Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
  1. #1
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    493

    Default Star Wars and Star Trek

    What is it about SW when it comes to movies and shows that gives it an edge as far as consistency? While ST has had a track record of good movies and shows, it seems like since 2002, they've kind of had a stop/start kind of thing going on. The recent ST 4 was put on ice which is unfortunate. With the sequel trilogy, sure there have been some people that dislike it and that's fine (personally I enjoyed it), but it's still full steam ahead with more shows and movies. I love SW and look forward to what's coming out. But why does Star Trek have a harder time of it? Bad creatives?

  2. #2
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,320

    Default

    Star Wars makes more money. It always has. The closest thing to a flop Star Wars has ever had (Solo) still made more money than the most successful Star Trek movie (2009), though it was less profitable since it had a larger budget. Star Trek is always a gamble as to whether it will turn a profit, while Star Wars was only a gamble in 1977. The movies stopped because Nemesis was a financial disaster. Enterprise was cancelled after 4 seasons due to lower ratings. Big budget sci-fi productions simply need to show a better return on investment than Star Trek has delivered this millennium. Frankly I'm amazed Discovery, Picard, and Lower Decks exist at the same time given how not-profitable the franchise has been. That's about as much Star Trek content as we'd see in the 90s when there were 2 shows running concurrently for 7 straight years, first with Next Gen and DS9 and then with DS9 and Voyager.

  3. #3
    Chad Jar Jar Pinsir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Naboo
    Posts
    4,586

    Default

    Movies based on tv shows or that directly tie to tv shows are like never blockbusters I think you are comparing two different things. Also just because Mandalorin is supposedly good, doesn't mean I'm gonna forget the previous five Star Wars movies were bad, ST at least had a good movie during the same period.
    Want to read Wonder Woman stories, but don't know where to start? Check out my top 10 lists for Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age and Modern Age Wonder Woman tales!

    "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few necks." - Wonder Woman, probably

  4. #4
    Extraordinary Member Joker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CTTT View Post
    What is it about SW when it comes to movies and shows that gives it an edge as far as consistency?
    What Star Wars have you been watching? It's a lot of things, but I struggle to call the franchise consistent.

  5. #5
    Mighty Member LordMikel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CTTT View Post
    What is it about SW when it comes to movies and shows that gives it an edge as far as consistency? While ST has had a track record of good movies and shows, it seems like since 2002, they've kind of had a stop/start kind of thing going on. The recent ST 4 was put on ice which is unfortunate. With the sequel trilogy, sure there have been some people that dislike it and that's fine (personally I enjoyed it), but it's still full steam ahead with more shows and movies. I love SW and look forward to what's coming out. But why does Star Trek have a harder time of it? Bad creatives?
    For shows I would give the edge to Star Trek over Star Wars. Which Star Trek has always done better on its shows. Personally I think Star Trek has started failing as they changed the model starting with Enterprise. Every other show prior continued the timeline. Enterprise went to the past. Discovery went to the past. I've not seen Lower Decks, so not sure where that one falls. Picard is he only one that is continuing the timeline.

    Ask again in 5 years after Star Wars has a lot more shows. If you count Clone Wars cartoon as one show and Mandalorian as the second, is that all or am I missing any?
    I think restorative nostalgia is the number one issue with comic book fans.
    A fine distinction between two types of Nostalgia:

    Reflective Nostalgia allows us to savor our memories but accepts that they are in the past
    Restorative Nostalgia pushes back against the here and now, keeping us stuck trying to relive our glory days.

  6. #6
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LordMikel View Post
    For shows I would give the edge to Star Trek over Star Wars. Which Star Trek has always done better on its shows. Personally I think Star Trek has started failing as they changed the model starting with Enterprise. Every other show prior continued the timeline. Enterprise went to the past. Discovery went to the past. I've not seen Lower Decks, so not sure where that one falls. Picard is he only one that is continuing the timeline.

    Ask again in 5 years after Star Wars has a lot more shows. If you count Clone Wars cartoon as one show and Mandalorian as the second, is that all or am I missing any?
    Rebels is considered good, not as good as Clone Wars, but still good.

  7. #7
    Astonishing Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,680

    Default

    I think the only real reason that they're often compared is that they're both popular, set in space and have similar titles. Other than that, they're quite different; Star Wars is set in a vague past in another, mostly populated galaxy; and largely deals with long-running wars between good and evil. It also has a largely 'used' look to most of it's technology.

    Star Trek is set in a near-utopian future where the main focus is exploration and the unknown (although there are still conflicts), and often deals with morality plays and social commentary (although Star Wars has occasionally dipped into this, especially in the prequels). Also at least as far as the Federation/starfleet is concerned, the technology often is pretty clean-looking. Deep Space Nine of course did things a bit differently but still stuck the morality plays/social commentary stuff in many episodes.
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  8. #8
    Astonishing Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LordMikel View Post
    For shows I would give the edge to Star Trek over Star Wars. Which Star Trek has always done better on its shows. Personally I think Star Trek has started failing as they changed the model starting with Enterprise. Every other show prior continued the timeline. Enterprise went to the past. Discovery went to the past. I've not seen Lower Decks, so not sure where that one falls. Picard is he only one that is continuing the timeline.

    Ask again in 5 years after Star Wars has a lot more shows. If you count Clone Wars cartoon as one show and Mandalorian as the second, is that all or am I missing any?
    I think Lower Decks is set shortly after Nemesis. Hence Riker with the Titan.
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  9. #9
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,050

    Default

    If there is a difference in consistency, it may owe something to the fact that ST had a variety of creative hands on it from day 3 on. Excluding the EU (admitted to cannon these days only on a case-by-case), SW only recently began speaking with more than a few creative voices.

  10. #10
    Astonishing Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,680

    Default

    That's kind of true. Even Roddenberry was sort of "kicked upstairs" when the movies and TNG had rough starts, but SW episodes 1-6 are largely Lucas (with a touch of Kasdan and some script doctors like De Palma, Stoddard, Huyck and Katz etc.) Heck, they even brought Kasdan back to help with some of the new films.
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  11. #11
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofdarkchild View Post
    Star Wars makes more money. It always has. The closest thing to a flop Star Wars has ever had (Solo) still made more money than the most successful Star Trek movie (2009), though it was less profitable since it had a larger budget. Star Trek is always a gamble as to whether it will turn a profit, while Star Wars was only a gamble in 1977. The movies stopped because Nemesis was a financial disaster. Enterprise was cancelled after 4 seasons due to lower ratings. Big budget sci-fi productions simply need to show a better return on investment than Star Trek has delivered this millennium. Frankly I'm amazed Discovery, Picard, and Lower Decks exist at the same time given how not-profitable the franchise has been. That's about as much Star Trek content as we'd see in the 90s when there were 2 shows running concurrently for 7 straight years, first with Next Gen and DS9 and then with DS9 and Voyager.
    Well, Star Trek is not as big as Star Wars, obviously, but I think saying its unprofitable is incorrect, Viacom CBS wouldn't be making all these shows if it didn't net them a profit in terms of getting people to sign up for their streaming site.

    https://trekmovie.com/2020/05/25/via...bs-all-access/

    Star Trek is one of the biggest franchises Viacom CBS has, it's that, Mission Impossible, Spongebob, and then its slim pickings. So Star Trek is sticking around because it's one of the biggest things Viacom CBS has.

  12. #12
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Star Wars always had a stronger sense of what it wanted to be, up until the sequels. Even Star Trek TOS couldn't figure out what was from one episode to the next. They weren't supposed to ever go to earth, but they returned to Earth twice i think, and Earth- inspired planets the times. In five years. They made a big deal out of the Prime Directive, but violated it all over the place. It all got worse with each new series and the movies, though there was at least stronger internal consistency within each series.

    Star Wars knew what it was, and what the story was about. It wasn't overly- complicated (until the sequels, which somehow managed to bridge the huge gap of remaining true to what it is while telling a wonderfully complex and intricate story). Until someone new took over creative control of that franchise, you knew what you were getting with Star Wars.

  13. #13
    Spectacular Member hyped78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    196

    Default

    I prefer Star Trek over Star Wars but it's clear that SW is the more recognizable/ profitable/ hyped franchise of the two. SW and Marvel are the two most valuable franchises in the world right now and ST doesn't even come close. Unfortunately.

    ST Discovery is a mess and ST Picard is a lost opportunity, in my opinion.

  14. #14
    Astonishing Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofdarkchild View Post
    Star Wars makes more money. It always has. The closest thing to a flop Star Wars has ever had (Solo) still made more money than the most successful Star Trek movie (2009), though it was less profitable since it had a larger budget. Star Trek is always a gamble as to whether it will turn a profit, while Star Wars was only a gamble in 1977. The movies stopped because Nemesis was a financial disaster. Enterprise was cancelled after 4 seasons due to lower ratings. Big budget sci-fi productions simply need to show a better return on investment than Star Trek has delivered this millennium. Frankly I'm amazed Discovery, Picard, and Lower Decks exist at the same time given how not-profitable the franchise has been. That's about as much Star Trek content as we'd see in the 90s when there were 2 shows running concurrently for 7 straight years, first with Next Gen and DS9 and then with DS9 and Voyager.
    It's worth noting that, despite some impressive special effects, the post-TMP movies and TNG largely used what was already available from Star Trek TMP. The Corridor and Bridge sets were mostly the same, although redressed or moved around (TWOK for example, puts Spock's science station in it's more traditional place at the side). Even the much-loved TWOK reuses a lot of TMP's effects for many of it's space shots that don't involve the Reliant, regula I (Which is simply the TMP "office" station upside down), or Genesis. This also used some of the elements of the films; Best of Both Worlds uses some nebula footage from TWOK, and episodes where the Enterprise D docks at Spacedock or a similar station just overlay the D over the Refit from III.
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  15. #15
    Savior of the Universe Flash Gordon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,945

    Default

    Star Trek doesn't have much at all in common with Star Wars beyond the word 'Star' in both titles.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •