Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part IV
Finally! Finally I have come to the last Star Wars vs Star Trek piece. I'm sure even all five of my readers have become bored with my ramblings on the subject but hopefully this article will have a bit more spice to it. This time I'll actually be talking about Star Wars vs Star Trek. As a fan of either franchise it is almost impossible to avoid some sort of discussion or debate about which one is better. I think we can all guess which franchise I think is the best! If you guessed Star Trek then congratulations. You have at least the intelligence of a five year old.
Most of my Star Wars versus Star Trek arguments were done in high school...and when I was student teaching at a high school. Odd? This makes sense because while I was in high school is when the Star Wars prequels came out and consequently everyone thought that the movies were...*deep breath* so awesomely cool and like so good because the special effects were awesome and Darth Maul had like a double-ended light saber and the droids looked like so cool...etc. That was a run-on sentence on purpose, by the way. What was happening with the Star Trek franchise at the time? Voyager, and later Enterprise, as well as the various TNG movies were on TV or in theaters. So, whereas the Star Wars franchise was being reinvigorated, the Star Trek franchise, while still producing entertainment, was beginning its slow death. For example, 1998's
Star Trek: Insurrection grossed around 113 million dollars worldwide while 1999's
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace grossed over 924 million. It should be noted that the "heart" of the Star Trek franchise is in the various television series and Star Wars' is in the movies. Considering that it makes it more understandable Star Wars movies would gross more than Star Trek movies but it is common knowledge that the Star Trek franchise for years was slowly "dying". Sure, Trekkies from all around the world still loved the franchise and the characters more than anyone else, but if the movies or shows aren't good then people won't spend their money willingly. I remember even as a junior high and high school kid the Star Trek movies not being so good. I didn't think much of the Star Wars prequels either.
More recently I again became involved with defending Star Trek because I was student teaching at a high school. It didn't take long for me to have the students know I am a Trekkie and for them to start making accusations against Star Trek or explain to me how Star Wars is better (in their infinite high school wisdom
). But enough of the back story. It is time to dive into one of the most heated rivalries of all time: Star Wars versus Star Trek!
As I stated in Part I of this series of articles about much of the same thing,
Originally Posted by
Helios 54
For years Star Wars fans and Trekkies have argued which franchise is better, what starship is cooler, which villain is better, etc. Personally, I’ve had many arguments that fall under the subject “Star Wars vs Star Trek.” Such arguments are inevitable if Star Wars fans and Trekkies are allowed to be in close quarters with each other for an extended amount of time. ... I’m a fan of Star Wars as well but Star Trek is what I have a special place in my heart for. The majority of my Star Wars vs Star Trek arguments occurred during high school, when my friends considered me liking Star Trek as nerdy and not cool, and when I was student teaching in a high school where the young students knew almost nothing about Star Trek, what they thought to be everything about Star Wars, and thought Star Trek to be nerdy as well. I’ve come to a general conclusion that most people who argue against Star Trek are the ill-informed about the franchise. They have seen the Star Wars movies multiple times but haven’t seen any significant amount of Star Trek.
I stand by these statements. After all, most Star Wars fans just have six films to base their arguments on while Trekkies have, now, eleven movies and five television series (hundreds of episodes) to base their arguments on. These are the only sources that should be used in argument because they're considered canon (although even with using them the debate is still difficult). The nerdy rivalry of Star Wars versus Star Trek is known by both Star Wars fans and Trekkies/Trekkers alike. I mean, look at
this thread! It currently has
1,126 pages of responses! That's unbelievable! Hell, the debate even has a
Wikipedia page! Most general sci-fi fans that have enough fervor will be interested by the debate in some ways and both Star Wars fans and Trekkies will have such a devotion to their franchise that any sort of argument made will incite a rebuttal (and most likely reveal the true extent of their nerdiness!). It's easy enough to figure out someone is a fan of a franchise but it's another to see them make arguments based on their extensive knowledge of said subject. If someone challenges you to a Star Wars versus Star Trek debate then you should make sure your friends aren't around (unless they're as nerdy as you) because you might not want to embarrass yourself with your nerd knowledge!
Before I begin the debate, though, I wish to make one thing very clear: The Star Wars and Star Trek franchises and their canonical technologies are based on
SCIENCE FICTION and as such the validity of any and all statements I make hereafter are purely hypothetical. I'm quite aware that the legendary debate that I'm about to dive into is more about dick-waving for our favorite franchise rather than any sort of fact. I also wish to make it known I will be omitting many arguments so that I can keep this article relatively short and so I do not bog myself down with minute details and base my arguments too much on the science fiction of the franchises instead of using common sense. For example, an old a somewhat legendary member of TWC who has unfortunately not been around for years,
Darth Wong, maintains a website,
stardestroyer.net, where he posted a semi-short essay titled
Star Wars vs Star Trek in Five Minutes where he makes some good points...but in my opinion doesn't actually answer the true questions. Certainly assuming someone saying, "Star Wars versus Star Trek," actually means, "The Galactic Empire versus the Federation," is where the arguments should be based is a bit ridiculous since the United Federation of Planets only controls perhaps a quarter of the Milky Way in the Star Trek franchise while the Empire in Star Wars is a power that truly spans the entire galaxy...far far away (whatever galaxy it is).
ATTENTION: This article (better identified as an essay considering its length) will be split into three parts so as to save any reader's sanity. Anyway, I've delayed too much. Time to get into it!
_____________________________
I should state first that I will be arguing for Star Trek in this, mostly, since I am a Trekkie but I will submit to some obvious advantages Star Wars does have. Also, before I make more specific arguments there are some points I wish to make to more clearly define the inherent differences between the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises that should be taken into account before considering everything else.
1) As stated previously, both franchises are science fiction and therefore any and all relevant canonical information from them should be considered as fiction. We all know what is in the franchises is not real, however, we should further understand that the information about the franchises' technologies are also
made up. Whether or not the technology is based on real science, pseudo-science, or purely science fiction is almost irrelevant because it was imagined for an imaginary universe.
2) The Star Wars universe is purely imaginary while having many similarities to our own while the Star Trek universe is imaginary but based on our own with real locations, technologies, and culture. Because of this we must understand that comparing the two universes may be inherently incompatible and/or incomparable. Units of speed, power, etc could be completely different from each other between the two franchises. This is one reason why I wish to base my arguments more on common sense rather than by the numbers.
3) The Star Wars franchise has always had a focus on the military power in its universe, land armies, and the incredible power of the Empire. Star Trek has always focused on single starships and their crews with minimal attention given towards actual wars and battles. This is another inherent difference between the franchises. In Star Wars we constantly see the huge and seemingly limitless armies of the Empire, their gigantic fleets, etc (as well as the clone and droid armies from the prequels). This fits with the story to tell of the scale of the conflicts (as well as the universe and budgets of the movies) to show how powerful the Empire is. In Star Trek we hardly ever see fleets, let alone armies, as each episode (and movies too) usually centers around the
Enterprise, its crew, and perhaps some aliens in a dilemma with a ship (maybe). If the episode showed more than two ships then that's when things got really serious!
Also, if people or starships had to use force then it meant things didn't turn out for the better and so this rarely happened (as in an all-out battle). In Star Wars battle and shootouts happened constantly. The point is that in Star Wars you see the huge fleets and armies. In Star Trek you do not so already comparing the two franchises is difficult since you never have a true understanding of the militaries in the Star Trek universe.
4) Again, as stated previously, any and all statements I make are my opinions based entirely on science fiction and my common sense and as such everything I say is equally as hypothetically correct and incorrect. I'll make arguments but they can be just as easily thrown out the window by someone else who has "better" knowledge of information (based on science fiction).
5. Since there is so much information that the franchises have for me to research I will miss something. Seriously, I'm about as big of a Trekkie as you'll meet (unless you know someone who goes to conventions [I haven't done that yet!]), but I don't have the time or want to make the effort to research every single episode and movie so that my arguments are perfect. No argument will be perfect since a perfect comparison between the franchises can't be done but I will try my best. If I leave something out then let me know. Just don't get mad when I make a mistake.
And so it begins...
Ah... Now we get to the good part where I make my case. I believe, in many ways, that Star Trek as a universe is better than the Star Wars universe and I am prepared to point out why. Actually, I guess I won't necessarily be saying Star Trek is definitely "better" than Star Wars, but I will definitely have a pro-Star Trek stance. Keep that in mind.
My arguments will be split into different categories, each explaining why I think Star Trek has(/may have) the upper hand, as well as trying to compare the technicalities and specifics of the franchises so that there is a better understanding of my argument(s), all the while concentrating on using common sense as my reasoning.
The Franchises
The Star Wars and Star Trek franchises, while similar in being both science fiction universes, have inherent differences that I wish to address. I've already stated that both franchises are science fiction. That is obvious. But what must be understood is what the franchises are based on, as in if they have any basis on the real world or not.
With Star Trek the franchise is based partially on our real universe. There is Earth, Alpha Centauri (not inhabited by Na'vi [or omitted from mention {hopefully}]), and many other known stars, nebulae, etc. Gene Roddenberry, the creator of the Star Trek franchise, wanted the universe to be set in
our future. Because of this many of Star Trek's technologies is based on real science or pseudo-science, although some is simply pure imaginary "science". I've made many references to the link between Star Trek and our technological advances before, most recently in the last edition of the
Helios, so I don't need to repeat that. But even with Star Trek's pseudo-science, much of it is actually based on logic, mathematics, physics, etc. Take how Star Trek handles
warp speed, known as "warp factor" in the show, for example. The speed is based on mathematical equations and in later shows they modified the equations to make more sense! All units of measure in the show are either what we use in the real world or are made up but based on real world units of measure too. For example, starship power levels are measured in joules or watts. As we can see, Star Trek, even though it is science fiction, is very much based on science fact or at least tries to stay within some realm of reality.
With Star Wars it is my opinion that is is much more science fiction
fantasy. After all, the franchise is set "a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away..." I'm not saying that Star Wars being much more fantasy-oriented makes it worse, but if we're trying to compare the two franchises and whether one would have the upper hand in a conflict then science or pseudo-science is much better to argue with rather than fantasy. But fantasy does work with the Star Wars franchise. It is more about an epic story of good versus evil, of the Jedi versus the Sith, than about science (until Lucas ruined the mythology of Star Wars when he added midi-chlorians). Technobabble is rarely used in any of the Star Wars films. And then you have Star Trek where the shows seemed to increasingly use science and/or technobabble in the story. I wrote about that in Helios 56 as well. If you pick up a Star Wars technical manual the information you read about the starships or persons is not based on science or pseudo-science at all. Yes, a
blaster shoots lasers but the movies never attempt to explain how they function. The
engines in Star Wars allow them to go FTL speeds but we don't know how this is achieved. I can tell anyone with relative accuracy how the
engines in Star Trek function just by watching enough episodes. In the technical manual it will show you its parts and such but none of the information is, or should, be considered canon. With Star Trek the people who helped maintain scientific accuracy, realism, and consistency from show to show also worked on the Star Trek technical manuals, so rest assured what you read in them actually has a real relation to the show or movies and is based on science or pseudo-science. I'm not the best expert on Star Wars knowledge but the only technical consistency I know of with regard to starships, weapons, etc in the franchise has to do with starship dimensions. All other facts aren't supported by anything else.
Even NASA needs LeVar Burton, who played "Geordi La Forge" in TNG, to help with their engineering problems!
I think it is obvious that Star Trek, at least for argument's sake, can actually be used in arguments that require canonical facts. Star Trek is already based on science and pseudo-science and its technical publications echo that. Again, this doesn't mean Star Wars is a lesser just because it is based more on fantasy, scientific realism was never a goal of the franchise, but if we're debating Star Wars versus Star Trek then Star Trek clearly wins in terms of relevant canonical information to be used.