[Deleted]

vs.



Seeing as how today is a "big day" for Star Wars fans, I thought I'd open up the debate between the 2 franchises. While I find both to be entertaining, I am strongly in favor of Star Trek.

Just curious as to your guys' thoughts on why you prefer one over the other. The way I see things is that the difference in mythos between the two is the same core "debate" that LOST was centered around. I'll elaborate more on my thoughts in a bit, but the boss has something time-sensitive for me to get to. Just wanted to get the ball rolling.

And yes, I'm aware I'm in the strong minority around here that prefers Trek.

(The only "rule" I would encourage would be that we take the universes as a whole. No ignoring Episodes I-III.)

[The Canadian Content]

May 4, 2011 12:10:53 GMT -5 @gatorbait said:

(The only "rule" I would encourage would be that we take the universes as a whole. No ignoring Episodes I-III.)

In other words, without the embarrassingly shitty movies bringing SW down, ST doesn't stand a chance.

[Deleted]

Not at all. I'm talking including the books, comics, and cartoons here, too. And I'll be the first to admit that the first Star Trek movie wasn't very good. Just kind of curious if people's preference stems more from an entertainment preference or a mythology preference.

[Doug]

The one thing that I always felt Star Wars did much better than Star Trek, was the variety in it's alieness of things. Every time you visited somewhere in star wars, there was always a huge variety of alien life forms, really making things feel epic. However in Star Trek, it seemed like every "alien species" was basically a human with pointy ears or bumps on there heads. Few of the species they interacted with really felt alien. Also, I would love to own a lightsaber.

That being said, outside of a couple of videogames, I have never read a starwars novel/comic and have no desire too, so I would not even say that I am really all that big of a star wars fan. Star Treck really never appealed to me much other than the holodeck concept, and as with Star Wars, I have never read any novels/books so I can't comment much on em. I have scene three of the Star Wars movies (the first one, the KHAHN!!!!! one and the one that had Stewart and Shatnner in it) and really never had a strong desire to see any of the others.

[The Canadian Content]

You should see the most recent Trek movie, Doug. It was pretty awesome.

I've never been a fan of any of the other versions of Star Trek that I've seen, though. Not sure why. It just never appealed to me.

I think a lot of what Star Wars had going for it for so many years was that it was a great story told in three movies, and that was it. It lost a lot of its appeal (to me, anyway) when it branched off into books, more movies, cartoons, and remaking the originals for no good reason. It took what was a pure story of good vs evil and turned it into a cash grab.

[Stu]

The one thing that I always felt Star Wars did much better than Star Trek, was the variety in it's alieness of things. Every time you visited somewhere in star wars, there was always a huge variety of alien life forms, really making things feel epic. However in Star Trek, it seemed like every "alien species" was basically a human with pointy ears or bumps on there heads. Few of the species they interacted with really felt alien. Also, I would love to own a lightsaber.

Also the people who've ran Star Trek have never really exploited the variety there actually is in their universe, compared to Star Wars. There's been 5 Trek TV Shows (6 if you count the animated series), and they're all about Starfleet. DS9 was the most different to the norm because it was about a space station, not a ship, and dealt with a long running storyline about politics, war and put the focus on a handfull of species, had the most badass Captain, and wasn't as rigid about Rodenberry's stale "everything in the future is fine and The Federation is utopia and has nothing wrong with it" vision. But the rest was all Starfleet crews exploring. Even Voyager, which should have shook things up by having them stranded in an unknown part of the galaxy, didn't really do much different.
Star Wars on the other hand has all the stories about the Jedi, Sith, Rebellion, Bounty Hunters, Smugglers etc. and it's a lot richer and more alien.

[Deleted]

***Let me just preface this by first saying I enjoy Star Wars. I have nothing against Star Wars. I even enjoyed Eps I-III for what they were.***

In reference to my earlier post regarding LOST, I see the difference between Star Wars & Star Trek as being very "faith vs. science". Star Wars is the "faith" universe with mystical beings and super-powers; Star Trek is the "science" universe with logical projections of technological and likely species advancement (although I'll give you Q as the counter-example, here). I always sided with Jack against Locke on LOST (until the turn in the final season), and for that similar reason, I prefer Star Trek to Star Wars.

Star Wars is a fantastic representation of good vs. evil story-telling, but at its core that is all it is. Star Trek always moreso pushed the envelope of what it means to be human, moral decision-making, and how to deal with the unknown. It's also a fantastic representation of mankind's innate need to explore; even from the earliest age we have to see "what else is out there".

I could elaborate more, but I think you guys get my gist on this (and my work day is done). Again, this wasn't meant to be anti-Star Wars in any way; I just prefer Star Trek.

[Deleted]

May 4, 2011 13:09:19 GMT -5 The Canadian Content said:

You should see the most recent Trek movie, Doug. It was pretty awesome.

This.

JJ Abrams wanted to make a movie for Trek fans AND movie fans, in general. I think he exceeded many expectations. Hell, even Mrs. Gator really enjoyed it.

[DevSop]

Star Trek sucks. Star Wars doesn't. Pretty simple conversation.

[Stu]

Star Trek is Science Fiction, Star Wars is Science Fantasy in a nutshell.
Also, the TNG era is a very bland sort of society to live in if you look at it. TV is a dead artform*, the only music anyone seems to enjoy is classical or jazz, people are always quoting Shakespeare or Moby Dick at each other(nobody ever punctuates victory with "Yipeekiyay" or "BOOYAH!"), the Holodeck seems woefully underutilised as people mostly seem to use it to take part in old novels or plays(it's implied Starfleet puts restrictions on the system to stop crew from turning them into Holobrothels) and fuckers like this are considered fine examples of Federation citizens.
So I'm glad Abrams Trek made the TOS era more relatable to a contemporary audience while still keeping the ideals of what the Federation is all about. Though he's pretty much admitted his goal was to make Star Trek more like Star Wars in feel and tone to make it more inclusive.

*sadly

[The Canadian Content]

May 4, 2011 15:32:37 GMT -5 @gatorbait said:

May 4, 2011 13:09:19 GMT -5 The Canadian Content said:

You should see the most recent Trek movie, Doug. It was pretty awesome.

This.

JJ Abrams wanted to make a movie for Trek fans AND movie fans, in general. I think he exceeded many expectations. Hell, even Mrs. Gator really enjoyed it.

I had really low expectations and was blown away by it. It's now one of those movies that if I see it on TV, I'll tune in and whatch whatever's left of it.

[Deadly]

This may or may not make sense, but I've always thought part of the appeal of Star Wars was that it was a little "dirty". Trek is too "clean" for my tastes.

Oh, and I'm headed to Skywalker Ranch in 10-11 hours. Woo!

[creepy]

Star Wars, from the beginning, were stand alone movies (as far as I knew) with a Ewok made for TV movie or two, which I loved the Ewoks as a kid, so I was cool with it.

Star Trek had a ton of episodes that I felt were great backstories to the Movies, whether anything ever crossed over or not. And the only way, as a kid, to watch any of those eps was in syndication and back in the day, even with a VCR, you'd have to watch all of them if you were a completist like me (and Lucky).

Also, SW had Ford, one of the biggest names back in my younger years and I loved him in the Indiana Jones movies. It also had more "names" and Speilberg. It just seemed like the "big leagues" (if that really matters, I don't know). ST had guys that were, to me, only popular because of ST (at the time to a kid like me).

Also, my parents, who aren't into Sci-Fi, liked Star Wars and it wasn't until later (90's) that my dad started getting into Star Trek stuff. And I'm not into Sci-Fi, either.

Last point, Star Trek seemed to always be evolving and telling new stories. Star Wars had one story, a nine hour story that was (at the time) self contained. I love long movies or mini-series that are more direct and don't keep "re-setting".



Barely made it through Episode 1 and never saw the other two and I haven't seen the Original 3 in 15 years. I've also got a boner for Wrath of Khan, the aforementioned movie with Kirk/Picard and this last one. But on a whole? I'll take Star Wars, at least the first three from my formative years.

[Deleted]

May 4, 2011 16:26:35 GMT -5 Stu said:

Star Trek is Science Fiction, Star Wars is Science Fantasy in a nutshell.

I have never looked at their difference this way, and it makes complete sense to me. Never been nearly as big a fan of even the "standard" fantasy stuff (Lord of the Rings, Neverending Story, etc.), but I've always been a huge fan of sci-fi.

For those looking for other Star Trek movies to enjoy, Khan (II) is a no-brainer, and The Voyage Home (IV, the one with the whales) is a lot of fun. I also can't recommend "First Contact" highly enough; easily the best of the TNG movies.

[Stu]

VI is good too, balancing the characters and a fun story well. So basically, all the even numbered ones(except Nemesis).

[Habs]

Star Wars was better for the simple fact that it looked awesome. It took the industry almost 15 to 20 years to match the special effects Star Wars was able to achieve so early. Were the Star Trek stories better and did they make more sense in a "realistic way". Probably, but as a kid you don't care if the refer to "parsec" as a time thing when it's a distance thing, all you knew was that the Millennium Falcon was awesome, it's captain shot first and the x-wings fighting the tie fighters looked amazing on the screen.

When I came out of the Theater after watching First Contact I said to my cousin that this was the First ST movie with effect that were on part with SW

[Deleted]

I call extreme bullshit there, Habsy. Star Trek: The Motion Picture actually looked a LOT better than A New Hope did. Shitty movie, sure, but special-effects-wise, it was superior.

[Habs]

You can call all kinds of bullshit Gator, but the fact that it was SO boring is probably why I never got to the part where there was some special-effects.

[Deleted]

Just saying, it did NOT take 15-20 years to match the special effects. They were matched and surpassed in 2.

[OpTard]

as someone who has happily watched all the star trek movies more than once and will again, i can safely say no, gator. star wars always surpassed it on special effects. always.

that being said, can't we just compromise...

[Deleted]

They've got it in T-shirt form, as well.

www.bustedtees.com/trekwars

[OpTard]

yeah. i already own one. not that particular print of it, but yeah, i got it.