Now, I will say this: Star Wars is derivative of almost everything else (including, in the prequels, itself), but one thing it is NOT derivative of is Star Trek. I think people like to fight about these two because they're simply the two biggest kids on the sci-fi block. But it's like fighting about Ghostbusters vs. Back to the Future. Sure, they're arguably the two biggest sci-fi comedies of the 80's. But they cater to different sensibilities...different senses of humor, and exhibit different themes and styles of storytelling.
Similarly, I've always felt that Star Trek and Star Wars are just built differently, for different people, and that fighting about which one is "better" is just silly. Star Trek might have come first, but Star Wars is no less valid for coming later, and Star Trek is no less influential, despite being sometimes overshadowed by Star Wars' influence on the movie industry.
For me, the thing that allows me to separate the two and my love (or passive-aggressive longing for earlier iterations) for them is that they're really not in the same genre at all. Star Trek is science fiction, and Star Wars is science fantasy.
Not "fantasy science", that's something different...
What do I mean by that?
Welp, think of it this way. The plots of Star Wars are usually pretty simple. Boy meets droids, boy loses one droid, boy's family is killed, boy joins up with space wizard, space wizard dies, boy destroys government installation, killing millions with one press of a button.
Boy voices homicidal maniac...COINCIDENCE!?
Okay. Lemme start over. So...the plots of Star Wars may have science-fiction trappings...they have sentient robots, lase-whoops, sorry, "blasters", faster-than-light travel, telepathy, etc. But they're all setting. None of them are integral to the story. You could transplant it to feudal Japan, or the 1800's, or modern day, substitute the "sci-fi" elements out and the story would still work.
Actually, nevermind-
But the episode is all about the characters having to face fate, and make terrible, gut-wrenching decisions to ensure it is preserved. It's all about them figuring out the mechanics of time travel, and then figuring out that events must turn out a certain way to preserve their way of life, and the futures of billions of people.
If you took the time travel out of it, the science fiction out of it, then there would be no story. And that, for me, is what separates science fiction from science fantasy like Star Wars: it doesn't just hang lasers on the wall as cool things to look at, but imagines how those lasers would impact our lives by putting them front and center in the story, not in the background.
Similarly, the aliens in Star Trek aren't just glorified Casablanca extras, or substitutes for human archetypes (CHEWBACCA). One of my favorite episodes of Star Trek is "Darmok", where Patrick Stewart is faced with an alien race that seems to speak gibberish, referencing people and places that no one knows about. And the episode is all about Picard trying to think on his feet and decipher this new people in the hopes of fostering better communication and understanding. And when he finally does, it's a heartwarming, exhilarating, and fulfilling moment. It even gets badass at the end, where you see that he's picked up enough of the language to communicate with the aliens and return their gift of a ceremonial knife.
That wouldn't happen in Star Wars. The aliens are just there for atmosphere, and to make cool noises in the cantina scene. In Star Trek, they're intelligent creatures with secrets waiting to be unraveled by eager, stalwart adventurers.
And sometimes they're played by George Costanza.
But that's not true, is it? For every Blade Runner, it's nice to have a Fifth Element. As human beings, we crave variety. And so while intelligence and maturity are nice, every once in a while we need a good old-fashioned space romp. And that's one thing that the original Star Wars trilogy excelled at.
It's true that Star Trek had its moments of action and adventure..."The Best of Both Worlds" and the entire Dominion War story arc are about as pulse-pounding and action-packed as any Star Wars movie. And it seems like Star Trek movies have been slowly morphing into Action Trek...a...trek through action, I guess.
Now, I'd still call the most recent Star Trek movie science fiction. But only just barely. The reason is, a lot of the sci-fi elements are just setting for an old-fashioned swashbuckling adventure IN SPAAAACE. Essentially any large superweapon could fulfill the roll of Nero's planet-killing one-two punch of drill and black hole. Spock's half-breed nature is wrestled with, but any character born out of two societies, or races could fill that role. Granted, the characters do devote some time to figuring out the time-travel-y elements of the plot, and time travel plays an integral part in the motivations of the villain and of some of the heroes. But overall, the focus is more on action and character, and in those arenas, the movie does excel.
But it is becoming more like classic Star Wars. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though... SOMEBODY'S gotta do space swashbuckling right. Lord knows the new trilogy didn't. If you think the new trilogy DID, I point you to these video series, and then tell you to shut the fuck up.
If the fans have anything to argue about, it's which franchise has suffered more qualitatively with succeeding iterations, and which has bounced back, if any. Me? My money's on Star Trek.
Star Trek shows have had many faults, but they always come back to inconsistent characterization (exemplified by Captain Kathryn "Whoever the Writers Need Her to Be" Janeway) and an over-reliance on technology to drive the plot. Later on in its life, with Voyager and Enterprise, the shows started relying on gimmicks and special effects to drive stories.
Gimmicks like TITS
That's why it's kind of refreshing to see the newest Star Trek movie. It's got cutting edge special effects, but the action and characters drive the plot, and they seem to be a precise distillation about what we loved in the original characters. Furthermore, Star Trek series have never been terrible...even in spottier series like Voyager and Enterprise, there are some really good episodes, such as "Jetrel", "Timeless", and "In a Mirror, Darkly".
Star Wars, on the other hand, has been up Shit Creek since The Phantom Menace, and was gradually spending more time in Shit City, along Shit Creek, and finally moved the whole family to Shittington Estates. I cannot even begin to express the rage I feel towards the new edits in the Star Wars Blu-Rays, or how I feel that George Lucas is now a hollow shell of a creator who has somehow begun spewing anti-creation across the mediascape. Nevertheless, I probably will in a future blog post.
Basically, I feel that while Star Trek has its awful moments, it looks like it's starting to take a fresh new direction that is good for it. Star Wars has turned into a giant profits machine, spewing cardboard cut-out characters and shows primarily designed to line George's pockets. I will say that the recent Clone Wars TV series had some pretty good episodes, but it's not enough to save the trilogy, or the franchise. So if there's any argument to be had amongst sci-fi fans, I'd say that Star Trek managed to hit bottom with Enterprise and Nemesis and climb back up.
Star Wars, on the other hand...just keeps digging.
Why does everyone shit their pants over "City On the Edge of Forever"? It's so...contrived. OH GOD ACCIDENTAL ADRENALINE OVERDOSE WOOOO GOIN' CRAZY. It's like Harlan Ellison took a short story he had already written and put some Star Trek bookends around it.
ReplyDeleteCurrently (and belatedly) working my way through TOS, but most everything else outranks that one. From season one alone: The Corbomite Manuever, Mudd's Women, The Enemy Within.
Hahahahah...really? Baby Cliff Howard outranks it? :D It is incredibly contrived, granted, but I like the way it focuses more on Kirk's character. And furthermore, I really like the themes of the necessity of death and conflict. You know, that sometimes death and conflict can be for the greater good, but they're still terrible things to consider. You gotcher parallels between the necessity of (SPOILER ALERT) Edith's death, and the necessity of the Second World War.
ReplyDeleteAnd come on...you know you felt a lil' somethin'-somethin' when Kirk makes the necessary decision.
Shit yeah baby Cliff Howard outranks it! Letting one woman die (who had already died anyway) is anything. Out-bluffing a ship that may potentially KILL YOU AND ALL OF YOUR CREW? That takes balls of steel, my friend!
ReplyDeleteAlso, appealing to the unflinching love of WWII of Americans, especially of Americans of an immediate post-war age? Lazy writing! That's like the girl in your creative writing seminar who always writes about rape, drunk driving, or September 11th.
But it wasn't appealing to their unflinching love...first of all, Kirk was in love with her. Man, his last line, where he basically tells the Guardian off...that's some Picardian angst right there.
ReplyDeleteSecond of all, I think it was demonstrating that sometimes, good people with fantastic ideas die, and it SUCKS. Some ideas just aren't right for their time, and it's a tragedy. And worse, sometimes, people are simply cast in the role of martyr by a cold, uncaring fate. It's a theme similar to The Wrath of Khan...that sometimes, you get a no-win scenario. Sometimes, the universe literally bends you over and says, CHOOSE WHO YOU WANT TO DIE...SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU, OR HUNDREDS OF ANONYMOUS PEOPLE
Dude, Parton, the time warp they were sucked into was what, a couple weeks? At the very most? How close could Kirk and Edith POSSIBLY have been, ESPECIALLY given Kirk's predilection for basically "anything female, young, and humanoid"? Kirk talks a whole lot of show but I call a bunch of melodramatic shenanigans right there.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that the entire premise is so far removed from the Star Trek paradigm that it sticks like a sore thumb. You could change out the entire cast of the Enterprise and you would basically leave the main story intact.
Also, has the universe ever actually made you that proposition, Parton? "Either your mom dies, or these three hundred Ugandan refugees die." I suspect that's not a line you hear too often on a daily basis. In fact, I doubt you will ever hear that during the course of your entire life. It's so over the top as to be a sort of useless barometer of morals. That's why I like "The Enemy Within" so much better, because Kirk's options are both shitty in much different ways:
1) Let some of his crew FREEZE TO DEATH
2) Beam them up, plus their VIOLENT AND SOCIOPATHIC COUNTERPARTS THAT WILL ENDANGER THE LIFE OF THE CREW ON BOARD
Of course at the last minute the transporter gets fixed and Sulu et al make it back alive (maybe missing some toes), but it's a much more realistic shitty choice to have to make. "Let those few die, or risk their companions' lives to save them."
I HAVE VERY STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT THIS EPISODE
Nahhhh... I don't think it's that far removed. Star Trek has always been about making tough-ass decisions in the face of fate and human prejudice. And frankly, Star Trek's been copied so often that almost any story can be taken out of its paradigm and have it fit in the modern pop culture landscape.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think the fact that Kirk found it so hard to sacrifice Edith is an INDICATION of how close they were...were it any other Girl of the Week (c), he would have been like, "LOL lets GTFO, Spock."
And COME ON...Enemy Within was, like...beam up 5 guys...and MAYBE they have evil twins, and may-OH WAIT...we have phasers.
*zapping noises and the smell of flesh cooking as they step off the transporter pad*
"I feel the need...the need, for bitches, Spock."
On the other hand, The City on the Edge of Forever has THE ENTIRE FEDERATION AND 300 YEARS OF HISTORY hanging...HANGING...on Kirk's actions. Whether he can choose to part with one piece of tail. And the fact that he BARELY can..then tells an OMNIPOTENT TIME PORTAL to go fuck itself...tells me this isn't just some gimmicky BabyTown Frollicks.
"Also, I think the fact that Kirk found it so hard to sacrifice Edith is an INDICATION of how close they were...were it any other Girl of the Week (c), he would have been like, "LOL lets GTFO, Spock.
ReplyDelete....
Whether he can choose to part with one piece of tail. And the fact that he BARELY can..then tells an OMNIPOTENT TIME PORTAL to go fuck itself...tells me this isn't just some gimmicky BabyTown Frollicks."
In another world this would be considered inconsistent characterization employed for the sake of trying to connect with the audience/create tension. But you know, to-may-to, to-mah-to.
"And COME ON...Enemy Within was, like...beam up 5 guys...and MAYBE they have evil twins, and may-OH WAIT...we have phasers. "
You couldn't just kill the evil twins, though. Pretty sure it was set up that killing one kills the other. You could have Bones on hand to like, immediately sedate them all, maybe, I'll grant. Or set phasers to stun.
Ehhh...in the episode, I think it was implied that they were separating into different organisms. The two Kirks were perfectly bifurcating, and Spock observed that the "good" Kirk was becoming a total bitch. But they both would have survived had the other been killed.
ReplyDeleteAnd I dunno...part of me wants to grant you the inconsistent characterization part. But...Star Trek has frequently been about inconsistent characterization FOR the purpose of advancing greater ideas.
HOWEVER, I think that the contrast (this is one of the few, if not the only episode where he pulls this) is what makes this NOT inconsistent characterization, you know?
Shat throws down a line to his evil twin during a face-to-face altercation that he knows he won't kill him because if Good Shat dies, so does Evil Shat. Evil Shat blanches because he knows Good Shat's right. The situation isn't resolved by killing Evil Shat, but by beaming them...somewhere...and back, so that both Shats merge into the William Shatner we know and love.
ReplyDeleteNot that I keep an encyclopedic knowledge of TOS episodes on hand, but I saw this one really recently. I don't even mean to bring it up as THE BEST EPISODE EVAR but it still stands heads and shoulders above The City on the Edge of Forever.
More to the point, it's a story that revolves, inexplicably, around EARTH, and AMURRICA, when the vast majority of Trek is about....not Earth. Let alone about America. Again, not helping to knock down the "Harlan Ellison took another short story and added Star Trek bookends to it" argument.