Why in god's name do the VAST majority of the viewing public love STAR WARS far more then TREK? I mean what the HELL? is it because ''WARS'' is just simpeler to understand? (good V evil) where as TREK makes you THINK? can somebody PLEASE tell me?
Why do people love''WARS'' more then''TREK''?
- Thread starter miraclefan
- Start date
Star Wars has R2D2.
Star Trek has Data.
Star Wars has Luke.
Star Trek has Wesley.
Star Wars has Obi Wan.
Star Trek has Kai Winn.
Star Wars has Han Solo.
Star Trek has The Nagus.
Star Wars' royalty are Queen Amidala and Princess Leia.
Star Trek's royalty are the Borg Queen and Princess Fishstick.
Star Trek has Data.
Star Wars has Luke.
Star Trek has Wesley.
Star Wars has Obi Wan.
Star Trek has Kai Winn.
Star Wars has Han Solo.
Star Trek has The Nagus.
Star Wars' royalty are Queen Amidala and Princess Leia.
Star Trek's royalty are the Borg Queen and Princess Fishstick.
Princess Fishstick?
Why in god's name do the VAST majority of the viewing public love STAR WARS far more then TREK? I mean what the HELL? is it because ''WARS'' is just simpeler to understand? (good V evil) where as TREK makes you THINK? can somebody PLEASE tell me?
The fans and vaguely elitist attitudes like this one probably have something to do with it.
The biggest blockbuster movies attract a much larger audience than even the most popular TV show does.
Star Wars has strengths that do best in movies- visual, visceral, iconic, action based and doesn't require complex ideas*.
Star Trek has strengths best explored on TV - based on characters, relationships, and ideas. It's not iconic; it's metaphorical. The ideas are complex enough to require extended storytelling to really do them justice.
Since movies just get bigger audiences than TV, the franchise that belongs with movies has a bigger audience than the franchise that belongs with TV.
*Note I didn't say Star Wars was simple-minded. Star Wars actually does contain interesting notions. What would it be like if you had a priestly warrior caste who do have direct access to "God" (the Force), like priestly castes are always claiming? The Jedi can make that claim and back it up with evidence. Would that justify theocracy? How do you reconcile theocracy with democracy?
Maybe the novels delve into these ideas. The movies sure didn't, but that doesn't make it impossible.
Similarly, Star Trek doesn't need to avoid kick-ass space battles. We all love that stuff. It's just that that's not its strength.
Star Wars has R2D2.
Star Trek has the Enterprise.
Star Wars has Luke.
Star Trek has Kirk.
Star Wars has Obi Wan.
Star Trek has Spock.
Star Wars has Han Solo.
Star Trek has The Sisko.
Star Wars has strengths that do best in movies- visual, visceral, iconic, action based and doesn't require complex ideas*.
Star Trek has strengths best explored on TV - based on characters, relationships, and ideas. It's not iconic; it's metaphorical. The ideas are complex enough to require extended storytelling to really do them justice.
Since movies just get bigger audiences than TV, the franchise that belongs with movies has a bigger audience than the franchise that belongs with TV.
*Note I didn't say Star Wars was simple-minded. Star Wars actually does contain interesting notions. What would it be like if you had a priestly warrior caste who do have direct access to "God" (the Force), like priestly castes are always claiming? The Jedi can make that claim and back it up with evidence. Would that justify theocracy? How do you reconcile theocracy with democracy?
Maybe the novels delve into these ideas. The movies sure didn't, but that doesn't make it impossible.
Similarly, Star Trek doesn't need to avoid kick-ass space battles. We all love that stuff. It's just that that's not its strength.
Star Wars has R2D2.
Star Trek has the Enterprise.
Star Wars has Luke.
Star Trek has Kirk.
Star Wars has Obi Wan.
Star Trek has Spock.
Star Wars has Han Solo.
Star Trek has The Sisko.
I don't think so, I've met some very elitist ''WARS'' fans in my time. And for your info I am a STAR WARS fan, I saw all three prequal movies in the theater on the first day they each came out and I watch the clone wars series on CN( the show is better then the prequals thou) I just don't understand why it's so much more populer then TREK.Why in god's name do the VAST majority of the viewing public love STAR WARS far more then TREK? I mean what the HELL? is it because ''WARS'' is just simpeler to understand? (good V evil) where as TREK makes you THINK? can somebody PLEASE tell me?
The fans and vaguely elitist attitudes like this one probably have something to do with it.
That was a very good explaination ''Temis''.
Princess Kaitama in ENT's infamous "Precious Cargo." It was a little nickname she picked up in an online review of the ep.
I remember when the original Star Wars movie came out, I saw it as a kid and was blown away. I would say that 70s show episode featuring Star Wars captures the excitement and reaction of people who first saw the film in 1977. You have to remember before Star Wars the only realistic science fiction film based in space was 2001:A Space Odyessy, on tv we had Star Trek but even by the 70's it already started to look old and then there was a British tv show called, Space 1999 that had pretty good effects but bad stories and that was about it. There was also Planet of the Apes but those films had just a few minutes of space scenes. Star Wars lanched a whole series of expensive high budget science fiction films including Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Alien, Battlestar Galactica, Blade Runner and of course Star Trek - The Motion Picture. Many people have said that if there was no Star Wars film there never would have been Star Trek on the big screen. The original Star Wars movies I believe worked on many levels its not just good verses evil, and lets not forget George Lucas was influenced by Joseph Campbell who was an expert on world mythology. I still think the Star Trek universe offers us more stories but in reality I would say the best Trek stories still belong in seasons I and II of the original series, that is why I have zero expectations from JJ Abrams.
Last edited:
Also:
Star Wars has a huge scope, massive budget, epic ideas and killer production design.
Star Trek has a piddly little scope that pretends to be epic, a mediocre budget and (sometimes) little morality plays. And its main characters all dress like dorks.*
*(Fortunately, it looks like a lot of this will change with Trek XI.)
By the time we hit the prequels they were. But even if we're not counting those, the later Wars films still got more expensive.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Why in god's name do the VAST majority of the viewing public love STAR WARS far more then TREK? I mean what the HELL? is it because ''WARS'' is just simpeler to understand? (good V evil) where as TREK makes you THINK? can somebody PLEASE tell me?
My god, you may be on to something...
Star Wars, as others have pointed out, is a movie, which has more reach than any TV show. But more importantly, Trek is more cerebral. It's followers tend to tilt towards what society dubs 'nerds'. Star Wars is something that Joe Q Public can enjoy so the movie's broad appeal makes it trendy.
I am a big fan of both so I don't find a conflict and my love for these two franchises waxes and wanes depending on whether there's a Star Trek series or a Star Wars movie out.
However, I'd say that what makes the two different is its storytelling device. Whereas Trek is a thinking man's show, requiring character development and complex storytelling, Wars is an epic story of 'good vs evil' with generally easy to identify good and bad guys and fairly easy to understand plots. The prequels have given the series a more tragic air, but the overall theme is still a simple morality play that people of all ages can identify with and enjoy.
I'd say both shows have satisfied me in different ways. There's no reason for me to take sides. Given that most people's reaction to scifi/fantasy fans can range from indifference to hostility, I think it's great we have two popular franchise to sink our teeth into.
I am a big fan of both so I don't find a conflict and my love for these two franchises waxes and wanes depending on whether there's a Star Trek series or a Star Wars movie out.
However, I'd say that what makes the two different is its storytelling device. Whereas Trek is a thinking man's show, requiring character development and complex storytelling, Wars is an epic story of 'good vs evil' with generally easy to identify good and bad guys and fairly easy to understand plots. The prequels have given the series a more tragic air, but the overall theme is still a simple morality play that people of all ages can identify with and enjoy.
I'd say both shows have satisfied me in different ways. There's no reason for me to take sides. Given that most people's reaction to scifi/fantasy fans can range from indifference to hostility, I think it's great we have two popular franchise to sink our teeth into.
I think it's the lightsabres. They're just kewl. Ray guns are soo 1950s.
Truthfully, I don't know the answer to the question, but I wonder if it has something to do with Wars being one, big sweeping epic in which good finally triumphs over evil. It's an old-fashioned adventure story with heroes and villans and a princess who needs to be rescued. Also, I think that Trek has always suffered a negative image in the media and public consciousnesss. Generally, the wider world doesn't respond favourably to Trek and its fans, and back in 77 there was none of that to get over in order to get the public to see the film. Also, I think as a marketing excercise Lucas has done a good job of creating the film memorabilia industry and that, too, keeps generating sales and interest. Added to the fact that Wars is far, far superior to Trek in every way... Just kidding. 
Bingo!!
Similar threads
