• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

William Shatner Says Star Trek Wouldn't Exist Without Star Wars

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dalek

Member
William Shatner Says Star Trek Wouldn't Exist Without Star Wars

Captain Kirk shocked thousands of Trekkies Saturday by admitting that Star Wars is the reason we have Star Trek today. Now, can there finally be peace between the fandoms?

“Star Wars created Star Trek. You know that?” he said.

Speaking at the Star Trek convention in Las Vegas, William Shatner said the franchise owes its success to the box office dynamo that was George Lucas’ Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. While it’s true that Star Trek came out a decade before that (put those keyboards down, Trekkies), it also got cancelled after three seasons, with little hope of it ever returning.

“Every year, there was the threat to be canceled. The third year, we were canceled, and everybody accepted it,” he said.

Shatner said Star Wars got people so interested in sci-fi that, of course, Star Trek was going to be brought back from the abyss. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was released two years later.

“At Paramount Studios, they were running around bumping into each other. ‘What do we got?! What do we got to equal Star Wars?’” Shatner told the crowd. “There was this thing that we canceled, under another management, it was called Star Trek? Let’s resurrect that!”
Click to expand...

“Star Trek, at its best, tells human stories,” he said. “Star Wars was grand, like opera. It was huge with great special effects. It was a marvelously entertaining film, but it wasn’t specifically about people the way those Star Treks were.”
Click to expand...

woah1.gif
 
V

Volimar

Member
<shrug>

I enjoy both. I never understood the need to prove one to be better. Fandom is a silly thing sometimes.
 
M

munchie64

Member
It is pretty interesting that when they finally got a chance to come back in movie form because of Star Wars, that they didn't try to copy it at all. The complete opposite is true really.
 
P

PdotMichael

Banned
Well, the original Star Trek was a bunch of Americans in space getting into another adventure every week. It was closer to stuff like Flash Gordon.
 
S

spekkeh

Banned
Well yeah but who resurrected it better, the way Star Wars resurrected Star Trek TOS movies, or the way Star Trek 2007 did Star Wars ep 7? Tell me that huh.
 
J

Jebusman

Banned
Dalek said:
Sulu-and-Chekov-sulu-and-chekov-8450709-738-733.jpg
Click to expand...

I mean, they were both born and raised in the US (the actors not the characters). They may have different heritages, but they were (and still are) 100% american citizens.

If anything it should be a bunch of Americans & Canadians (considering Shatner and Doohan)
 
T

tuffy

Member
Star Trek was hanging around in reruns on syndication for a long time so it probably would've been remembered with some fondness for a long time, regardless. But Shatner's right in that it took the movies, spurred on by Star Wars, to revitalize Star Trek and keep it going as a franchise.
 
Moff

Moff

Member
TIL that Star Trek was cancelled after 3 seasons and resurrected after Star Wars, thanks Mr. Shatner
 
C

CaviarMeths

Member
DoctorWho said:
I don't think it was ever quite as dead as something like Firefly but it might have been.
Click to expand...

I dunno, Firefly was cancelled what like 15 years ago and it still has a very active fandom, official merchandise, continuations, etc. Firefly on TV is deader than dead, but the brand is still very much alive.
 
S

shintoki

sparkle this bitch
CaviarMeths said:
I dunno, Firefly was cancelled what like 15 years ago and it still has a very active fandom, official merchandise, continuations, etc. Firefly on TV is deader than dead, but the brand is still very much alive.
Click to expand...

They took a risk on a movie and it bombed too. Books and comics have a much lower entry point than TV/movies.
 
A

Abounder

Banned
Why the hell wasn't Shatner in the 50th anniversary movie (Beyond) anyway? Good god that sounds like a marketing masterpiece

Anyway the man's mostly right. Plus we wouldn't have gotten Galaxy Quest.
 
B

bill0527

Member
Star Trek Beyond was a fantastic Star Trek movie. The fact it's underperforming says more about movie goers this summer than it does the film. It's been a bloodbath all summer long at the box office and Star Trek got caught in its wake.
 
J

Jinkies

Member
Volimar said:
<shrug>

I enjoy both. I never understood the need to prove one to be better. Fandom is a silly thing sometimes.
Click to expand...

It is because they are so different, and as such, will attract different people. Being in the same genre of fiction, comparisons are inevitable. So, some ardent fans might take exception when the thing they like is being grouped in with something they find silly.
 
S

shintoki

sparkle this bitch
Abounder said:
Why the hell wasn't Shatner in the 50th anniversary movie (Beyond) anyway? Good god that sounds like a marketing masterpiece

Anyway the man's mostly right. Plus we wouldn't have gotten Galaxy Quest.
Click to expand...


He past the torch in Star Trek Generations, which was 15 years after the first film and 25 years after the series ended.

It was better this way.
 
S

Sephzilla

Member
Generations didn't need a pass the torch moment and the Kirk stuff in that movie felt really shoehorned in and forced.
 
F

Fuchsdh

Member
Anyone who has read anything about the making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture knows this is true, although it's probably more accurate to say "Star Trek wouldn't exist in its current form" without Star Wars. In the late 1970s sci-fi had a big resurgence, exemplified by Star Wars, and suddenly everyone wanted some of that money. Hence the Trek TV series became a movie, but I don't think if Star Wars hand't come out Trek wouldn't have endured through its successful syndication and Phase II.
 
F

ferr

Member
Star Wars taking over the box office is why a lot of "space themed" movies/etc got produced. They wanted to capitalize on it.

Ridley Scott's Alien was one of them that was specifically produced because of SW- I think that was said by one of the creators in the Alien dvd making-of thing.

So it is directly true in that sense. The powers that be saw a great ROI in a Star Trek movie due to Star Wars mania.
 
CharminUltra

CharminUltra

Member
As someone who's eternally amused by the Star Dreck vs Star Trash rivalry, this revelation makes me giddy.

Edit: I actually enjoy both series (for what they are, and to an extent). Just wanted to use the names I've seen often used to deride them.
 
H

hobblygobbly

Member
I've enjoyed only a handful of the Star Trek movies, for me the franchise at its core is what is done on television. Any ways, I've also never understood the fandom rivalry between the two, they are very different franchises with different appeals, they only share a common theme of space and spaceships. It's sort of like if there was a Game of Thrones vs The Lord of the Rings fandom rivalry or something.
 
M

MC Safety

Member
How About No said:
Huh. Makes sense.

Weird to think that at one point Star Trek was some old thing hardly anyone talked about at one point
Click to expand...

It was always around.

Don't forget there was a Star Trek animated series in 1973 and Star Trek conventions in the 1970s and even a Star Trek-themed store in New York that was up and running long before Star Trek The Motionless Picture.
 
K

Kimaka

Member
I'm more shocked that there are so Trek fans that didn't know that Star Wars revitalized the Star Trek franchise.

I also enjoy both. Whenever I feel someone that I'm a fan of one, they always assume that I hate the other. Despite being both set in space, they focus on different themes.
 
H

How About No

Member
MC Safety said:
It was always around.

Don't forget there was a Star Trek animated series in 1973 and Star Trek conventions in the 1970s and even a Star Trek-themed store in New York that was up and running long before Star Trek The Motionless Picture.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair I don't remember that because I wasn't even a protein in my dad's body yet
 
D

dragonyeuw

Member
Trek wouldn't exist without Star Wars is an odd statement. Wouldn't be culturally relevant may be more accurate, or is that a distinction without a difference?
 
W

WyndhamPrice

Member
dragonyeuw said:
Trek wouldn't exist without Star Wars is an odd statement. Wouldn't be culturally relevant may be more accurate, or is that a distinction without a difference?
Click to expand...

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was very directly put into production as a response to the popularity of Star Wars in 1977. TMP made the brand relevant in the mainstream again, rather than just something for a (relatively) small group of fans. Shatner isn't wrong.
 
J

jstripes

Banned
CaviarMeths said:
I dunno, Firefly was cancelled what like 15 years ago and it still has a very active fandom, official merchandise, continuations, etc. Firefly on TV is deader than dead, but the brand is still very much alive.
Click to expand...

Star Trek's fandom after its cancellation and through the '70s was sort of the prototype for modern fandoms.

But no, you can't carry a franchise on fanboys alone. (Which is something everyone who screeches "But what about my CHILDHOOD?" needs to learn.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Jonathan Frakes on the Star Trek: TNG Clip Show: 'That was a piece of shit'
25
2K
nush replied
Star Trek: DS9 and Voyager do not exist in the For All Mankind alternate timeline
9
1K
Pagusas replied
What Does Star Trek Mean to You?
Social Opinion Community 2
82
3K
sono replied
Shatner: Gene Roddenberry would “be turning in his grave at some of this stuff.” and "Fuck Star Wars"
2
51
3K
SlimySnake replied
Star Trek 4 to continue with Chris Pine's rebooted Kirk & co.
47
3K
mcjmetroid replied
Top Bottom