Star Trek or Star Wars: Which one is bigger?

November 7, 2005 9:22 PM

Star Trek or Star Wars; Which universe is bigger? This is a good start.

It seems to pretty much answer the question of the dollar value of each. Although it lacks a few elements, such as the monetary value for the ST TV shows, it seems that Star wars would seem to have the edge by a few billion dollars.

But what about in terms of the intricacies of the universes in terms of the canonical elements.

When you reach out to the end of the tentacles of all that falls with the respective canons of both universes, which are the fullest, the most complex, the most original in its myth development and and what rate are they each growing?

Without though being a discussion of who sucks more Lucas or Berman/Bragga.

posted by notcostello to media & arts (14 comments total)

Trek is more intricate on a human scale, because everyone isn't related to everyone else. As the Star Wars movies progressed, the universe grew smaller and smaller. At the time of "Empire," for all we know Darth Vader might be one of a thousand regional governors in a far-flung and terrifying Galactic Empire. But now we know he built C-3PO and everyone's from Tatooine or else siblings, suggesting a very constrained universe.

Whereas Captain Kirk lost his entire family in "Operation Annihilate!" and it barely registered.
posted by johngoren at 9:31 PM on November 7, 2005

At the time of "Empire," for all we know Darth Vader might be one of a thousand regional governors in a far-flung and terrifying Galactic Empire. But now we know he built C-3PO and everyone's from Tatooine or else siblings, suggesting a very constrained universe.

This is one of the greatest weaknesses of the recent additions to the Star Wars mythos, IMHO. Of all the Star Wars material outside the original films, that which I've enjoyed the most are the old Marvel comic books, especially those between the first two movies (or the fourth and fifth film, depending on your viewpoint). They made the setting seem vast and wonderful, a galaxy filled with strange and dangerous possibilities.

As for the question, I'm a little confused as to whether you're talking about the actual setting for the franchises, or merely the real-life body of work that has been constructed around them.

I'm not sure which has the largest real-life body of work (and I don't care), but I'd guess there galactic settings are of similar sizes. They both take place in single galaxies. Star Trek uses some portion of our Milky Way (what, maybe a third of it?), whereas Star Wars, as we all know, uses a galaxy far, far away. I'd guess it seems to use the same volume as Star Trek.

I must stop because I've lost sight of the actual question and because I'm in danger of going into HyperGeekMode...
posted by jdroth at 9:54 PM on November 7, 2005

Star Trek.
posted by quadog at 10:14 PM on November 7, 2005

Well, remember that episode of TNG in which some jackass warp drive technician supposedly tampers with the Enterprise (but it was really the 'traveller') and the ship travels to the out-most borders of an unimaginably vast, vast, vast universe (vast!), and it would take the ship several hundred years at maximum warp to return to earth? ... so, I think we've at least SEEN a galaxy on a grander scale in Trek than in Wars... oh god, I'm a nerd...
posted by Robot Johnny at 10:17 PM on November 7, 2005

The body of work question seems to be fairly well answered from the Forbes article.

I was thinking more of how each universe is growing both in the sense of the stories themselves, but also how much the "real world" is interacting to keep the movements alive.

I know ST better, so as examples, there are probably books about McCoy & Spock, Spock & Scotty, Scotty & Dr. Crusher, Dr. Crusher & Seven and Seven & Dr. Beulah.

There are links to Star Trek: Phase II, which talks bout Lieutenant Xon which leads to Commander Branch which leads to Epsilon IX Station on ST: TMP. From this we know that the enlisted technician is "a crewman" which "is denoted by his lack of rank insignia, according to Robert Fletcher's uniform design.

There is the ST: TAS, which is not considered part of the canon.

Then there are things like Free Enterprise.

So there is a whole intra & extra-universe that exists inside and outside of the official purveyors of the franchises.

So in which universe is the synthesis of these elements more vibrant, more interesting and speak of a more complex evolvement?
posted by notcostello at 10:29 PM on November 7, 2005

That Forbes article is a pretty annoying piece of work as far as interface goes. When I tell you to stop the slideshow, I don't want you to restart it on the very next frame, ffs.

As to your question, isn't it essentially impossible to answer? If you're going to start including non-official and non-canonical mythology, then you're basically asking "how enthusiastic is the fanfic base?" or even "which fan base has filled in the blanks better?" at which point you're getting down to issues of taste and preference.

My answer would be that neither franchise is all that vibrant, interesting or complex any more, even the fanfic. The general rule is that the bigger the franchise, the less likely fans are to deviate from the central premise. So with Star Trek, you might get a ton of new stories even now, but they're likely to involve the crew of a Federation starship encountering alien races and espousing high-minded ideals about the purity of first contact and how money makes people evil. And with Star Wars, you're likely to read a lot about the Force, boring stuff about interstellar trade, and ever-larger Giant Balls That Kill Lots Of Things.
posted by chrominance at 11:36 PM on November 7, 2005

Chrominance, you are right about the Forbes site. Why they needed to add the flash animation instead of a table is beoyond me. I guess they want to be "cutting edge".

As to your comment as to the impossibilty of answering the initial question, you answered both my question and disproved your contention in the second paragraph.
posted by notcostello at 6:57 AM on November 8, 2005

Well, remember that episode of TNG in which some jackass warp drive technician supposedly tampers with the Enterprise (but it was really the 'traveller') and the ship travels to the out-most borders of an unimaginably vast, vast, vast universe (vast!),

Er. Thats probably the episode where "Q" flings the Enterprise to the otherside of space in a sort of flimsy twirling special effect...and then I think also includes the first encounter with the Borg. Gawd, I hate myself.

Since I've already damned myself, I'd say that its pretty much a tie. The Star Wars universe has eight movies, a couple cartoon series, an animated holiday special, comic books, novels, and video games. Star Trek has ten(?) movies, five tv series that ran at least four seasons and as many as eight, novels, etc.
posted by Atreides at 7:15 AM on November 8, 2005

Er. Thats probably the episode where "Q" flings the Enterprise to the otherside of space in a sort of flimsy twirling special effect...

No, I think s/he's talking about the episode where an engineer comes aboard to make vaguely defined improvements to the engine, but it turns out that it's his assistant doing all the heavy lifting.

His assistant turns out to be The Traveller, who is very important in defining Wesley Crusher's role on the ship, as well as his exit from the ship (and show).

(Episode 1.6: Where No One Has Gone Before)

Out-geek that, baby. :)
posted by o2b at 7:49 AM on November 8, 2005

I am for Star Trek, mostly because there were some aspects of actual science fiction in it. Not always, but certainly more than Star Wars. Star Trek was willing to explore possibilities and implications of future technology, but I never saw that in Star Wars. Don't get me wrong, I love the original Trilogy, to my mind they made a great fantasy series. But they never had the remotest connection to any scientific realities. Trek at least made an effort in the later incarnations.

In regard to: Without though being a discussion of who sucks more Lucas or Berman/Bragga, I'm going to comment anyway. I think it's pretty obvious that either get totally blown away by the recent works of Peter Jackson and Joss Whedon. Jackson raised the bar for fantasy extravaganza (with better direction, dialogue, acting - not to mention awards) and Lucas chose to walk right under the bar. And Whedon's Serenity showed more sheer fun and vigor than either ST or SW have shown in the last decade.
posted by Ber at 7:53 AM on November 8, 2005

Out-geek that, baby. :) -o2b

You just made me feel extremely better about myself.

Then again, I've centered my attention on the TOS, rather than TNG...maybe I'm still a candidate for self-loathing.
posted by Atreides at 7:56 AM on November 8, 2005

For a feel for the breadth of the Star Trek universe, spend some time exploring Memory Alpha. I don't know whether anything similar exists for Star Wars.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:51 AM on November 8, 2005

It was while discovering Memory Alpha that brought the question to mind.

When I saw that there had been plans to to launch a 2nd show in 1977, which I had never heard of, it started me wondering how deep the well was.

Then then discussion re tranparent alumina and how many people made the connection to ST & Scotty.

Then for some reason, caught up in some geek state of whirling euphoria, I was searching for all the doctors in TOS.

I was curious to know if all the actors who played physicians in the TOS had ever been another show or film together.

Got so far as Phillip Boyce, Mark Piper, McCoy and John Bellah.

At first UI though that Bellah was Dr. M'Benga. Then I got curious as to what Bellah looked like, but could not find his picture anywhere, which got me quite frustrated.

Still though I was quite amazed at how long you could keep llinking all around the ST universe. and keep finding things that were unknown to me.

Made me wonder how big is it, and how does SW compare.

To me the myth of SW is much stronger, but does not have the "Dr. Bellah" moments.

Curious to hear anybody elses high dives into the quantum mechanic world of either universe.
posted by notcostello at 11:08 AM on November 8, 2005

The major difference between the two is that canon, for Star Wars, consists of approximately 12 hours of film. Everything else is either non-canon books, or fanon.

Whereas for Star Trek the original series, alone, had 79 1-hour episodes adding up to about 60 hours of filmed material, and TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT together, including 10 movies, must add up to well over 500 hours of filmed material considered canon.

So from the basic starting point, SW is simply dwarfed by the available material in the various ST shows. In a way, the question is unfair.

In another, it does speak to Lucas's incestuous plotting of particularly the second trilogy. You may defend it as deliberately circular, but I think it's clear that in terms of fanon, it's an impoverishing choice.

Given that production of canon materials has halted for both franchises, it's safe to say that only fanon is growing, at this point, for either.
posted by dhartung at 7:33 PM on November 8, 2005