Star Trek > Star Wars

sunvalleylaw said:
The original Star Trek series seemed more visceral and human to me due largely to Shatner's Kirk. Much as he bugged me sometimes, he injected some swashbuckler into the program. Jean Luc seemed a eunuch by comparison to me. Somehow, it seemed too PC. I understand some of the later Next Generation stuff got better, but i had lost interest by that time. I will give those shows another try on Netflix. Was looking for something to watch with my boys anyway.

Though Star Wars did have that old time serial feel to it, it also had some grand themes. It resonated with me, especially as an 8th grader seeing the first movie for the first time. This kid from the suburbs of Tacoma related to Luke wanting to get off his desert planet and see some adventure.
Click to expand...

The choice of the Picard character was deliberate. They didn't want comparisons to Kirk.
Rather than try to outkirk Kirk, they went for the diplomat character instead of the cowboy adventurer.
The physical stuff was taken over by other characters and Picard was a more cerebral captain than Kirk was.
 
Well, Trekies did have one advantage...
seven.jpg

images
 
Grave Bomber said:
Perhaps they don't mean preachy as in religion, but rather that of the Federation, human collective nationalism in space, essential directives instilled on those who don't follow Federation regulation, etc? Not that all are human, shall we say specific race types combining to form a union that some other races do not agree with, yet having a consistent dedication to that Federation?
Click to expand...

Well, it did come out of the 60's when we were still deep in Cold War times and the UN was still more strongly believed to unite the world in the light of the west. And there is that US Navy feel to consider.

The perspective still doesn't bother me and I think Roddenberry was pretty progressive for the times. Still I get what you where you are getting that.
 
Elias Graves said:
The choice of the Picard character was deliberate. They didn't want comparisons to Kirk.
Rather than try to outkirk Kirk, they went for the diplomat character instead of the cowboy adventurer.
The physical stuff was taken over by other characters and Picard was a more cerebral captain than Kirk was.
Click to expand...

I can understand the attempt. I just did not prefer it. The whole flavor seemed PC'ified to me by comparison.
 
Depends which ones you mean. In their origins, both were brilliant, but since then they have both become blended into the ever-rising tide of sequel-prequel-remake-reboot-recycle dross.

Star Trek 133 > Star Wars 94?? Who cares. :shrug:
 
I love both franchises, but...

The original Star Trek featured some rather daring -- for the time -- elements (interracial kiss, integrated crew, etc.) that challenged the social memes of the time and pushed TV farther than it had ever gone (and, I'll note was based on scripts written by some of the leading "new age" Scifi writers of the time like Harlan Ellison) whereas Star Wars was simply a very well-done adventure akin to the Saturday movie theater serials (Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon et al) of the 30s and 40s that provided entertainment but not much thought-provoking content.

I think this quote from the first Star Wars movie (episode IV, IIRC) says it all: "You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon?…It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs."

Such ignorance would have been unthinkable in Star Trek...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top