Why is Star Trek fandom different than Star Wars?
- Thread starter Shawnster
- Start date
It could be through the eyes a rebel ship as well. The heroic Admiral Akbar and his valiant crew. The rebellion wasn't all scruffy nerf herders and wide eyed farmboys.
Pretty much this. Star Trek got boring. Sure, the spin-off's had some of the most powerful and emotional episodes in Trek, but overall, as a series, they're all pretty forgettable. As evidenced by the fact that most people have forgotten them.
People still remember Kirk fighting the lizard man or "banging the green chick". The original Trek was an action adventure show with a dash of poignancy to elevate it from mindless action. There are waaaay too many Trek fans who either forget this or are in denial about it. Usually they're the one's complaining about J.J. Trek even though it uses those same ingredients and has been a huge success.
See I wonder if we'd had a film like Trek 09 as TMP if Star Trek wouldn't have a fan following akin to Star Wars. It was around first, was hugely popular in reruns and people were disappointed when they saw TMP and it's tone was nothing like people remembered. It was as if Roddenberry and Co. said "What Star Wars is doing? Yeah, do the opposite of that".
Star Wars is a great ride. Yes, it is paper thin in terms of story and depth. It's fun, exciting and feels like a real adventure. Meanwhile Star Trek just got more preachy and "issue oriented" despite the fact that t.v. taboo's were pretty much gone and we no longer needed Star Trek to covertly talk about things like racism, drugs, etc. when regular t.v. was talking about those things openly and more boldly than Trek ever did. And rather than say "that phase of the franchise is over, let's get back to our roots", they just kept on and got preachy. Preach is boring.
I'll take Kirk fighting the lizard man any day.
Hence why I said ''as a base''.
In truth Star Trek went all a bit googly-eyed as early as 'The Cage', with it's mystical semi-telepathic alien creatures, and ''Where No Man...'' turning ESP into something that makes people into Gods because they passed through some voodoo barrier at the edge of the galaxy. But realistically, the difference between ''hard Science'' Fiction and Science Fantasy/Space Opera is about who the audience identification figures are, and how we percieve their world *through them* and their interactions with that world, not necessarily about the stories themselves. Han Solo is the most popular of Star Wars' heroes, precisely because Han Solo is the guy who is most believable and 'relatable' to us at home, gradually coming to terms with things like the Force being real. The absence of anyone quite like him in the entire prequel trilogy is a large part of why those prequels got something of a frosty reception from the audience.The lines have become blurred over time though. *Anything* with spaceships and PEEW PEEW laser weapons is now basically lumped together under a single generic ''sci-fi'' banner, when perhaps the most purest science fiction is all about internal struggles and metaphors for the human condition within a realistic setting. Star Wars and Star Trek both attempt this to various degrees, and both succeed and fail in equal measure. Something like 'The War of the Worlds' is more science fiction than either of them...
Last edited:
I may no longer trust our government, but as an ex-serviceman, I still have far more faith in my brothers and sisters in uniform than any politician (be they Repbulican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, whatever.)
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.
I do not think it is simply fanboyish [or a direct attack on fans of Wars] and, to be honest, I think the sentiment is true.
Trek is at its absolute best when it talks. Yes we all enjoy a good action episode, Borg battling fleets and Dominion/Federation armadas preparing to engage...
But look at some of Trek's highest rated episodes. 'The Measure of a Man', 'The Inner Light', 'Far Beyond The Stars' etc...they are talkies. Star Trek is able to have an entire episode about a court room drama, the next is a poignant tale of a life lived.
Trek doesn't rely on fighters, masked 'clad in black' baddies, light based swords. This is not a criticism of 'Wars', it is simply an observation. Trek is slow, it moralises, it asks awkward questions and it can be quite preachy. Whereas Wars has explosions, conflict, a clearly defined Good vs. Evil dynamic and cool gadgets [be it fighters or sabers].
Put it this way. Your average sports fan is going to be more attracted to admiring Leia and watching flashy sword battles than listening to a Picard speech on the importance of personal freedoms. Its just the way it is.
Now this does not necessarily make one more worthy than the other. I think it simply emphasises that the fact they are based in space and have 'Star' in their titles really is the only thing they have in common. They are intended for two different audiences. An example of this that springs to mind is a [now finished] British TV sitcom called Coupling. [I love it] It features 6 twenty-somethings, three men and three women. Remind you of anything? But in execution it is nothing like Friends and intended for a different audience. [See: The Simpsons & Family Guy, Wii U & PS4]
Hmmmm, Han Solo as every man....
Just occurred to me that Guardians of the Galaxy had it own every man character, the Peter Quill character.
Which, oddly enough, was enhanced by Quill's attempts to get others to call him "Star Lord". In universe this didn't sell, because he was every man.
And a similar dynamic made Rocket a character that one could relate to, even though he was a talking raccoon. Rocket wanted something basic to human psychology, he wanted to be accepted and valued by others.
Just occurred to me that Guardians of the Galaxy had it own every man character, the Peter Quill character.
Which, oddly enough, was enhanced by Quill's attempts to get others to call him "Star Lord". In universe this didn't sell, because he was every man.
And a similar dynamic made Rocket a character that one could relate to, even though he was a talking raccoon. Rocket wanted something basic to human psychology, he wanted to be accepted and valued by others.
Last edited:
I'm a huge NFL fan, just finished up watching six straight hours. I also like a good speech, the problem with the modern series (1987-2005) is the fact that the pacing of the shows were absolutely dreadful for 95% of the episodes/movies.
The producers simply forgot that Star Trek is suppose to be fun and action to some degree. Not just people standing around moralizing.
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.
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.
I do not think it is simply fanboyish [or a direct attack on fans of Wars] and, to be honest, I think the sentiment is true.
Trek is at its absolute best when it talks. Yes we all enjoy a good action episode, Borg battling fleets and Dominion/Federation armadas preparing to engage...
But look at some of Trek's highest rated episodes. 'The Measure of a Man', 'The Inner Light', 'Far Beyond The Stars' etc...they are talkies. Star Trek is able to have an entire episode about a court room drama, the next is a poignant tale of a life lived.
Trek doesn't rely on fighters, masked 'clad in black' baddies, light based swords. This is not a criticism of 'Wars', it is simply an observation. Trek is slow, it moralises, it asks awkward questions and it can be quite preachy. Whereas Wars has explosions, conflict, a clearly defined Good vs. Evil dynamic and cool gadgets [be it fighters or sabers].
Put it this way. Your average sports fan is going to be more attracted to admiring Leia and watching flashy sword battles than listening to a Picard speech on the importance of personal freedoms. Its just the way it is.
Now this does not necessarily make one more worthy than the other. I think it simply emphasises that the fact they are based in space and have 'Star' in their titles really is the only thing they have in common. They are intended for two different audiences. An example of this that springs to mind is a [now finished] British TV sitcom called Coupling. [I love it] It features 6 twenty-somethings, three men and three women. Remind you of anything? But in execution it is nothing like Friends and intended for a different audience. [See: The Simpsons & Family Guy, Wii U & PS4]
To lighten my stance a little bit, I would have to say that DS9 probably holds most of my favorite of any Trek episodes. And among those are the less action oriented ones:
TOS-City on the Edge of Forever
TNG-Inner Light, Data's Day, Family (I think that's the episode where Picard returns home and Worf sees his adopted parents on the Enterprise).
DS9- Little Green Men, Far Beyond the Stars, Badda Bing Badda Bang, The House of Quark
Not that I dislike Voyager or Enterprise...I love them both as well.... episodes just don't jump out of me 'ead so readily.
Star Trek does lend itself more to a variety of tales to tell. Star Wars is certainly more action oriented, and even with shows like Clone Wars and Rebels which could offer a bit more flexibility in storytelling, a Star Wars tv episode is just not Star Wars without at least one good battle, be it a gunfight, a light saber duel, or a space battle.
Yes, I think if there is one thing Star Trek would have over Star Wars is simply flexibility.
martok2112 comments
Agreed, Trek does have a certain flexibility. Off the top of my head, the one show even more flexible than Trek would be Dr. Who.
Agreed, Trek does have a certain flexibility. Off the top of my head, the one show even more flexible than Trek would be Dr. Who.
Re: martok2112 comments
Being TV shows with mobile "locations" is why. Both were designed that way.
The comparison with Clone Wars/Rebels is an interesting one, now that we've been able to see what Star Wars is like as a TV show.
Star Trek was born of television, and Star Wars was born of film.
Each franchise's strengths play best into those mediums in which they were gestated.
Star Wars works as television, and Star Trek works as a movie, but in each case they really 'belong' more to the medium of their birth than to those forms.
Star Trek thrives best inside a long-form TV format, where action and adventure can co-exist, but are also thrown into the mix with a moral quandry of the week. Star Trek is more talky, it works best within an enviroment whereupon the characters can stop to ask the question: 'why?', and then debate the consequences of their actions. While the movies can ask these questions too, they generally must sacrifice the ability to delve deeply into them, as the movie experience demands action. The best Star Trek TV episodes are those that embrace the philosophical; the best Star Trek movies are those that give a seat-of-the-pants experience.
Star Wars is best as a theatrical experience. It has great characters and a strong story-telling ethic, but it works best with all the spectacle of the big screen. It *can* mix in philosophical questions as well, about good and evil, and the shade between; about the concept of original sin; but these things must by their nature be told in broader strokes, and the emphasis always returns to the battle.
Each franchise has it's own peculiar strengths and weaknesses when they are called upon to enter the other's medium.
Star Trek was born of television, and Star Wars was born of film.
Each franchise's strengths play best into those mediums in which they were gestated.
Star Wars works as television, and Star Trek works as a movie, but in each case they really 'belong' more to the medium of their birth than to those forms.
Star Trek thrives best inside a long-form TV format, where action and adventure can co-exist, but are also thrown into the mix with a moral quandry of the week. Star Trek is more talky, it works best within an enviroment whereupon the characters can stop to ask the question: 'why?', and then debate the consequences of their actions. While the movies can ask these questions too, they generally must sacrifice the ability to delve deeply into them, as the movie experience demands action. The best Star Trek TV episodes are those that embrace the philosophical; the best Star Trek movies are those that give a seat-of-the-pants experience.
Star Wars is best as a theatrical experience. It has great characters and a strong story-telling ethic, but it works best with all the spectacle of the big screen. It *can* mix in philosophical questions as well, about good and evil, and the shade between; about the concept of original sin; but these things must by their nature be told in broader strokes, and the emphasis always returns to the battle.
Each franchise has it's own peculiar strengths and weaknesses when they are called upon to enter the other's medium.
One thing I'd always said about a lot of high quality sci-fi shows on television in the last couple of decades is that a lot of times, they are too big for the small screen (which is good, 'coz it means they are epic in scope, and their visuals are extraordinary). But when they make the jump to the big screen, they feel a bit disserviced. (The way I felt about the first three TNG films, and Serenity).
Star Trek was born on television, and it had to play just a little bit of "catch up" when it made its big screen debut. (Not saying that disparagingly, because I love Star Trek The Motion Picture) But at least the transition was very apparent. TMP looked and felt like a big screen movie, as did TWOK after it.
When TNG went off the air, the transition was not quite so apparent...at least to me. Not only did it visually appear as a television episode, but the story was also something that just kinda spoke "television episode" to me. The stories were not bad at all. They just seemed to lack an epicness that should've been commensurate with a big screen outing.
Star Wars coming to the small screen in the form of tv episodes....animation was probably the best answer. Animation can hide many sins. A live action show would look severely "budgeted" when compared to its big screen counterpart. But animation? Perfect choice. You can create the worlds, the ships, the human and alien characters to your whim, rather than by budget constraints over costuming, make up, and vfx.
Animation hid some sins for Star Trek as well. Although they didn't bother with putting spacesuits on Kirk and co whenever they went to a hostile alien environment, or underwater, it did allow for the show to have some relatively exotic looking aliens that they just couldn't portray on the original live action show without a lot of puppetry and wire and plaster and rubber and such.
Star Trek was born on television, and it had to play just a little bit of "catch up" when it made its big screen debut. (Not saying that disparagingly, because I love Star Trek The Motion Picture) But at least the transition was very apparent. TMP looked and felt like a big screen movie, as did TWOK after it.
When TNG went off the air, the transition was not quite so apparent...at least to me. Not only did it visually appear as a television episode, but the story was also something that just kinda spoke "television episode" to me. The stories were not bad at all. They just seemed to lack an epicness that should've been commensurate with a big screen outing.
Star Wars coming to the small screen in the form of tv episodes....animation was probably the best answer. Animation can hide many sins. A live action show would look severely "budgeted" when compared to its big screen counterpart. But animation? Perfect choice. You can create the worlds, the ships, the human and alien characters to your whim, rather than by budget constraints over costuming, make up, and vfx.
Animation hid some sins for Star Trek as well. Although they didn't bother with putting spacesuits on Kirk and co whenever they went to a hostile alien environment, or underwater, it did allow for the show to have some relatively exotic looking aliens that they just couldn't portray on the original live action show without a lot of puppetry and wire and plaster and rubber and such.
Star Wars is more of a fantasy movie that just happens to be set in the future. Star Trek is supposed to be a more realistic depiction of the future and is straight sci-fi without any fantasy elements. Both share similarities but they couldn't be further apart in my opinion. Star Wars is a movie saga. It's an event every time one of the movies comes out. Star Trek consists of not only a movie series but primarily focuses on the tv shows. It's like comparing apples and space oranges. Both are great for different reasons. I can only assume the originality of the special effects in the first Star Wars as well as the fact it's a saga is why its more of an event and a bigger draw for audiences all these years later.
As far as the merchandise goes I always preferred the Playmates Star Trek figures of the 90's. The Star Wars figures I remember were too small and not very articulate. The only one I was taken with was the pig/troll warrior thing from Return of the Jedi. That was awesome. I still have it. Both properties lend themselves well to comic and novel continuations but I've never cared to delve further into the Star Wars universe beyond the movies whereas I used to read a lot of Trek novels.
All in all both franchises are great at what they do and I'm thankful for both but Trek is where my heart is and always will be.
As far as the merchandise goes I always preferred the Playmates Star Trek figures of the 90's. The Star Wars figures I remember were too small and not very articulate. The only one I was taken with was the pig/troll warrior thing from Return of the Jedi. That was awesome. I still have it. Both properties lend themselves well to comic and novel continuations but I've never cared to delve further into the Star Wars universe beyond the movies whereas I used to read a lot of Trek novels.
All in all both franchises are great at what they do and I'm thankful for both but Trek is where my heart is and always will be.
Star Wars is in fact set in the past (Long time ago in a galaxy far, far away).
There are those who would argue that starships capable of FTL speeds not to mention humanoid alien life being so plentiful would qualify as "fantasy."
And yet, since Hasbro restated the Star Wars toy line in 1995 it has continued non-stop to today and is still going strong. Playmates began their Trek toys in 1992 or 93 and it was done by 1999. I know which one qualifies as the bigger success. And hell, Star Wars action figures are so extensive that at this point every alien from the cantina and Jabba's palace must have its own action figure. Possibly even two.
Not sure what your points are. Seems like you're being contrary for the sake of it.
Star Wars may be set a long time ago in a galaxy far far away but it sure as heck looks like the future to me. Perhaps I should refer to it as futuristic but it clearly isn't meant to be set in any sort of identifiable past or present.
There may be those who see warp drive and humanoid aliens as fantasy elements but they're science fiction conceits. When Picard starts waving around a magical wand as a weapon and Kirk manages to communicate with him from the afterlife get back to me.
Whether the Star Wars toyline has lasted longer and been more successful is irrelevant to me. My preference is the Playmates Trek toys which is what I stated above. Each to their own.
Nowhere did I slight Star Wars in my post apart from laying out the basic differences between it and Star Trek and stating my preferences. If you're looking to be offended then look elsewhere because I love both properties.
Star Wars may be set a long time ago in a galaxy far far away but it sure as heck looks like the future to me. Perhaps I should refer to it as futuristic but it clearly isn't meant to be set in any sort of identifiable past or present.
There may be those who see warp drive and humanoid aliens as fantasy elements but they're science fiction conceits. When Picard starts waving around a magical wand as a weapon and Kirk manages to communicate with him from the afterlife get back to me.
Whether the Star Wars toyline has lasted longer and been more successful is irrelevant to me. My preference is the Playmates Trek toys which is what I stated above. Each to their own.
Nowhere did I slight Star Wars in my post apart from laying out the basic differences between it and Star Trek and stating my preferences. If you're looking to be offended then look elsewhere because I love both properties.
I've skirted around the edges of the Star Wars fandom. The most fannish thing I did (apart from buying the movies) was to read a couple of the books. This is the first and primary fandom of a good friend of mine.
When I attempted to go deeper I found the same things I found in any other fandom. Fans getting excited over spoilers or a new trailer, fans fighting because something didn't match their expectations of what Star Wars should be, who was or was not a 'true' fan, who had more 'fan cred' and if something was staying 'true' to the original 'vision'. I found the exact same behavior with Doctor Who fans,(stay true to the original premise, old vs NuWho, best Doctor, best showrunner) Tolkien fans (books purists vs movie purists and debates about the color of Legolas' hair etc).
As I said I just went to the fringes of Star Wars fandom. I took a quick peek at reactions to the new Trailer and while they are happy to see it discussions devolved into having a 'black guy and a woman' as the two leads' argument because....I'm not sure exactly why. All this has happened before...
I am sure however that some who are much deeper into have seen a lot more positive than negative when it comes to fellow Star War fans. I myself have made good friends in the Tolkien fandom who are my friends even to this day. Despite the infighting it was mostly a positive experience.
I see similar debates in the Star Trek Fandom although some are not as prevalent as they used to be. Are the nuTrek films staying true to the' vision', how can anyone be a true fan who doesn't have all the episodes TOS memorized? TNG set the standard/it was boring! DS9 was NOT True Trek because it was too dark and Voyager was too light and fluffy. I see back and forth about the real science and the tech but despite all that I see the whole experience as a plus.
In other words they are all like real life soap operas with fights and debates and infighting....and included in that are many moments of good camaraderie while bonding over a common interest.
In other words...I don't see that much difference at all.
When I attempted to go deeper I found the same things I found in any other fandom. Fans getting excited over spoilers or a new trailer, fans fighting because something didn't match their expectations of what Star Wars should be, who was or was not a 'true' fan, who had more 'fan cred' and if something was staying 'true' to the original 'vision'. I found the exact same behavior with Doctor Who fans,(stay true to the original premise, old vs NuWho, best Doctor, best showrunner) Tolkien fans (books purists vs movie purists and debates about the color of Legolas' hair etc).
As I said I just went to the fringes of Star Wars fandom. I took a quick peek at reactions to the new Trailer and while they are happy to see it discussions devolved into having a 'black guy and a woman' as the two leads' argument because....I'm not sure exactly why. All this has happened before...
I am sure however that some who are much deeper into have seen a lot more positive than negative when it comes to fellow Star War fans. I myself have made good friends in the Tolkien fandom who are my friends even to this day. Despite the infighting it was mostly a positive experience.
I see similar debates in the Star Trek Fandom although some are not as prevalent as they used to be. Are the nuTrek films staying true to the' vision', how can anyone be a true fan who doesn't have all the episodes TOS memorized? TNG set the standard/it was boring! DS9 was NOT True Trek because it was too dark and Voyager was too light and fluffy. I see back and forth about the real science and the tech but despite all that I see the whole experience as a plus.
In other words they are all like real life soap operas with fights and debates and infighting....and included in that are many moments of good camaraderie while bonding over a common interest.
In other words...I don't see that much difference at all.
They have advanced technology (spaceships, laser weapons, FTL travel) which I guess could be called futuristic, but that's a matter of perspective.
Tricorders, phasers and force fields are "magic wands". Spock's "spirit" possessed McCoy body until it could be placed in a "magically" grown duplicate of his own body via a "mystical" ceremony. Telepathy and telekinesis are regularly used in Star Trek and other Science Fiction properties and are also used in fantasy.The line is blurry.
Re: martok2112 comments
And the TARDIS seemed even more mobile, because it had great versatility regarding time, as well as space.
There was an entire Voyager episode dedicated to the Klingon afterlife. Well, Klingon Hell, anyway. And no, they didn't try to offer any kind of scientific or even pseudo-scientific explanation. At least Star Wars has some sort of science to explain the Force, even if midichlorians are bogus horseshit.
