Why is Star Trek fandom different than Star Wars?

[The Wormhole]

Wasn't always that way:

Is the way it is now, though.

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?

It is interesting how the 90s shows have completely disregarded two of those. Every time in the 90s they went on with their technobabble basically flies in the face of II, while V doesn't really allow the Klingons as they were depicted in the 90s.

 

[BillJ]

Wasn't always that way:

Is the way it is now, though.

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?

It is interesting how the 90s shows have completely disregarded two of those. Every time in the 90s they went on with their technobabble basically flies in the face of II, while V doesn't really allow the Klingons as they were depicted in the 90s.

The NX-01 had grappling hooks!

 

[Shaka Zulu]

It is interesting how the 90s shows have completely disregarded two of those. Every time in the 90s they went on with their technobabble basically flies in the face of II, while V doesn't really allow the Klingons as they were depicted in the 90s.

II happend because Roddenberry should NEVER have been allowed to show-run (and rewrite anything) and because Berman, Braga, Piller, and (Naren) Shankar got so self important and obesssed with said technobable. As for point five, the Klingons were allies, so showing them as bad guys didn't work anymore. There of course, were the Romulans, the Breen, the Ferengi, the Borg, the Cardassians, and the Dominion to fill that gap.

 

[Amaraen]

I did not mean about the technobabble. There is an interesting thing though how much of our technology has evolved to mimic Star Trek. It's the little things, like communicators/cell phones, universal translator, replicators/3D printers, tablet computers, video communication, transporters, and so on. We want to have a society like that of Star Trek and are trying to emulate their technology. There is no such similarity with Star Wars.

There has been action in Star Trek, especially in the classics. But it was different. Star Wars was purely good vs evil trying to destroy the Empire. James Kirk rarely (if ever) fought to destroy or kill. He was always fighting to try to create a stalemate, talking to his opponent constantly trying to help them see reason. The point of Star Trek action was that the objective in battle is peace, not victory over your opponent. I think that Star Trek started to become less interesting when it started to become more like Star Wars.

 

[JesterFace]

I think there's only one thing in Star Wars that is "cooler" than Star Trek, you guessed it, lightsabers.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Star Trek has more cerebral themes than Star Wars, whereas Star Wars is more directly fun and accessible. So Star Wars is going to have wider appeal but Star Trek is going to have more to talk about.

And there's nothing wrong with appealing to a smaller audience. It's a miracle any Star Trek show ever got really good ratings. If anything it's a problem when shows that were originally cast at smaller audience backstab their niche audience and change the show to try to make it more accessible to a general audience.

 

[The Wormhole]

As for point five, the Klingons were allies, so showing them as bad guys didn't work anymore.

But they were bad guys again briefly on DS9, where we do see them raiding the station with only swords (The Way of the Warrior) and fighting an infantry battle with swords (Nor the Battle to the Strong).

 

[T'Girl]

I think there's only one thing in Star Wars that is "cooler" than Star Trek, you guessed it, lightsabers.

Something else the Star Wars got right was that universe felt "old." I think it was a mistake to (eventually) set TOS in the 23rd century, combined with "the Vulcan held us back for a century," most everything we see that Humanity accomplished by TOS supposedly was done in a single century, doesn't give much time for back history in the universe building.

Star Wars grabbed cooler with the flying cars.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo[/yt]

 

[Lance]

Star Wars is more intrinsically accessable, because it's worlds are more recognisably like our own (Lucas' intention was that they exist in a ''used future'' of sand, grime and spaceships that barely hold together), alongside GL's using the most basic lessons of Creating A Mythology 101 to build his 'verse, with a Chosen One, downtrodden heroes fighting a larger menace, etc etc.

Star Wars exists in the tradition of noble heroes fighting against black knights, rescuing princesses from incarceration in an impenetrable fortress, a journeyman hero learning humility and wisdom from a vaguely oriental mentor, and Joe Everyman just ''making a living'' in an unfriendly universe with only his dog along for company. As such, it touches a chord with a much wider audience than Star Trek. In some ways, Star Wars is not science fiction, but merely a more elaborate form of fantasy storytelling. It's got more in common with Grimm's Fairy Tales than it does to the 'hard science' that Star Trek espouses.

Trek by its nature is more analytical, it holds a more philosophical tone (as opposed to SW's ''dime store ethics''), and Trek exists in a much more... optimistic future, in a world where peaceful exploration exists alongside more visceral threats encountered by our crews, but which is 180 degrees seperated from anything ''we'' recognise simply by merit of Trek's heroes having survived a holocaust and come out the other side as more fully formed beings. It's not necessarily as relatable to the broader audience as Star Wars, although in some ways it actually presents a more credible universe.

The Bottom Line: They're two very dissimilar takes on science fiction/fantasy, and fandom's seemingly constant need to compare and contrast them does neither franchise any favors. My advice is to enjoy each of them equally in turn for what they are, rather than for what they are not.

 

[Tim Walker]

Consider space opera as Middle Earth. Guardians of the Galaxy tended towards this, and Star Wars especially fits this. Many of the trappings come from science fiction, such as space ships, and planets are used as settings instead of a fantasy land like OZ or Middle Earth. But the basic themes are borrowed from fantasy.

 

[martok2112]

The Bottom Line: They're two very dissimilar takes on science fiction/fantasy, and fandom's seemingly constant need to compare and contrast them does neither franchise any favors. My advice is to enjoy each of them equally in turn for what they are, rather than for what they are not.

THIS!

I get so sick of fanboyish "Star Trek is for thinkers" or "Star Wars kicks Star Trek's ass" mentalities.

I love both equally....merits, flaws, and everything in between.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Consider space opera as Middle Earth. Guardians of the Galaxy tended towards this, and Star Wars especially fits this. Many of the trappings come from science fiction, such as space ships, and planets are used as settings instead of a fantasy land like OZ or Middle Earth. But the basic themes are borrowed from fantasy.

What themes are those?

 

[Tim Walker]

Re: fantasy themes in space opera

Zombie Cheerleader, I would refer you to the Lance post just before my post.

 

[Lance]

Consider space opera as Middle Earth. Guardians of the Galaxy tended towards this, and Star Wars especially fits this. Many of the trappings come from science fiction, such as space ships, and planets are used as settings instead of a fantasy land like OZ or Middle Earth. But the basic themes are borrowed from fantasy.

True, and I was kind of veering towards this (although you have phrased it much more susinctly than I managed to).

Star Wars uses a whole bunch of familiar fantasy archetypes as a basis for it's characters and settings, and then places those into the framework of laser weapons and spaceships. The 'sci-fi' aspect of Star Wars is mostly just for show. I guess the fundamental level fantasy aspect appeals to a much broader section of the public, in much the same way that King Arthur or Robin Hood does. It's a much more 'mythological' world. Star Trek is more specific in it's aims, grounding itself in more 'real science', and as such (maybe) appeals to a much narrower demographic.

I'd also go further to suggest that the Jedi (essentially superheroes with magical superhero powers), and the likes of Han Solo (a Joe Average schlub who is just making a living in an unfriendly universe), appeal to a much wider range of people than the startch-shirts-career-military types which Star Trek, basically, offers us as our identification figures. We aspire to *be* like Kirk, or to have the same moral fortitude as Picard. But we all know we have more in common with people like Han and Leia.

 

[BillJ]

...appeal to a much wider range of people than the startch-shirts-career-military types which Star Trek, basically, offers us as our identification figures.

You also have the fact that people, by and large, no longer trust the government and the military.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: fantasy themes in space opera

Zombie Cheerleader, I would refer you to the Lance post just before my post.

Does that actually address the "themes" of the franchises?

First, Science Fiction is a form of Fantasy. With aliens instead of dwarfs, elves and trolls. Scientists instead of wizards. Science instead of magic. Vulcan is no more "science" than Tatooine or Mordor. Chris Pike rescuing Vina from the Talosians isn't all that different from Luke rescuing Leia from Darth Vader. Or Prince Charming freeing the Princess from the Evil Queen. Heck, in the Cage, Pike saves Vina (in full princess gear) from a Kaylar (Giant) in a castle. Kirk's done a few "princess" rescues as well. He's fought his fair share of "dragons", "warlords" and "wizards" too. And even a trickster or two. He goes on a "journey" every week and has mentors in the form of Spock and McCoy. And let's be honest, Spock and Vulcans in general are variation on the "mysterious East" trope.

There there in lies the real difference between Trek and Wars. One was conceived as a weekly TV series with done in one stories every week. The characters are "reset" at the end of every episode. The other is a motion picture designed to play on a big screen with a story to match. Its the format that drives the differences.

 

[Lance]

...appeal to a much wider range of people than the startch-shirts-career-military types which Star Trek, basically, offers us as our identification figures.

You also have the fact that people, by and large, no longer trust the government and the military.

True. Star Trek was born into a time when there was perhaps a much larger degree of trust for authority figures than now. We tend to forget sometimes that the franchise has roots in a time before the true horrors of Vietnam became known, and before Nixon and Watergate left us wondering if our political leaders are truely responsible people, or whether they are all simply trying to hide their own indiscretions from us. In 1966, Starfleet presented us an optimistic future, with aspirational characters. In 2015, it's simply seen as the military in space.

Star Wars *is* by it's very nature a pessimistic universe, where the officer types are all jackbooted Nazi parallels, and the 'good guys' are just trying to overthrow a central authority which is oppressing them. Perhaps this does appeal to more people in the community than something which builds it's basic world-view around strict chains-of-command and by-the-book officers?

The extent to which the characters are relatable to different sections of audience can not be under-estimated.

 

[Nerys Myk]

...appeal to a much wider range of people than the startch-shirts-career-military types which Star Trek, basically, offers us as our identification figures.

You also have the fact that people, by and large, no longer trust the government and the military.

True. Star Trek was born into a time when there was perhaps a much larger degree of trust for authority figures than now. We tend to forget sometimes that the franchise has roots in a time before the true horrors of Vietnam became known, and before Nixon and Watergate left us wondering if our political leaders are truely responsible people, or whether they are all simply trying to hide their own indiscretions from us. In 1966, Starfleet presented us an optimistic future, with aspirational characters. In 2015, it's simply seen as the military in space.

Star Wars *is* by it's very nature a pessimistic universe, where the officer types are all jackbooted Nazi parallels, and the 'good guys' are just trying to overthrow a central authority which is oppressing them. Perhaps this does appeal to more people in the community than something which builds it's basic world-view around strict chains-of-command and by-the-book officers?

The extent to which the characters are relatable to different sections of audience can not be under-estimated.

That story is as old as time.

 

[Lance]

First, Science Fiction is a form of Fantasy. With aliens instead of dwarfs, elves and trolls. Scientists instead of wizards. Science instead of magic. Vulcan is no more ''science'' than Tatooine or Mordor. Chris Pike rescuing Vina from the Talosians isn't all that different from Luke rescuing Leia from Darth Vader. Or Prince Charming freeing the Princess from the Evil Queen. Heck, in the Cage, Pike saves Vina (in full princess gear) from a Kaylar (Giant) in a castle. Kirk's done a few ''princess'' rescues as well. He's fought his fair share of ''dragons'', ''warlords'' and ''wizards'' too. And even a trickster or two. He goes on a ''journey'' every week and has mentors in the form of Spock and McCoy. And let's be honest, Spock and Vulcans in general are variation on the ''mysterious East'' trope.

Hmm, while I do see the parallels you draw, I think my suggestion is more that Star Wars as a mythology taps into a fantasy vein that allows it to have a larger cross-demographic appeal, like knights and sorcerers and magic kingdoms. Star Trek (at least as a base) attempts to appeal to a ''What If We Did This Stuff For Real?'' market, grounding itself in theoretical science and presenting it's adventures through the eyes of a buttons-and-bootstraps organization. A version of Star Wars where the audience identification figures were Grand Moff Tarkin and the Emperor, and where the prism of the rebellion was shown to us through the eyes of the officers aboard the Star Destroyer, would be a very different Star Wars indeed.

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek (at least as a base) attempts to appeal to a ''What If We Did This Stuff For Real?'' market, grounding itself in theoretical science...

But that was abandoned long ago, from my perspective. Technobabble did little to ground the shows in theoretical science.

Star Trek became every bit as magic based as Star Wars, they just hid it behind technobabble.