William Shatner On Star Trek Vs. Star Wars 511
tekgoblin writes "Star Trek Vs Star Wars has always been a hot topic of debate in the nerd world, I honestly don't think there is any comparison between the two. William Shatner voices his opinion on the matter as well and he says they are completely different too. I just don't understand where people get that Star Trek and Star Wars are similar in any way. Lets see what Shatner had to say on the matter."
Re:Star Trek (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd be surprised how many non-nerds are Star Trek fans. However, you won't find them at the conventions or in Star Trek costumes. You'll find them at your corner bar or any construction site.
it's simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Outsiders don't care about the differences in the movie/show, they just see that the fans are all the same. Just like people who aren't hippies don't see any difference between the Grateful Dead and Phish, or people that aren't Christians don't care too much about the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism, or Shiites vs. Sunnis, or Republicans vs. Democrats, or furries vs. panty sniffers (oh crap did I go too far?)
Of course there's a difference (Score:2, Insightful)
Star Trek was science fiction. Star wars was science fantasy. If you don't know the difference you have to pay more attention.
not that difficult (Score:5, Insightful)
"I just don't understand where people get that Star Trek and Star Wars are similar in any way."
They are both Hollywood entertainment franchises that became very popular in the 1970s*, featuring space ships and other advanced technology, settings in space and on other planets, and titles that fit the pattern "Star ????" If you can't see how they're similar, you're trying too hard not to.
*Yes, I know when Star Trek debuted; read that sentence more carefully.
Re:kids these days (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, I can see your point on Star Trek and Star Wars, but Hitchcock? Anyone who watches Rear Window or Vertigo and doesn't get a sense of the brilliance of Hitchcock has got serious issues. Yes, there were throwaways like The Birds (although the scene where the hero tries to get into that upstairs bedroom still gives me the heebeejeebies), but the great Hitchcock films, well they really are spectacles. I mean, come on, Hitchcock is the guy that managed to turn Jimmy Stewart from his various shades of nice guy into one of the great psychologically damaged anti-heroes in the history of film. Wake me up when someone can do the same for, say, Tom Hanks.
Re:Difference in fans (Score:4, Insightful)
Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authurian. (Score:4, Insightful)
Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Arthurian Legend. Star Trek is about a possible future of our world/universe and the progress of secular Humanity, and the triumph of reason and science.
Star Wars is like a King Aurthur's knights of the round table, or spiritualist story about good vs. evil, just set in space. It discusses a quasi-religious struggle between right and wrong, and the struggle of rightful Camelot style kings vs. vicious tyrants. It is a fairy tale, or fable.
Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF (Score:4, Insightful)
Star Wars has only seemed moderately science fiction to me. It's more like Dungeons & Dragons with technology filling in for the magic since the technology is never given scientific explanation. The heroes of Star Wars are all archetypal fantasy characters: knights, princesses, rogues, mercenaries, and the obligatory "chosen one." The whole thing romanticizes the Royalty America and France had revolutions to overcome [ideonexus.com], with its cynical portrayal of the Republic and idealization of the princess. Star Wars' overall take on humanity is cynical, where, despite living in galaxy filled with technology resembling magic, people are just as unenlightened and motivated by baser desires as they are today.
Good science fiction asks questions that pertain to the human condition and every single episode of Star Trek sets out to tackle the hard philosophical questions. Star Trek takes a positive perspective of humanity's future, with upstanding characters who seek intelligent solutions to social and technological dilemmas presented to them. The humans in Star Trek are the role-models for other species. Earth is the center of the Federation of Planets, the center of a working democratic United Nations on a galactic scale, complete with a Prime Directive to prevent a repeat of Earth's colonialist mistakes. Star Trek gets accused of being "Philosopher Kings in Space" or of presenting an idealistic vision of Communism, but these can also be seen as criticisms of the character's intellectualism and their personal virtue of serving the greater good, as academia is called elitist and humanism accused of socialism in today's society. The fact that we can even have such a debate about the sociopolitical dimensions of Star Trek make it a million-bazillion-times more nerdy than Star Wars' blaster and saber show.
Star Wars is fantasy, Star Trek is SF, and I can rant on and on and on [ideonexus.com] about the differences between the two and why SF is vastly superior in every dimension, with the exception of fantasy making better escapist fare for when you want to turn off your brain for a few hours.
Re:Of course there's a difference (Score:4, Insightful)
Star Trek was science fiction. Star wars was science fantasy. If you don't know the difference you have to pay more attention.
Actually with all the wish fulfillment tech in Star Trek and things that simply just don't make sense, it's just as much science fantasy.... it just doesn't own up to it.
Re:Star Trek (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the Star Trek universe just solved hunger, most major diseases, poverty, and practically every form of discrimination. They've got it so hard!
When your biggest worry is about finding a fulfilling career (or the occasional Borg attack), I'd say you have it a fair bit easier than the majority of the world today.