Five shows and 11 movies will give you that.
Star Trek vs Star Wars
- Thread starter steve1961
- Start date
WorfsuxDax.
Cadet
You know what, Star Wars and Star Trek are totally different. Trek is sci-fi, Wars is not. I think this is a basic misunderstanding when it comes to Star Wars, its not sci-fi, its fantasy that just happens to be set in space. You could set the whole thing on earth if you wanted to, it would have been a bit like Crouching Tiger, our world, but not our world. The droids could have been unimportant civilians, you could have had normal swords etc.
Just look at the term: science-fiction. Its about taking scientific ideas, looking at things and situations that might arise due to our technological advancment: meeting new species, coping with new technology and the new ethics this would entail. This is was trek does, this is not what Star Wars does or even tries to do.
Star Wars is an unambigous story of good against evil, employing standard figures of fantasy. Sure, part of whats cool about Star Wars is the setting, it was so popular because it took those age old elements (the wise old man, the damsel in distress, the rogue, the young knight at the start of his journey) and transfered them to a futuristic setting. You had things like temptation and sacrifice in Star Wars, but it didnt ever engage in science-fiction. Of course it didnt probe as deep as Star Trek, thats not what is was meant to do. Its an adventure movie.
Just look at the term: science-fiction. Its about taking scientific ideas, looking at things and situations that might arise due to our technological advancment: meeting new species, coping with new technology and the new ethics this would entail. This is was trek does, this is not what Star Wars does or even tries to do.
Star Wars is an unambigous story of good against evil, employing standard figures of fantasy. Sure, part of whats cool about Star Wars is the setting, it was so popular because it took those age old elements (the wise old man, the damsel in distress, the rogue, the young knight at the start of his journey) and transfered them to a futuristic setting. You had things like temptation and sacrifice in Star Wars, but it didnt ever engage in science-fiction. Of course it didnt probe as deep as Star Trek, thats not what is was meant to do. Its an adventure movie.
Star Trek is art, Star Wars is not.
Film and TV are forms of art.
One of the major reasons people see TV or watch movies (perhaps the major reason) is that they relate to the things they see on screen. A romantic comedy is something most can relate to. A war film is something people can relate with. A soap opera on TV is something people can relate with also. Even a sitcom people can relate to on a deeper level. One big reason why the Simpsons is still popular after all these years is due to this reason. The same is true of Star Trek. It is far deeper and more insightful than Star Wars.
Film and TV are forms of art.
One of the major reasons people see TV or watch movies (perhaps the major reason) is that they relate to the things they see on screen. A romantic comedy is something most can relate to. A war film is something people can relate with. A soap opera on TV is something people can relate with also. Even a sitcom people can relate to on a deeper level. One big reason why the Simpsons is still popular after all these years is due to this reason. The same is true of Star Trek. It is far deeper and more insightful than Star Wars.
Calling Star Trek art and saying Star Wars isn't is laughable. Star Trek, when you get right down to it, was about cowboy hippies in space. It needed writers such as Harlan Ellison, D.C. Fontana, etc., to make it into something great. George Lucas is not exactly the world's greatest writer/director, but to insult him while trumping up Gene Roddenberry as this great visionary is absurd.
There is plenty of depth behind Star Wars. People focus on Lucas' poor dialogue and inadequate ability to direct actors, but it's not like we're talking about some uneducated doofus, here. Lucas studied the work of Joseph Campbell, particularly his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces, which deals with the hero's journey common throughout many of the world's mythologies. Lucas incorporated many of the same themes and ideals throughout his own movies, which were also influenced by early 20th century science fiction serials, such as Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, Japanese jidaigeki films (particularly Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress), Eastern mysticism, and Judeo-Christian myths. Calling Star Wars brainless is a disservice to George Lucas and all the other people who worked hard to bring those movies to life.
There is plenty of depth behind Star Wars. People focus on Lucas' poor dialogue and inadequate ability to direct actors, but it's not like we're talking about some uneducated doofus, here. Lucas studied the work of Joseph Campbell, particularly his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces, which deals with the hero's journey common throughout many of the world's mythologies. Lucas incorporated many of the same themes and ideals throughout his own movies, which were also influenced by early 20th century science fiction serials, such as Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, Japanese jidaigeki films (particularly Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress), Eastern mysticism, and Judeo-Christian myths. Calling Star Wars brainless is a disservice to George Lucas and all the other people who worked hard to bring those movies to life.
...which, sadly, ruins the prequels to such an extent that any "depth" is missed.
It's like a slug that dragged its slime all over a masterpiece portrait. Very sickening, to the point that the fact that the portrait's supposed to be excellent is missed.
Now, let me be clear: I loved the classic Star Wars. They're dang good films--always will be. And the first prequel--and even the second--are enjoyable for young viewers.
But to suggest somehow that Star Wars is of such quality that it rivals DS9, or that Revenge is this great awesome film which will stand up to the average Trek film is, quite frankly, laughable!
They're very enjoyable space films, with good, enjoyable storylines. Nothing more, nothing less. Except maybe a bit of mysticism, with "The Force". But even that's just an excuse to explain what is basically wizardry in a space film. In effect, as many have said, it's space fantasy.
Actually, you suggested that. I never mentioned DS9 in my post, nor did I say anything about the quality of the prequel films (it seems our opinions differ on those anyway; ROTS is my favorite of the three, followed by TPM, with AOTC in a very distant third). DS9 is by far my favorite Star Trek series, and I certainly would put it ahead of Star Wars. Well, some of it. The first two prequels, certainly.
If you want to debate, then debate. But putting words in people's mouths is not debating.
MollyRoger
Lieutenant Junior Grade
I vote...
Pirates ^^
Big ships that go FTL make me horny, so both ST & SW are cool with me
Pirates ^^
Big ships that go FTL make me horny, so both ST & SW are cool with me
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
Well said.
If someone wants to call Trek art, then you'd have to call Star Wars art too.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
More importantly, why was this thread even dredged back up? No good can come of it, esp if the Troll Horde over at SD.Net catch wind of it.
Star Wars is not designed to explore any greater issues. Granted, Lucas did draw on other themes for his films, but Star Wars in truth is just an action film in space. If we're being honest action films are largely popular due to the explosions, not their deeper aspects.
And to the other poster, yes Star Wars is art in the sense that it is a representation of Lucas' imagination. I could draw a picture of a person right now, and it's just as much art. However, art also is about the exploration of deeper issues, allegories of other topics, metaphors of current phenomena, etc. There is little of this in Star Wars in truth. It is about relating to topics of life that people experience on a daily basis. We don't see this in Star Wars, other than the good guy (Luke) beating the bad guy (Anakin/Darth Vader).
"However, art also is about the exploration of deeper issues, allegories of other topics, metaphors of current phenomena, etc."
The Star Wars Trilogy is about a young man coming of age, becoming politically aware and taking direct action against an unjust government, manipulated into fighting by an older generation, and rejecting that older generation's advice so that he can seek rapprochement with their enemy. The metaphor becomes a bit muddled--is the Empire the Nixon administration or the Soviet Union or Vietnam?--but it's there. Too close a correspondence would've strayed into allegory, and allegory is boring and unhip.
"It is about relating to topics of life that people experience on a daily basis."
So we both agree that Jackson Pollack didn't make art. I mean, all he did is provoke strong feelings in people, earn the respect of the creative community, and inspire the curious to study his work. That's not art. He should've painted pictures of every day experiences, like picking up the groceries or mowing the lawn, things I can relate to.
The Star Wars Trilogy is about a young man coming of age, becoming politically aware and taking direct action against an unjust government, manipulated into fighting by an older generation, and rejecting that older generation's advice so that he can seek rapprochement with their enemy. The metaphor becomes a bit muddled--is the Empire the Nixon administration or the Soviet Union or Vietnam?--but it's there. Too close a correspondence would've strayed into allegory, and allegory is boring and unhip.
"It is about relating to topics of life that people experience on a daily basis."
So we both agree that Jackson Pollack didn't make art. I mean, all he did is provoke strong feelings in people, earn the respect of the creative community, and inspire the curious to study his work. That's not art. He should've painted pictures of every day experiences, like picking up the groceries or mowing the lawn, things I can relate to.
What is that old saying again? It went something like this:
Star Trek fans grew up to become scientists, astronauts & doctors. Star Wars fans simply grew up to become bigger Star Wars fans.
Not word for word, but it was something like that. I always liked that one. Not that it's accurate. Entirely.
Star Trek fans grew up to become scientists, astronauts & doctors. Star Wars fans simply grew up to become bigger Star Wars fans.
Not word for word, but it was something like that. I always liked that one. Not that it's accurate. Entirely.
Didn't put words in your mouth, mate. I didn't say you said it. I simpy used your words as a bridge to lead into a broader debate.
I apologize for any misconception.
Well, personally, I'd say it like so:
Star Trek fans, in general, grow up to become scientists, astronauts & doctors. Star Wars fans, in general, grow up to become sports jocks and the like.
More accurate, but not perfect.
You got any hard data on that. I've known a few Star Wars fans who "grew up" on the franchise. Only a few played sports. Some were hard core nerds into comics and gaming. Same for Star Trek fans. I find your attempt to broadly stereotype both fanbases odd.
"Sports jocks", thing is, we don't really have those in Europe. Oh, we have just as many jerks, but it's different!
