Which is better: Star Wars or Star Trek

jimgoose · 10-04-2015 11:57PM

c_man wrote: »

Hey guys, would the Force protect against Borg nano-probes?

Mito-whatsits and nanoprobes would whale fcuk out of each other with tiny lightsabers. It would make outstanding viewing.

kylith · 11-04-2015 12:06AM

DivingDuck wrote: »

I never got into B5, but I remember reading at the time something about Straczynski's computer being hacked and plot details being leaked*? Curious and curiouser...

*This is obviously a joke and not intended to cast aspersions on the character of Mssrs Berman and Pillar.

Word is that B5 was pitched to Paramount, who turned it down. Either way they're both great shows; DS9 just had the benefit of the name, the budget, and the tech.

fryup · 11-04-2015 12:09AM

Neo_Ninja wrote: »

Star Trek is way better, Star Wars is so unrealistic!

yes star trek is set in reality :rolleyes:

CiDeRmAn · 11-04-2015 12:27AM

Greatest American Hero FTW!

Actually, Star Wars is more iconic, black hats vs white hats kinda stuff, leaning on classic tropes of good, evil, redemption.
It has masses of universe building, mythology, a deep history there on screen from the first movie.
Star Trek is much much lighter, only getting serious with the good TNG episodes.
None of this is to say that some of the best 45 minutes of stories aren't worth ST at times, and SW has done dreadful tripe in there, like Binks and Ewoks, but on average, Star Wars is just better.

Maximus Alexander · 11-04-2015 12:38AM

fryup wrote: »

yes star trek is set in reality :rolleyes:

Yep.

KomradeBishop · 11-04-2015 12:49AM

kylith wrote: »

It's very weird when you realise that DS9 and Babylon 5 are essentially the same show. Seriously, watch them again; the plots are basically identical.

I've never watched Babylon 5, and tried to a couple of years ago to see what it was like, since the two get compared a lot - couldn't get past the Atari-era (ST, not Jaguar :pac:) graphics, and the hammy acting.

EDIT: Just realized now, after googling Atari ST vs Atari Jaguar, what the joke-poll-option was referencing all this time.

Gbear · 11-04-2015 01:02AM

I feel like ST can be overrated relative to SW at times.

I love both, but Star Wars by no means has the monopoly on garbage.

It's interesting to see how much more dated the old Star Trek films look than contemporaneous Star Wars films. For all his faults Lucas was a part of a hugely innovative team.

They both have their highs and lows but they're coming at Sci-Fi from a very very different angle.

I always felt Trek was at it's best when it stuck to harder-sci fi stories and used those to broach philosophical questions or serve as a backdrop to believable problems of the future, rather than the shark-jumping time travel or god-being episodes that would've fit better into a magical setting like Star Wars, where precognition, super-heroism, fate, good and evil and all that are common fare.
In many respects, Star Wars has more in common with Lord of the Rings than it does with hard sci-fi.

Star Wars is great space opera that's more about idealised fantastical concepts and doesn't take itself as seriously. It's escapism.

Star Trek needs to fill a more serious niche and it's one that has seldom been filled since the end of DS9.
We're almost overloaded with light sci-fi with the deluge of superhero films. SW is a thing apart from that, but they still have a similar tone.
There's very little in the way of serious drama in the genre.

Both are brilliant and enormously important to the broad sci-fi/fantasy landscape. Trying to make the argument that one is better overall is daft.

Earthhorse · 11-04-2015 01:28AM

folamh wrote: »

Why not DS9 and Voyager?

Because they are both deeply boring. That's why.

The Diabolical Monocle · 11-04-2015 01:45AM

Trek easily wins the tits category.
Deanna Troy.

CiDeRmAn · 11-04-2015 02:27AM

Gbear wrote: »

I feel like ST can be overrated relative to SW at times.

I love both, but Star Wars by no means has the monopoly on garbage.

It's interesting to see how much more dated the old Star Trek films look than contemporaneous Star Wars films. For all his faults Lucas was a part of a hugely innovative team.

They both have their highs and lows but they're coming at Sci-Fi from a very very different angle.

I always felt Trek was at it's best when it stuck to harder-sci fi stories and used those to broach philosophical questions or serve as a backdrop to believable problems of the future, rather than the shark-jumping time travel or god-being episodes that would've fit better into a magical setting like Star Wars, where precognition, super-heroism, fate, good and evil and all that are common fare.
In many respects, Star Wars has more in common with Lord of the Rings than it does with hard sci-fi.

Star Wars is great space opera that's more about idealised fantastical concepts and doesn't take itself as seriously. It's escapism.

Star Trek needs to fill a more serious niche and it's one that has seldom been filled since the end of DS9.
We're almost overloaded with light sci-fi with the deluge of superhero films. SW is a thing apart from that, but they still have a similar tone.
There's very little in the way of serious drama in the genre.

Both are brilliant and enormously important to the broad sci-fi/fantasy landscape. Trying to make the argument that one is better overall is daft.

Star Wars is simply classical operatic themes in a swashbuckling SciFi mashup.
Star Trek is wagon train to the stars.
But neither are great science fiction.
If you are a reader of good science fiction across the different eras you'll know what that looks like, and neither franchise measures up at all.
Luckily we have Moon, Silent Running, 2001, Source Code and Predestination to make a few that fill that need quite effectively on the big screen, on the small screen we have The Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, BSG (reboot), Firefly, B5, Continuum, Defiance and even Flashforward and Journeyman.

The Golden Miller · 11-04-2015 03:28AM

Not mad into sci-fi but I like the epic fantasy type stuff. So I'll go with Star Wars, as the original trilogy was good, following the 3 main characters around and watching them get up to no good. But they really dragged out that ewok garbage in Return of the Jedi, to the point where it nearly ruined the whole film. Don't think the prequels were as bad as people made out, but it just wasn't the same with all the space politics, and no core group you got to follow on one continued journey for the 3 films. In fairness to Star Trek, it ain't the worst either.

After all these years though, it's amazing to see how one film, Star Wars, has been so influential and ingrained into popular culture. Don't think we'll ever see the like of it again. If the new Star Wars comes out and gets good reviews, I'd say it will once again become the highest grossing film of all time, and certainly the highest of all films released this year. For a painfully average film, it has some amount of pull to be able to drag so many hysterical people through the cinema doors in record numbers, every time a new one is released. It's unprecedented and I'm not quite sure how it does it, considering it ever only seems to be slated by everyone as being for nerds. It's influence fascinates me, more than the actual films themselves

MarkAnthony · 11-04-2015 03:31AM

I was (and still am I guess) a massive Trek Fan. Then along came the remade Battlestar Galatica and ruined Sci-fi for all time. The music, the story, the acting, everything was unsurpassable.

Really after that the Star Trek/Wars debate just became meaningless to me! :pac:

So say we all.

The only hope for Star Trek these days is the fan made stuff. Hopefully Axanar is going to be epic.

Nate--IRL-- · 11-04-2015 03:35AM

If Axanar gets made it will be epic. The rebooted trek is ok. But Axanar looks like the Trek that should have been made in it's place,

Nate

11-04-2015 03:46AM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Greatest American Hero FTW!

He might find the instructions!

iDave · 11-04-2015 07:54AM

c_man wrote: »

Hey guys, would the Force protect against Borg nano-probes?

Resistance is futile

iDave · 11-04-2015 07:57AM

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Trek easily wins the tits category.
Deanna Troy.

7 of 9

Tombi! · 11-04-2015 07:59AM

iDave wrote: »

7 of 9

Torres

Triceratops888 · 11-04-2015 08:00AM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Torres

Crusher

Saralee4 · 11-04-2015 08:00AM

IamNotNumber wrote: »

Star Trek next generation only ..was some really good theories and plausible realities, data aka brent spiner was such an amazing actor ,deanna troi and beverly crusher,this is capatin Jean Luc picard from the starship enterprise.
A holodeck..how awesome would it be if it was reality?
Holodecks a reality? well its coming closer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2762092/Marriott-virtual-reality-teleporter-booth-lets-travellers-feel-smell-holiday-locations-without-booking-flight.html

A holodeck would be cool but they had a load of episodes where they got stuck in it and nearly got killed!

I think I remember they used to hint that Riker in next generation was using it as a kind of porn.

You'd have some serious holodeck addicts right? If you ate something in the holodeck, would you not put on weight? Or smoked only in the holodeck it would be safe? Because it's all in your head?

iDave · 11-04-2015 08:03AM

Triceratops888 wrote: »

Crusher

T'Pol

helimachoptor · 11-04-2015 08:06AM

Lela the dabo girl /end thread

fryup · 11-04-2015 08:30AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmj2k5TYKDg

Agricola · 11-04-2015 06:56PM

Glad Star Trek is winning here. Star Wars always seemed to me like nothing more than a big popcorn film, geared towards kids of all ages. Star Trek always seemed routed in something vaguely plausible. Obviously that doesnt make it better than Star Wars, but to Trek nerds it does.

11-04-2015 07:01PM

I don't like either, but can tolerate Star Trek better than Star Wars. That stupid shrill gorilla-dog thing in it puts me off.

kylith · 11-04-2015 07:34PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I've never watched Babylon 5, and tried to a couple of years ago to see what it was like, since the two get compared a lot - couldn't get past the Atari-era (ST, not Jaguar :pac:) graphics, and the hammy acting.

EDIT: Just realized now, after googling Atari ST vs Atari Jaguar, what the joke-poll-option was referencing all this time.

Yeah, the graphics are very ropey but, like I said, DS9 had the name to bring in the money and the technology. I think B5 was more realistic with the science of it, and definitely had more alien-y aliens.

Fckin' Kai Winn though. What a wagon.

StinkyMunkey · 11-04-2015 07:37PM

Honestly can't vote on this one. I love them both equally!

Tombi! · 11-04-2015 07:40PM

Kiera nightly was in star wars so it's a bit difficult between her and ezri.

That is what the vote is on, what one has the prettier women, right?

In all seriousness, star trek wins. They're enemies could aim. Imperial storm troopers couldn't

Saralee4 · 11-04-2015 07:51PM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Kiera nightly was in star wars so it's a bit difficult between her and ezri.

That is what the vote is on, what one has the prettier women, right?

In all seriousness, star trek wins. They're enemies could aim. Imperial storm troopers couldn't

well if we are talking about that then it would be star trek, Klingon men are seriously sexy

Tombi! · 11-04-2015 07:55PM

What would be the star wars equivalent of Klingons?

The_Valeyard · 11-04-2015 08:19PM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

What would be the star wars equivalent of Klingons?

Wookies

Which is better: Star Wars or Star Trek

Comments