|
Star Wars is superior because it has Harrison Ford (Not Han Solo, just the actor himself).
He's probably more financially successful than most other SW/ST actors/actresses combined. I dont really know how Shatner would compare to him there, but I would imagine Ford would come out on top, as he's been in more high profile roles/movies.
Also, Star Wars gave us Mark Hamill, who later went on to be the voice of The Joker, which is about the best thing ever, aside from being Batman. :P
I've been a sci-fi nut since I was a small boy in the early 70's.
I like both franchises, I've enjoyed both for the tech displayed and the storylines.
Wrath of Khan was awesome sauce, becasue it actually gave you insight into starfleet naval engagement tactics. Watching two starships go at it like that was awesome.
Star Wars had the fighter combat stuff down, with full interfleet action.
That said, I prefer Star Wars, becasue of the human element.
A two meter wide shaft is a much less significant plot hole than the ones in any given ST episode or movie.
Just sayin'.
Damn you, Rick Berman.
... especially that last one ...
I've been a sci-fi nut since I was a small boy in the early 70's.
I like both franchises, I've enjoyed both for the tech displayed and the storylines.
Wrath of Khan was awesome sauce, becasue it actually gave you insight into starfleet naval engagement tactics. Watching two starships go at it like that was awesome.
Star Wars had the fighter combat stuff down, with full interfleet action.That said, I prefer Star Wars, becasue of the human element.
It is probably no coincidence that Star TrekII: The Wrath of Khan had a very strong human story (Kirk have to come to terms with aging). Much more so then the movies (or TV shows) that followed.
|
Star Trek. I like Star Wars but I've always considered it a borderline fantasy movie.
There are weird things about Star Wars. For example, why are there humans in a galaxy far far away? Why are there humanoids at all. Am I expected to believe that humans evolved on Earth and also a long time ago in a galaxy far far away? Then again there is some evidence that the Star Wars humans seeded Earth. In the film ET, ET sees a fellow trick-or-treater dawning a Yoda costume. He charges the kid, arms outstretched, and cries out "home". This suggests that ET is familiar with Yoda's species. To further strengthen this, in episode 1 of Star Wars we see ET's species sitting on the galactic senate. Is ET from the same galaxy as Luke Skywalker? It gets weirder! Look at this picture:
The states that ET's home is 3,000,000 light years away from Earth. The only galaxy that is 3,000,000 miles from Earth is the Triangulum Galaxy. Does this mean that the galaxy that is far far away is the Triangulum Galaxy? That isn't that far away. Actually that is one of closest galaxies to us.
So humans from the Triangulum galaxy became so technologically advanced that they traveled intergalactically to Earth a few hundred million years ago, crash landed, had to live off the land to survive, and their descendants became...us? Furthermore, since we know that the first human populations came out of Africa and had dark skin, and that Lando Calrissian was the only black man in the Star Wars galaxy, are we all descended from Lando? This is freaking me out...
Back on topic...since we have fossil evidence that humans evolved here on Earth, either:
1. Earth humans invent a time machine/intergalactic starship at some point in the future and populate the Triangulum Galaxy at some point in the past.
2. George Lucas didn't realize the dilemma he created when he wrote Star Wars.
I am going with number 2. That is why I like Star Trek better.
You all are forgetting one big important factor...
Obviously Star Wars helped create Star Trek.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically - At Its Time - Star Trek was rightly considered liberal, socially progressive, racially inclusive and feminist. :)That said, I don't know what your take on J.J.Abrams version of Star Trek is. :)I think your blogger has missed out on one very essential truth of Trek in all it's incarnations.
The show is a product of it's time. TOS reflected the views of Roddenberry's generation, a very conservative, xenophobic, and frequently reactionary bunch, which still had some very important values and virtues attached to it. For all of its good points TOS could justly be accused of racial and national tokenism, being very much in favor of the Vietnam War, and harshly critical of the progressive movements of it's day, and expressing several misogynistic viewpoints as well in it's treatment of female characters.
Mostly by Trekkies who looked at it a decade or more later, with rose colored tricorders, while playing with their toy phasers.
Feminist? By what standard? Then at time to most white males, Janice Lester would have represented "the feminist" of the show. It's very hard to support that assement by the treatment of female characters on the series.
Seriously. I want you to name ONE... ONE female that wasn't either
1. A racial/cultural Token - Uhura, Pavel "Mother Russia" Chekov (this was written remember when the "Russkies" were "Them". Chekov comes closer to an Saturday Night Live depiction of his people rather than a believable ethnic Russian. I guess that meats most Trekkie's standard of "inclusiveness"
2. Who advanced the plot by being a sexual conquest by either Kirk or Spock.
3. Lusting or puppy love on one of the main characters. Nurse Chapel.
4. Man crazy in one or more ways.
Am I knocking the show? Not really. Again it was a...
You really need to read more of the history of the times.
We were in the middle of the cold war. Nuclear bombs could fall at any minute. There were race struggles going on. MLK got assassinated, people were killed for protesting civil rights.
And on the TV screen, you had a RUSSIAN navigator! A CHINESE helmsman! Working with an American, a Scotsman, an alien, and...OMG...a BLACK WOMAN! Right there on top!
It was totally unbelievable, and yet completely believable.
Read some of the histories. Ms. Nichols wanted to leave the show after the first year. She got a tidal wave of letters begging her to stay on, because she was showing a woman and a BLACK PERSON in a position of power and control, like was seen nowhere else on TV. She ended up being proud to stay on there.
Star Trek broke a ton of ground by basically picking up COld War prejudices and breaking them in two, showing what the future might be like.
Yes, it was years ahead of its time. No, it wasn't as eclectic as today, where the eventual world government of the future is just assumed as going to happen at some point.
\==Aelryinth
A CHINESE helmsman!
Japanese, actually. Other than that, I think your point stands.
Nicole Kidman wanted to leave the show
Oh, and it was Nichelle Nichols. Carry on.
Edited. heh! Yeah, that was a bad one. thx for the fact checking.
And just him being ORIENTAL was telling enough. Most people couldn't tell the difference.
There's even a reference to the mindset in a later movie. "Only Nixon could go to China." It was the West against Communism.
In Star Trek's time, all that was done away with. Very, very open-minded.
==Aelryinth
In fact, that is one of the issues that people had with The Next Generation and so forth.
Unlike the original, there was far less "pushing of boundries." (... and there was "none" by the time we get to Voyager.)
Star Trek is like classical music, and Star Wars is more akin to rock 'n roll. Depends on the mood.
SW has the advantage of the rule of cool, where things don't have to be technically, scientifically accurate, just work for the sake of story and look cool while doing it.
Personally, I can appreciate the work ST writing has put into with all the details and attempts to realistically explain things, but the stuffy non-emotional cardboard characters (Kirk aside) just bore me to tears. I watch Sci-Fi to escape reality, not for flashbacks of physics class.
Star Wars all the way. Give me a Lightsaber and Force powers over a phaser any day.
I didn't forget that.You all are forgetting one big important factor...
Obviously Star Wars helped create Star Trek.
yeah, i see that. I had started my posting at 9am, but didnt post til 330pm, and never thought to look what others had posted in the mean time. besides, i like your explanation better. lol
I like Star Wars better.
I like Star Trek too, but not as much as Star Wars. I like the original Star Trek movies(Cap Kirk)and The next generation crew(Cap Pecard). But for me Star Wars gave me the chills, and was like ZOOM!!! and especially on the big screen! Star Wars is powerful, it's almost a holy thing. Star Trek fans have more movies, and are getting more Star Trek movies... I hope one day there will be another awesome Star Wars movie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to like Star Wars better. But after Lucas even made the
lightsaber no longer cool, I switched to Star Trek.
.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to like Star Wars better. But after Lucas even made the
lightsaber no longer cool, I switched to Star Trek..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like both of them for different reasons.
Star Wars has an amazing universe, but the the main plot of the movies, as well as most of the main characters, is average at best. Lucas' ability to write the actual script and show the character interactions is weak in all of the movies, with only a few notable exceptions, even if the overall story is more compelling. They all rely on special effects and big explosions far more than story, which is a bit of a turn off for me. The few glimpses of the universe you get beyond the main plot are quite fascinating however.
Star Trek has the opposite problem. The world as a whole really is kind of boring; DS9 and Voyager were slightly better in this regard, but still didn't really establish new genre setting standards. The problem with the Federation is that it makes a great society, but a weak backdrop to tell stories in. The characters, on the other hand, and the relationships between them, are phenomenal. This is true not only of the main characters, but many of the side characters as well. The technology is also really interesting to see, because much of it is, at least in theory, actually achievable.
Also, Star Wars gave us Mark Hamill, who later went on to be the voice of The Joker, which is about the best thing ever, aside from being Batman. :P
Don't forget Fire Lord Ozai :)
Still, nothing is as awesome as Babylon 5.
Lightsabers are real, they aren't called that but scientists have created some form of a lazersword. Lasers, hovercraft, holograms and droids...all real stuff folks!
B5 is my favorite, bit out of the two mentioned I'll take Trek, if only for the staggering amount of real world technology inspired by the show.Like what? The only thing I can think of would be bluetooth earpieces. One might also include tablets.... but that would be a stretch. Jobs as far as I know, wasn't a Trekkie.
That doesn't mean that all the people that actually came up with the ideas and engineered the gadgets weren't. Jobs was a manager, a good one by all accounts, but he wasn't the one designing all the details of each creation the company made.
What you might be confusing for Trek tech spinoffs, are the genuine spinoffs from the Apollo moon effort. But for the life of me, I can't think of any tech inspired by the show that couldn't be given credit to a pre-existing SF television show such as Outer Limits.
Well, when people talk about Star Trek's influence on tech, it's pretty much kids that grow up watching Star Trek, grow up, become engineers, and base some basic designs on stuff they saw. Like the flip style of cell phones is similar to the original series communicators, or the iPad / tablet computers are similar to the tablets from TNG and later.
It doesn't matter that there isn't real science, or that the idea existed somewhere else first -- Star Trek just plain inspired a lot of people, and it did so from a young age (I grew up watching TNG in elementary school). Whatever its flaws, it deserves some credit for that.
|
|
Personally, in my little experience with Star Trek, I've always found it to be mostly annoying, mildly offensive, and very, . . . "Mary Sue". The more recent versions, well the later movies anyway, seem to get over this, but I'm still not a fan.
Star Wars on the other and has a lot of depth. It's based off of a lot of real world things, from spirituality to a variety of classic stories and myths and themes. It's also one of the few fantasy with a little sci-fi genre blends I like. Star Trek has always tried to be too perfect, or rather this weird, detestible version of an ideal perfect. Ideally, the most severe actions constitute pushing a button, though when "the crew" screws up, sometimes they need to pull out some other tech, and maybe do a little running.
Star Wars is more dirty and I want to say less tech dependant, but that's not completely true. I just can't think of another way to say what I mean. Star Trek is incredibly stereotypical, with everything practically, while Star Wars seems to be more exploratory, even if that is the entire concept of Star Trek. Star Wars has fantastically memorable lines. Star Trek has lines that make no sense. Why is the ships primary care doc, they one every single person, including day 1 red shirts would know of, telling the ships capt, who is also a close personal friend that he is not_____ (obviously!!!), he's a doc? Popular because it's so retarded, not becasue it's a great line.
Star Wars offers a lot of sense of variety, but an even greater sense of wonder. All the different worlds are actually different worlds, having different races, religions, politics, goals, etc. . . In Star Trek, they ust have different makeup, the same expressionless faces behind that make up, and are just waiting for these guys to come F*$@ their "woman", prove themselves tot he tribe, and be heroes that discovered a new civilization they can make buddy buddy with, all in one day.
Star Wars shows the hypocracy of the Republic/Empire, Star Trek exemplifies it in the Federation. When races in Star Wars rebel, they are typically conquered and enslaved, politically enslaved and forced, or erradicated to. Rebels are a small group fighting for their lives and freedom, usually hated and persecuted. In Star Trek, they are placated to and offered high esteem within the Federation.
Trek has it's appeal not because of it's progressive nature, but because it sang the anthem song for the Center-Right Establishment which was desperate for validation amidst the social unrest of the late 60's and early 70's. It was possibly the last show to have such unbridled enthusiasm for the status quo.Trek did not fight Cold War fears, It played into them in it's support for the Vietnam War, it's blatant condemnation of the protest movements of the day. It had one good story about racism, but it was a moral that was given to us with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. It however made up for that bit of progressive thought with it's signoff episode. "Turnabout Intruder" which pretty much trumpets the line that the antagonist's main fault was not to accept her limitations as a woman.
I have to disagree quite a bit here. Star Trek certainly did push boundaries, but also found that there were boundaries the network wouldn't let them push (a female first officer) without giving up on other issues. Pushing boundaries on the TV in the late 1960s wasn't always an easy task on American television - just ask the Smothers Brothers who fought a lot with network censors and ultimately saw their show (contemporary with Star Trek) canceled.
If you're hanging up on Vietnam war issues like "A Private Little War", I think you're missing part of the point of the episode and how it fits in with "The Omega Glory" aired shortly afterward, to say nothing of frequent anti-war-in-general themes of the show. You're also missing Star Trek writers' and Gene Roddenberry's involvement with the anti-war movement.
Between midichlorians and JJ Abram's constant waffling to please whoever he can get to listen now, I think that while we may disagree on which is better between star wars and star trek, we can at least agree the newest iterations are relatively dumb films made just to cash in on a franchise.
That said, Star Wars is definitely the top film series of the Space Kung-Fu genre.
That said, Star Wars is definitely the top film series of the Space Kung-Fu genre.
Since the spirit of Star Trek is a television series (and all but "The Wrath of Khan" were disapointments), I don't think we have a conflict.
But, then check this out!
Star Wars will be a live action tv show in the future.
Star Wars will be a live action tv show in the future.
And, its quality remains to be seen.
|
|
As I rewatch The Next Generation on my Netflix account, I find myself struck by how inept Picard is at LARPing in the holodeck. He doesn't play Dixon Hill, he plays Picard dressed like Dixon Hill and fanboying over the scenery. And inappropriately talking to the NPCs about the real world, and forgetting he can freeze the damn program when he needs to talk business with other officers.
The tech is wasted on him. :/
As I rewatch The Next Generation on my Netflix account, I find myself struck by how inept Picard is at LARPing in the holodeck.That's one thing I find reassuring. If my life is depending on the ship's command, the last thing I'd want to find out, was that I had signed up to serve under Captain Barclay.
BARCLAY FOR LIFE!!!!!!
Also, EWOKS RULE!!!! I have no love for Gungans, however.
I removed a post. Do not use that word that way.
Star Wars will be a live action tv show in the future.And, its quality remains to be seen.
I believe they said once they find out how to lower tech prices, it should be on par with a major motion picture. Each episode will be around $5,000,000 in budget costs.
I like them both, but I've always had a preference for Star Wars.
A preference that has been sadly tainted by the prequels. :( But, I have grown to accept that Star Wars is much larger than Lucas now. There is a vast universe of expanded universe material out there, some of it better, some if it worse.
Star Trek was running out of steam until the J.J. Abrams movie. I do like playing Star Trek Online though.
And I like Doctor Who better than both put together.
|
the thing I love about star wars is that everything isn't new; all the X-wing fighters have serious maintenance backlogs and yet their pilots go out in them. that's like a +5 DC and it's awesome.
the thing I like about star trek is that it's so exciting the first time you watch it and so extremely lame the 2nd.. nth time. I see reruns of episodes quite often and it's really only cool once. Although, since I have watched lots of reruns, apparently I'm still motivated to watch them. Funny how that works, eh? ;)
Star wars was epic until the first trilogy came out - now both Star Trek and Star Wars are great.