Star Wars vs Star Trek Week 3

Part III: Action and Adventure

Laser battles. Duels to the death. Ships screaming through space. Explosions. These things characterize any good science fiction piece. But the question today is, who does it better?

What has more pull? The Vulcan mind-meld or the Jedi mind-trick? Which leaves the audience more satisfied? The battle with the Rancor or the battle with the Gorn?

I have to say that this category is sort of one-sided. Star Wars is defined by lightsaber fights and space battles. It is the reason why Star Wars toys, bedsheets and underoos sell better than Spock ears. Star Wars appeals to the masses.

If there is any question about whether Star Trek is an action franchise, look no further than the 1979 film. Actually look no further than Spock’s jet-pack space walk. It probably only lasts 5 minutes, but it seems like hours. Compare the Gorn fight to any lightsaber duel. Try watching the Deep Space Nine baseball episode where the humans play the Vulcans.

Star Trek fans have to admit that Star Trek isn’t an action show. This is why it doesn’t appeal to everyone. When it comes to action and adventure Star Wars blows Star Trek into a million specks of space dust. But there is something Star Trek has that Star Wars doesn’t.

Part IV: Science

There is a reason why Star Trek doesn’t have giant space explosions and screeching space vessels. Namely the fact that in space you can’t hear anything. One of the coolest action sequences in Star Trek is the silent space battle from Star Trek First Contact where Piccard and Worf battle the Borg on the hull of the Enterprise. I think there might be music, but no sound. No voices, no screams, no laser screeching. That scene reminds us that this franchise is so geeky that it will stick to the laws of physics.

The purpose of Science Fiction is to predict the future. Star Trek does this. It introduces the audiences many inventions that will eventually exist. The replicator. The transporter. The holodeck. I have to admit that I loath holodeck episodes. What a waste of time! But the holodeck is the wave the future. How long until we all have holodecks in our homes? 

Star Trek predicts the future like Jules Verne predicted the moon landing.

 How long until we solve the problem of faster-than-light speed? How long until we make first contact with an alien species? How long until we send a real crew on a five-year mission to go where no one has gone before? Star Trek takes place in the future. Our future.

Star Wars, in contrast, takes place in a long-ago world. Star Wars offers no hope for the what is to come. It is a dangerous galaxy full of bounty hunters, wizards, smugglers, and crime lords. Everything is dirty and lived in. Men and Wookiees live in questionable relationships aboard piece-of-junk space vessels.

It is no secret that Star Wars disregards the laws of science. Every planet landed on is breathable to everyone. There is never a change in gravity. All planets have one eco-system. Spaceships have controls instead of being voice-activated.  Everything looks old and run-down. It’s not clean and polished like the world of Star Trek.

In the end it is the juxtaposition of Action and Science that drives a polarized wedge between the Trekkie and the Fanboy. There isn’t much middle ground to relate to. For middle ground watch Battlestar Galactica or Firefly or Doctor Who. Those three series rely on both Science and Action to tell compelling stories. Yet Star Wars and Star Trek will always be at odds.

Score so Far:

Round 1 -Aliens & Robots (Star Wars)

Round 2 -Human Characters (Star Trek)

Round 3 -Action (Star Wars)

Round 4 -Science (Star Trek)

Star Wars = 2

Star Trek = 2

Star Wars vs. Star Trek: Part 2 of 7

Before getting into today’s topic I want to make sure we are clear on something. When pitting these two titans against each other, I am talking about pre-1999 Star Wars and pre-2009 Star Trek. Why is this important? Because fans of the classic Star Wars Trilogy tend to hate the prequels and fans of the classic Star Trek franchise tend to dislike the new J.J. action adventure films.

See, if this were a debate between the Star Wars prequels and the new Abram’s version of Star Trek, Star Wars fans would probably tend to side with Star Trek being the better films. Abram’s is not a Trekkie. Some would argue that he didn’t even make Star Trek films. He kind of made two Star Wars films starring Kirk and Spock as action heroes.

So I admit it. Right now, in the early 21^st century Star Trek is better than Star Wars. Star Wars prequels have a 57%, 67%, and 80% score on Rotten Tomatoes. The two Star Trek films have a 95% and an 87%.  But this is a passing phase. Star Wars will hopefully return to its roots when Episode VII is released next year and someday Star Trek will probably return to its geeky, science-y, space-debate roots as well.

So with that in mind let’s get to the good stuff.

Star Wars vs. Star Trek: Part 2 of 7

The Humans

Last time I focused on Aliens and Robots and made the point that Star Wars is more creative and plentiful when it comes to these aspects of science fiction. Yet aliens and robot characters play a supporting role to the much needed human characters. In science fiction humans are the anchor that grounds the audience and are essential to any good space tale.

The first Star Wars film has some incredible human characters. There are the big three (Luke, Han, Leia) but there is also Obi-Wan Kenobi and Grand Moff Tarkin. The only problem is that in an entire galaxy of people, the human range includes young people with American accents and old people with British accents. And only one girl. A single girl in the whole damn galaxy.

Compare that to the first Star Trek series, released a full decade earlier. You still have the American leads (for the American Audience) but you also have the Scottish guy, the Japanese guy, the Russian guy, the Black girl, a second girl. Seriously, two girls on one spaceship, almost unheard of in the Star Wars galaxy!

This is a fault in Star Wars- a fault that even the prequels don’t remedy. The Star Wars galaxy is full of white men. What about Leia & Padme you ask? What about Lando and Mace Windu you ask? These are the exceptions that prove the rule. Seriously, Mace Windu was typecast. It was Samuel L. Jackson playing himself.

In regards to women, does Star Wars even pass the Bechdel Test? The three rules of the Bechdel test, for those unfamilar is that there has to be at least two women with names and lines in a film, they have to talk to each other and they have to talk about something other than men. There are technically two women in the first film (If you count Aunt Beru) but they never talk to each other. No women talking together in 'Empire'. None in 'Jedi'. I guess if you count Padme and her handmaidens, then 'Menace' and 'Clones' pass this test but once her handmaidens are gone, 'Revenge of the Sith' does not pass the test. I know there are a lot of girls in the real world that love Star Wars, so why can’t we infuse some more women into this galaxy?

The fact that women and minorities only play a small role in the Star Wars films reveals something even darker about the franchise. The characters tend to fit a certain stock character type and they don’t stray much beyond those stock characters.  There’s the Heroe's Journey (Luke), the Wise Old Man (Ben), the Damsel in Distress (Leia), the Reluctant Hero(Han).

Star Wars is based on mythology and these characters are important to the genre, but there isn’t much room for moral ambiguity. There’s just the Light Side and the Dark Side. I think people hoped- really, really hoped that Anakin’s path to the Dark Side would have been more subtle, more morally ambiguous. But in the end he was just kind of a douche-bag. He started out as a douche-bag was tricked by Palpatine and ended up a bigger douche-bag.

Now the exception to all these points can be found in the Star Wars Expanded Universe. I think the EU is filled with strong female characters and complex characters and questions of right and wrong. Jacen Solo’s fall to the dark side is amazing! It is what Anakin’s fall should have looked like. But the EU is not the films. It isn’t even considered canon anymore.

In regards to human characters the Star Trek franchise has everything that Star Wars doesn’t. They have lots of women in powerful roles. They have characters with all shades of skin color. They have humans questioning what it means to be human.  These are things that Star Wars can aspire to. 

However, today’s winner is “Star Trek”

Here is the scorecard so far:
Part 1: Aliens and Robots – Star Wars
Part 2: Human Characters – Star Trek

Star Wars vs. Star Trek: Part 1 of 7

Aliens & Robots

Star Wars vs. Star Trek is a polarizing topic and it’s an article I’ve wanted to write for a while. It becomes even more relevant now that J.J. is going to be the first director to contribute to both franchises.

Some would say that comparing Star Wars to Star Trek is pointless. It’s true, that those unfamiliar with the franchises often confuse the two and might not be able to tell the difference, but if you’re a Trekkie or a Star Wars fan you’ll know that the differences are so vast that fans will never see eye to eye. First of all they are from completely different genres. 

Star Trek is pure science fiction. It takes place in the 23^rd Century and predicts the future. There are technologies and gadgets that are interesting to science nerds. There is science; there are debates about morality. It's about and mankind’s place in the vast universe.

Star Wars is not science fiction. It is often mistaken for science fiction, but it is in fact a ‘space opera’. Space Operas take place in space but they focus on conflict and adventure. They draw influence from old westerns and swashbuckling epics and war films. There is adventure and action and romance. Star Wars is also fantasy because of the magical nature of “The Force” (anyone who is about to bring up midichlorians can go stick a lightsaber up where the twin suns don’t shine)

Yet for all their differences there are things that can be compared. Both franchises have spaceships and weapons. They have alien beings and alien worlds with strange languages and cultures. They both have conflicts and intergalactic battles.

My original goal was to compare ‘Wars’ to ‘Trek’ in a single post, but as you can already see, this topic is going to be a lengthy one, so I’m going to split it up into seven topics over seven weeks. Each week we will have one winner and at the end of this series we will decide once and for all which franchise has more goods. Let's get down to business, shall we?

Aliens & Robots are important in science fiction (and space operas). They function as the monsters, the villains, and supporting characters. Without them you’d have… well I guess you’d have Firefly.

When “Star Wars” opens we get treated to two robots right off the bat. One is very human shaped and the other is more trash-can shaped. Already the audience knows that there different types of robots in the universe and the film continues to give us more. There are mouse droids and power droids and medical droids and R2 units and R4 units. There are droids of every color shape, size, and function that one can think of and that’s just in the Jawa Sand Crawler.

That’s a lot of droids, especially compared to Star Trek. Star Trek doesn’t have many robots. They pretty much have Data and they have The Borg. The difference is not just in the number and variety, but also in the function of character. R2 and 3-PO have lots of personality, but Data has pretty much no character until you solder an emotion chip to his brain.

The Alien situation is pretty similar. Star Wars has a galaxy of life of every shape and size. The first film alone gives us Sand People and Banthas and Jawas and Dewbacks and Wookiees and and entire cantina full of some pretty creative creatures. Add in Taun Tauns, Wampas, Hutts, Twi'leks, and the other hundred species found in the original trilogy and you leave audiences fairly satisfied.

What does Star Trek have? Face ridges. Seriously, every alien is pretty much human except for a face ridge or a big ear or some body paint. What’s the real difference between the Romulans, Cardassians, Vulcans, Klingons, and Ferengi? Culturally quite a bit… physically not so much. Star Trek’s best candidates for interesting aliens include Tribbles and the Gorn… that’s kind of sad.

Now I know some Trekkies are going to start yelling me at this point and say “That’s not fair! Star Trek had a small TV budget and Star Wars had everything!”. To that I say, “False!”. Star Trek had 12 theatrical films to give us something, anything to work with and (with the exception of J.J.’s snow monster in the 2009 film) gave us nothing. Also, there are plenty of examples of 1960s era television shows that gave us some great robots and aliens.

Doctor Who was released in 1963, three years before the original Star Trek series. It gave us some of the most diverse and creative creatures out there. There are the Daleks, the Cybermen, the Sontorans, the Sillurians. Each species has their own unique backstory and function- totally science-fictiony and totally fascinating. In fact, The Borg are total rip-offs of the Cybermen ('Doctor Who' invented them a full 23 years earlier)- therefore the coolest thing Star Trek has to offer us in the way of Robots and Aliens is stolen from BBC.

Alright, today I ripped on Star Trek a lot, but Star Trek does have its virtues, so stay-tuned for more of my seven part series. 

Today’s winner is “Star Wars”!