Star trek or Star wars? Its time to take sides!

faded glory · May 25, 2002, 22:21

Star Trek.....I am a big trekkie.

*End Is Forever* · May 25, 2002, 22:32

They're both utter crap.

faded glory · May 25, 2002, 22:36

aww comon. Star Trek is awesome.

MrWhereItsAt · May 25, 2002, 22:56

Derivative. All derivative of DOCTOR WHO!

TCO · May 25, 2002, 22:58

Capt Kirk is the total naval CO. Gene Roddenberry was a Navy guy and it shows.

SpencerH · May 25, 2002, 23:11

Its not even close, Star Trek is much better. James Doohans portrayal of a scotsman was second only to Sean Connery as a Spaniard in the same movie with a Frenchman (I think) playing a scotsman. The mind reels..........

Sprayber · May 25, 2002, 23:16

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
Its not even close, Star Trek is much better. James Doohans portrayal of a scotsman was second only to Sean Connery as a Spaniard in the same movie with a Frenchman (I think) playing a scotsman. The mind reels..........

Why is Trek so much better?

Lonestar · May 25, 2002, 23:27

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
Capt Kirk is the total naval CO. Gene Roddenberry was a Navy guy and it shows.

Hate to rain on your parade...But IIRC, Roddenberry was a bomber crewman in the war.

MORON · May 25, 2002, 23:31

WARS > TREK

FACT

Zkribbler · May 25, 2002, 23:47

Both started out as great SF series with great senses of humor. Then both started taking themselves way to seriously.

They're sci-fi junk for crying out loud. Why can't we have fun with them anymore??

Harry Potter rules!

Kirnwaffen · May 25, 2002, 23:52

Wars made better movies, but in terms of overall plot/believability, Trek I think was much better.

TCO · May 25, 2002, 23:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Lonestar

Hate to rain on your parade...But IIRC, Roddenberry was a bomber crewman in the war.

oops. Well I read somewhere that one of the creators had a Navyu background which led to the use of Naval ranks, etc. on the space vessels.

Found this on the internet:

I have always liked Star Trek. I watched the original show in the 60's, waited eagerly for the first movie in the 70's, and then later in the 80's got hooked all over again on Star Trek: The Next Generation. It has been good television, good science fiction, and occasionally even good film. Some things, nevertheless, have driven me crazy: (1) Picard and Riker both giving commands, in tandem, on the bridge is absurd. One person has the conn or has the deck on a ship, and it is dangerous to have any confusion about that (see quote above). As Executive Officer, Riker wouldn't even be on the bridge in ordinary circumstances. (2) There doesn't seem to be anything like a regular watch on the bridge. In one show a big point is made that only a full commander can have bridge command, but nothing is more common on the show than to have scenes where all the senior officers of the ship are in some conference or other, leaving who knows who directing the ship on the bridge--unless there are full commanders who aren't part of the regular cast. The writers don't seem to know what naval lieutenants are for--to be the officers of the deck. And (3) Star Trek has never known what admirals are for. The first Star Trek movie has a farcical conflict over whether Admiral Kirk or the newly assigned captain will assume command of the Enterprise. One wonders what Horatio Nelson and Captain Hardy were both doing on the HMS Victory. Later, Star Trek: The Next Generation refers to the Enterprise as the "flag ship" of Star Fleet, without apparently realizing that a flag ship is a ship with a "flag," i.e. a flag officer, an admiral. A Star Trek admiral seems to be some kind of shore officer.

H Tower · May 26, 2002, 00:37

Quote:

Originally posted by MORON
WARS > TREK

FACT

your name's actually correct.

Go Star TREK!

monolith94 · May 26, 2002, 00:40

Dr. Who rocks both of their worlds.

War4ever · May 26, 2002, 00:43

both rock....but star wars to me is like the bible

Lonestar · May 26, 2002, 00:49

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower

your name's actually correct.

Go Star TREK!

sorry. SW= Bigger. Badder. And, Capitalist.

Skanky Burns · May 26, 2002, 01:03

Star Wars has Natalie Portman AND big battles.
Star Trek just can't compete.

TCO · May 26, 2002, 01:24

Dr. Who? Never heard of it...

MrWhereItsAt · May 26, 2002, 01:49

That would just be America, then GP.

British series started in 1963 about an enigmatic time traveller known only as "The Doctor". Continued through 7 incarnations (actors) of the Doctor until 1989, when the series was rested. To this day it continues in officially licensed CD stories, two new fiction adventures a month in print, countless other merchandise and has almost been fully released on video after 19 years of continuous releases. Continuing rumours of a new TV series/movie continue to circulate, but so far nothing except for the 1996 telemovie (shot in America) starring Paul McGann has eventuated.

The longest running Sci-Fi series of ALL TIME. A lot of the issues that showed up in Star Trek, Star Wars et al. were shown in Doctor Who beforehand. Has featured many top notch British actors, and for a while Douglas Adams was the script editor.

At its height in the '70s has been estimated at having 150 odd million viewers worldwide. It may be less visible than than Star titled ones, but in many minds, VASTLY superior.

/Rant off.

MrWhereItsAt · May 26, 2002, 01:50

Although On Topic for a moment...

Star Trek? Don't make me laugh. I do watch it, but it never is consistently good - they will follow one or two great stories with tedium for weeks on end. Star Wars is my pick here.

Sprayber · May 26, 2002, 02:01

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
That would just be America, then GP.

Hey, I'm American and I watched Dr. who a lot growing up. They had a tv movie here a year ago i think it was and it was pretty bad. But the series was always cool. My mom hated it though.

It doesn't make any sense she would always say.

MrWhereItsAt · May 26, 2002, 02:13

The US did get a block of episodes at some point, but I've met very few Americans who saw them. And yes, there're a LOT who agree on the awfulness of the TV movie! It may have had better effects than any other Dr Who episode, but it just bit the big one.

SuperSneak · May 26, 2002, 02:15

I think we're comparing apples and oranges folks.
Star Wars is space mythology, while Trek is serial drama with comedic elements.

It would be like comparing Red Dwarf and Dr. Who, two excellent but very different types of Sci-fi shows.

I think Trek was an awesome example of character development, in all its incarnations. Some of the stories were weak, some good, some really strong. But through it all, the characters were interesting and grew with the show.

Star Wars is much more akin to a universal tale of loss, discovery and redemption that, unfortunately, succumbed to its own colossal weight and expectation (much like a couple of the poorer Trek films) but is still a great and sweeping saga that needs to be judged as a unique whole when it concludes.

Both have really created a groundswell for fantasy and imagination, and should be esteemed for that.

Sprayber · May 26, 2002, 02:30

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperSneak
I think we're comparing apples and oranges folks.
Star Wars is space mythology, while Trek is serial drama with comedic elements.

It would be like comparing Red Dwarf and Dr. Who, two excellent but very different types of Sci-fi shows.

I think Trek was an awesome example of character development, in all its incarnations. Some of the stories were weak, some good, some really strong. But through it all, the characters were interesting and grew with the show.

Star Wars is much more akin to a universal tale of loss, discovery and redemption that, unfortunately, succumbed to its own colossal weight and expectation (much like a couple of the poorer Trek films) but is still a great and sweeping saga that needs to be judged as a unique whole when it concludes.

Both have really created a groundswell for fantasy and imagination, and should be esteemed for that.

Your right, but to me the people in control of Trek seems to be jamming it down our throats. They can't imagine a year without a Trek series going on and IMO it's killing the frachise. The pump out anything with the Trek logo on it and do so with the knowledege that fans will just accept it without comment. Unfortunaltey Lucus seems to have taken a cue from them

Kirnwaffen · May 26, 2002, 02:34

Quote:

Star Wars has Natalie Portman AND big battles.

What about Jeri Ryan? Terry Farrel?

SuperSneak · May 26, 2002, 02:45

Oh, they both have serious flaws, Sprayber, but boy do I cherish SNG and the first two Star Wars movies.

And Jeri Ryan and Terry Farrel are both mega-babes.

Nostromo · May 26, 2002, 03:04

On the one hand, you have the Jedi, whose philosophy doesn't make much sense; on the other you have the Vulcans, whose hardcore rationalist philosophy makes sense. So, on the philosophical level, its one point for Star Trek and none for Star Wars.

Sarxis · May 26, 2002, 03:14

They're both dead.

Frankychan · May 26, 2002, 03:21

Star Wars is better!

Not only does it have cooler villains, but it is a dystopia which IMHO is more believable than the Star Trek utopian vision of humanity.

Star Wars! Wooooo!

Dis · May 26, 2002, 03:25

Star Trek well until TNG of course. everything else sucks