A House Divided: Trek vs. Star Wars

[Data>Spock]

Hey, everyone. As you can see I just joined the board! I am happy to have found an online community like this and am also happy to admit that I found it by accident during a Google search for Star Trek facts to help me compose an argument against my brother.

I just got back from a weekend with my family down in Southern Missouri and my bro was showing me a FPS game he picked up recently. I don't remember the name, but it's a Star Wars game and this led to a discussion about the merits of both franchises. I, of course, am a Trek fan. He cannot be disuaded away from his alliance with the darkside (so to speak).

One of my primary soapbox issues is that Trek has been working real-life social issues into their plots for decades. I'm not versed enough to cite episode numbers etc, but there have been plenty of valuable lessons about dealing with others who are different, showing compassion, racism, making difficult decisions and of course political "getting along" in general.

Star Wars has religious symbolism, and a pervasive moral lesson (good vs evil), but the bread and butter has been elaborate battles, fight choreography and merchandising. It's entertaining, don't get me wrong. But it's on a different (lesser) level.

Anyway, sorry for the long post. That's my rant. I guess if I have any question it would be whether or not there are others on this board that find themselves in similar situations with SW fans?

 

[number6]

I like both ST and SW for all kinds of reasons. I generally find hardcore sci-fi fans to be immature and pedantic when it comes to discussing the finer points of SW and ST.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the discourse with a lot of my friends, but when it degrades into personal attacks against the producers and writers as if these armchair critics are actually qualified to make them, then I roll my eyes and walk away... or make popcorn.

Comparing Star Wars to Star Trek is like comparing kiwi and raspberries.

 

[Data>Spock]

With Star Wars I see a series of movies based upon books that grew in grandeur far beyond their intended purpose and don't deserve all the credit for "genius" that is bestowed upon them (see Jar Jar Binks). If the mark of genius is revenue generation then porn is genius.

Star Trek is responsible handling of societal issues set against an intriguing futuristic backdrop that opens the mind to a realm of new technologies and possibility.

 

[idreamedmusic]

^ I don't quite get your point about SW being based on books?

That said, I like both. Each for different reasons. SW is more universal and mythological in nature and in the end just a fun romp. The three prequels spoiled the original trilogy for me to a degree, since they were just SFX porn without a soul. But the original three have some of my favorite characters and put sci fi on the landscape when it comes to movies.

Star Trek in turn is something that speaks to me on different levels, mainly because it's tackled social issues and tried (as well as succeeded) to be smart sci fi. It's no less of a fun romp, but a fun romp with a brain if you want.

In the end, both blew me away as a kid and will always have a place in my heart. I never got that big bitchfest between the two fandoms, really.

 

[ktanner3]

Anyway, sorry for the long post. That's my rant. I guess if I have any question it would be whether or not there are others on this board that find themselves in similar situations with SW fans?

I like both. Star Trek has the most rewatchability with me because of the sheer number of episodes available and it's mostly television. Star Wars is nice to pick up every now and then and watch like most other movies. I consider Star Wars to be more fantasy than science fiction.However, they do seem to have a higher concentration of "fan boy" types that I don't really like discussing anything with depth to. Hence why I use the BBS here. I couldn't imagine trying to discuss political views with the same "jedis are kewl" crowd.

 

[THE_FETT]

One of my primary soapbox issues is that Trek has been working real-life social issues into their plots for decades. I'm not versed enough to cite episode numbers etc, but there have been plenty of valuable lessons about dealing with others who are different, showing compassion, racism, making difficult decisions and of course political "getting along" in general.

Star Wars has religious symbolism, and a pervasive moral lesson (good vs evil), but the bread and butter has been elaborate battles, fight choreography and merchandising. It's entertaining, don't get me wrong. But it's on a different (lesser) level.

I disagree with your main assessment. The difference between Star Wars and Star Trek is only the difference between a disease and its symptoms. In other words, Trek does deal with issues such as racism and ideological tolerance, which are symptoms of a proverbial disease. Star Wars, through archetypes, deals instead with the actual disease which is fear and hatred. So, what is racism if not an offshoot which grows from fear and hate? So, by concentrating on a family, or an individual and the inner problem of fear, Star Wars is an archetypical commentary on the human condition as it relates to the inner conflict. Star Trek then deals with the growing result of this inner conflict and its manifestation in a society (though even Star Wars touches on this; you'll note the humanocentricism of the Empire as a form of racism, though societal problems are more subtle in Star Wars since the inner struggle of the individual is the focus).

But, in the end, I believe that any form of art is in the hands of the audience. The shallowness of any form of art is only bounded by the ability of the individual perceiver to draw inspiration from what he is given. In other words, the depth of any form of art is relative only to the depth of the mind of the perceiver.

Anyway, with that said, I've never had a problem with Star Trek and Star Wars, I love them both. Always have, always will.

 

[Gepard]

^What he said.

 

[Sector 7]

I have always loved ST & SW... I don't get the us v. them mentality, either.
Both created history, both are very popular, both make their own commentaries on the 'human' condition.
Because SW has more shoot 'em up & ST has more talking... many have made decisions about which is better. I just watched A New Hope yesterday and now that I'm older, the teachings about the force have more meaning than when I saw it for the first time.
They both have their place and I love them both.

 

[Data>Spock]

One of my primary soapbox issues is that Trek has been working real-life social issues into their plots for decades. I'm not versed enough to cite episode numbers etc, but there have been plenty of valuable lessons about dealing with others who are different, showing compassion, racism, making difficult decisions and of course political "getting along" in general.

Star Wars has religious symbolism, and a pervasive moral lesson (good vs evil), but the bread and butter has been elaborate battles, fight choreography and merchandising. It's entertaining, don't get me wrong. But it's on a different (lesser) level.

I disagree with your main assessment. The difference between Star Wars and Star Trek is only the difference between a disease and its symptoms. In other words, Trek does deal with issues such as racism and ideological tolerance, which are symptoms of a proverbial disease. Star Wars, through archetypes, deals instead with the actual disease which is fear and hatred. So, what is racism if not an offshoot which grows from fear and hate? So, by concentrating on a family, or an individual and the inner problem of fear, Star Wars is an archetypical commentary on the human condition as it relates to the inner conflict. Star Trek then deals with the growing result of this inner conflict and its manifestation in a society (though even Star Wars touches on this; you'll note the humanocentricism of the Empire as a form of racism, though societal problems are more subtle in Star Wars since the inner struggle of the individual is the focus).

But, in the end, I believe that any form of art is in the hands of the audience. The shallowness of any form of art is only bounded by the ability of the individual perceiver to draw inspiration from what he is given. In other words, the depth of any form of art is relative only to the depth of the mind of the perceiver.

Anyway, with that said, I've never had a problem with Star Trek and Star Wars, I love them both. Always have, always will.

I gotta tell ya, in the history of Internet postings that is probably the most eloquent and well composed response I've ever read. If you don't make a living converting people's opinions you need to consider it.

 

[John Vasiliou]

Perhaps we could combine both into one movie...maybe not.

 

[Shieldsdown]

It has long been the case that some fans of one genre can only extol their favourite by denigrating other semi-similar genres. I have always had great time for both, though I am primarily a Trekkie, and a TOS one at that.

Regards

 

[Sector 7]

It has long been the case that some fans of one genre can only extol their favourite by denigrating other semi-similar genres. I have always had great time for both, though I am primarily a Trekkie, and a TOS one at that.

Regards

This also is part of the human condition. People often put down or even hate someone who is different. ST addressed this issue many times.

 

[Natural]

I like em both, though it's harder to defend SW after the horrible prequels. Ignoring those for a moment, I think the entertainment value of the original trilogy is a 10/10, but it's a different kind of entertainment than ST. At its best ST is usually a little slower paced and smaller scale, focusing on themes of morality, ethics, etc. In contrast, there's a lot more going on in the 2.5 hours of a SW movie, and while themes of love and friendship can certainly be found, it's more about flat out entertainment than something which would stop and make you think. I don't classify either as better. They're both great at what they're trying to do.

 

[number6]

It has long been the case that some fans of one genre can only extol their favourite by denigrating other semi-similar genres. I have always had great time for both, though I am primarily a Trekkie, and a TOS one at that.

Regards

Star Trek fans do that amongst themselves over which series they prefer.

I know some SW fans who stongly denigrate those who liked the prequels.

Sci-fi fans are a persnickity lot.

 

[Thrall]

Here's one thing I've noticed about Star Trek and Star Wars:

In Star Trek, when they encounter aliens, it's almost like the characters and the audience are supposed to go "Hey look! It's...ALIENS!! Ohhhhhh. Ahhhhhh." And 9 times out of ten the "Aliens" are humans with clay bumps on their heads, in spandex suits, with cultures similar to past and current Earth ones. And the one time they're not, they're floating fart gas. Half the time it looks like the only people The Federation is interested in doing business with are people who look similar to them and share similar values.

In Star Wars the aliens actually look like aliens. And they come in hundreds of forms and cultures, many not even resembling anything human. For example the Trandoshians are all bounty hunters. The Devronians are matriarchal. And the Sulstarians are run by a corperation. People seem to be far more accepting of differences in Star Wars then Star Trek. There are so many races and cultures in galactic society you more or less have to keep an open mind about everything. People are judged by who they are, not what they are for the most part. For example, Chewbacca was just one of The Guys. Sure they made the occasional "hairball" joke but that was for comedic effect. But he really wasn't seen as anything different then anybody else. In fact, love of diversity is something the good guys always have over the bad guys.

It just seems to me that Star Wars seem to embody many ideals that Star Trek preaches about, but in many ways just doesn't live up to. "Infinite variety in infinite combinations" seem to be something Star Wars lives by.

 

[Saul]

The only thing I find patheic is those fans who bitch about people complaining and act like outsiders of the fan group as if they were on some higher moral ground for insulting anyone with half an opinion on anything.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I almost keeled over when I saw the thread title...I thought for sure it was going to be a "who would win a war" type "vs" thread...

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Welcome aboard! Even if the ">" in your name should be pointing the other way.

Star Trek exists in "our" universe, so that the metaphors it uses are applicable to the real world.

Star Wars exists in an alternate universe in which a priestly caste has special access to "the mind of God" and therefore have a justification to lord it over the common peasantry. I would never defend such self-selected priestly castes in our universe, but I can see how if they objectively did have the justification for power that they claim, they would have every right to legitimately consider themselves a master race.

The important thing to remember is that Star Wars doesn't follow the rules of our universe and so has no metaphorical applicability to the real world. It's just a big what-if experiment. Unfortunately, George Lucas doesn't seem to have figured this out, so he tries to shoehorn political messages in his stories, with predictably off-target results.

I don't see one form as superior to the other. I like metaphor type sci fi and I like pure what-if sci fi. But Star Wars would be better if it more fully embraced its identity as a what-if exercise and not tried to make silly arguments, like a government being run by the Jedi having something to do with liberal democracy. If you accept the basic premise of the Jedi, then liberal democracy is no longer the best form of government. Instead, it makes perfect sense for the government to be a benign Jedi dictatorship - the Jedi know the mind of God, and they are committed to the good side of God. Some common schlubs couldn't have more wisdom in governance than they do. Lucas should just go for it, and if people think he's advocating theocracy in our world, that's their problem.

Of course maybe the books have done this. I'm just going off the movies.

 

[Thrall]

Star Wars exists in an alternate universe in which a priestly caste has special access to "the mind of God" and therefore have a justification to lord it over the common peasantry. I would never defend such self-selected priestly castes in our universe, but I can see how if they objectively did have the justification for power that they claim, they would have every right to legitimately consider themselves a master race.

This applies more to the Yuushaan Vong and The Sith then The Jedi. The Jedi would never have such a mind set. They serve The Republic and democracy, in case you missed Episode 3. They purposely keep their numbers no more then 10,000 and outlaw romance and marriage so that they would never one day become anything resembling a ruling class. They do what The Senate tells them to do, not the other way around.

The important thing to remember is that Star Wars doesn't follow the rules of our universe and so has no metaphorical applicability to the real world. It's just a big what-if experiment. Unfortunately, George Lucas doesn't seem to have figured this out, so he tries to shoehorn political messages in his stories, with predictably off-target results.

No more then Gene Roddenberry's preachy social issues, if one must play Devil's advocate.

A poster in The General Sci Fi/Fantasy borad said it best: Star Trek goes after the symptoms of social injustice. Racism. War. Greed. Poverty.

Star Wars goes after the root cause: Hate. Lust. Anger. Fear. Hopelessness.

I don't see one form as superior to the other. I like metaphor type sci fi and I like pure what-if sci fi. But Star Wars would be better if it more fully embraced its identity as a what-if exercise and not tried to make silly arguments, like a government being run by the Jedi having something to do with liberal democracy. If you accept the basic premise of the Jedi, then liberal democracy is no longer the best form of government. Instead, it makes perfect sense for the government to be a benign Jedi dictatorship - the Jedi know the mind of God, and they are committed to the good side of God. Some common schlubs couldn't have more wisdom in governance than they do. Lucas should just go for it, and if people think he's advocating theocracy in our world, that's their problem.

Of course maybe the books have done this. I'm just going off the movies.

But the Government is not run by The Jedi. Not even close. They do what The Senate tells them to do. You are totally arguing out of ignorance here and letting your dislike of religious folks cloud basic logic. They are peace keepers. Cops if you will. When The Grand Army of The Republic was formed they were totally against it, even when they were ordered to be made it's leaders. They were against The Clone Wars but only fought it because The Senate ordered them to.

And "The Force" is not the same thing as "God". They have spiritual reverence for it the same way Vulcans do for Logic, as it is the source of their power and of all life in the galaxy. But they don't impose their beliefs on anyone nor do they claim that they can do anything they want because "The Force wills it!". One is a deity. The other is an energy shield. Two completely different things.

 

[Star Treks]

Love the original SW trilogy - loved it as a kid, but I don't watch it much now. Absolutely hated the three prequels (thank you, George Lucas, for proving once and for all that Star Trek is indeed better than Star Wars).

On a serious note: The original SW trilogy is amazing as entertainment, but all in all I don't feel nearly the connection to SW that I do to Trek. And it's not just because of the "societal issues" thing, either - I just find the Trek universe a more compelling, complex, interesting thing.

One thing I hate: fans of the series asserting that theirs is better because "a Death Star could totally blow up a Federation starbase" or some such utter bullshit as that. As if the relative powers of various forces and people in the shows determines the qualities of those shows. If that were the case, touched by an angel would kick ass because god is a character. duuur.

Oh, and yeah, I do think a typical Trek fan tends to be more politically aware, thoughtful, and mature than a typical Wars fan, though both franchises have plenty of pathetic people following hem.

So, uh, yeah. Trek is way better but as pure entertainment probably nothing can match the original SW trilogy.