Kirk even manages to work in a dis of Princess Leia. Dude.
Original “Star Trek” captain William Shatner is sharing his thoughts on the “Trek” versus “Star Wars” feud, and he isn’t shy about telling it like it is. On video, even.
“First of all, ‘Star Wars’ is derivative of ‘Star Trek’ … by what, 10, 15, 20 years? DERIVATIVE!” declared the man who once played the dashing Captain Kirk. (It’s actually nearly 11 years. “Star Trek” debuted in September 1966, and “Star Wars” in May 1977.)
” ‘Star Trek’ had relationships and conflict among the relationships, and stories that involved humanity and philosophical questions,” he also said during the taped interview, which he tweeteda few days ago. ” ‘Star Wars’ was special effects! It was (visual effects company Industrial Light & Magic) at its best.”
But Star Wars was better until the pre-quels ruined everything. After that, Shatner may have the better argument.
It’s funny. As a kid, I couldn’t get enough Star Wars. I ate it, breathed it, slept it, everything. I had the action figures, even the Electronic Battle Command game. And I hated Star Trek. It was nerdy, cheesy and overdone — just awful.
But we grow up, we put away childish things, and now Star Wars has become a hacky, overdone and over re-done mess while Star Trek still seems to work. Deep Space Nine was one of the best, most underrated series in TV history. It lacked a princess in a gold bikini but it did have a viable plot and interesting characters. Star Wars’ The Clone Wars ought to be cool but it’s unwatchable, self-derivative pap. I can’t sit through five minutes of it. Having a young Anakin save a kidnapped son of Jabba, really? Is the entire galaxy nothing but the same ten or fifteen characters spiraling around each other in ever more absurd configurations? Only George Lucas could manage to ruin the frickin’ clone wars.
Star Trek has been rebooted. There’s talk of more Star Wars movies. Star Wars needs to be handed off to someone like Joss Whedon who could do something interesting with it. A Boba Fett movie helmed by the man who made Firefly might do the trick, but Lucas will never let that happen. They’ll have to pry that galaxy from his cold, dead fingers.
These days, I’m spending time in the Warhammer universe as Captain Titus of the Ultramarines, slaughtering Orks and Chaos Demons with glee. Star Trek games remain terrible, while Star Wars games work about a million times better than the movies do. So there’s that.
Everything is derivative of something else, and all sci-fi recycles elements from other sci-fi and other genres. Star Wars drew from Kurosawa, while Star Trel drew from Shakespeare. But Shatner is right, I think. Star Trek has outlasted Star Wars in creativity, caught up on the special effects, and become a more interesting universe than Lucas could ever create.
And…Han shot first.
I agree with Shatner. Star Wars sucks.
Well, as you said, it may not suck if you’re 12 or below…but Star Trek is has far better writing, more sophisticated plots, characters who are not totally two-dimensional, and the stories usually have a point (even when you don’t agree with them).
The “science” of Star Trek may be unrealistic and a bit of a stretch, but at least it has a basis in reality – unlike Star Wars, which is total fantasy.
Ultimately, I always thought Star Wars was for kids, and Star Trek was for adults. Nothing has ever changed my mind.
Star Wars might be complete fantasy, but what weapon would you rather have, a phaser, or a light saber?
While a light sabre is cool, I’d prefer to shoot someone before they get that close. It’s the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Practically speaking, a phaser.
But I have to admit, light sabres are really cool.
Star Trek is science fiction.
Star Wars is fantasy.
Star Trek takes place in our universe (Earth’s future) so viewers may have a little more of themselves invested in it than in some galaxy far, far away.
Is fantasy writing more dependent on good storytelling than science fiction writing? Hard to say, but it doesn’t look too good regarding the Star Wars prequels.
Star Wars needs to be handed off to someone like Joss Whedon who could do something interesting with it.
You nailed it, what a stroke of genius that would be! Joss is the man.
My eyes! Zeee Goggles do nothing!
Captain Kirk should not wear a red shirt. William Shatner should not be wearing that T-shirt. Denny Crane’s business suits hide a multitude of sins. Not to mention, hide a multitude, period.
Star Trek is derivative of Rawhide, so I guess that makes Rawhide better than Star Trek? Being derivative doesn’t make something worse; being derivative is just normal.
Well, neither one of them holds a candle to Babylon 5 for writing, characters and plot- but I digress.
Star Wars and Star Trek are philosophically very different- the former being based on shared mythology of good and evil and the latter being much a more intellectual analysis of human behavior. It’s apples and oranges, spiritual vs. rational, so I think one’s leanings regarding those tendencies could explain preferences between the franchises.
As a little girl in the 60′s I never could get past the sexism of the original Star Trek. So, to me, as a young woman Star Wars was a breath of fresh air because of Princess Leia. She was smart, pretty and could shoot a weapon at least as well as Luke. The famous bikini scene didn’t negate that because of the setting- Jabba was a primitive jerk, so of course he’d dress her that way. It wasn’t gratuitous. I liked Padme, too, even though Natalie Portman was cringe-worthy in her delivery and Padme was reduced almost to a caricature of a weepy, emotional pregnant lady by the nominal third movie.
Also, the way everything wasn’t all shiny-perfect was a first as far as scifi goes- face it, technology never works as well as we all think it will and things do get beat up over time. People, too. I liked that the Millennium Falcon looked like a hunk of junk, and that kind of set realism has become the norm. Except for the new Star Trek movie, of course, which I liked for its brilliant re-set of the Star Trek universe, but seems to be afflicted with some of the same outdated concepts as TOS.
In both franchises there are much weaker elements that tarnish the originals- I frankly have seen The Phantom Menace once and will likely never see it again- on the other hand I’m forcing myself to watch Enterprise right now just to say I did. But I think both franchises will stand the test of time and speak to new generations of scifi fans- in different, but still relevant, ways.
Dana,
How right you are about the excellence of Babylon 5. It had a good mixture of science fiction, humor, action, political hijinks, fascinating characters, interesting stories and a story arc that grabbed you and didn’t let go–at least for the first four of the five seasons.
The main female characters, Susan Ivanova, Delenn, Talia Winters and later Lyta Alexander were tough, feminine and occassionally delightfully odd.
The main male characters, Captains Sinclair and Sheridan, Michael Garabaldi, Lando Mollari, and G’Kar, as well as the two male secondary characters, Vir Cotto and Lennier were complicated, ambitious, sometimes bedeviled but always interesting and believable. And then there was Zathras, beloved by everybody but J Michael Straczynsk, the show’s creator. Star Wars couldn’t hold a candle to B5, although one of the Star Trek franchises was pretty darn good: Deep Space Nine.
I think I may have to give DS9 a go given the general raves about it (and the total lack of space-based scifi on TV right now). I must admit that I do not find the cast of that show appealing on first glance, which may be shallow of me, but as a female person I was seriously spoiled by the eye candy in other shows, most notably Stargate SG-1. I also need a hook to get into a show, a character I really like.
On the other hand, the first few eps of B5 struck me as hopelessly dated, but I stuck with it based on others’ recommendations and ended up being absolutely taken with it. Now that Star Trek in all its iterations is available streaming on Netflix, I’ll be able to watch it all without feeling that I’ve wasted anything more than time.
It’s very sad that there’s no new space-based scifi on TV any more. I can’t remember a time when there wasn’t. I know they’re expensive shows to make, but I just feel like the imagination has gone out of programming.
“Zathras is used to being beast of burden to other people’s needs. Is very sad life, will probably have very sad death, but at least there is symmetry.”
Actually, the early Starfleet Command games were quite good, as they were based on the tabletop wargame Star Fleet Battles. The third version went the arcade way, but the first two, and the Orion Pirates(Sort of the third version, but not named as such.) were a heck of a lot of fun. Back in the day, I spent many an hour building hi-res 3d models to import into the game in 3DSMax. At least until the RAM in my computer at the time went bad and corrupted all my files.
I personally enjoy both Star Wars and Star Trek. Always have. But I hold Trek in higher regard. And whle I wasn’t thrilled with the latest Star Trek movie, the three prequels of Star trek were major stinkers. George’s tweaking of the original movies is incredibly irritating as well. Yes, Han shot first, and we all know why. Kinda like when Spielberg tweaked ET to put radios in the agent’s hands instead of guns. That kind of nonsense is royally irritating. I just hope they don’t make a mess with the new Bladerunner movie that is supposedly in the works.
Shatner’s right. Star Trek had intellectual content that was pretty much missing from Star Wars. It’s the same difference as between Marvel and DC comics.
Star Trek created the market for Star Wars, as well as several TV series that were pathetically unsatisfying to me, and although I did enjoy the Star Wars movies, especially the first one, I had no strong desire to watch any of them a second time, or to think about the events, how they unfolded, and why. They’re like Avatar, once you’re done drooling over the special effects, you’re done with thinking about the movie.
Apart from the fact that both are set in space, could someone please specify exactly how Star Wars is derivative of Star Trek? The facts: if it were not for the success of Star Wars, Paramount would never have given the greenlight to proceed with a Star Trek revival (so Star Wars IS to blame for the endless iteration of increasingly awful Star Trek series, produced by Paramount until they literally wrung the last penny from the franchise).
Gene Roddenberry liberally (ahem) “borrowed” from sources such as Wagon Train and Rawhide, but if we are talking about “derivative”, one need look no further than Forbidden Planet to see the true template upon which Star Trek is based. At least Lucas admitted where he swiped certain concepts for his films, not so for Roddenberry.
Ironic that the Trek reboot was invoked as being somehow superior to Star Wars, as JJ Abrams and other key players involved with the production have stated that their intention was “to make a Star Trek movie that was more like Star Wars”.
For all the blather about Trek presenting a vision of some utopian future, it’s sexist portrayal of female starfleet officers wearing miniskirts and serving the captain coffee is ridiculous. Contrast this with Princess Leia, who appears onscreen brandishing a weapon and telling the men around her to go f**k themselves.
Star Trek has become so marginalized in popular culture that they needed to resort to remaking it in Star Wars’ image to make it more palatable to modern audiences.
Star Wars is superior to Star Trek.
“Star Wars drew from Kurosawa, while Star Trek drew from Shakespeare.”
But Kurosawa drew from Shakespeare (Ran, Throne of Blood). So Shakespeare must be best of all. Unless this is a time travel episode, and he travelled to the future to steal from Kurosawa, Roddenberry, and Lucas. Or write favorable biographies of himself.
But what about the hard questions, like whether Goofy is a dog? Will, Akira, Gene, and George all steered clear of that one. Unless Chewbacca was supposed to be some sort of homage, if not answer.
Actually, Lucas drew from mythology that antedates Shakespeare. He was very much into reading Joseph Campbell, especially Campbell’s “hero mythology” which is pretty evident in the first trilogy. There is even a documentary about about that.
What he went on for the second trilogy is anybody’s guess, however.
He’s right. I don’t think Star Wars sucked, but in general it was much shallower than ST. Star Wars was a simple adventure story. Themes and relationships were secondary to the action. Star Trek was a 1960s weekly drama series. Character, conflict, and theme were central to the show. Sure, the execution was extremely hokey at times. But Roddenberry had real, experienced fiction and screenwriters working for him. In terms of the solid fundamentals of drama and in terms of literacy, Star Trek beats Star Wars by a mile.
Compared to the Star Trek scriptwriters, George Lucas is just not very good. Anyone can see that if they pay attention to the dialogue in Star Wars. It’s mostly predictable, throwaway stuff designed to move the action along. Of course, he brought in Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan for the second two movies, to the audience’s infinite benefit. But in the prequels – it was all George, with predictable results. “Awkward” is the only way to describe Lucas’ final three scripts.
I believe Star Wars’ real strength was that it took us into a world that we’d never seen the like of before. It appeared lived-in, unlike most sci-fi worlds up to that time. Trek, with its limited SFX budget and garish color schemes (designed to look good on then-new “color TV”) can’t compete with Star Wars in terms of realism. Star Wars raised the bar for effects, costuming, set design, and other *material* aspects of filmmaking. It can be appreciated for that but not much else.
I enjoyed both Wars and Trek (some kids NEVER grow up)…but, Star Trek is superior.
The original Star Trek, that is.
The problem with Star Trek is that they didn’t end the franchise after The Wrath of Khan. When they brought Spock back from the dead, it ruined the sacrifice at the end of the second movie, and made the rest of the franchise meaningless.
The problem with Star Wars, other than the George Lucas’ screenplays, is that one suspects that the “Triumph of the Will” scene at the end of the first movie is a good prediction of the future of the rebel movement.
Jeffery Hunter was the original Trek captain… not Shatner.
)
What about Bob April?
Star Trek TOS had it’s virtues of being a sci-fi series that did social commentary, and got occasionally preachy.
Star Wars was a homage to sci-fi serials that captured a lot of peoples imaginations and caused the director to grab entirely the wrong end of the franchise and proceed to beat people over the head with it
“The problem with Star Wars, other than the George Lucas’ screenplays…”
You have to admire Lucas. It’s not that easy to make Liam Neeson and Samuel Jackson give bad performances, but Lucas managed to do it.
Jackson was so bad, that I was forced to resign from the Jedi Knights in protest.
Just hearing poor Mr. J. say the words “Count Dooku” was enough to put me off my feed.
Even in the 24th Century, can’t we all just get along?
As I look back and compare, my yardstick turned to what if any impact did either drama have on my own life. For that I’d have to give it hands down to Star Trek. In fact I can now see with hindsight that this show truly shaped a great part of my life, from the career I chose, to the women I found attractive and interesting. Good God is that really possible or was this show specifically targeted at young boys like me.
We at least I didn’t join a messianic religious order.
Star Trek is that dutiful B student that shows up early and sits in the front row to compensate for lack of brilliance. The first Star Wars movie is inandescent, but the series faded over time.
George Lucas intended Star Wars to evoke the excitement of the old swashbuckling adventure films, which were also light on intelligence. Star Trek had a completely different goal and purpose.
Star Wars succeeded in transporting me to another time and place because of the brilliant special effects, engaging characters, and simple but exciting story. I’ll never forget watching it the first time. Though I enjoy Star Trek–I’ve seen all the films and spinoffs–neither the content nor the productions nor the characters have compelled me to suspend disbelief.