Star Wars vs Star Trek

[GenericMind]

I'm sorry I can't get into competative potato sack racing or whatever the fuck it is you people do in illinois

 

[Lube4Jesus]

GM, please start ripping people a new asshole in here like you do in the Lounge.

You have my blessing; I will not infract.

You hijacking my thread GM.
THIS IS ROUND ONE!
Hey mod please don't go all W.T Snacks on us.

 

[Lube4Jesus]

No... us people in Illinois are hardcore corn jerkers

 

[neversickanymore]

Hey GM...football sucks and I'm glad your team lost cause they suck too

reported

 

[Lube4Jesus]

reported

Football sucks... Cry moar

 

[GenericMind]

Seriously though, anyone who hasn't watched Star Trek should check it out if they never have. It's basically impossible not to like if you're a geek. I'd advise starting with Next Generation series, followed by Deep Space 9.

 

[Smoky]

Both are very different. No comparison. The first 2 Star Wars movies were great imo. Beyond that ……...

" Luke, I am your father "

 

[Lube4Jesus]

Seriously though, anyone who hasn't watched Star Trek should check it out if they never have. It's basically impossible not to like if you're a geek. I'd advise starting with Next Generation series, followed by Deep Space 9.

Who would watch that nonsense. Their isn't enough action in startrek like there is in starwars. It's just a bunch of queers on a spaceship taking orders from Captain Kirk.
And Spock has to be the gayest name in the history of history.
And next generation sucks!
Startrek sucks and starwars is better! GET ON MY LEVEL! StartrekFags

 

[GenericMind]

Captain Kirk and Spock aren't in Next Generation or Deep Space 9 Noob.

 

[Max Power]

But what about Whorf.

 

[GenericMind]

Worf is my nigga. He's in Next Generation AND Deep Space Nine. That's probably why those two are my favorite series.

 

[Lube4Jesus]

Captain Kirk and Spock aren't in Next Generation or Deep Space 9 Noob.

I'm gonna shove that next generation so far up your ass buddy... You'll need an enema of Jack Daniels

 

[GenericMind]

Star Wars fans appear to be obsessed with anal.

 

[Max Power]

I'm gonna shove that next generation so far up your ass buddy... You'll need an enema of Jack Daniels

If you're gonna be a troll, at least be funny.

 

[Belisarius]

Why I prefer ST:
1.)Someone said that the Jedi are human (well, the actually human ones anyway). That is technically true, but not practically so. The Jedi were human in the original trilogy; once Lucas found CGI he turned them into people who might as well be supermen, what with their deflecting hundreds of blaster rays at once with their light sabers (which begs the question of why they even send blaster-equipped enemies against them), flying through the air, etc. You look at the way they are in Episodes I and II and wonder how the hell Order 66 could've gotten them. Here's where "the Dark Side clouded their perceptions" creeps into the conversation, which only proves that ST is not the only franchise with handwavium.

2.) The SW universe is timeless. No matter how many thousands of years far you go back in the chronology, there are starships and space travel and the same races fighting and allying and...well, to be fair this is a criticism it shares with much of the high fantasy genre in general.

3.) This is less of a specific criticism, and more of a statement of how the franchises are run: Star Trek, at least in the visual medium, has always been more creatively flexible than Star Wars. That is, one of the biggest weakness of SW in my op is that Lucas kept a stranglehold on it until he was bought out, while ST has been continuously traded between different writers and directors, even while Roddenberry was still alive--and it shows. I was one of the few geeks pleased by Disney's buyout of the franchise for exactly this reason, though (like others) I worry about the fact that Disney is likely to be far more proprietary wrt the brand name than Lucasfilm was.

All this aside, I guess the main reason I prefer Trek is that I've always preferred SF to fantasy, even if it is as relatively soft SF as Trek is. That said, I love the original trilogy, and think Episode III was a very solid installment.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Wow, this thread has degenerated into absolute crap. GM, if you're going to turn this thread into a Lounge playground battle, you win mate. I'm not interested in taking part in that sort of anti-discussion. Don't resort to troll level. (You suck! No, you suck!)

Except claiming that there aren't many original ideas in the show is plain wrong. There are countless original concepts found throughout Star Trek. Star Wars uses some of the most cliche themes you can possibly find in writing.

I'm not saying that there aren't any original ideas in the show, just that it takes credit for other people's ideas by regurgitating them into popular television. Rather than insisting the show has "countless" original concepts, why not list some of them? (How about 50? If there are countless ideas, that shouldn't be a problem.)

I wouldn't argue that Star Wars is full of original ideas. It has some, but that's not really what the trilogy is about.

A small band of rebels fighting against a tyrannical empire. Complete black-and-white good vs. evil. The simple-living boy who grows up to find out his epic lineage was hidden from him and he's really destined for bigger things. The old wise mentor to train him. I could go on and on and on. It's literally the most cliche-filled and simple story to gain popularity in the 20th century.

Star Wars unashamedly adheres to mythological archetypes. It doesn't do this accidentally, or due to poor writing. It is the nature of Star Wars, to be black and white. The Emperor represents Satan. The force represents faith. There's a bit of wiggle room with Anakin/Darth Vader, in terms of temptation and what not. But, it's not complex. Nobody is arguing that it is. Directly comparing Trek to Star Wars doesn't work. You need to look at each franchise for what it is.

Note: I don't consider the extended Star Wars universe part of this conversation. The original trilogy was great and the rest of Star Wars sucks serious balls.

Star Trek relies on social commentaries and the exploration of various other concepts. For what it aims to be, in my opinion, it often misses the mark.

Star Wars on the other hand is popcorn blockbuster fluff. For what it aims to be, in my opinion, it is highly successful and consistent.

You're basically arguing that you prefer what Star Trek is, in comparison to what Star Wars is, rather than how successful they are at achieving their respective goals. This is, obviously, a flawed argument. Comparing Star Wars to Star Trek, in the context of Star Trek only, is like comparing apples to oranges in terms of their Vitamin C content.

I'm not sure how you can sit there and bash plots and stories from Star Trek while even taking Star Wars' plot seriously.

Star Wars isn't pretentious. It's just silly fun. I never said I took the plot, seriously. The thing is, Star Trek takes itself seriously... and, therefore, is open to scrutiny (in that department).

Comparing the two on their content is like comparing a children's book to an adult novel.

You said that Trek is better than Wars in every conceivable way, but what about as a "children's book" (read: blockbuster action series)? Surely you're not going to argue that Trek has better action, or better space battles?

Star Trek has always been ahead of its time and groundbreaking.

You're repeating yourself.

Its ahead of its time, in the sense that it was the first TV show to "explore" science fiction concepts.

How is it ground-breaking, in the context of broader science fiction... (outside of the medium of Television)?

It's propelled entire generations of science-minded people to to invent real-life technology inspired by the show.

Entire generations? What significant inventions have, unquestionably, been inspired by Trek?

But it's got a lot of pretty cool explosions and laser beams and stuff.

Yes, Star Wars has great action scenes. As far as the (visual) medium of film goes, it set the standard for special effects. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[ForEverAfter]

If you're gonna be a troll, at least be funny.

Yeah, "rip them a new asshole" was hilarious, a valuable contribution to this discussion, and totally appropriate for a moderator.

Don't selectively abuse your position, or anything...

Why I prefer ST:
1.)Someone said that the Jedi are human (well, the actually human ones anyway). That is technically true, but not practically so. The Jedi were human in the original trilogy; once Lucas found CGI he turned them into people who might as well be supermen, what with their deflecting hundreds of blaster rays at once with their light sabers (which begs the question of why they even send blaster-equipped enemies against them), flying through the air, etc. You look at the way they are in Episodes I and II and wonder how the hell Order 66 could've gotten them. Here's where "the Dark Side clouded their perceptions" creeps into the conversation, which only proves that ST is not the only franchise with handwavium.

2.) The SW universe is timeless. No matter how many thousands of years far you go back in the chronology, there are starships and space travel and the same races fighting and allying and...well, to be fair this is a criticism it shares with much of the high fantasy genre in general.

3.) This is less of a specific criticism, and more of a statement of how the franchises are run: Star Trek, at least in the visual medium, has always been more creatively flexible than Star Wars. That is, one of the biggest weakness of SW in my op is that Lucas kept a stranglehold on it until he was bought out, while ST has been continuously traded between different writers and directors, even while Roddenberry was still alive--and it shows. I was one of the few geeks pleased by Disney's buyout of the franchise for exactly this reason, though (like others) I worry about the fact that Disney is likely to be far more proprietary wrt the brand name than Lucasfilm was.

1.) Everything beyond the original trilogy is crap. As for why they send blasters against Jedi warriors, though. They do it to delay them / keep them occupied. Maybe, also, that's all they have. What are they going to do, admit defeat? In the context of real life war, there have been countless strategic situations in which armed forces have battled enemies with superior firepower and have been slaughtered... the reasons for this vary.

2.) Yes, you're criticizing an entire genre. Lucas was aware of what he was writing. As I said, for what it aims to be, it is highly successful.

3.) This isn't a sensible argument. The original Star Wars trilogy was a single story. Whereas Trek has how many series/seasons/episodes? And it's television! Of course there are more writers.

All this aside, I guess the main reason I prefer Trek is that I've always preferred SF to fantasy, even if it is as relatively soft SF as Trek is. That said, I love the original trilogy, and think Episode III was a very solid installment.

I generally don't like fantasy. I, too, prefer science fiction. But - in my opinion - Star Trek is relatively bad science fiction and (the original) Star Wars (trilogy) is very good (blockbuster) sci-fi/fantasy.

In the end, I'm not heavily invested in either franchise. I like them both, for different reasons. There are some great Star Trek episodes. On the whole, though, it's inconsistent and terribly written. Attempting to explore concepts like racism doesn't make it a successful exploration of racism. I would argue that the show, itself, is fairly racist. (I'm happy to back that up, if you like.) Neither SW or ST are particularly deep/sophisticated. The difference is, as far as I can see it: SW doesn't pretend to be something that its not.

Seriously though, anyone who hasn't watched Star Trek should check it out if they never have. It's basically impossible not to like if you're a geek.

Most people aren't geeks, though, and - consequently - most people don't like Star Trek.

 

[Max Power]

Yeah, "rip them a new asshole" was hilarious, a valuable contribution to this discussion, and totally appropriate for a moderator.

Don't selectively abuse your position, or anything.

[Insert a long, multi-quote post dissecting why I'm right and you're wrong here.]

 

[GenericMind]

Wow, ForEverAfter must be a blast at parties. Since you're taking yourself way too seriously, I'm not even going to respond to most of what you said. You're basically saying that Star Wars should be judged on a different scale because of what it sought to accomplish compared to what Star Trek did. This is obviously a thread comparing the two, so maybe you should start another thread about how they're apples and oranges. I'm judging them based on my preferences, and by my preferences for science fiction Star Wars is leagues behind Star Trek.

Entire generations? What significant inventions have, unquestionably, been inspired by Trek?

Tablets

Hypospray

Google Glass

Mobile Phones

As for how much of an inspiration Star Trek actually was in the development of the mobile phone – it was directly cited by Dr. Martin Cooper, PhD, formerly of Motorola and nicknamed “the father of the cellphone”. Cooper directly conceived the first hand held phone and brought it to market. He said that he was inspired by Captain Kirk using a communicator on The Original Series.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Those inventions "inspired by Star Trek" are fucking ridiculous. Whether or not "the father of the cellphone" was a Trekkie, the cellphone was inevitable and Star Trek was not the first sci-fi to introduce the idea (by a long way). As for the tablet, same thing. And Google glass (which is a horrible invention), same thing... This is a classic example of Trekkies giving credit to ST for ideas it did not come up with.

ForEverAfter must be a blast at parties.

I must be a blast at parties because I don't like child-like "discussions" on the internet, that consist of little boys insulting one another? I did you the courtesy of responding to your points, without resorting to personal attacks. Wow, I'm such an asshole. (I guess, maybe, I don't go to the sort of parties that you do.)

Since you're taking yourself way too seriously, I'm not even going to respond to most of what you said.

Cop out.

You're basically saying that Star Wars should be judged on a different scale because of what it sought to accomplish compared to what Star Trek did.

And you're saying they should both be judged solely on what Star Trek sought to accomplish?

I'm judging them based on my preferences, and by my preferences for science fiction Star Wars is leagues behind Star Trek.

This isn't a thread about which is the better science-fiction franchise, though. And Star Wars isn't traditional science-fiction. Again, you're judging both of them based only on what Trek "sought to accomplish". You said that ST is better than SW in every conceivable way, end of story. But, clearly, it isn't. If you're limiting yourself to what ST sought to accomplish, you're right. ST is better. But, that's obvious and it's not a coherent argument. In order to compare them, fairly, you need to put them into context.

In the end, they're both highly successful in their own respective fields.

If Star Wars is utter crap, then why do so many people love it?

Are they all wrong?

Insert a long, multi-quote post dissecting why I'm right and you're wrong here.

I had a lot to respond to. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, any more than GM is saying that he's right and I'm wrong, am I?