Gene Roddenberry vs. George Lucas

[Jesse321]

Originally Posted by Crom

Wow, it took Star Trek 700 hours to have as much of an impact as 6 Star Wars films? Damn those pesky commercials.

I think the first Star Trek series is brilliant and deserves all the praise it gets. I also agree that its message was much more positive than Star Wars.

I do, however, believe that every subsequent Star Trek show has continually failed to honor or achieve the social commentary of the first series. Not Roddenberry's fault by any means.

Of course, both of these men should be in the Sci-Fi Hall of Fame.

Actually it was pretty much acheived in the first series alone .. and to correct something else I've seen posted several times, Gene was fairly heavily involved in the creation and adaptation of Next Gen .. it was DS9 (which is actually my personal favorite of all the Treks) that he had little to on involvement in creating. DS9 was the creation of Rick Berman and Michael Pillar, but according to all comments that I've heard over the years .. including some from Majel, Gene LOVED the series.

[Tetragrammaton]

While the original series will always have the benefit of establishing the universe, Deep Space Nine was my favorite of all the Treks as well.

"Enterprise" was the weakest.

[CessnaDriver]

Star Wars is not meant to be heady stuff.

Trek often was.

They are two different animals with different impact on society.

Trek is simply more relevant in that it projects possibilities of what we all know we can become one day.

I think Trek inspired more people too.
To become astronauts and pilots and doctors and engineers, scientists, etc etc.

To make some of those dreams happen.


Star Wars is far more about myth and fairy tales, good and evil, spiritual issues. Relevant yes, BUT....

We are talking Sci Fi museum are we not?

[bat_collector]

Originally Posted by rilynil

So you're saying that the success and impact of Star Wars has never impressed you?

Interesting, isn't it?

[cougartrace]

I have to give Gene the nod here.

I don't think George was as innovative at the time..

[bat_collector]

The succes of Star Wars revolutionized mainstream society in a far bigger way than Star Trek could ever hope.

Remember George Lucas had a heavy hand in Indiana Jones as well.

[Teague]

Originally Posted by Jesse321

Roddenberry's universe was (and still is) more socially relevant than Lucas' could ever hope to be. Roddenberry was a visionary he created the roots of what became every Trek that came after TOS and TNG ... people wanted and still want to do more with his vision and continue to take it forward, and I think that speaks volumes of his creation.

In so far as storylines go, Lucas merely adapted a lot of the swash bulker films of the 40's and 50's and updated them ... which is not to deny his achievements by any means, but I can' classify it in the same level as Roddenberry, you just can't really compare the 2 IMO because they're not even in the same leagues.

I can agree with you on Roddenberry's genius, Jesse, 100%. I admire it too, I honestly do. But I don't think that you have to take away credit from one creator in order to honor the other, in this case. They both did great work, both universes have influenced ours greatly, and the work of both are deserving of respect, I think.

Social relevance isn't what the SW universe was created for, so to compare them on that scale is pretty useless. If that's your basis for comparison, then obviously Trek will win out. SW was meant to be fun--exciting and mythic, with a touch of eastern philosophy. This was why I was always disappointed with Trek when I was a kid--I was looking for more of SW-brand fun. I came to appreciate TNG (and DS9, and the originals, to some degree), but on its own terms.

I once read someone say that Star Trek is the brains of sci-fi, Star Wars is the soul, and that they both have plenty of heart to go around. And I think that's not a bad analogy. (And it doesn't mean that Trek is soulless, or that SW is stupid--it's just about where the focus is...)

I'm telling you, it's a false dichotomy...

[Jesse321]

Originally Posted by rilynil

So you're saying that the success and impact of Star Wars has never impressed you?

Not really no, the success it had was based off elements which came from other sources.

[bat_collector]

Originally Posted by Teague

I once read someone say that Star Trek is the brains of sci-fi, Star Wars is the soul, and that they both have plenty of heart to go around. And I think that's not a bad analogy. (And it doesn't mean that Trek is soulless, or that SW is stupid--it's just about where the focus is...)

Beautiful sentiments!

[bat_collector]

Originally Posted by Jesse321

Not really no, the success it had was based off elements which came from other sources.

HATER!