The folks over at The Ringer recently posted a fun little piece on JJ Abrams and some perceived cross-pollination between the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises.  And while I can’t help but think that the author of the post is forcing things a bit, I see where he’s coming from.  The simple fact is that in the 21st century, one big movie feels like every big movie, whether Abrams has been involved or not.

Even still, it’s always interesting to see people articulate what was a given for my adolescent understanding of space opera distinctions: Star Wars and Star Trek existed on opposite ends of a cosmic spectrum, and you couldn’t really love both simultaneously.  And while that distinction has softened for me a bit (with particular thanks to Abrams), I still love to see the contrast between each franchise’s worldview.  Consider:

Star Trek is rooted in just enough scientific theory to suspend disbelief, while Star Wars is basically mythology. Where mind control in Star Trek might be the result of, say, a neural neutralizer, Star Wars uses handwavium and weird declarative statements. Khan’s 100-inch vertical was explained away with genetic engineering that freed him from human physical limitations. Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn easily leaped between platforms inside of a poorly designed Nabooian power generator complex (where the hell were the railings?) and moved stuff with their minds thanks to tiny little sentient beings in their bloodstreams.

Star Wars deals more with the dichotomy of good and evil using a slightly less cynical kind of two-party system (the Empire and the Republic), while Star Trek uses deep-space exploration to wrestle with timeworn human questions, both abstract and empirical.

I really enjoyed Star Trek Beyond.  It’s a great, fun movie.  At its best, Star Trek engages the mind.  Star Wars, though?  From the music to the moments, it gets the heart . . . except when the Force is explained away by something as unnecessary as midichlorians.

(image from sequart.org)