MovieChat Forums > Star Wars (1977) Discussion > Why Star Trek has stood the test of time...

Why Star Trek has stood the test of time -- it's sci-fi, unlike Star Wars


https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2021-10-28/star-trek-original-next-generation-voyager-deep-space-nine-prodigy-discovery-paramount

"I wouldn’t deny that there’s fun to be had from George Lucas’ baby, now bouncing for Disney, but Star Wars is not science fiction," says Robert Lloyd. "It’s a fantasy set in space, where wizards do magic and heroes fight with swords and prophesied chosen ones take up their lightsabers; a special effects western cum samurai film cum collection of war movies in which, a few defections notwithstanding, good fights bad until one obliterates the other; and an expensive homage to the cheap Saturday serials of the 1930s.

Its one endlessly repeated theme is bad parenting — or, in the case of The Mandalorian, the first Star Wars live-action television series, good (surrogate) parenting. But Star Wars on the whole has no real interest in ideas, in asking 'Why?' or 'What if?' The droids are comic relief, and slaves. Joseph Campbell’s the Hero with a Thousand Faces has often been cited, by Lucas and others, to connect these characters to a deeper storytelling tradition; the problem with a thousand-faced hero, however, is that you have seen that shtick a thousand times.

Star Trek is a different animal. From the beginning it had a mission, not just to explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, and boldly go where no earthlings had gone before, but to model a future for its audience that was a little ahead of its time.

Where Star Wars was slow off the mark with diversity — the only Black actor in A New Hope, James Earl Jones, supplied the voice of a white character, and even now has only managed one same-sex kiss between minor characters — Star Trek made diversity a point from the beginning, with George Takei’s Sulu and Nichelle Nichols’ Uhura on the bridge. (Whether the 1968 kiss between Kirk and Uhura was the first interracial kiss on television is a subject of debate and semantics, but it was in any case ahead of its time.)

The third series, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, put a Black man (Avery Brooks’ Sisko) in charge; the next, Star Trek: Voyager, a woman (Kate Mulgrew’s Janeway). Throughout the various series, and in the sci-fi tradition, contemporary earthly issues — racism, Cold War politics, environmental degradation, despotism, sexism — are seen through the lens of future, extraterrestrial exploits. The presence of aliens (also ethnically diverse), on the crew or just passing through, offered writers a chance to comment with distance on the puzzlements of human behavior."

reply

First, the title implies Star Wars hasn't stood the test of time, but that's just not true. I have seen new generations of fans experience A New Hope for the first time and they are enraptured with it. It's perennial and evergreen.

Second, the second paragraph touches on what makes Star Wars great, then dismisses it with the "...you have seen that shtick a thousand times," line. The point that people make when talking about Star Wars alongside Joseph Campbell is not to say that Lucas ripped off the oldest narrative structure in history, but to point out that Star Wars taps into something mythic. If sci-fi looks ahead, myth looks beyond. Both are wonderful, or can be if done right, and Star Wars' mythological scale and qualities are what gives it its depth, meaning, and multi-generational appeal. This story is primal. It might not be as forethinking as sci-fi, but primal is worthwhile as well.

That brings me to my final point: why is sci-fi inherently better, more valuable, or more enduring than "space wizards"? The excerpt posted here implies that sci-fi gets to be better simply because it's better than fantasy. Why?

Oh, something about diversity?

reply

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away = once upon a time

CASE CLOSED

reply

Kinda, yeah. That's exactly right. Everything about Star Wars is coded as being myth/fantasy, not sci-fi. But the blend is really cool, too. It makes it so much fun when the ancient, magic sword is also laser weapon. It's neat that they're rescuing an honest-to-goodness princess, but also the "dragon" they have to fight is a space station.

reply

Star Wars were undermined but Star Trek was actually erased.

Not sure how that translates to standing the test of time ...

reply

Do you mean to say that Trek got turned into an action movie franchise? What do you mean by erased?

I mean, arguably, the repeated "special" editions on Star Wars argues more for SW being erased. The expanded universe stuff got voided by Disney, Lucas kept changing the original movies (and refusing to release the original form).

reply

... I take it you're not a big Trek fan?

reply

I do really like Star Trek, I'm not sure what your threshhold for a "fan" is. But, I do really like it a lot, so that assumption's not correct.

I think it's some sparkling sci-fi, but I'm mostly familiar with the original series, Next Gen, and their films. I've seen a little DS9 (and one day, I hope to see more...) and a couple episodes of Voyager. I've seen the new films, but not the new shows like Discovery and Lower Decks. I'm guessing that you're referring either to Abrams' action movie-ized Trek, Discovery's reputedly bad writing, or Lower Decks' goofiness...?

reply

Ok yes.

reply

I disagree, I love both franchises, and I think that "Star Wars" has stood the test of time much better than "Star Trek".

Both franchises started with low budgets, but "Star Wars" has much better production design - the whole universe looks real and believable, even in films that are nearly fifty years old, while "Trek" looks cheap and cheesy. Neither franchise offers much in the way of stellar acting, but the performances in "Star Wars" work, and much of the Trek acting is absolutely ridiculous to modern eyes. "Star Trek" was extremely variable, with some great episodes and films, and some so monumentally bad they're enjoyable, while "SW" surpassed "Trek's" heights and never came close to the depths of "Spock's Brain" or the fifth movie.

But in a more serious vein, IMHO Fantasy ages better than the ideas-driven hard sci-fi that this writer loves. Ideas are of their time, questions raised in years past get answered or are now considered trivial, technology evolves to the point where old speculation about the future looks ludicrous, etc. But Fantasy is based on universal hopes and feelings, it allows us to vicariously fulfill wishes that can't be granted in real life, and so... Kirk looks pretty ridiculous now, and we still empathize with Luke Skywalker.

reply

and its Earth based.

reply

I enjoyed the first "Star Wars" movie in 1977, but I haven't felt compelled to keep up with the subsequent entries. I was a much bigger "Star Trek" fan, from the 1960s series through "Voyager", but lately I have lost interest. In spite of the fact that back when I cared, I preferred "Star Trek", I think the idea that "Star Wars" holds up better because it is about universal, timeless human concerns rather than futuristic technology and current social commentary is valid. Being woke, even in the comparatively mild 1960s version of the concept, does not make "Star Trek" better. In fact, as wokeness becomes more and more the point of successive television incarnations of "Star Trek", it makes it worse.

reply