Part 1

Growing up, when it came to mainstream science fiction (i.e. on TV or the bigscreen) it seemed the world was divided into two denominations: either Star Trek, or Star Wars.  Many things about burgeoning nerd culture back then were similarly polarized: in comics, it was either Marvel or DC; in video games, either Nintendo or Sega.  If there was anything else in between- besides reruns of older SF shows or movies -they rarely struck a big enough impression for me to recall in the same breath as the “Stars.”  Much in the same manner, I suppose, in which liberals or 3^rd parties in politics get brushed aside, whether or not their policies are appealing.  Even today, when many hear the words ‘science fiction’ their minds arrive first at either of the Star-franchises.

But in truth, things have changed since my childhood years; the menu for the discerning SF enthusiast has expanded, and the crown for the king of the sci-fi hill is much contested, and no longer necessarily engraved with the word Star (compound words excluded).  Currently, we have a rehashed Battlestar Galactica, Stargate Atlantis, Heroes, and a new Doctor Who imported from across the Atlantic.  We had Stargate: SG1, Babylon 5, Farscape and Firefly.  I’ve yet to encounter a lover of science fiction who did not enjoy at least one of the above.  They were good news for the industry- a new crop to liven the field, so to speak -and as with comics or video games the stagnant bipartisanship was done away with.

But where are the two huge Stars of yesterday?

The last Star Trek show, Enterprise, ended three years ago after about a four-year run.  Or more precisely, it was canceled.  It was not a big hit among fans (in fact, I’ve only encountered one individual who admitted to really liking the show).  That its fourth and final season was allowed to finish in some form is a grace not often afforded to shows with less prestigious titles, whatever their quality.  Before that was Star Trek Voyager (’95 to ’01), and while not as disappointing as Enterprise, inevitable comparisons to its predecessors The Next Generation and Deep Space 9 left many entertained, but less impressed.  The movies, by and large, were rarely great successes.  Wrath of Khan will always stand at the top, but save for a handful of films around the middle, surpassing the list was no grand cinematic accomplishment.  And so, it seemed that as early as the late-90s, Star Trek was starting on a road to decline.

The Star Wars prequel trilogy is like to be more prominent in the public’s memory.  Taken together, the last additions to the mythos were met with no small amount of criticism and satire.  After nigh on sixteen years, The Phantom Menace was a disappointment of a much-hailed return.  Attack of the Clones lived up to its banal name carried on the baton of mediocrity.  Arguably, only Revenge of the Sith lent the prequel trilogy any amount of justice when held to the light of Star Wars in the minds of the fanbase.  If anything, it was the animated Clone Wars miniseries by Genndy Tartakovsky (Dexter’s Lab, Powerpuff Girls, Samurai Jack) that drew the most praise.  More even than the movies themselves, as far as many fans were concerned.

Both Stars Wars and Star Trek have tried, and are still trying, to go back in time- both in the context of stories and in critical/commercial success.  In making the prequel trilogy, it feels as though Lucas believed he could wow audiences in exactly the same manner as he did in 1977; that is, dazzle audiences with special effects and amuse with a dash of camp leftover from the Flash Gordon-era.  But the audience he stunned yesteryear is no longer young and less easily impressed; they are more cynical, more exposed to the possibilities of CGI and imagination.  And by at least Enterprise, which was also a prequel, Star Trek had begun consciously digging up old plot elements.  Even DS9 was initially steeped in controversy for (allegedly) being based in J. Michael Straczynski’s Babylon 5.

The next venture in the Star Trek series is a movie, this one the eleventh, to be release on Christmas Day of this year.  It is simply called “Star Trek,” and delves into the earlier exploits of the original crew and starship that started it all.  Details have been kept tightly under wraps, in no small part thanks to an unprecedented amount of security on-set.  On the opposite end, George Lucas is giving Star Wars fans their next big fix via the TV route.  Two long-running series are slated for the coming years, one computer-animated first to debut in Fall of 2008, followed by a live-action in 2009.  “Clone Wars” continues the animated shorts by Tartakovsky (who is no longer involved).  The latter, still unnamed live-action serial tackles the events between the original trilogy and the newer prequel trilogy, and will allegedly focus on characters that were previously relegated to supporting/minor roles.  Both are purported to be darker than their predecessors.

As a science fiction fan, I can only hope this new movie and these new TV shows either inject new value into the old horses, or thoroughly kill them outright.

Both George Lucas and the late Gene Roddenberry lost touch with their creations and their audience, the latter quite less gracefully.  Once the Stars became franchises, it was out of their hands.  Just as we’ve built up the mythologies they’ve created- and we have built them up -we tend to build this image of genius around the creators and fancy they are infallible.  But real writers know the truth: you can do wrong by your own story.  Furthermore, anyone who’s ever entertained the pursuit of a creative enterprise understands a simple fact: getting lucky once doesn’t mean you’re a prodigy.  It may have originally been Roddenberry’s Star Trek and Lucas’ Star Wars, but as soon as they left it alone for that period of time it also became everyone else’s.  Like Stan Lee and Marvel, the mythology around them grew so larger-than-life that their fathers were eventually obsolete; Lucas is just holding on to his baby a while longer.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules. Comments do not reflect the views or approval of The Virginian-Pilot or this Web site. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment to alert an editor. Repeat offenders will be denied automatic posting privileges.