Star Trek vs Star Wars

This post unwittingly explains why the Star Trek universe is vastly superior to the Star Wars universe. One of the most fondly remembered episodes actually escapes the regular Star Trek universe and becomes a mini contained drama of a man coming to grips with the limits of his abilities and his (and his planet’s) mortality.

The Star Wars universe never really… expanded, instead it started collapsing in on itself as early as the second movie. The few new characters or locales introduced never really open things up in terms of universe building or storytelling. The disastrous idea to fill the prequels with fan service and the never ending quest to blow up Death Stars just reinforce how cramped and…. incestuous the whole undertaking is.

Star Trek, despite its many and glaring flaws, was never afraid to open up a large universe with new quadrants, new species and new types of storytelling (within the framework of the shows).

Yes, it was formulaic as hell (there’s always a non-human fascinated with humanity and/or longing to be human) but they were never afraid to experiment or shake things up (by turning the Klingons into allies, then enemies again).

Yes, there are dreadful episodes in each and ever corner of the franchise, but… also interesting and novel ones. Star Wars, meanwhile, is stuck on the same damn family blowing the same damn Death Star….

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Star Trek vs Star Wars

  1. Star Trek was a TV series which means it had hours upon hours of air-time to explore the universe, while Star Wars was limited to a small number of movies, and much of the screen-time in the movies was devoted to action sequences rather than development of the characters or the greater civilization of the mythology.

    • cliff arroyo says:

      “Star Trek was a TV series”
      That’s true but I also think that there was a flaw in vision. Way back in the late 70s in the wake of the first picture I saw an interview with Lucas (want to say Rolling Stone).One thing I remember was that he had a vision of something like a nine film cycle made up of three trilogies. That cramps the scope of what can be done somewhat (since you need to reference the end in the beginning and the beginning in the end) but it still should be possible to build a more complex universe than he tried.
      Basically Lucas is a nerd who’s more interested in building toys and making cool effects than storytelling while Roddenberry (and successors are more storytellers who happened to like the sci fi environment). Which is why Star Trek (despite all its flaws) is better.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s