|
 To casual moviegoers, there is not much difference between
“Star Trek,” the sci-fi franchise that launched on television in
1966, and "Star Wars,” which debuted on movie screens in 1977.
Yet to hard-core fans the differences are as significant as
those between tribbles and droids.
“Star Trek” fans think “Trek” is better because it portrays a
complex, science-based technological future where diverse
species unite for the betterment of all. “Star Wars,” many
believe, is a simple adventure with ray-guns and walking
carpets, the good guy wears white, the bad guy wears black, and
there’s a magic “Force.”
“Star Wars” fans think “Star Wars” and “The Empire Strikes
Back,” are "The Godfather" Part I and II of science fiction
films – a perfect original followed by an equally great sequel.
They can tell you exactly where they were when they first heard
“No, I am your father,” as a seminal life event. “Trek,” for
many, is boring techno-babble, everything gets talked to death
over tea, Earl Grey, hot, whereas a Jedi with a lightsaber and a
rascal with a ship that can make the Kessel Run in less than 12
parsecs will always save the day.
YouTube videos debating and lampooning the rivalry abound. Fan
polls from the last few years indicate a fairly even split, and
for many Hollywood stars the choice is far from unanimous. Josh
Hutcherson of “The Hunger Games” picks “Star Wars,” as does
“Captain America” star Chris Evans. Reese Witherspoon, and Ryan
Reynolds pick “Star Trek,” according to a 2012 IGN Entertainment
video.
Even if the fan base cannot agree, the fathers of the respective
franchises admired each other’s creations.
In the 2013 DVD release of documentary “Trek Nation,” George
Lucas said that “Star Trek" had "softened up the entertainment
arena so that ‘Star Wars’ could come along and stand on its
shoulders.” In the same documentary, "Trek" creator Gene
Roddenberry said, “I like ‘Star Wars.’ It was young King Arthur
growing up, slaying the evil emperor finally. There’s nothing
wrong with that kind of entertainment. Everything doesn’t have
to create a philosophy for you, for your whole life. You can
also have fun.”
[to top of second column] |
At the box office, “Wars” is to “Trek” what the Death Star was to
the planet Alderaan.
“Star Wars” has six live action and one animated film cumulatively
grossing over $4 billion worldwide. That's more than double the take
of all “Trek” movies combined, despite “Trek” having nearly twice as
many feature films.
But if you’re using amplitude and frequency modulation (the
colloquial term is television), then “Star Trek” dominates. With
five live-action, one animated TV series, and a new streaming series
coming in 2017, there will have been at least one “Trek” series in
each of the last six decades.
Is there anyone who can settle this debate? Someone who has attained
Kolinahr, with the wisdom of a Jedi Master, who can unemotionally,
yet boldly, make this decision?
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is perhaps the closest geeks have
to a rock star-type hero. Here's his verdict from an October 2015
Rolling Stone interview: “I'm ‘Star Wars’ fluent, but I'm a bigger
‘Trek’ fan. There's a promise of actual science going on in ‘Star
Trek’ but not so much in ‘Star Wars.’”
When all the fizbin cards are down, for most fans resistance is
futile. There’s usually something about the other franchise they
actually like.
And just like “The Force,” it appears this debate will be with us,
always.
(Editing by Jill Serjeant and Nick Zieminski)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
