Why is Star Trek fandom different than Star Wars?

[Shawnster]

Note. This is NOT or should not be a Star Trek vs. Star Wars discussion. I'm not interested in which one is better. That is a matter of taste. Personally, I don't know which one I like better. I would say I like both just as much. My wife, on the other hand, would disagree. She'd site my participation on this board and the computer wallpapers I use as evidence I prefer Trek.

It's this aspect I'd like to discuss, as well as fandom and the general public's embracing of Trek vs. Wars.

All my electronic wallpapers are Star Trek. Not just any old Star Trek but computer displays. I want my devices to look like devices used in Trek. In the real world people don't have wall papers with the title of their life on it. Therefore, my wallpapers don't say "Star Trek." They are all computer displays, maps, schematics. Something you would see on a computer display in the Trek universe. But I'm a nerd like that.

I spend a lot of time on this discussion board. I love the nuances that everyone brings to the table. I've learned things from you members about TOS that I never knew, and I've been watching Star Trek for 40 years. I live, eat and breathe this more than I do Star Wars despite my being engrossed in that franchise just as much.

The fandom has access to the same formats. Toys, games, books, conventions, etc... Yet it seems Star Wars toys have always been more popular. Growing up (long before the Disnification) I had tons of Star Wars toys. I had 1 Star Trek figure and that was TMP Spock. That's it.

Star Wars has always seemed more popular. The toys were much more plentiful. Now especially is the case. Star Wars is EVERYWHERE, thanks in part to Disney. I even found a package of grapes at the store with a Star Wars label. Grapes! It's mind boggling the overwhelming marketing for Star Wars going on.

Star Trek has never had such an overwhelming display of merchandise. The toys have never seemed as popular. The movies had lackluster support. In contrast, Star Wars IV was released every year in theaters for several years.

So, where is the difference? 49 years of Star Trek, 5 television series, 12 movies with the 13th coming. Star Wars has had only 6 movies with 1 more on the way and 2 (well, 4 counting Droids and Ewoks) cartoon series (plus a smattering of TV specials). The both have books, comics and games in numerous quantities. Yet it seems Star Wars is much more preferred by the general audience and Star Trek only by the devoted fan base. Even without Disney's help, Star Wars was a marketing juggernaut and now it's of galactic proportions.

Why the difference? Why does it seem that Trek is more detailed, more realistic, more of an authentic universe I could live in, yet Star Wars is more embraced by the general populace?

 

[BillJ]

Why the difference? Why does it seem that Trek is more detailed, more realistic, more of an authentic universe I could live in, yet Star Wars is more embraced by the general populace?

I really don't know? Though one thing I've noticed rewatching the films and the two CGI series, is that Star Wars is much more visually engaging than Trek. Not even counting the stories, which is basic good vs. evil, there is just so much to take in. From aliens to ships to planetscapes.

 

[T'Girl]

^"visually engaging."

Consider the Millennium Falcon's approach to the rebel base in the original movie, first we see it flying toward the gas giant, then towards the moon, then over a forest, then a image of the rebel base itself.

In Star Trek it would be a generic image of the ship in orbit, with "captain's log, we have arrived at yada-yada four."

Part of this is of course the larger budget.

 

[LadyT'Anna]

Why the difference? Why does it seem that Trek is more detailed, more realistic, more of an authentic universe I could live in, yet Star Wars is more embraced by the general populace?

I really don't know? Though one thing I've noticed rewatching the films and the two CGI series, is that Star Wars is much more visually engaging than Trek. Not even counting the stories, which is basic good vs. evil, there is just so much to take in. From aliens to ships to planetscapes.

In which fandom? Trek or Wars?

The only tangible thing I can remember about Wars was R2-D2, but that was because I liked the arrangement of buttons, vents (?), and lights. (As a child, I drew colorful versions of mainframe computers, which is odd given that I was never a math or science whiz.) I wasn't introduced to Trek until recently, but the detail and character work blew me away, and here I am, two years later. I have the dim impression that Wars' premise was simpler than Trek's in some ways, but again, I know so very little about Wars. I'll be interested to see where this discussion goes.

 

[-Brett-]

Even during "the dark times" of the prequels, Star Wars always did action sequences well. The best Star Trek ever got in that regard was mediocre.

Lightsaber battles appeal to kids and push lightsaber toys. Not many kids want to buy phaser toys so they can emulate old or out of shape men slowly shuffling around.

 

[BillJ]

In which fandom? Trek or Wars?

The only tangible thing I can remember about Wars was R2-D2, but that was because I liked the arrangement of buttons, vents (?), and lights. (As a child, I drew colorful versions of mainframe computers, which is odd given that I was never a math or science whiz.) I wasn't introduced to Trek until recently, but the detail and character work blew me away, and here I am, two years later. I have the dim impression that Wars' premise was simpler than Trek's in some ways, but again, I know so very little about Wars. I'll be interested to see where this discussion goes.

I think the more visually engaging part is one of the reasons Star Wars draws better than Trek does. Why it has a larger fandom.

Star Wars is, essentially, the story of the Skywalker family, yet it feels so much larger and more vibrant than Star Trek does. Part of it is the fact that one has its roots in cinema and the other TV. Any time Trek tries to expand, people cry that it is just trying to be Star Wars. So, Star Trek is essentially stuck in a box.

As much as I love Star Trek, it just doesn't have the defining visual moments like Vader standing in a mostly dark area turning on that red lightsaber, preparing for battle in The Empire Strikes Back.

 

[LadyT'Anna]

In which fandom? Trek or Wars?

The only tangible thing I can remember about Wars was R2-D2, but that was because I liked the arrangement of buttons, vents (?), and lights. (As a child, I drew colorful versions of mainframe computers, which is odd given that I was never a math or science whiz.) I wasn't introduced to Trek until recently, but the detail and character work blew me away, and here I am, two years later. I have the dim impression that Wars' premise was simpler than Trek's in some ways, but again, I know so very little about Wars. I'll be interested to see where this discussion goes.

I think the more visually engaging part is one of the reasons Star Wars draws better than Trek does. Why it has a larger fandom.

Star Wars is, essentially, the story of the Skywalker family, yet it feels so much larger and more vibrant than Star Trek does. Part of it is the fact that one has its roots in cinema and the other TV. Any time Trek tries to expand, people cry that it is just trying to be Star Wars. So, Star Trek is essentially stuck in a box.

As much as I love Star Trek, it just doesn't have the defining visual moments like Vader standing in a mostly dark area turning on that red lightsaber, preparing for battle in The Empire Strikes Back.

So Trek = words, Wars = pictures? Am I oversimplifying things here?

 

[BillJ]

So Trek = words, Wars = pictures? Am I oversimplifying things here?

To a degree. Trek and Wars deal with far different subject matter. One is a utopia, the other is dystopian in nature. Trek is spread out over centuries, yet Wars with its focus on the Skywalker family, does a better job of giving a fleshed out universe around its players. Star Wars also does a better job of getting me to react to the visuals on the screen than Trek does (even big screen Trek).

Star Wars does "good vs. evil" well, which will always sell.

 

[martok2112]

And one of my Martokisms clearly justifies Darth Vader's propensity for bumping off certain officers under his command:

"Incompetence will triumph if evil men stand by and do nothing."

Clearly. The Dark Lord has taken heed to this.

 

[LadyT'Anna]

One is a utopia, the other is dystopian in nature.

Wait a minute here, BillJ--which is which? TOS is utopian, pretty much, but DS9 is far closer to dystopian in my view. So Trek could go either way, and I don't know about Wars, not having seen it.

Thoughts? . . .

martok2112 wrote:

And one of my Martokisms clearly justifies Darth Vader's propensity for bumping off certain officers under his command:

"Incompetence will triumph if evil men stand by and do nothing."

Clearly. The Dark Lord has taken heed to this.

But even when Spock messes up in Trek*, Kirk has better sense than to do what Darth Vader apparently does!

*See: "Balance of Terror," when Spock inadvertently makes too much noise repairing something and wakes up the Romulans . . . big oops!

 

[BillJ]

One is a utopia, the other is dystopian in nature.

Wait a minute here, BillJ--which is which? TOS is utopian, pretty much, but DS9 is far closer to dystopian in my view. So Trek could go either way, and I don't know about Wars, not having seen it.

Thoughts? . . .

Deep Space Nine was pretty tepid, from my view, to be honest. It kinda nipped around the edges of dystopia but could never really commit.

 

[CRM-114]

I think it boils down to Star Wars having broader appeal than Star Trek, and that's because its' themes are so broad and universal. Lightness and darkness, good and evil, the longing for bigger things than the normal things of life, spirituality, and other themes are pervasive throughout Star Wars, and those are things that people everywhere can understand.

So if there is a difference between Star Wars' and Star Trek's fandoms, it could be that SW has a little something for everybody and is more easily accessible, whereas Star Trek has tended to have a rather exclusive fanbase and places a heavy emphasis on being knowledgeable about the lore. Therefore, their respective fanbases will reflect those attitudes.

 

[Salinga]

I guess the difference is that Star Trek reflects critically on the human condition while Star Wars just accepts it.

 

[martok2112]

One is a utopia, the other is dystopian in nature.

Wait a minute here, BillJ--which is which? TOS is utopian, pretty much, but DS9 is far closer to dystopian in my view. So Trek could go either way, and I don't know about Wars, not having seen it.

Thoughts? . . .

martok2112 wrote:

And one of my Martokisms clearly justifies Darth Vader's propensity for bumping off certain officers under his command:

"Incompetence will triumph if evil men stand by and do nothing."

Clearly. The Dark Lord has taken heed to this.

But even when Spock messes up in Trek*, Kirk has better sense than to do what Darth Vader apparently does!

*See: "Balance of Terror," when Spock inadvertently makes too much noise repairing something and wakes up the Romulans . . . big oops!

Ahh....but there is "Mirror, Mirror" M'lady....where bearded Spock agonizes Mr. Kyle for supposed incompetence on the transporter. (And doesn't Chekov do time in the agonizer booth as well?)

My saying refers merely to the justification for evil bosses to be rather harsh on their minions. Not so much for the good guys.

 

[Amaraen]

I think a big thing is that Star Wars is a different type of fiction than Star Trek, with a different audience in mind.

Star Wars has more toys because it is more aimed towards children. It is an action story about good guys battling bad guys. Star Trek is far more adult oriented with stories about moral choices and consequences. Children want to play their fantasies about fighting the villains and defeating them, not learning how to make peace and accept each others' differences.

Star Wars is also not about science. An X-Wing fighter is really not much different than a jet fighter, except that it flies in outer space. There is no warp field theory or any of that sort of stuff from Star Trek. There is no exploration or discovery, there is just combat.

I am not trying to put Star Wars down, I am just trying to explain my thoughts on why one is more socially accepted and has more toys.

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek is far more adult oriented with stories about moral choices and consequences.

"Adult oriented" became Zzzzzzzzzzzz...

Seriously, Star Trek was more fun and had more of a cultural presence when Kirk was battling Greek gods, lizard men, pizza burgers and bugle shaped planet destroyers. What came later, was self-important non-sense that began driving away the fans that made Trek a cultural phenomenon to begin with.

Abrams was absolutely correct when he said Star Trek needed more Star Wars in it.

Star Wars is also not about science.

Neither is Star Trek. Star Trek's biggest mess up was trying to explain how non-sensical technology works. It is called "techobabble" (named by the writers) for a reason.

 

[The Wormhole]

Star Trek has a stigma of being intellectual and for "thinking men" while Star Wars is more definitively an action series. It also helps that Star Wars looks more accessible being six movies as opposed to Star Trek's comparatively daunting 700+ episodes and a dozen movies.

 

[T'Girl]

I guess the difference is that Star Trek reflects critically on the human condition while Star Wars just accepts it.

Nice.

But even when Spock messes up in Trek ....

Paradise Syndrome, should have left the search teams on the planet right after Kirk went missing and took the ship to deflect the asteroid.

 

[Warped9]

Speaking in general terms Star Wars is more simplistic with paper thin substance. It's just basic action and nice visuals and simplified good vs. evil storytelling. This makes it very accessible and appealing to a broad audience on the most basic levels.

I say in general terms because Trek has at times gotten dumb. But overall it is perceived as aiming for something higher than SW. The best moments of SW are those of action and visuals while the best moments of Trek are in terms of drama.

I've never been able to get into SW even though I like some of the tech and visuals. But I see not even a remote sense of credibility in SW and I see it as a glorified comic book on the big screen. That can still work as I really enjoyed Guardians Of The Galaxy which I think is a lot like SW. But I liked the characters of GOTG much more than those of SW. GOTG just engaged me more.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek is far more adult oriented with stories about moral choices and consequences.

"Adult oriented" became Zzzzzzzzzzzz...

Seriously, Star Trek was more fun and had more of a cultural presence when Kirk was battling Greek gods, lizard men, pizza burgers and bugle shaped planet destroyers. What came later, was self-important non-sense that began driving away the fans that made Trek a cultural phenomenon to begin with.

Abrams was absolutely correct when he said Star Trek needed more Star Wars in it.

Star Wars is also not about science.

Neither is Star Trek. Star Trek's biggest mess up was trying to explain how non-sensical technology works. It is called "techobabble" (named by the writers) for a reason.

Star Trek has a stigma of being intellectual and for "thinking men" while Star Wars is more definitively an action series. It also helps that Star Wars looks more accessible being six movies as opposed to Star Trek's comparatively daunting 700+ episodes and a dozen movies.

Wasn't always that way:

IF YOU'RE
A TV PROFESSIONAL, YOU ALREADY KNOW THE FOLLOWING SEVEN RULES:
I. Build your episode on an action-adventure frame-
work. We must reach out, hold and entertain
a mass audience of some 20.,000,000 people or we
simply don't stay on the air.

II. Tell your story about people, not about science
and gadgetry. Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain
the mechanics of his .38 before he uses it; Kildare
never did a monologue about the theory of anes-
thetics; Matt Dillon never identifies and dis-
cusses the breed of his horse before he rides
off on it.

III. Keep in mind that science fiction is not a separate
field of literature with rules of its own, but,
indeed, needs the same ingredients as any story
-- including a jeopardy of some type to someone
we learn to care about, climactic build, sound
motivitation, you know the list.
IV. Then, with that firm foundation established, inter-
weave in it any statement to be made about man,
society and so on. Yes, we want you to have some-
thing to say, but say it entertainingly as you do
on any other show. We don't need essays, how-
ever brilliant.
V. Remember always that STAR TREK is never fantasy;
whatever happens, no matter how unusual or bizarre,
must have some basis in either fact or theory and
stay true to that premise (don't give the enemy
Starflight capability and then have them engage
our vessel with grappling hooks and drawn swords.)

VI. Don't try to tell a story about whole civilizations .
We've never yet been able to get a usable story
from a writer who began... "I see the strange
civilization which...".

VII. Stop worrying about not being a scientist. How
many cowboys, police officers and doctors wrote
westerns, detective and hospital shows?