I'm talking about Star Trek as a whole, particularly the TV shows.
Why is Star Trek fandom different than Star Wars?
- Thread starter Shawnster
- Start date
I'm talking about Star Trek as a whole, particularly the TV shows.
Jackass the Movie?
You can be entertaining with and without being thought-provoking.
"Lowbrow" is an interesting term. I always took Star Wars to be designed for more of a younger audience, appealing to what Lucas liked about seeing Flash Gordon serials. I did not see that as particularly "lowbrow" as much as simplified, with themes that children can understand, and adults can appreciate.
It might be lowbrow in some ways, the themes are more timeless than is often recognized.
But with Star Wars, you can play a lot with it.
It took a made up mystical religion and turned it into 3d experience for some fans.
It has rules, conduct, fighting styles etc. People have take classes, have tournaments, conventions etc. Fans can immerse themselves more into it.
That makes the novels, or exploring its universe that much more fun. The main drawback, is that it's more fantasy based, and a lot more cheesier than Trek
With Trek, it's more cerebral, I suppose. You can imagine yourself sitting in the captain's chair, or you can mentally 'digest' a good plot or storyline.
But it's a lot more mental.
It took a made up mystical religion and turned it into 3d experience for some fans.
It has rules, conduct, fighting styles etc. People have take classes, have tournaments, conventions etc. Fans can immerse themselves more into it.
That makes the novels, or exploring its universe that much more fun. The main drawback, is that it's more fantasy based, and a lot more cheesier than Trek
With Trek, it's more cerebral, I suppose. You can imagine yourself sitting in the captain's chair, or you can mentally 'digest' a good plot or storyline.
But it's a lot more mental.
I don't know. I liked many of the aspects of Star Trek, primarily because of the Starfleet world. You could read things like Franz Joseph's Tech Manual and become immersed in much of the technical details of the world.
I go back and forth, and neither world really scratches the sci-fi world itch like it used to. But, both have their own form of minutia that I engaged with, imagining myself as a Rebel pilot or Starfleet Security Officer, Lt. Marseille.
I think the beauty of speculative fiction worlds, like these to, is that I can engage them at whatever level I am at. My daughters can have fun with it too.
I go back and forth, and neither world really scratches the sci-fi world itch like it used to. But, both have their own form of minutia that I engaged with, imagining myself as a Rebel pilot or Starfleet Security Officer, Lt. Marseille.
I think the beauty of speculative fiction worlds, like these to, is that I can engage them at whatever level I am at. My daughters can have fun with it too.
You're asking two different questions.
Star Wars appeals to more primal themes to people...simple ones, easier to understand. Black and white. Not a lot of thought process for them. It rejects most science and appeals to faith, also something which is popular to many. It's anti-technology. It's easy to like and fun..it's a fling.
Star Trek isn't hard science fiction but it often supports the scientific method. It attempts to do more, and while not intellectual it does invite us to step back a little and think about things. It takes it's time and is thoughtful. It's an acquired taste, not all-inclusive. It's the person you have a relationship with.
One heck of a forty year fling folks have been having with it.
I'm the sole Trek fan in a house full of Star Wars fans. They dissect their shit to an absolute ridiculous degree, just like we do.
Most of Star Trek is best if you don't put any serious thought into the universe they occupy.
Except if that were actually true, Wars movies wouldn't consistently break bank, while Trek movies squeak by practically unnoticed.
The casual movie going audience clearly sees a difference. The difference they see is probably just that one is fun and stupid while the other is boring and stupid, but they're definitely not confusing them.
Last edited:
Right now Star Wars is everywhere. Has been for the whole year. It's on commercials, cereal boxes, snack boxes, video games, commercial, trailer leaks. And it's not even out yet.
We know it's going to make hundreds of millions, maybe even break the billion dollar mark--just like the last 3 did.
Trek premieres has never really had this type of hype behind it. Even now I don't see that much news about the new series--learned about it on this board.
There is something different about how Star Wars is perceived.
Maybe it just has the perfect mix of fantasy, mysticism, adventure and justice --and the marketing is built in.
It just feels easier to immerse yourself into it, if you want.
Everybody who's seen Star Wars has at least once, has probably twirled a stick pretending like a light sabre.
We know it's going to make hundreds of millions, maybe even break the billion dollar mark--just like the last 3 did.
Trek premieres has never really had this type of hype behind it. Even now I don't see that much news about the new series--learned about it on this board.
There is something different about how Star Wars is perceived.
Maybe it just has the perfect mix of fantasy, mysticism, adventure and justice --and the marketing is built in.
It just feels easier to immerse yourself into it, if you want.
Everybody who's seen Star Wars has at least once, has probably twirled a stick pretending like a light sabre.
Except that JJTrek has been exciting.
Which brings up a question-what lesson will be drawn from this by The Powers That Be.Star Wars is a cash cow. Period.
Its about action and shiny colors. Its the ultimate dystopia. Everyone is either born into poverty and forced to choose between living on a back water planet picking garbage to survive or joining the imperial military to ensure 2 meals a day.
And to make it worse,, You have the politicians and the jedi overlords.
in essence its all about inequalities and seudo religion.
In Star Trek, its complete opposite. NO matter who you are, if you apply yourself you can better yourself. There is very little religion. The religion that does pop up is Vulcan, bajoran, and Klingon. And most episodes and story arcs dealing with religious matters are the most hated and tiresome of trek.
Its about action and shiny colors. Its the ultimate dystopia. Everyone is either born into poverty and forced to choose between living on a back water planet picking garbage to survive or joining the imperial military to ensure 2 meals a day.
And to make it worse,, You have the politicians and the jedi overlords.
in essence its all about inequalities and seudo religion.
In Star Trek, its complete opposite. NO matter who you are, if you apply yourself you can better yourself. There is very little religion. The religion that does pop up is Vulcan, bajoran, and Klingon. And most episodes and story arcs dealing with religious matters are the most hated and tiresome of trek.
Both camps have always seemed to be 'in bed' with each other, to one degree, or another ...
First of all, my most hated Star Trek episodes have nothing repeat nothing to do with religions or their depictions. I can think of one that is actually one of my favorites and involves religious overtones.
Secondly, Star Wars and Star Trek are not as opposite as they are painted to be. They both derive heavily from Westerns in terms of themes and concepts, though they certainly branch out in terms of execution. I do agree that you have a more dystopian Star Wars and a more utopian Star Trek, but I can see similar elements in both. Also, Star Wars is certainly painting in more broad strokes in terms of storytelling, with larger themes of "good vs. evil" while Star Trek worked to comment on contemporary issues, such as racism.
Interestingly enough, over the years, both have kind of crossed paths over each other. Star Trek has attempted to embrace some more "good vs. evil" storylines (Sisko and Dukat or the Borg) and Star Wars has attempted to become more morally gray (the fall of Anakin Skywalker in the PT).
I think there is too much variation to be able to generalize either fan group.
The mass appeal of Star Wars is, in part, due to the fact that it's a simpler story. Yes, you can analyze every small part of the story in extreme detail, but you won't find your average viewer doing so. On the other hand, Star Trek is difficult to enjoy without slowing down a bit and thinking about it. You can call it cerebral, slow, or however you want to think of it, but in the end, analyzing what exactly makes a Star Trek character a "hero" or a "villain" is a much different experience than the status of a character being a given. Not that Star Wars characters are completely unchanging, but you can ascertain down to a fraction of a second when they switch sides -- and there are only two sides unless you're a fan of the expanded universe content which, as I mentioned before, isn't something your average Star Wars fan has seen.
In the end, these differences make Star Wars more accessible than Star Trek. This accessibility led it to become a hit kids' movie. The success of the movie combined with the genius (and ridiculous) marketing behind it which further fed its popularity. It became so ingrained in the minds of the people who watched the original movie that they didn't think twice about bringing their children to see the episodes I-III, and then again for VII-IX. At this point, it's pretty much a nostalgia juggernaut. The only way they could kill the franchise would be to release Episode VIII as a completely blank movie -- three hours of a black projector screen.
Star Trek has real staying power, too, though. Despite the view by many that Roddenberry was a visionary who saw the future, the truth is that he never would have thought that the show would be popular for this long. Star Trek has survived longer in pop culture than 99.9% of television shows. This shows that the Star Trek model of survival is just as valid as the Star Wars model. It certainly does not mean that one franchise needs to become another to survive (I'm looking at you, Into Darkness). I say that we should let each continue on its own path. The world needs Star Wars as much as it needs Star Trek.
In the end, these differences make Star Wars more accessible than Star Trek. This accessibility led it to become a hit kids' movie. The success of the movie combined with the genius (and ridiculous) marketing behind it which further fed its popularity. It became so ingrained in the minds of the people who watched the original movie that they didn't think twice about bringing their children to see the episodes I-III, and then again for VII-IX. At this point, it's pretty much a nostalgia juggernaut. The only way they could kill the franchise would be to release Episode VIII as a completely blank movie -- three hours of a black projector screen.
Star Trek has real staying power, too, though. Despite the view by many that Roddenberry was a visionary who saw the future, the truth is that he never would have thought that the show would be popular for this long. Star Trek has survived longer in pop culture than 99.9% of television shows. This shows that the Star Trek model of survival is just as valid as the Star Wars model. It certainly does not mean that one franchise needs to become another to survive (I'm looking at you, Into Darkness). I say that we should let each continue on its own path. The world needs Star Wars as much as it needs Star Trek.
It isn't.
/thread
/thread
6 television series 
Gosh, Star Trek hasn't been Utopian for a very long, long time. The franchise has settled into fighting the big big bad guy in every movie. It would be fun for the studios would take a risk and challenge themselves in making a story grounded like The Voyage Home. It doesn't have to be time travel but something where there were some restraints on space battles and advancing more ideas.
You mean like criticizing US policy on drone warfare and executing criminals without trial and frowning on our entire outlook post-9/11?
