Why Star Trek sucks

Because it's not Star Wars, and in my formative years, that was the difference. The vision George Lucas created in sci-fi was far superior to anything Roddenberry and later Berman created, and I'm not just talking about the special effects. Lucas created classic human drama, enhanced and expanded by fantastic technology, but still plagued by the same individual and societal shortcomings that makes good drama. While Roddenberry tried to do the same thing, Star Trek's basic premise of humankind's enlightened societal condition and superior sense of ethics ultimately cheapened anything Kirk or the crew of the Enterprise accomplished. Of course they always prevailed, and in a perfect way. In a universe as seemingly perfect as the Federation, where you can't even find wrinkled clothing, much less a speck of dirt...anywhere...or equipment that shows even the slightest signs of wear and tear, would you expect any less of them? At least Luke Skywalkers landspeeder looked like the typical POS old Camaro a teenager would drive.

Now don't get me wrong...Star Wars took a turn for the worse after the first 3 movies. And it doesn't stack up to really good sci-fi, like Dune or the new BSG series. So it's not perfect. But at least Lucas had a good premise to work with.

Star Trek also sucks because, for the most part, over the years, it just kept getting worse. Flipping channels, I just watched a few more minutes of Star Trek: Voyager and I got that same sick feeling in my stomach like when I try to watch Jerry Springer, Toddlers and Tiaras, or Judge Judy. It's just so campy and unrealistic. Also, as I get older, I have less and less patience with most sci-fi as I gain a deeper appreciation for good storytelling and dramatical narratives, which, except for the aforementioned examples, sci-fi is really bad at.

Alfred Hitchcock said that drama is just life with all the dull bits removed. Good sci-fi is a good combination of drama and futurism. But it's still about the drama first, the futurism second. Star Trek (and Stargate SG-1, for that matter) is too far removed from real life, and therefore falls into the category of bad drama. I can't respect it, therefore I have a hard time enjoying it.

It could be argued that Star Wars is bad futurism. There are no real explanations for how some technology works or even theories it is based on. At least Star Trek tries to explain itself using our current understanding of physics. But maybe that's the point...I can live with bad futurism, because its the drama that draws me in. If I want raw futurism, I'll just watch the Discovery channel.

There are a few more things about Star Trek that bug me:

• Humankind is perfect, now that they are "mature" enough, as a species.
• Aliens all look like humans with makeup.
• Bad guys all sound strangely like Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany.
• In later series, excessive time travel exacerbates bad plot lines
• Given the variance of cultural, social and political habits and practices within our own species and on our own planet, I have to question the casual relationships the humans have with several dozen alien species after only a few hours or years of contact.
• Everyone speaks English.
• The Ferengi.

Interesting how much more appealing the new Star Trek movie from 2009 was. It incorporated many elements that made Star Wars work so well, (the "used future" for example) almost as if Lucas had produced it. This new direction could work well.