For whatever reason, many of those who love either Star Wars or Star Trek seem to have either disdain or condescension for fanboys of the other franchise. Throughout the years I have heard many arguments between those who think that Star Wars is the epitome of storytelling and those who think that Star Trek provides great intellectual depth and something to aspire to as the human race. I don't understand the debate at all, though, because neither series really should be considered part of the same genre.
Can you imagine for a moment people arguing about whether The View or Sportscenter is better? They're both popular shows where hosts sit behind a desk, present news, and pontificate upon it's significance, right? So that has to mean their comparable enough to debate which one is qualitatively better. Of course that's ridiculous, and I think it's equally ridiculous to argue about Star Wars versus Star Trek.
While both franchises are Science Fiction story lines that have garnered rabid fan-bases, that is where their similarities end. Their central purposes for being are entirely unrelated.
Star Wars is, and always has been, meant to be classic archetypal story that happens to be set in a futuristic setting (yet in the past and far, far away). The setting is not supposed to be what drives the story. The setting simply provides the surrounding details for a story that could just as easily, though less entertainingly, be set in a less exotic locale.
Star Trek is, and always has been, an optimistic view of what humanity could achieve, and what humanity could discover through those achievements. The setting not only drives the story, it is the story. An episode of Star Trek (or one of the movies) is presented with a hint of, "See what the crew of The Enterprise is discovering and experiencing? We could discover and experience that too if we commit to technological advancement and supplanting Capitalism!"
The primary reason I have been thinking about this is that I have always been torn when people argue about these two franchises. There have probably been times in my life when I would have favored one over the other, but never by much. I greatly enjoy both of them on the right day and in the right mood, but I have never been a fanboy of either. Both have great strengths and both have extraordinary flaws. There is very little appropriate way to compare them, however, and do either justice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I see your point. Although they do both have "Star" in the name and they do both take place over time on earth and in space.
I can't say I've even watched all the Star Wars movies. They do not appeal to me. The one I like the best (Episode I) I have been told is the "worst one ever." :)
I also have not watched all of Trek - but I have watched more of it than of the Wars and if I was flipping channels, I would stop on Trek while I would try to skip faster past Wars! :)
Golden is just the opposite. She gets bored on Trek, but can sit through Wars.
Honestly, for all of the hand-wringing about Episode 1, it was reasonably entertaining. There are valid things to enjoy about that movie. It just didn't live up to the expectations of people who grew up on the original trilogy because it was a different kind of movie than people wanted to see.
Post a Comment