand its own ground with Star Wars.... so they had their own trilogy.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan-- Much more exciting than TMP. It had space battles, a menace from its past, and a tragic event. The event generated a lot more buzz in its original premise because of its finality. It generated a lot of negative feedback, and was changed to be a bit more ambiguous. Oh, there was also that revelation about David Marcus being Kirk's son. (A not so subtle borrowing from TESB that had nowhere near the impact of Darth Vader/Luke Skywalker.)
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock-- Continued on the "Genesis Trilogy". A crew reunited, a fierce Klingon enemy, and two more saddening events. The death of Kirk's son, whom we never really got to know, so the anguish wasn't really there. The destruction of the Enterprise however did more than tremble a few hearts and open a few tear ducts.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home-- Pretty much wrapped up the Genesis part of the trilogy with the hearing at the beginning of the movie, and the Spock story was being neatly tied off.
A lot of what sold the Genesis Trilogy was "shock and awe". It hit you over the head with the death and eventual resurrection of Spock, and the destruction of the old Enterprise, and the rise of a new ship.
Star Wars was much more subtle.
But the payoff for both is very appreciable.
Interested? Read at thine own peril.
As I recall, the initial concept of Star Wars was a simple story of good vs evil. A boy, a girl, and a galaxy at war. An imperiled princess, and a black knight. The galaxy under the rule of a merciless Empire. Keeping it simple is what helped Star Wars win such universal appeal, and put science fiction back on the map, even though Star Wars is space fantasy.
The story matured a bit with Empire Strikes Back. A bit more dimension was given to the characters and their relationships. And a revelation was made that shook the movie going world.
It took some folks going back to the original Star Wars, and listening to certain bits of dialogue to see if this revelation suddenly came from out of nowhere. All one needed do was listen three elements:
Aunt Beru: He's just not a farmer, Owen. He has too much of his father in him.
Uncle Owen: That's what I'm afraid of.
At Ben Kenobi's hovel:
Luke: My father didn't fight in the Clone Wars, he was a navigator on a spice freighter.
Obi-Wan: That's what your uncle told you. He didn't hold with your father's ideals. Thought you should've stayed here and not gotten involved.
Also, watch Ben Kenobi's expression when Luke asks Ben how his father died. There is a brief hesitation....very subtle, but very much there. Then he concocts the story of a "pupil of his". A young Jedi named Darth Vader who turned to evil.
Once I watched those scenes again as a kid, I knew that there could be no other answer. Darth Vader was Luke's father. Uncle Owen's overbearing overprotectiveness of Luke was the first clue. Obi-Wan's brief hesitation was the second. This was confirmed in Return of the Jedi with Yoda's confession, and ghostly Obi-Wan's revision of his own story.
It was all so subtly done that the initial dialogue in Star Wars flew right over moviegoers' heads. This was no accident.
Such events are what shook the moviegoing world at its core. Simplicity, mythological facing, and subtlety.
I'd say it was very praiseworthy, because the only story/movie series I've ever heard that came anywhere close would be the Harry Potter novels/movies.... and then at that, it's a pretty distant closeness... and then at that, it was a minor tremor, not a world rocking revelation of things like Star Wars.
However, Star Trek did take a pretty good swing at it. (And please note, that I do not say any of this as disparagement towards Star Trek, because I love Trek as well.)
The producers of Star Trek realized that Star Wars was their buy-in to bring Trek back to the visual forefront of sci-fi entertainment. Every company wanted a piece of Star Wars' action.
Universal-- Battlestar Galactica
Walt Disney Co.-- The Black Hole
New World Pictures (minor movie company)-- Battle Beyond the Stars
Paramount-- Star Trek.
Star Trek The Motion Picture was a visual feast, but many felt the story was dull and plodding, the characters were flat and wooden shadows of their past TV selves. ST TMP was a financial success, but a critical flub. It's gotten a lot more love in recent years though.
What Paramount needed was something to truly stand its own ground with Star Wars.... so they had their own trilogy.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan-- Much more exciting than TMP. It had space battles, a menace from its past, and a tragic event. The event generated a lot more buzz in its original premise because of its finality. It generated a lot of negative feedback, and was changed to be a bit more ambiguous. Oh, there was also that revelation about David Marcus being Kirk's son. (A not so subtle borrowing from TESB that had nowhere near the impact of Darth Vader/Luke Skywalker.)
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock-- Continued on the "Genesis Trilogy". A crew reunited, a fierce Klingon enemy, and two more saddening events. The death of Kirk's son, whom we never really got to know, so the anguish wasn't really there. The destruction of the Enterprise however did more than tremble a few hearts and open a few tear ducts.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home-- Pretty much wrapped up the Genesis part of the trilogy with the hearing at the beginning of the movie, and the Spock story was being neatly tied off.
A lot of what sold the Genesis Trilogy was "shock and awe". It hit you over the head with the death and eventual resurrection of Spock, and the destruction of the old Enterprise, and the rise of a new ship.
Star Wars was much more subtle.
But the payoff for both is very appreciable.
Last edited:
Star Wars is more cinematic, simple, and rare. Trek is more thoughtful and there are lots more hours of it.
Many of the geeks who like Wars are drawn to the power of Vader and the cool of Solo. They want in their X-wing to save a princess and take down an empire.
The geeks in Trek are drawn to a captain and crew, to figuring out weekly mysteries, whether political, scientific, or philosophical. They want to discuss starships, continuity, and utopia.
I wish Trek were as cinematically beautiful as Wars, but Wars invites you to kill dad every few years, whereas Trek is there every week with a new exploration of the complexities of possibility. I'll take both but get more out of the latter.
Many of the geeks who like Wars are drawn to the power of Vader and the cool of Solo. They want in their X-wing to save a princess and take down an empire.
The geeks in Trek are drawn to a captain and crew, to figuring out weekly mysteries, whether political, scientific, or philosophical. They want to discuss starships, continuity, and utopia.
I wish Trek were as cinematically beautiful as Wars, but Wars invites you to kill dad every few years, whereas Trek is there every week with a new exploration of the complexities of possibility. I'll take both but get more out of the latter.
All I wanna get out of any movie or show, no matter how brainy or brawny is to be plentifully entertained, and to have had a good time for my hour or two (or more's) investment. I get that, that's all I need.
I agree with this but thought the difference between HP and LoTR and other fandoms was simply that those fandoms were based on books. While its not necessary to read the books there is a bit of a difference between fandoms based in literary works and those based in cinema or TV. Its a stereotype and unfair that the image of a kid sitting in the corner reading a book will be less of a target from the mainstream than a kid sitting in the corner playing a video game based on Star Wars.
I think it's not just that they are used but that so many are used and it seems both deliberate and natural/unintrusive/right.
It's also interesting that SW seemed to get punished, although still retaining large popularity, as it became more ambitious and move away from black-and-white morality/perspective: TESB was initially the least popular of the trilogy for some time and part of the negative reaction to RotJ and the prequels was focusing on making Vader someone who could be redeemed and then finding out how he went bad, a lot prefer him as a villain, think he should be pretty villainous from the beginning and dislike deviations from that.
