Star trek or Star wars? Its time to take sides! - Page 3

MrWhereItsAt · May 26, 2002, 09:40

I'm a hopeful Physicist.

Provost Harrison · May 26, 2002, 09:45

Although saying that, they have managed to time travel in Star Trek, so you can't criticise little bugs that can see into the future...

MrWhereItsAt · May 26, 2002, 09:50

And don't forget omnipotent, eternal beings. Explain THAT one!

Provost Harrison · May 26, 2002, 09:50

No

Kassiopeia · May 26, 2002, 09:51

Star Wars?

Star Trek?

I would probably go for ST, though the choice feels nearly impossible.

But... Babylon 5 beats them both without even breaking sweat. Or well, maybe not quite. I'll put B5 and ST on the same level, with SW somewhat behind.

Saint Marcus · May 26, 2002, 09:59

Time travel is an essential part of sci fi. The idea has been around for over a century.

Little bugs that can see into the future however only exist in Lucas' head. Original for sure, but a bit stupid.

Quote:

And don't forget omnipotent, eternal beings. Explain THAT one!

eternal isn't that hard. a creature made up of energy may very well be eternal if the universe continues to exist forever. And superbeings? Read your bible.

Paul Hanson · May 26, 2002, 12:12

Star Wars or Star Trek?

My vote has to go to: neither of them. They both take themselves far too seriously for my liking, which is why I much prefer Stargate SG-1.

Lonestar · May 26, 2002, 12:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Exactly!

And besides, I've never understood how they manage to deflect those lasers. Another inaccuracy. You can see those laser shots moving. Alas, lasers travel at the speed of light, which is a little faster than they are portrayed!

If they don't look like lasers, sound like lasers, and act like lasers...

Then...they aren't lasers! (

)

They're blasters....and they fire superheated helium (plasma) not lasers. Like the Babylon PPG.

Saint Marcus

Obvously, the force is a bit more than that, otherwise the Jedi would have been able to create more jedi just by "infecting" people.

Saint Marcus · May 26, 2002, 12:40

it was quite obvious from Phantom Menace that the force in someone is directly linked to the number of myto-somethings in your blood. If you don't have them, the force is weak in you. If you have them, the force is strong in you. Though only training can make you utilize its full potential.

Still, the cannon is clear. More bacteria = stronger force. That's all there is to it. Phantom Menace was quite clear about it.

And it's the worst kind of pseudo-science ever. I liked the force better before I knew it's "scientific" explanation.

Wraith · May 26, 2002, 13:01

Trek is hardly a homogenous entity. Quite a lot of it has been made after the original creator died. The current people directing the Trek franchise are utter morons, and have been churing out stupendous amounts of crap for a long time. When Roddenberry was still around it was a good series, though.

Star Wars is great, from a certain stand point. It's good space opera, a high-budget B movie. Some of the original Trek clearly surpasses it as science-fiction (Especially The Wrath of Khan), but they've both got their places.
But Star Trek has Nimoy

--"Anybody for Babylon 5?"

Haven't seen the entire series yet (wish those yo-yos hadn't managed to lose the HD masters, then I'd be quite happy about buying the DVDs), but what I saw was good. About the only recent show that actually qualifies as science-fiction.

--"2. Since when did the Federation use fighters?"

It's been around quite a while, but since the focus has been on the Enterprise there wasn't a whole lot of reason for them to show up on screen.

--"Every single Federation ship was different; no wonder they're losing if they have a different design for every ship."

Just like every other fleet, there are different classes for different purposes. The Hood and the Enterprise D (IIRC) were the same class, for instance, so it's only reasonable they'd be very similar.
Star Trek has always been primarily about the Enterprise (or DS9, etc, but about a single ship's crew). Star Wars has been largely about Luke/Vader, etc, but also concerned with the overall Empire vs Rebellion/Republic. It's just a difference in scope.

--"And besides, I've never understood how they manage to deflect those lasers."

They're not lasers, they're "blasters". Dressed up technobabble can make them pretty much anything.
Check out this Lightsabres page and this technical commentaries page for more Star Wars info.

--"I much prefer Stargate SG-1."

I haven't been too fond of that series. Just never clicked for me. The movie's not bad, but also nothing special.

*sigh* Now if only someone would license and subtitle Legend of the Galactic Heroes...

Wraith
"I fail to see what they find so amusing."
-- Spock

Caesar the Great · May 26, 2002, 13:02

don't make me choose!!!!

trek wins though..... plot is much more interesting

MrWhereItsAt · May 26, 2002, 16:24

Hang on... does this make the force an STD?

But because of the weird nature of the "infection", instead of physical weakening, the "carriers" get some limited powers and have their personal lives doomed.

Does sound kinds like a nasty virus.

-=Vagrant=- · May 26, 2002, 16:29

Battlestar Galactica!

[Runs away]

Kassiopeia · May 26, 2002, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
Star Wars or Star Trek?

My vote has to go to: neither of them. They both take themselves far too seriously for my liking, which is why I much prefer Stargate SG-1.

How could of I possibly have forgotten SG-1! Maybe not quite in the level of SW but very close.

Provost Harrison · May 26, 2002, 16:39

I've never understood why they just don't host themselves in another country...

Saint Marcus · May 26, 2002, 17:10

SG-1 is rather crappy. Everytime I watch it I think of McGuiver.

The movie was good though.

What do you all think of Planet of the Apes? Both the old and new.

Lonestar · May 26, 2002, 19:26

SG-1 is way better than the movie...

Apocalypse · May 26, 2002, 19:46

Red Dwarf can beat them all.

Boris Godunov · May 26, 2002, 22:32

ST is for hardcore sci-fi nerds.

SW is for Joe Everybody who just wants to have some fun.

Ok, not that simplistic. I'm definitely in the SW camp. I don't care of ST is more "realistic" (It isn't though...just different things are unrealistic, like the absence of any dirt in the universe, time travel, a fat, middle-aged captain with a bad hairpiece being the hero...).

I think SW captures the imagination better, as it relies on simpler, classic themes and images. SW has a grittier, earthier feel to it, while ST seems just a little too formal and, frankly, prissy. It's like the difference between Wagner and Mozart. Sure, Mozart was cleaner and prettier, but Wagner really grabs you by the nuts and draws you into the epic.

SW easily has more memorable characters. Luke is the everyman that ST lacks (everyone in ST seems a little too nauseatingly perfect, don't they?), Han is brilliant (thanks to Ford's portrayal, of course), and there is no character in ST that rivals Darth Vader, who has become an archetype of sci-fi villainy. Even the droids are pretty memorable, and who out there doesn't recognize R2-D2 on sight?

The imagery of SW also sticks in your mind more. The Death Star...the Hoth Battle...lightsaber duels...X-wing/TIE Fighter dogfights...Han frozen in carbonite...Jabba the Hutt...the Tatooine Bar... Luke and Leia swinging the chasm...the trench run...Dagobah...Cloud city...

For the life of me, I can't think of any moments in ST that rival these in terms of seizing the imagination and creating a lasting feeling of wonder and interest in a fantasy world. That really is an integral part of the magic of the SW saga.

So, while ST is certainly nothing to sneeze at (and DS9 is still, IMO, the only ST series that can be considered "great"), I think SW trumps it in terms of having a cultural impact that will be felt for ages to come.

PS--plus, SW has Imperial Star Destroyers. 'Nuff said.

Skanky Burns · May 27, 2002, 00:51

... and Natalie Portman

Dis · May 27, 2002, 02:30

Did I mention how much I hated star wars jet fighters in space? At least they could try for semi-realistic physics

As for moments how about the self- destruct of the Enterprise in Star Trek 3. Or the image of the Enterpise pulling too slowly away from the Reliant (is that the correct ship name?) in Star Trek 2. They knew they were doomed and weren't going to make it. In fact that whole battle sequence sticks in my mind. How about the first shots of the Enterprise in Star Trek 1 which may be the worst movie however. I admit the later films lacked this imagery. But so do Star Wars later films.

SKILORD · May 27, 2002, 02:33

Star Wars ROCKS!

that's all for now.

SuperSneak · May 27, 2002, 02:50

I'm watching the Borg episode (Jean Luc in rubber and armless) and this is some good stuff...totally different from SW.
I may have to change my vote...though they both have some glaring and stupid flaws, if you ask me.

Paul Hanson · May 27, 2002, 03:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
SG-1 is rather crappy. Everytime I watch it I think of McGuiver.

As far as I'm concerned, that's part of what makes it so good.

Jasonian · May 27, 2002, 03:56

Tsch... Star Wars rules. No doubt about it in my mind.

SuperSneak · May 27, 2002, 04:00

Well, ST passes the "enjoyable while stoned" test with flying colors.

Dis · May 27, 2002, 04:11

what isn't enjoyable while stoned?

SuperSneak · May 27, 2002, 04:13

Talking to your Mom on the phone.
Driving.
Taking a test.
Being directly confronted by an authority figure.
Flourescent lighting.
Redneck bars.
Oh, the list goes on and on...

Boris Godunov · May 27, 2002, 11:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Did I mention how much I hated star wars jet fighters in space? At least they could try for semi-realistic physics

As for moments how about the self- destruct of the Enterprise in Star Trek 3. Or the image of the Enterpise pulling too slowly away from the Reliant (is that the correct ship name?) in Star Trek 2. They knew they were doomed and weren't going to make it. In fact that whole battle sequence sticks in my mind. How about the first shots of the Enterprise in Star Trek 1 which may be the worst movie however. I admit the later films lacked this imagery. But so do Star Wars later films.

While pretty images, they don't stick in the minds of most people like the ones in SW do. I mean, when most people think of sci-fi, they get in their heads an image of the Death Star or Darth Vader first, I'd wager. Certainly the Enterprise in ST is a recognizable image, but I think the sheer volume of such imagery in SW overwhelms ST.

SW is more playful, ST just takes itself too seriously (in the films, at least). Sadly, the new SW films are doing this as well now, because Lucas has become a pompous jerk (or he always was one and is just now letting that show in his films).

Wraith · May 27, 2002, 11:58

If you want playful images, how can you possibly forget Kirk being buried in tribbles? Spock swimming with the whales and practicing colorful idioms (most of Star Trek IV, in fact... "Nuclear wessels")? There's plenty there.

There were also some incredible dramatic moments.
"Live long and prosper, Spock."
"I shall do neither. I have killed my captain and my friend."

"Remember..."

"He's already dead."

There were a lot of great moments there.

Wraith
"Why is any object we don't understand always called a 'thing'?"
-- Dr. McCoy