How would 1977 Star Wars (A New Hope) be affected if there was never a...

Star Trek? Let's say Gene Roddenberry died in a car accident, so there is no Star Trek in 1967. How does that POD change Stars Wars in 1977? Would there be any difference at all? Defend your answer!
 
You wanna change Star Wars, you have to Kill Akira Kurosawa.
Kurosawa's movies played a huge role in creating Star Wars.
Hell, Lucas wanted Toshiro Mifune to be Obi-wan Kenobi.
 
No difference. There was no Star Trek influence on the development of Star Wars.

well actual your wrong. Star Trek played no real important role in making of Star Wars but Star Trek did play a role in the media. In the 70s Star Trek was huge. The 70s was the era of Sci-Fi boom. If it was not for Star Trek then the Sci-Fi geeks would have never been around to see Star Wars in the first place.

So hence Star Wars would have tanked in the first move due to lack of interest.
 
well actual your wrong. Star Trek played no real important role in making of Star Wars but Star Trek did play a role in the media. In the 70s Star Trek was huge. The 70s was the era of Sci-Fi boom. If it was not for Star Trek then the Sci-Fi geeks would have never been around to see Star Wars in the first place.

So hence Star Wars would have tanked in the first move due to lack of interest.
Except that one of the main reasons that Star Wars was so successful was that it broke out of the Sci-fi niche market and into mainstream pop culture.
 
Except that one of the main reasons that Star Wars was so successful was that it broke out of the Sci-fi niche market and into mainstream pop culture.

I think his point is that the 70s were first decade where people started taking sci-fi seriously and in that sense, yeah it might be harder to get Star Wars made if there was no Star Trek to preceed it.
 
I don't think it would have been made in the first place. Before Star Trek Science Fiction was largely seen as pulp era crap like Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers.
 

Jasen777

Donor
Star Trek was only a not-so successful three season series that had not had much mainstream impact at this point. You could in fact argue that it was the success of Star Wars that enabled the Star Trek movies to be made.
 
....which were Star War's main inspiration. :rolleyes:

But done better. You didn't have the Yellow Peril in Space ala Ming the Merciless and the special effects were much better. Also they had the luck of stumbling on to Harrison Ford as Han Solo. He got picked only because he was doing some props work IIRC (He was a carpenter at the time) and Lucas was short a Han Solo for the reading (He picked the actors in groups.).
 
Star Trek was only a not-so successful three season series that had not had much mainstream impact at this point. You could in fact argue that it was the success of Star Wars that enabled the Star Trek movies to be made.

True. At Paramount they had been planing to produce a new Star Trek TV series ("Star Trek: Phase II") when the success of Star Wars and Close Encounters convinced the execs that they could make more money with a big-screen movie instead. Thus was born Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
 
Top