John Cho: "Star Trek more mature than Star Wars"

[StarTrek1701]

I kind of became became a Star Trek fan because it was on late and I would catch it on re-runs. It is something I appreciated more every year because it is a very mature show. It is a very thoughtful and meditative show. Whereas when I was a kid it was much easier to love something like [Star Wars] right off the bat, with the light sabers and stuff. Star Trek is much more mature than that.

As posted today on Trekmovie.com

I am not sure if I completely agree with this. He compared lightsabers as a point for Star Wars being less mature. Star Trek has its share of immature things as well (Betazoids? Abraham Lincoln in space?). Not to diss Star Trek, but both the franchises have their share of mature elements and immature elements.

I guess I am starved for Star Trek 11 stories and press junkets. I get excited at even the little things the new characters blurt out.

 

[James Bond]

I think he's spot on.

 

[Michael]

Betazoids?

What's so immature about them?

 

[Kadratis]

I'm afraid I agree with him. Star Trek is more about diplomacy than SW is.

 

[-Brett-]

Betazoids?

What's so immature about them?

He's probably referring to their obsession with nudity.

Not sure I entirely agree, since it only comes up every now and then, but that would be my guess.

 

[Cicero]

^ Wasn't one of the major complaints about Episode I that it was all about diplomacy?

 

[Dane_Whitman]

He's right in the sense that, Trek as a concept is about exploring the human condition. I can find no such depth in Star Wars, I watch that to be entertained by cool looking action sequences and neatly designed aliens.

But this is just more Star Trek vs. Star Wars stuff that the world really doesn't need. Saying Star Trek is 'more mature' probably won't convince too many kids or teenagers to go see Trek XI...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, duh. "Star Wars" was developed as a modern version of old adventure serials and aimed at kids. It wasn't supposed to be "mature" and attempts to make it sophisticated have just muddied its waters.

 

[ancient]

Well, duh. "Star Wars" was developed as a modern version of old adventure serials and aimed at kids. It wasn't supposed to be "mature" and attempts to make it sophisticated have just muddied its waters.

Definitely. Trek was doing the whole SciFi thing and social commentary with a certain level of moral complexity at times. Star Wars is essentially Nazis in space vs Buck Rogers with magic powers.

But the fanboys take it way way seriously. (Something Trek and SW fans have in common, thus the ENT vs StarDestroyer threads) I'm sure that purple nylon elephant that played the piano in Jabba's palace has a backstory by now.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Betazoids?

What's so immature about them?

On how they were handled. You'd think there would be more Betazoids employed in Starfleet intelligence, but they were mostly employed as diplomats. I loved the Romulan episode where Troi is kidnapped and put aboard the Romulan vessel and how she handled the light jabbing questions from the commander. Betazoids should have been developed more, but unfortunately they weren't.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Betazoids?

What's so immature about them?

He's probably referring to their obsession with nudity.

Not sure I entirely agree, since it only comes up every now and then, but that would be my guess.

Not necessarily so. I think that was a bold theme to have touched upon.
I love your display pic by the way. Is it from Halo 2 or 3?

 

[Sector 7]

Betazoids?

What's so immature about them?

On how they were handled. You'd think there would be more Betazoids employed in Starfleet intelligence, but they were mostly employed as diplomats. I loved the Romulan episode where Troi is kidnapped and put aboard the Romulan vessel and how she handled the light jabbing questions from the commander. Betazoids should have been developed more, but unfortunately they weren't.

If Troi and her mother were typical examples of Betazoids, perhaps we shouldn't know too much about them. The emotional instabilities they displayed would not make them good StarFleet officers... and TROI, There's no crying in StarFleet! (at least not as often as you cried)
As for the nudity, I thought it was the one redeeming quality the Betazoids have.
______________________________________________
Now, back on topic: Each has their place in history. SW was intended, by George Lucas, to be an action serial of the early 1900's brought to the big screen. ST was originally written as morality plays in space. A huge difference, but each with its own merits.

 

[Saul]

Sure, Star Wars is an adventure. Star Trek can be too but stops at times to have a conference about it.

 

[Danoz]

I kind of became became a Star Trek fan because it was on late and I would catch it on re-runs. It is something I appreciated more every year because it is a very mature show. It is a very thoughtful and meditative show. Whereas when I was a kid it was much easier to love something like [Star Wars] right off the bat, with the light sabers and stuff. Star Trek is much more mature than that.

As posted today on Trekmovie.com

I am not sure if I completely agree with this. He compared lightsabers as a point for Star Wars being less mature. Star Trek has its share of immature things as well (Betazoids? Abraham Lincoln in space?). Not to diss Star Trek, but both the franchises have their share of mature elements and immature elements.

I guess I am starved for Star Trek 11 stories and press junkets. I get excited at even the little things the new characters blurt out.

Star Wars = high end CG, fighting, good/evil power struggle
Star Trek = Human interaction, post-conflict reconstruction, diplomacy, morally ambiguous decisions/races.

Star Trek is infinitely more academic and mature than Star Wars. That doesn't make Star Wars bad, but they aren't even on the same playing field. Certainly it's going to be easy to point out ridiculous parts of Star Trek, we did it extensively in http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=50345 <<<this thread. However, Star Wars isn't a dynasty of multiple series and, overall, you're dealing with a far more academic, philosophical and intelligent series with Star Trek.

 

[MisterPL]

Star Wars is essentially Nazis in space vs Buck Rogers with magic powers.

Both of which Star Trek covered in the 60's.

 

[ancient]

Star Wars is essentially Nazis in space vs Buck Rogers with magic powers.

Both of which Star Trek covered in the 60's.

Exactly. Trek has everything. No one said it didn't have it's fair share of fluff. But it's not all fluff. I like fluff, but I also like the more mature stuff too.

 

[steveman]

Star Wars isn't a dynasty of multiple series and, overall, you're dealing with a far more academic, philosophical and intelligent series with Star Trek.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Strangely, I'm sure some SW fans might still take issue with this, though.

Largely thanks to Spike re-running all the SW movies as of late, I've come to respect them much more than I had before. When looked at as merely entertaining movies as compared to some bloated science fiction superpower that had always competed with Trek (at least in fans' minds) the movies were enjoyable. Now more than ever, I guess I'm not really understanding this contrived "competition" between the two franchises.

At the end of the day, both fanbases probably just need to accept the others' object of affection for what it is -- just as how when I watched SW w/o comparing it to Trek I enjoyed it more. By that same token, when we (and figures like John Cho) say Trek is more mature, philosophical, and intelligent than SW, it's not because were madly biased... it's because the majority of evidence tell us that it's true. It's not a slam on SW. It's just the truth. And it's not a matter of perception, either.

Both fanbases would be a lot happier if they just accepted SW and Trek for what they are, as compared to making contrived, fanwankish arguments for the supposed superiority of one over the other. It's time to take the blinders off.

 

[WalkinMan]

While ST has its share of whoppers, I think the scientific and cultural approach taken in Star Trek is more relevant to academia and modern day discourse as well. SW is more about the magic of myth, and taps into legends and fantasy more directly than ST.

 

[Franklin]

Star Wars is essentially Nazis in space vs Buck Rogers with magic powers.

Both of which Star Trek covered in the 60's.

Exactly. Trek has everything. No one said it didn't have it's fair share of fluff. But it's not all fluff. I like fluff, but I also like the more mature stuff too.

Yeah. There's more variance in Star Trek, from "Balance of Terror" to "The Trouble with Tribbles".

I never cared for Star Wars myself. But objectively that's as maybe. To say Trek is more mature doesn't mean it's better than SW. Sometimes you want a nice wine. Sometimes you want beer. Each fills its purpose. Each is good at what it does and what it's for.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Both fanbases would be a lot happier if they just accepted SW and Trek for what they are, as compared to making contrived, fanwankish arguments for the supposed superiority of one over the other. It's time to take the blinders off.

Just adding fuel to the fire, I think the Enterprise E can kick the Death Star's ass any day of the week. But in all seriousness, I do think Star Wars gets better fanfare and excitement than Star Trek does. People were waiting for the three PT's each for three years straight. And that was the general audience, not even the hardcore sci fi or Star Wars fans. People were jumping to find out who would be cast as the young Darth Vader / Anakin Skywalker. How many of them are anxiously waiting for Star Trek? How many of them were waiting to know who will be the next Captain Kirk, Spock or Sulu? I am guessing not many.