A tale of two sci-fi shows

A challenge was issued recently to respond to an age-old question of our existence: is Star Trek better than Star Wars? I know many people who will emphatically say no, firmly asserting that Star Wars is the superior of the two—which leaves me in a very notable "cheese stands alone" mode, for I must confess a strong preference of Star Trek over Star Wars.

You might say I've been a lifelong Trekker, having grown a fondness for the original Star Trek series at an early age. Though as the years went by, I found myself migrating to Star Trek: The Next Generation more and more, and enjoying that series far more than the original—though I can't quite pinpoint why, because a lot of the character templates remained the same (free-thinking captain, straightman first officer, capable chief engineer, etc.). And as is inevitable for so many TV franchises, spinoffs became abundant. Deep Space Nine initially had to grow on me, but it quickly moved up alongside The Next Generation in terms of compelling storylines and intriguing characters. Voyager I had to make myself watch, but for some reason, that one didn't grow on me as much as NextGen or DS9 did.

Some will say that Star Wars has so much more to offer, though, like swash-buckling light-saber battles and legendary villains like Darth Vader. I don't argue these points, but in my case, they don't appeal to me in the same way that Star Trek does. I guess that's because Star Trek works from a philosophical/intellectual basis, whereas Star Wars is more of an action movie franchise. Coming from a more cultured background, the philosophical, ethical, and intellectual aspects of Star Trek appeal to me more—though by the same token, that's not to say I don't enjoy a good action movie. God knows how much I love crime movies like Heat and The Godfather, or just a mindless action movie like Lethal Weapon and Die Hard. But in terms of sci-fi, the action of Star Wars doesn't grip me like it does so many others.

One benefit Star Trek has over Star Wars is that its creator isn't constantly revisiting the series and meddling with "improving" upon it with newer special effects—which end up angering the fan base who don't want the originals tinkered with in any way, shape, or form. I was going to mention how Star Trek hasn't done any prequels, but then I remembered the upcoming Star Trek XI, which supposedly takes place when Kirk and McCoy are young and training at Starfleet Academy. When it comes to the Star Wars prequels, though, I honestly think that George Lucas was doomed from the start, because the fan following for the original three installments was so strong that, by default, the bar for future projects was set too high. Plus, George Lucas is a director whose talent has sadly declined over the years—or more accurately, his best cinematic works came early in his career. Just take a look at American Graffiti. Long before he even penned the words, "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away," Lucas directed this fantastic film that examined pre-Vietnam '60s youth: just a bunch of friends cruising around downtown each night, hooking up with other friends just cruising the streets after dark. A truly fantastic movie that came from George Lucas's heart. The original Star Wars came from this period, which is probably one reason it premiered so well in 1977.

But when Lucas unveiled The Phantom Menace in 1999, too many years had passed since the original trilogy, and naturally the fans were expecting something so much grander. In a nutshell, the original trilogy was visionary, whereas the prequels were good intentions gone bad, suffering from bad acting (to wit, Hayden Christensen), bad dialogue, and at times, bad scriptwriting. During Episode III, which I first watched at the Drafthouse, it was almost painful to watch a fabulous actress like Natalie Portman have to deliver such ham-handed lines like, "Anakin, you're breaking my heart!" (On a somewhat comedic note, on IGN's DVD review for Closer, there's a caption underneath one of Natalie's pictures, in reference to Lucas, that I'm sure a great many people—Star Wars fans included—would agree with.)

Given the overall negative reaction Star Wars fans had with the second trilogy (never mind Jar-Jar Binks!), I have to wonder if the only thing Star Wars fans really enjoyed was the opening John Williams fanfare followed by the textual prologue running across the screen.

In terms of the fan base, I would honestly have to say that both are a little too maniacal. I have yet to actually attend a Star Trek convention, but having stood in line at Uptown for the opening night viewing of Attack of the Clones, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by all the wookie costumes, Princess Leia haircuts, or Storm Trooper outfits. (Though let me state for the record, I actually did enjoy Attack of the Clones, whereas I think the entire Star Wars-viewing universe hated it.)

As to the Star Trek movies . . . well, maybe I should do a brief examination of each one (sort of a mini-review, I guess).

• Star Trek: The Motion Picture: Released in 1979, 12 years after the completion of the original series, Star Trek came to the big screen with this tale of a gigantic cloud floating through space directly for Earth, destroying anything and everything in its path. And who should come to the rescue but Captain James T. Kirk and crew, aboard a brand-new starship Enterprise. This film clearly catered to the legions of Star Trek fans who had been calling repeatedly for a big-screen film, and oh, does it tease them at times! Take the long shots that dragged over the Enterprise while in Spacedock, while firmly asserting Jerry Goldsmith's now-trademark score. I can't imagine how it must have been in the theaters to see the new Enterprise silhouetted, teased, then finally brought into full view. Or see Spock's entrance onto the Enterprise for the first time since the original series. If I have one complaint about this film, though, it's that it feels campy at times.



• Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Invariably, this always draws a comparison to Moby Dick, and has been lauded as being the best Star Trek movie ever. Oddly enough, this one never really did much for me, even though it does have some pretty amazing sequences—such as the blind chase of two starships through a nebula, bringing to mind a kind of submarine chase in outer space. To this day, I'm still not sure who I prefer in the role of Saavik—Kirstie Alley or Robin Curtis. But even though Khan was a remarkable villain, I've always wondered how they came to choose him as the central villain for this installment. I say this because he was one of many villains from the original series, which leads me to wonder if they just arbitrarily chose him, or if he really was the most famous Kirk-antagonist. As to Spock's death, I will admit, even all these years later, it's still hard watching him die. I mean, I know to expect it each time I see the film, but somehow it still tugs at my heart to watch it.



• Star Trek III: The Search for Spock: The Star Trek franchise often is falsely branded with the following notion—the even-numbered installments are good, and the odd-numbered installments are bad. I disagree, pointing to The Search for Spock as the proof in the pudding. This is actually one of my favorites, as it showcases the Enterprise crew essentially becoming outlaws in order to save their beloved comrade Spock. Of equal importance is the supporting cast, like Judith Anderson's cameo as the Vulcan high priestess, Mark Lenard's resurrection (no pun intended) of the character Sarek (Spock's wise but estranged father), and most importantly, Christopher Lloyd as probably the best Klingon ever—equaling and damn near rivaling Michael Dorn's Worf from The Next Generation. Even all these years later, it still seems like an odd casting choice to see the man who played Professor Plum and Doc Brown don Klingon attire, but here he's downright phenomenal as Kruge!



• Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home: This entry was more lighthearted and comedic than anything else, which is probably what draws me back to it over and over. Though it does attempt to be serious, what with the probe's travelling to Earth and vaporizing its oceans. But to see Kirk and company travel back in time to 1986 San Francisco, being a fish out of water (no pun intended) in so many ways, is just gut-busting hilarious. Just the sight of Spock walking the streets of San Francisco wearing nothing but a white robe and covering his pointed ears with a headband is priceless—as are the constant "colorful metaphors" that Spock can't seem to get a grasp on. I've often thought that this would have been a good ending point for the films, because it provided adequate closure on many fronts, but an ending wasn't quite in the cards yet.



• Star Trek V: The Final Frontier: Reaction to this was probably as hostile as Star Wars fans reacting to Jar-Jar Binks. People weren't necessarily calling for Bill Shatner's head afterward, but common thought concluded that he made this installment mostly to placate his own ego (since Leonard Nimoy directed the previous two and highly-successful installments). I personally thought V was a decent and enjoyable film, though not necessarily a vital entry into the Star Trek canon. The premise was more daring than usual—the Enterprise crew essentially searching for God at the center of the universe—but I think the ending left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, thinking that it just ended up being a big-screen TV episode. Though that's not to say that V didn't have good points! I personally thought the soundtrack here was one of the best, and the visuals and camerawork were equally as good as any of the other films.



• Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country: The swan song for the original crew—and the most hotly-anticipated film after the bust that was Star Trek V. Here, Kirk and crew are on the verge of retirement, but suddenly the Klingons need to negotiate peace because suddenly their planet is dying. But things aren't necessarily that simple, what with competing political interests and various powers-that-be somewhat uneasy at the prospect of peace. When this came out in 1991, endless comparisons were drawn to the recent fall of Communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union. A valid comparison, I admit, if somewhat dated. But when the final scenes played out and the credits started to roll, I as a Star Trek fan felt complete, like a proper sendoff had been given to the cast and crew of the original Enterprise. The circle was now closed . . . or so we thought.



• Star Trek: Generations: This eagerly-anticipated installment still garners mixed reactions from Trekkers, mostly because by this time Bill Shatner had uttered his infamous "Get a life" on Saturday Night Live—and because expectations were probably a bit higher for this film because it featured the long-awaited reunion of two Enterprise captains from different generations. I, for one, loved it. And Malcolm McDowell, whom we may remember (in true Troy McClure style) from such other villainous roles as Alex in A Clockwork Orange, provided a spectacular villain opposite both Kirk and Picard. In my humble opinion, this was a fantastic passing-of-the-torch from one Enterprise captain to another.



• Star Trek: First Contact: Easily my favorite NextGen movie. This had to be the darkest, most captivating entry into the Star Trek movie canon—especially as Picard loses perspective and becomes hellbent on getting revenge with the Borg. James Cromwell was a treat to watch as the drunken loser who learns he's the father of humankind in the future, and Alfre Woodard was downright fantastic as his sidekick who's brave enough to call out Picard when he's crossed the line. But the one who really steals the show is Alice Krige as the Borg Queen. She's cold, calculating, manipulative, dangerously seductive, and I will go so far as to say she deserved an Oscar nomination.



• Star Trek: Insurrection: If there's any Star Trek movie that I have a hard time swallowing, it's this one—for the simple fact that, for once, the crew of the Enterprise is taking a "moral stand," and naturally they're correct in their moral stand of preventing the removal of a race from their "fountain of youth" planet. I've grown very weary of "moral stand" movies, not because they're a dime a dozen, but because in real life, issues are never as black and white as they seem.



• Star Trek: Nemesis: This was originally supposed to be the final chapter of the NextGen crew, as well as the final Star Trek movie overall. But future prequel notwithstanding, I found great enjoyment in Nemesis! It's much darker than any of the previous movies from both the original series or NextGen (save maybe for First Contact), which is one of the reasons I find it so gripping! Some pan this for trying to be like Wrath of Khan (insofar as Data's death scene and possible resurrection), but I found Nemesis to be very unique, as it asks the question, "What do you do when the enemy might be yourself?"

So, all that being said, do I agree with the premise that a "bad Star Wars movie is better than all but one of the Star Trek movies"? I do not. Star Trek has had its fair share of bad movies, as has Star Wars, but if given the choice, I'd watch the bad Star Trek movie first. Not much of a defense, I admit, but it's just a matter of preference. And for me, that preference is Star Trek.