Star Trek and Star Wars?

Question

Okay, does everyone agree that they both fit into the "Sci-fi" genre?? I know someone who doesn't think so. Thoughts?

Answer 1

My first reflex would be to call them both sci-fi, but I can see how Star Wars might not fit into that category.

If you think about it, Star Trek has more actual "science" in it. A lot of Star Trek is concerned with technologies and how the future might be - sci fi. Even though a lot of the story lines are far-fetched (all aliens in the universe are mysteriously able to speak English, for instance...), the show tries to address real questions about technology and where it will take us and what kind of ethical questions we'll have to make when we get there. (I'm referring to the old William Shatner Star Trek - I haven't seen the new one.)

Star Wars, on the other hand, is more of a fantasy story. The focus of the movies is the drama, not the science. It's a fantasy story that just happens to be set in space. It's not concerned with the science at all - lightspeed, the "Force," lightsabers - they're just there to make the story interesting.

So, I guess I agree with your friend. Star Trek is definitely sci-fi, but Star Wars not so much...

Answer 2

There's a beautiful chicken/egg dynamic between the two, and I love it.

It's pretty clear that you couldn't have Star Wars without Star Trek, the original series (which, by the way, reeks of Forbidden Planet). But consequently, it's doubtful that the public would have had any renewed interest in Star Trek in its motion picture form without Star Wars. Even Star Trek:The Motion Picture was considered a flop. Not until Star Trek:The Wrath of Khan did the franchise begin to take off, owing much to the Star Wars popularity.

But once Star Trek got going, it was hard to stop. Despite criticism over The Search for Spock, it still fared much better than the maiden film, and The Voyage Home was at home in the time travel 80's. Then came the much beloved Star Trek:The Next Generation.

Star Wars by this time had ended with Return of the Jedi, and science fiction appetites were fed by a weekly dose of Star Trek. DS9 was great, Voyager was even better and the Next Gen movies were good, too.

By the time Star Wars was re-released, there was enough pubic interest to pass it off.

Sadly, prequels never seemed to generate enough enthusiasm as the originals. While the "first" Star Wars chapters and Enterprise (painfully without the Star Trek title) seemed to fare well, they failed to capture the wonder and excitement of their predecessors.

But I still love them both!

Answer 3

Yeah, I'd say both are sci-fi. But I also think of Star Wars as kind of fantasy too.

Answer 4

There the Same but Different(True they are both Sci-Fi). But It's like comparing POPEYES to KFC, Yankees to the Mets, Big Bush(exPres) to Lil Bush(pres) or my fav Alltheway or Third base. Star Wars all the way

Answer 5

they both are sci-fi, the difference is that star trek is based on a possible future here on earth, while star wars is purely fiction

Answer 6

Yes they're both sci-fi. What does your acquaintance think they should be instead? They don't fit into any other genre. Action or drama perhaps but they are definitely sci-fi.

Answer 7

They are definatly both sci fis, thereis absolutly no room for debate on this matter, You can tell hwhoever it is that doesn't think so that Han Solo himself said they were both sci fis

Answer 8

Yes....I hate Star Wars but love Star Trek, so they are different

Answer 9

Yes, they are both sci-fi.

Answer 10

Both sci-fi and action.