This is very interesting post, but I'm afraid that I have to disagree with much of it. In one sense, making Star Trek like Star Wars can lead to a more visually exciting experience. It is true that, with the exceptions of ST I, II, and XIII (First Contact), the effects in Trek films are usually adequate but not much more. Also, some of the later Next Generation films do indeed lack much character depth.

However, I have always thought that this perennial debate about ST vs SW was a bit silly. Besides an outer space setting, the two franchises have almost nothing in common. It would be much more appropriate to compare Star Wars with Lord of the Rings rather than Trek. Star Wars (especially episodes IV and V) is, as was noted, about a young man tackling enormous obstacles in order to achieve maturity and wisdom. That sentence could also be used to describe Frodo in LOTR. In the 2009 Trek, grafting this idea onto James Kirk was interesting (and entertaining), but it's really not what Star Trek, when it's done well, is about.

Good Trek films are about exploration and ideas. Its many problems aside, there are more good and thought provoking questions asked in ST I than in all six SW films. Star Trek also (again, when it's done well) an examination of what it means to be human. It also very often is about loyalty. I again have to disagree with Robert here: Good Trek films usually have great character depth (whether it's Kirk truly facing death in Trek II, Kirk sacrificing the Enterprise itself to save Spock in Trek III, Kirk coming to grips with his own prejudices in Trek VI, or Picard conquering his obsession for vengeance in Trek VII); in fact, the only worthwhile moments in Trek V (definitely the franchise's worst entry) are those brief moments where we see Bones' grief for helping his father with assisted suicide or Spock re-experiencing some childhood pain. Trek is better than most sci-fi franchises and plumbing its characters depths (at least in the TOS films; the TNG films did become fairly bland action films, XIII being the exception). When one thinks about it, the only characters explored in any real depth in Star Wars are Luke and Anakin, the rest are fun but not really more than archetypes.

With all respect, I don't believe that it's undeniable that the original Star Wars is better than any Trek film. I'd take Trek II with me to a desert island before A New Hope. Also, to me, this is like asking what is better, M*A*S*H or ER. They are both medical shows, but they are so different otherwise it's like comparing apples to oranges. Making the Trek franchise more like Star Wars, to me, will make for films that might be a bit more fun but less thought provoking.

Okay, raise shields and fire photon torpedoes (or fire blasters and activate hyperdrive)! I'm also enjoying this debate. I'll do as you did and address specific points.

That is true, too, but films that focus too much on ideas tend to leave out emotions, which are what really allow people to connect to them. If that aspect is missing, there's no ultimate point to the intellectual questions raised.

In many cases this is true. However 2001, possibly the finest sci-fi film ever, is almost bereft of emotion. To me, it depends on a film's goals. If your goal is to generate excitement or explore a character's depths, then it is important to connect with an audience emotionally. If, however, your goal is to explore instead grand ideas or concepts (as in 2001 or Star Trek I, a more cerebral approach is called for. Granted, in film it's usually important to have that emotional connection than it is, say, in a work of philosophy, but, to me, a film, if artfully made and executed, can lack this aspect and still be good or even great.

Perhaps, but I didn't say there are not moments like these to be found. I said they are few and far between. For ten movies, there is not much analysis of these characters. It's been a while, but if I remember correctly, Star Trek VI setup Kirk's prejudice, then set it aside for most of the movie while he got in and out of trouble, and then brought it up around the climax. Many of the SW prequels lack these moments as well, but, again, Orci (and I) was referring only to A New Hope.

In Trek VI, Kirk's anti-Klingon prejudice is a running theme throughout the film. The only problem that I had with it was that Kirk seemed almost too bigoted (there is friendly dispute between Shatner and Nick Meyer; Shatner says that Meyer cut out some moments of Kirk regretting his "Let them die!" comment). I have always thought that Trek was more character driven than SW, which is much more of a razzle-dazzle adventure.

True again, and yet again, this was one good moment in an overall bad film. Shatner could have learned a lot from Star Wars when he directed this one.

I can't argue at all here. You're exactly on the money!

For me, Trek at its best is as an exploration of humanity and (I forgot to mention this in my first post) an allegory for current issues and events. We see this in Trek IV and Trek VI explicitly, but it's also present in Trek II and III (which uses the Genesis device as an allegory of both the military use of science and irresponsible science itself). Shatner has said that the original idea behind Trek V was to have Sybok be a stand in for the charismatic Jimmy Swaggart types (even though this never really is present in the poor film that Trek V is). You've said that Trek may benefit from a little infusion of Star Wars into it. I myself thought that some of the Star Wars prequels better moments were when it took a page out of Trek's book and became an allegory of the death of democracies and the rise of fascism (some people went so far as to calling George Bush a Sith Lord http://ww4report.com/node/575). Again, making Trek more like Star Wars will probably make for more "exciting" films, but, I believe, a bit of Gene Roddenberry will have to go in favor of a bit of George Lucas.

Over to you....

Okay, sorry it took so long.... Once again, point by point:

You're almost right, here, but not quite. Note my original post: "The film is therefore emotionally detached from its audience, despite an interesting premise. Without any further aesthetic merits, it remains, on the whole, a mediocre film."

So, no, 2001 does not have emotion, per se. But it contains a wealth of artistic merits -- beyond its intellectual merits. These aesthetics are its amazing use of music and visuals, which, when you consider their effect, are actually the film's carriers of feeling (instead of using emotion to bring that feeling); they provide it with a sense of awe, wonder, and beauty beyond the intellectual aspects of the content matter.

You're correct here about 2001, but STTMP also has outstanding music and still impressive now (dazzling at the time) visuals. As I've noted above, and in my original review, it also poses some almost profound questions about the nature of humanity. That film's problems mostly have to do with extremely slow pacing and a story that is almost stolen from a few Original Series plots, not in it's attempts to say something interesting or any lack of amazing effects or outstanding music.

Two things: First of all, the SW prequels were not really allegories about the death of democracy -- they were straight-up literally about the death of democracy. Second, though, and more importantly, the prequels were vastly inferior to episodes IV-VI, which doesn't say anything good for the ideas-over-adventure approach. Even if you and I personally disagree on their quality, the fact is that the vast majority of people were unable to connect with the prequels. This is evidence of their relative neglect of feeling in favor of plot. Again, this is why I emphasized that it was good that Orci and Kurtzman took cues specifically from A New Hope (though the rest of the original trilogy would seem to help them, also).

I admit that here your point is pretty solid. However, having just watched some of the bonus material on the new Trek DVD, I'm still left wondering why Abrams and Co. felt it was necessary to borrow from Star Wars per se. As I noted, except for their outer space settings, they have almost nothing in common. For my money, they could have asked what can Trek learn from The Godfather; they have just about as much in common. It is, of course, fine to borrow from any cinematic or literary source (excluding plagiarism :-)), but I always wonder why people want to compare these two franchises. Trek is much more like Babylon 5 than SW, but, with some exceptions in the '90s, hardly anyone ever asks what can Trek learn from B5.