4 ms·

SW always felt empty to me. Where star trek always dealt with deep philosophical questions of humanism, consciousness, sentience, and took scientific plausibili

SW always felt empty to me. Where star trek always dealt with deep philosophical questions of humanism, consciousness, sentience, and took scientific plausibility seriously SW dealt with very shallow concepts and eschewed scientific realism in favor of hyper space or whatever. Just not nearly as interesting.

ceejayoz 8y ago
> took scientific plausibility seriously Didn't Star Trek essentially pioneer the concept of technobabble? > eschewed scientific realism in favor of hyper space or whatever Warp travel? Subspace? Q? Accelerated human evolution into lizard people?
- AlexandrB 8y ago
  > Warp travel? Subspace? Q? Accelerated human evolution into lizard people? There's a lot of bad Trek out there. But also a lot of good Trek. The best of it is like a slice of speculative fiction - like a mini District 9, Interstellar, Her, or Arrival. The worst of it is pure melodrama with technobabble layered on top. I think what the parent is getting at is that Star Wars never, ever goes the speculative fiction route. It's all "character drama in space".
  - hobochili 8y ago
    Fair to say that Star Wars is more psychological than philosophical?
    - stephengillie 8y ago
      To me, it's more political than mechanical. Star Wars has more political and interpersonal conflicts lead to shifts of power. Palpatine gained control of the Galactic Senate through political maneuvering - letting the Trade Federation apply political pressure through shipping fees, and then manipulating weak-minded senators while their stronger-minded companions are fleeing the Trade Federation. Rarely are technical details relevant to the plot - starship fuel or reactor operation details are vague at best, an executive summary. They don't goto Watto for engine parts, but a whole new engine, and Jedi aren't trained on starship repairs as they have astromech droids. Star Trek has more situations where mechanical failure or damage leads to interpersonal conflicts and shifts of power. During the Klingon Civil War, you get a pretty good idea of how Geordi keeps the Romulans away. Ship fuel was a main plotline through the entire Voyager series. Everyone on every Starfleet ship has taken a college class on how the warp core reactor works, and they flaunt that knowledge regularly.
      - baud147258 8y ago
        > To me, it's more political than mechanical. That's mostly the 1-3 trilogy. The original trilogy is mostly fantasy in space/space opera
- RandomOpinion 8y ago
  > Didn't Star Trek essentially pioneer the concept of technobabble? Hell, no. Technobabble has been a staple of science fiction all the way back to its origins.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    OK, perhaps "popularize" or "serve as a very prominent example" might've been a better choice of words. The point remains: Star Trek's science is frequently either nonsensical or laughably bad. Hard sci-fi it's not.
this_user 8y ago
Star Wars has always been more fantasy than science fiction. What did you expect?
madmax96 8y ago
As a fan of both franchises, I totally agree with your take on Star Trek. But Star Wars isn't meant to be enjoyed the same way. The issue is that "science fiction" is such a broad genre, and it unfortunately encompasses both Star Trek and Star Wars. Star Wars is more fantasy than Star Trek. Star Wars does deal with some deep (but different) issues. How ought the powerful wield their power? What is justice? Jedi v. Sith is essentially a philosophical debate on the origins of power and justice. Those philosophies are reified by the characters. Look at Luke's behavior in Return of the Jedi -- he defeats his father (definitely drawing on "dark side" powers), but triumphantly throws down his weapon. There was no way he could have defeated the emperor using conventional force. But, somehow, that does not diminish the power of Luke, because his actions still directly caused the downfall of the emperor. So Star Wars does have a kind of philosophical elegance, but it has to be appreciated from a different mindset than Star Trek.
krylon 8y ago
You are not wrong. But when I first watched the original Star Wars movies, I was a kid and had lower standards. When I watch these movies today, it is less about the movies themselves, but about revisiting those pleasant childhood memories. The newer movies do not have those memories attached, so I am more critical. It's the same with Indiana Jones - the fourth movie was not really bad, but without the warm glow of childhood memories it does not have that same magic. Battlestar Galactica worked out very well, but that was mostly because they turned the original show completely inside out and turned it into something that could stand on its own.
enimodas 8y ago
Someone from Conan has a nice monologue arguing for star wars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmRouEds_2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmRouEds_2A
Fricken 8y ago
The thing is, if you're looking for action, adventure, melodrama set against the backdrop of of a richly imagined universe, Star Wars delivers. It's triple A, top rate. Whereas if you're looking for philosophical questions of humanism, sentience, and scientific plausibility: then what the heck are you doing watching Star Trek? It's watered down tripe. Go to the library, you turkey.
simias 8y ago
They're just not the same genre, despite superficial similarities. Star Trek is (often) sci-fi, Star Wars is more like space fantasy. You could pretty much take all the characters and plot from Star Wars and move it to a Lord of the Ring-like heroic fantasy setting and 99% would still work with only minor tweaking. It's all character driven drama. Even the "a long time ago in a galaxy far away" is telling, Lucas didn't try to predict the future of humankind, he's telling an old story that doesn't really concern us. Like Tolkien and Middle Earth. Being born in the mid 80's I think I think I "missed" Star Wars, by the time I watched the original trilogy in the mid 90's it was still enjoyable but already dated and when the prequels released I was old enough to see the many obvious flaws of the movies through the thick CGI layers. I expect younger generations might have a different relation towards the Star Wars "brand", having it fed to them almost non-stop since birth.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  I never thought of it on my own, but someone pointed out that "a long time ago" is simply saying the story is being told about our distant future from a perspective even further in the future. There's no reason why the POV of the narrator should be present day.
krapp 8y ago
I'm sorry, no. I'm a fan of both, and I've seen every Star Trek series and film, and almost everything Star Wars, but Star Trek was never philosophically deep nor did it often take scientific plausibility seriously. The scripts for TNG often simply said "tech" when "technology" was supposed to "happen" because the production crew didn't care about the spec-fic element as anything more than a means to drive melodrama[0] which couldn't offend sponsors or the morals of American viewers. There's a good reason the term "technobabble" originated with Star Trek, and why, despite the Federation's implied diversity and progressivism, there has only ever been one openly gay character depicted in its history. Star Trek is about as deep as a saucer of milk. The Force and hyperspace are no less plausible than a warp drive running on dilithium crystals and subspace (arguably more, since there are actually mathematical models for hyperspace, but what even is subspace?) Both franchises have alien races and cultures which consist of a few generic traits, and Klingon bat'leths make about as much sense as lightsabers, which is to say, little beyond their relative cool factors. The only difference between the two franchises that Star Trek has somehow gained pretentions of being something more highbrow than it ever really was. [0]https://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/10/13/teching-the-tech/ https://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/10/13/teching-the-tech/
zantana 8y ago
I recall David Brin having an interesting take on it. I think its this article which is mangled its current form on my browser: https://www.salon.com/1999/06/15/brin_main/ https://www.salon.com/1999/06/15/brin_main/ What I took away from that and always echoes in these arguments is how Star Wars lionizes and celebrates the superhuman whereas Star Trek (especially TOS) almost pities them.

ceejayoz 8y ago

> took scientific plausibility seriously Didn't Star Trek essentially pioneer the concept of technobabble? > eschewed scientific realism in favor of hyper space or whatever Warp travel? Subspace? Q? Accelerated human evolution into lizard people?

AlexandrB 8y ago
> Warp travel? Subspace? Q? Accelerated human evolution into lizard people? There's a lot of bad Trek out there. But also a lot of good Trek. The best of it is like a slice of speculative fiction - like a mini District 9, Interstellar, Her, or Arrival. The worst of it is pure melodrama with technobabble layered on top. I think what the parent is getting at is that Star Wars never, ever goes the speculative fiction route. It's all "character drama in space".
- hobochili 8y ago
  Fair to say that Star Wars is more psychological than philosophical?
  - stephengillie 8y ago
    To me, it's more political than mechanical. Star Wars has more political and interpersonal conflicts lead to shifts of power. Palpatine gained control of the Galactic Senate through political maneuvering - letting the Trade Federation apply political pressure through shipping fees, and then manipulating weak-minded senators while their stronger-minded companions are fleeing the Trade Federation. Rarely are technical details relevant to the plot - starship fuel or reactor operation details are vague at best, an executive summary. They don't goto Watto for engine parts, but a whole new engine, and Jedi aren't trained on starship repairs as they have astromech droids. Star Trek has more situations where mechanical failure or damage leads to interpersonal conflicts and shifts of power. During the Klingon Civil War, you get a pretty good idea of how Geordi keeps the Romulans away. Ship fuel was a main plotline through the entire Voyager series. Everyone on every Starfleet ship has taken a college class on how the warp core reactor works, and they flaunt that knowledge regularly.
    - baud147258 8y ago
      > To me, it's more political than mechanical. That's mostly the 1-3 trilogy. The original trilogy is mostly fantasy in space/space opera
RandomOpinion 8y ago
> Didn't Star Trek essentially pioneer the concept of technobabble? Hell, no. Technobabble has been a staple of science fiction all the way back to its origins.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  OK, perhaps "popularize" or "serve as a very prominent example" might've been a better choice of words. The point remains: Star Trek's science is frequently either nonsensical or laughably bad. Hard sci-fi it's not.

this_user 8y ago

Star Wars has always been more fantasy than science fiction. What did you expect?

madmax96 8y ago

As a fan of both franchises, I totally agree with your take on Star Trek. But Star Wars isn't meant to be enjoyed the same way. The issue is that "science fiction" is such a broad genre, and it unfortunately encompasses both Star Trek and Star Wars. Star Wars is more fantasy than Star Trek. Star Wars does deal with some deep (but different) issues. How ought the powerful wield their power? What is justice? Jedi v. Sith is essentially a philosophical debate on the origins of power and justice. Those philosophies are reified by the characters. Look at Luke's behavior in Return of the Jedi -- he defeats his father (definitely drawing on "dark side" powers), but triumphantly throws down his weapon. There was no way he could have defeated the emperor using conventional force. But, somehow, that does not diminish the power of Luke, because his actions still directly caused the downfall of the emperor. So Star Wars does have a kind of philosophical elegance, but it has to be appreciated from a different mindset than Star Trek.

krylon 8y ago

You are not wrong. But when I first watched the original Star Wars movies, I was a kid and had lower standards. When I watch these movies today, it is less about the movies themselves, but about revisiting those pleasant childhood memories. The newer movies do not have those memories attached, so I am more critical. It's the same with Indiana Jones - the fourth movie was not really bad, but without the warm glow of childhood memories it does not have that same magic. Battlestar Galactica worked out very well, but that was mostly because they turned the original show completely inside out and turned it into something that could stand on its own.

enimodas 8y ago

Someone from Conan has a nice monologue arguing for star wars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmRouEds_2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmRouEds_2A

Fricken 8y ago

The thing is, if you're looking for action, adventure, melodrama set against the backdrop of of a richly imagined universe, Star Wars delivers. It's triple A, top rate. Whereas if you're looking for philosophical questions of humanism, sentience, and scientific plausibility: then what the heck are you doing watching Star Trek? It's watered down tripe. Go to the library, you turkey.

simias 8y ago

They're just not the same genre, despite superficial similarities. Star Trek is (often) sci-fi, Star Wars is more like space fantasy. You could pretty much take all the characters and plot from Star Wars and move it to a Lord of the Ring-like heroic fantasy setting and 99% would still work with only minor tweaking. It's all character driven drama. Even the "a long time ago in a galaxy far away" is telling, Lucas didn't try to predict the future of humankind, he's telling an old story that doesn't really concern us. Like Tolkien and Middle Earth. Being born in the mid 80's I think I think I "missed" Star Wars, by the time I watched the original trilogy in the mid 90's it was still enjoyable but already dated and when the prequels released I was old enough to see the many obvious flaws of the movies through the thick CGI layers. I expect younger generations might have a different relation towards the Star Wars "brand", having it fed to them almost non-stop since birth.

perl4ever 8y ago
I never thought of it on my own, but someone pointed out that "a long time ago" is simply saying the story is being told about our distant future from a perspective even further in the future. There's no reason why the POV of the narrator should be present day.

krapp 8y ago

I'm sorry, no. I'm a fan of both, and I've seen every Star Trek series and film, and almost everything Star Wars, but Star Trek was never philosophically deep nor did it often take scientific plausibility seriously. The scripts for TNG often simply said "tech" when "technology" was supposed to "happen" because the production crew didn't care about the spec-fic element as anything more than a means to drive melodrama[0] which couldn't offend sponsors or the morals of American viewers. There's a good reason the term "technobabble" originated with Star Trek, and why, despite the Federation's implied diversity and progressivism, there has only ever been one openly gay character depicted in its history. Star Trek is about as deep as a saucer of milk. The Force and hyperspace are no less plausible than a warp drive running on dilithium crystals and subspace (arguably more, since there are actually mathematical models for hyperspace, but what even is subspace?) Both franchises have alien races and cultures which consist of a few generic traits, and Klingon bat'leths make about as much sense as lightsabers, which is to say, little beyond their relative cool factors. The only difference between the two franchises that Star Trek has somehow gained pretentions of being something more highbrow than it ever really was. [0]https://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/10/13/teching-the-tech/ https://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/10/13/teching-the-tech/

zantana 8y ago

I recall David Brin having an interesting take on it. I think its this article which is mangled its current form on my browser: https://www.salon.com/1999/06/15/brin_main/ https://www.salon.com/1999/06/15/brin_main/ What I took away from that and always echoes in these arguments is how Star Wars lionizes and celebrates the superhuman whereas Star Trek (especially TOS) almost pities them.