Star Wars (Ep.4) v ST:The Motion Picture - which is the better Sci-fi/film

Samuel T. Cogley

Star Wars has in popular culture (and at the box office!) always been considered the better film but 40 years after the release which is the better film today. For me it's definitely Star Trek, it's a proper hard Sci-fi film with difficult concepts, but even I admit Star Wars was more fun.

Thoughts?

Dades

I can't consider Star Wars as SF. It's fantasy all the way - space is just the setting. There's no attempt to explain the science of lightsabers or anti grav vehicles, they're just props. "The Force" drives the plot.

Dune is similar. Ancient cults and a messiah figure, just within a more technologically advanced society.

So, ST: The Motion Picture is the answer. (With Ep IV instead being one of the most important movies ever made).

saneman

Eh, space is just the setting? Were are talking about SW & ST right? I don't consider ST hard sci-fi, I mean the base setting itself is a (relatively near) future with humanity existing in peace without the need for money, that alone is a fantasy if I've ever heard one. A mind meld is no different from a force power and a hyperspace drive works as much "cos science" as a warp drive so I put them both in the camp. And while I really like the premise of ST:TMP it's actual execution was humourless and drawn out, a 2-hour film felt a lot longer. For me SW was is a better film in every sense and while both show their age SW is the only I would watch start to finish again.

Dades

saneman wrote: »

I don't consider ST hard sci-fi

Nobody should. Interstellar, it ain't.

But if you had to choose a genre on Netflix, it's still SF, right?

Samuel T. Cogley

Dades wrote: »

Nobody should. Interstellar, it ain't.

But if you had to choose a genre on Netflix, it's still SF, right?

I coined the phrase 'hard sci-fi' to be fair in my OP. I'm putting it (and therefore open to criticism) in the same category as 2001 etc. rather than Indiana Jones which is where Star Wars belongs (IMHO).

Dades

Oops - I see that now.

Not for me. Star Trek has had some great SF over the years, but on the whole it's pretty soft. But SF nonetheless!

ixoy

Never considered 'Star Wars' sci-fi either. It's pure fantasy with sci-fi type trappings. However, it is entertaining and more so than 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture'.
'Star Trek' as a whole is definitely sci-fi, exploring concepts through a future lens which is often what good sci-fi does. It's not just concerned with a big adventure story. It's not hard sci-fi but very little committed to the big screen is - sure 'Interstellar' is one of the better big budget examples, but maybe something like 'Europa Report' or 'Primer' where there's a lot of attention to detail. A digression though.

Overall, I've always preferred Trek to Star Wars precisely because Trek is actual sci-fi. Just not in their film incarnations.

Having said all this, the broader public would definitely count 'Star Wars' as sci-fi because of the aliens and space ships. It'll just be us nerds arguing over the definitions!

TheBigEvil

I liked The Money pit ..........

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Samuel T. Cogley

jacksie66 wrote: »

Well for me Star Trek 2 TWOK and 6 TUC beat any Star Wars movies..

So say we all, the same director is involved in Star Trek Discovery so fingers crossed.