Okay some has to ask it. More Influential Star Wars or Star Trek?

[Worf101]

With the end of the Star Trek franchise on T.V. and the end of the Star Wars double trilogy in theatres... folks are already asking, "which of the two is more culturally significant"? I figure this one's good for a few fist fights...

Da "Let's get ready ta rumblllllle!!!!!" Worfster

[Worf101]

While I attended the New York Premier of Star Wars back in da day (honest they were giving away tickets) I chose Star Trek instead. I know it's "apples and oranges" to compare a TV series (or group of series) to a film franchise but, you know it's gotta be done. Sure S.W. blew my mind and I saw it about 5 times that summer but S.T. has changed evolved, grown up in ways that S.W. hasn't even sniffed at. There were episodes of S.T., TNG and DS9 that reduced me to tears, S.W. has made me cry too at times... tears of rage and anger. Sorry, S.W. as much fun as it is did NOT encourage whole generations to strive for a "better world", it exists to "sell mercandise" and entertain... not enlighten...

The late Dr. Martin Luther King called Nichelle Nichols and asked her to stay on the show because of what it meant to a whole generation of Black Americans. Did anyone call Jar Jar Binks?

Da Worfster

[kexodusc]

Hmm, from strictly a Sci-Fi perspective, I don't think Star Wars has done enough to be more influential...though it has better movies. Even the worst Star Wars movie (hmm, Phantom Menace or A New Hope? - watching the original trilogy again has really softened my stance on the new ones, different thread altogether though) is better than some mediocre Star Trek films. There were what, 3 or 4 watchable Star Trek Films? Maybe...

To me, Star Trek isn't Motion Picture friendly though....Star Wars is. Star Trek was a story made for TV...ya just can't cram it into 2.25 hour slots.

I dare say that Star Wars crossed further into the mainstream too...ever wonder why Trekkies (er...Trekkers..er...whatever) are geeks and we all have to watch Star Trek in secrecy for fear of ridicule, but Star Wars is "okay"?

I think Star Wars was just a really cool feel good story with a pretty half-decent prequel/background story. Star Trek is a pretty massive universe based loosely on a concept of races and government by Gene Roddenberry that hundreds of writers have turned into a successful franchise. Way more collective thought has gone into Star Wars.

Lucas has only begun to take Star Wars "public" so to speak...with video-games, and the "ok" for TV series in the future. Too early to tell how well the Star Wars univers will play out.

Finally, safe to say Star Wars has always been more family oriented with strong appeal to younger kids - faithful to Lucas love for the old comic-books and sci-fi mini-novels of the first half of the 20th century. Star Trek was a bit more complex and more adult-oriented by comparison, IMO.

I don't think we've seen the end of either...both took long absences and came back by popular demand. I'm sure that'll happen again in some capacity.

In theaters Star Wars is better, but that's it...hands down Star Trek gets my vote.

[Woochifer]

Hmm, from strictly a Sci-Fi perspective, I don't think Star Wars has done enough to be more influential...though it has better movies. Even the worst Star Wars movie (hmm, Phantom Menace or A New Hope? - watching the original trilogy again has really softened my stance on the new ones, different thread altogether though) is better than some mediocre Star Trek films. There were what, 3 or 4 watchable Star Trek Films? Maybe...

Well, I think we're back at that adege about the even-numbered versus odd-numbered Star Trek films! Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country, First Contact, and Nemesis are the even-numbered Trek movies; and any one of them I would rate above Star Trek: The Motion Picture, The Search for Spock, The Final Frontier, Generations, or Insurrection. And Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, and First Contact are at least within sniffing distance of the original Star Wars trilogy, and definitely above the first two prequels.

Star Trek has the advantage of simple quantity and ubiquity. You've got 10 movies plus 27 full seasons of TV episodes and syndication deals that will have Trek on TV everyday pretty much forever. That's an awful lot of material that's already out there, and I think that's the advantage that Trek has in that the movies do not have to spend any time doing the backstory. Seems that the first two Star Wars prequels have been investing an inordinate amount of time setting the table for Revenge of the Sith rather than working well as standalone adventures. As acclaimed as Empire Strikes Back frequently is, it suffers from the same problem in that it asks a bunch of questions that require another movie to adequately resolve. Even if Trek misfires frequently (i.e. "Spock's Brain" from the original series, or the snorefest parade of "moral dilemmas" from TNG during the fifth season), the best episodes of Star Trek are classics and up there with anything that's been done with the Star Wars universe.

[kexodusc]

Well, I think we're back at that adege about the even-numbered versus odd-numbered Star Trek films! Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country, First Contact, and Nemesis are the even-numbered Trek movies; and any one of them I would rate above Star Trek: The Motion Picture, The Search for Spock, The Final Frontier, Generations, or Insurrection. And Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, and First Contact are at least within sniffing distance of the original Star Wars trilogy, and definitely above the first two prequels.

.

Are you kidding? Aside from Lucas' terrible romantic dialogue and the minor annoyance of that Jar Jar fellar I dont' think Wrath of Kahn, Voyage Home (time travel, after 25 years, time travel? where'd that come from?) I'd still take the prequels over any ST movie...now, there's some ST episodes I liked better.

Yeah, every 2nd ST movie seems good...I didn't mind V though, or III...but Insurrection, Generations, The Motion Picture, were horrible.

Hard to compare movies...Star Trek was made for the TV and performs best there...let's not bring up some of Star Wars' TV adventures...

[Woochifer]

Are you kidding? Aside from Lucas' terrible romantic dialogue and the minor annoyance of that Jar Jar fellar I dont' think Wrath of Kahn, Voyage Home (time travel, after 25 years, time travel? where'd that come from?) I'd still take the prequels over any ST movie...now, there's some ST episodes I liked better.

Well, this is where I beg to differ. I've gone back and watched the Star Wars prequels, and they actually get worse with every successive viewing. They stand up poorly as standalone adventures, the character development is lousy, and all of the complexity and intrigue that Lucas is trying to weave into the storyline just bogs down the narrative and simple enjoyment of the movies. Wrath of Khan is a very stripped down movie, about 1/5 the budget of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but it's a far more compelling story because it focuses on the interactions between the characters and their situations. The elements that the film weaves together -- revenge, personal sacrifice for the good of the many, cheating mortality -- work because they are universal and work well with all genres, not just science fiction.

The Voyage Home is a total hoot because it is such an irreverent and witty movie. Yeah, the time travel plot element has been done many times before, but not often to such great effect. I thought it was brilliant to put the Trek crew in present day San Francisco because it set up so many angles to poke fun at the Enterprise crew and ourselves. These guys have traveled the galaxy and met all sorts of alien races, yet 20th century humans presented them with their biggest challenge. Conversely, we think of ourselves as evolved and civilized, yet here's the Enterprise crew talking about how medieval the 20th century is. This is yet another movie where the sci-fi elements do not dominate the movie, and more the character interactions that drive the story along.

The Star Wars prequels have gotten so top heavy with the technology and unraveling this elaborate backstory/mythology, that it no longer works as good storytelling. Problem is the plot takes paragraph after paragraph to explain coherently, and you got only two hours of screen time to go through the exposition. The prequels seem way too self-reverential for their own good, and lost much of the fun and derring do that went with the original trilogy. Both Wrath of Khan and The Voyage Home are great movies because they simply tell a good story, and don't get all bogged down by a sense of self-importance.

I hope that Revenge of the Sith is as good as some critics have been saying it is, because the prequels thus far have done nothing but move along a backstory that leads up to this movie. Hopefully, this will give all of us a chance to reassess the first couple of prequels, in much the same way that we couldn't fully appreciate Empire until after everything played out to their conclusion in Jedi. Keeping my fingers crossed!

[kexodusc]

Wooch: I dunno...I was only a young kid when Star Wars was released, so maybe growing up with that stuff my whole life makes me biased, but despite the flaws of Episodes I and II (and really, mostly just Ep. I if you take out the horrible Gone With the Wind love scene dialogue in II) I found them to pretty good movies in them selves...better than a lot of other crap out there...Blade 3, Spiderman (I not II), The Grudge, etc...I think maybe the impossible taks of living up the hype of the original trilogy has made these the easy target. Maybe I approach it differently, but by a 4th instalment of any movie, things start to get boring...Voyage Home was terrible...Star Trek comedy? C'mon...ST V was much better IMO, and that's not saying much.

Lucas said all along this was just a prequel to some very good movies he made years ago because so many people asked, and he decided he'd tell the whole story. The technology crap I don't think much about. Lucas had little to do with that other than wanting the best and having the resources to do it.

I will give you the characters aren't nearly as interesting but that's because the Jedi mystique is old, and there's no Han Solo. Only Ian McDiarmid's character (spelling?) really presents anything interesting this time around...

That being said, I never expected these to be anything more than Star Wars part 4,5,6 (as in installments) and I can't think of any other movies parts 4,5, 6 that do any better. If they were so good they would have been the first trilogy...they weren't. As disappointing as these may be. 3 more Lord of the Rings movies would start to wear thing I suspect too, which is why one Tolkein story is a classic, and the 42 other books are rarely heard of except by die-hard fans.

Watching the OT again really makes me see that if these were released today, story wise they'd be okay, but nothing spectacular, and they wouldn't be anywhere near the legacy they are. I think the proof is in todays youth not falling in love with these movies to the same level they appreciate the Godfather's etc...

Or you could be right and they just suck...I've been a happy camper so far so it doesn't matter to me...any excuse to go back to Star Wars.. Sometimes ya just gotta sit back and watch a movie.

And ya gotta admit...if they were that bad, you wouldn't even watch Ep. III.

[topspeed]

You're making these too easy Worster!

From a cultural significance standpoint, Star Trek has to be the choice. Many Trek episodes dealt with real world issues such as racism, poverty, communism, interracial unions, sex, the list goes on and on.

Star Wars gave us

[shokhead]

If ST had done a big screen movie of the borg,it would have been way better then any SW flick,easy. Still,ST because it was the first modern scifi. Mid late 50's was about it for scifi until ST got it going again even bigger then ever.

[Smokey]

IMO, Star Trek is more influential since it got an early start on TV and played on TV in every homes in the world. You can go to Africa, Asia or Iceland, and everybody knows who Spock is. Same thing can not be said about Star Wars

[eisforelectronic]

I think Star Wars did more to define what I expected from a Sci-fi movie. I always found myself wishing for more fighting while watching Star Trek. Apparently, not all ST films can be "Wrath of Khan". As far as being culturally significant, I might have to say ST. Actually Star Trek is more of a culture in itself I think.

[eqm]

I guess since no one else will be the apologist, allow me to play "l'advocate de diablo" or something like that.

while I think that without "trekkies" and "trekkers", there would be no star wars dorks (watch tv for about 30 seconds...they'll be on...), nobody in this arena would be talking about "surround sound" or how great the sound in the different theater setups would be. am i wrong here? when you got that first surround setup with the HI-FI vcr, did you put in the Star-Trek movies? maybe a few of you, but my gut tells me that more than a few of you were busting out that THX vhs version of...dum da dum....Star Wars.

What movie franchise has been parodied more? Remember Hardware Wars? Spaceballs? Remember the Star Trek movie that borrowed the Cantina scene?

I will, of course grant that ST has more of a social concience in its writing...SW was meant for light-hearted entertainment. So, in the immortal words of Butthead, "If I wanted to read, I'd go to school." "Yeah, learning sucks." (but now that I mention it, B&B did parody ST).

anyway...discuss amongst yaselves.

[topspeed]

If ST had done a big screen movie of the borg,it would have been way better then any SW flick,easy. Still,ST because it was the first modern scifi. Mid late 50's was about it for scifi until ST got it going again even bigger then ever.

Here ya go! One of the best of the next gen, imo.

[eisforelectronic]

Here ya go! One of the best of the next gen, imo.

First Contact started out great...until the Borg did their time travel thing and it turned into Star Trek again.

[kexodusc]

First Contact started out great...until the Borg did their time travel thing and it turned into Star Trek again.

I agree, this was the biggest letdown of all Star Trek movies, and if wasn't for your interest in your favorite ol' TNG characters this movie would be complete crap instead of mostly crap. God...you go 400 shows with nothing about time travel, then all of a sudden we're back in time on boring old planet earth instead of fightin' evil Borgs...the Voyager mini-series were better than this...that has ALWAYS been my beef with Star Trek, making season finales and premiers that kicked the crap out of the movies.

Wrath of Khan being the exception...And Nemesis was kind of cool, except it could have been made into a trilogy and felt a bit too rushed...

[Woochifer]

Wow! This is a tough one because both franchises are such that without Star Trek and Star Wars, the entire evolution of the sci-fi genre, as well as TV and movies in general, might have taken a very different direction.

Star Wars was influential in that it basically created the summer blockbuster. Before Star Wars, the summer season was not the target period for film studios. Almost overnight, Star Wars turned the summer season into the biggest moviegoing timeframe. It sparked new interest in big budget sci-fi movies (the first Star Trek movie might not have been made if not for Star Wars demonstrating how many tickets the sci-fi genre could sell), it pushed visual effects to a new level, and it showed how movies could extend their influence into so many other avenues (i.e. books, merchandising, etc.)

Star Trek, on the other hand, was more of a cultural phenomenon in that it spawned a fan-driven movement that culminated in the many conventions, fan clubs, and ancillary gatherings that we take for granted today. Star Trek was also the first huge hit in syndication, and through those repeated showings on TV, it kept Trek in the popular culture. Because Star Trek's both a TV show and a movie franchise, it has probably had more of an overall influence simply because it's on TV every day and has explored far more themes and storylines than Star Wars has. Star Trek at the very least has covered more traditional science fiction staple themes -- i.e. time travel, tenuous dominion of man over machine, parallel universes, ethics, pace of technological versus societal change, etc. All things taken together, I would put Star Trek over Star Wars simply because Trek is something that we do take for granted, while Star Wars is more like an event or a gathering.

[Smokey]

Star Wars was influential in that it basically created the summer blockbuster. Before Star Wars, the summer season was not the target period for film studios. Almost overnight, Star Wars turned the summer season into the biggest moviegoing timeframe.

Wooch, are you sure about that?

I thought the term "summer blockbuster" was coined with the movie Jaws that came out two years earlier than Star Wars. That was the movie that started it all

[Woochifer]

Wooch, are you sure about that?

I thought the term "summer blockbuster" was coined with the movie Jaws that came out two years earlier than Star Wars. That was the movie that started it all

Yes and no. Jaws, The Godfather, and The Exorcist are often considered the precursors to the modern blockbuster because each of them successively broke the existing box office records, with Jaws being the first one released as a lead-in to the summer season. But, it wasn't until after Star Wars that you saw the big shift towards loading up the early summer movie season with big budget escapist movies.