Poll: The Trek or The War
- Thread starter chinangel
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Honestly, I find the Trek a bit more interesting. Discovery and exploration ALONG with combat is more appealing to me.
To be honest, I kind of think that Star Trek VS Star Wars is like apples VS oranges- they're to different to compare 'objectively'. Star Trek is, on the whole, more to my tastes, coming probably as close as Hollywood can get to the cerebral SF literature I prefer overall, VS Star Wars which takes a more fantastical, spectacle-driven approach to SF. I am not saying that that's a bad thing, just that it's not (always) what I want.
FTW!!! Yes ! Love it.rhizhim said:
Besides, Lightsaber vs. Phaser? Please. The Phaser would pass through the Lightsaber's beam, even on stun, and on vaporize the Jedi would be, vaporized, or you could just vaporize the lightsaber.
Anyway, it's never fair for Star Wars to be compared to Star Trek, they're both great Sci-fi genres that have helped each other, and while I'm glad I don't have to chose, the higher concepts and more sophisticated technology in Star Trek make it the win for me hands down, no questions asked.
I even like Gul Dukat more than Darth Vader (yeah that's right, I said it).
It's a real shame you can't see the awesomeness of Star Trek VIII: First Contact, and how it in no way parallels Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.Zachary Amaranth said:See, I'd personally think Trekkies would want to distance themselves from Star Trek TNG: The B-version of Wrath of Khan when making a positive assertion about the series.
It'd be like a SW fan summing up his support for the franchise with this:
How they're similar?
The Wrath of Khan is a movie based upon one of the series main antagonists, one man named Khan, he goes up against the crew of the Enterprise. It was the second movie in TOS group.
First contact is a movie based upon one of the series main antagonists, a group called the Borg, they go up against the crew of the Enterprise. It was the second movie in TNG group.
But in virtually every other way, the differ. Khan's movie, was about his revenge on Kirk, primarily, for marooning him and his people on Ceti Alpha V, and then not checking on them for 20 years (Starfleet believed the planet to be destroyed, and mistake Ceti Alpha V for Ceti Alpha VI, so they see no reason to go back).
The Borg's movie on the other hand, is a much more complex story, where by the Borg travel backward in time, at Earth, in order to change the past and assimilate the entire human race, stopping the Federation from ever forming.
Both excellent films, both in my top three Star Trek movies of all, but no, one wasn't a b-grade version of the other by any stretch of the imagination.
The real B-grade version of TWOK, was out in cinemas recently. It was 90-95% a ripped off film, who's task could never be pulled off, but for what it was, it wasn't that bad.
Star Wars. Neither show is really scifi at all, but at least Star Wars is more fun and doesn't rely on meaningless technobabble or the Weird Alien of the Day.
Of course, Babylon 5 is better than either.
Of course, Babylon 5 is better than either.
I'll go with Trek. I generally prefer hard Sci-fi to silly space magic stuff, and Trek tends to have a wide variety of story arcs and conflicts whereas Wars pretty much always boils down to Jedi vs Sith.
-Set in the future
-In Space
-With aliens... and sometimes androids
-Ray guns (phasers)
-Teleporters
-Sometimes involves time-travel
-Scientific jargon
It may not be the hardest of hard sci-fi, and some episodes definitely don't resemble science fiction in appearance, but in concept it almost couldn't be any more definitive of the genre.
How exactly is Star Trek not sci-fi? Star Trek is practically the definition of sci-fi.infohippie said:
-Set in the future
-In Space
-With aliens... and sometimes androids
-Ray guns (phasers)
-Teleporters
-Sometimes involves time-travel
-Scientific jargon
It may not be the hardest of hard sci-fi, and some episodes definitely don't resemble science fiction in appearance, but in concept it almost couldn't be any more definitive of the genre.
Doctor Who.
Sorry, just had to get that out of the way.
While I love me some Star Wars, and it's absolutely fair to say that both franchises have some horrendously bad moments, I'd really have to go with Trek for the deeper stories, greater range of characters and more in-depth character development.
Plus, something I hadn't thought of until reading through this thread...the sources of conflict.
In Trek, conflicts arise due to clash of cultures, political intrigue, misunderstandings of biology...and other sources too numerous to mention.
In Wars, conflict arises because the Emperor is a very bad man.
Who apparently wished to seize power in order to be able to commission the construction of ginormous substitute penises.
Sorry, just had to get that out of the way.
While I love me some Star Wars, and it's absolutely fair to say that both franchises have some horrendously bad moments, I'd really have to go with Trek for the deeper stories, greater range of characters and more in-depth character development.
Plus, something I hadn't thought of until reading through this thread...the sources of conflict.
In Trek, conflicts arise due to clash of cultures, political intrigue, misunderstandings of biology...and other sources too numerous to mention.
In Wars, conflict arises because the Emperor is a very bad man.
Who apparently wished to seize power in order to be able to commission the construction of ginormous substitute penises.
I would characterise sci fi as a genre where actual scientific principles are a major component of the plot. Star Trek is just a series of adventure stories set in space. Star Wars is a fantasy/action story in space. I would not consider space opera as a genre to really be sci fi at all, and both Star Wars and Star Trek are space opera. I'm not sure I have ever seen a real sci fi story outside of books. About the closest I've seen on film would be the recent movie Gravity, despite its technical inaccuracies.OlasDAlmighty said:
You're describing what is commonly referred to as hard science fiction. I understand why you might feel that science fiction should rewuire some degree of real science, however that that isn't the standard definition, and it might be confusing to some people (like me) to limit the term to just the more niche side of the genre.infohippie said:
I think it's worth noting that Star Trek does sometimes have episodes that deal with real scientific ideas too. It's not always purely space voodoo.
Yes, yes, Picard is Ahab in First Contact, which is totally different. The themes of revenge and hatred are spelled out far more literally and directly to the character, which precludes one actually figuring it out for themselves, which is totally different. Oh, and the Spock-like character doesn't actually sacrifice himself, so that's totally different. Oh, and there's a happy ending, so Picard's crew doesn't have to deal with any drama that's not stated in expository dialogue like the actors were reading off the descriptors in the scripts.Conza said:
That's different.
That being said, I'll take Quinto's laughable "Khaaaaan!" moment over anything done in TNG. At least it doesn't attempt to hide what it's knocking off. Hell, Spock even calls in Future Spock for some cheat codes.
And sometimes, it's both. I mean, there's the Heisenberg Compens....OlasDAlmighty said:
*gets ripped apart by an angry mob*
Star Wars, because as Adam Sessler said once on X-Play, "It's time to blow things up like only Star Wars can."
I remember the first time I saw Empire Strikes back. I was four, had no idea what I was watching, but made did I love watching that asteroid scene with the TIE fighters getting smashed.
I remember the first time I saw Empire Strikes back. I was four, had no idea what I was watching, but made did I love watching that asteroid scene with the TIE fighters getting smashed.
Wow, so much, wrong. What you say in sarcasm is actually the cold hard truth.Zachary Amaranth said:
Where to begin. Picard isn't Ahab, that reference to Moby Dick is used in the dialogue to "distinguish" Picard from Ahab. While Ahab's quest to kill Moby Dick lead to his demise, Picard saw reason and decided not to sacrifice him and his crew to kill the Borg, but instead only himself. Khan and Ahab? Maybe, that's actually closer than what you've said, although still not a great parallel. Khan does sacrifice his crew and ship in pursuit of Kirk.
But, where as Khan taking revenge on Kirk, is the main story of that film, it's why the events are happening, Picard's revenge against the Borg on the other hand (not to mention, flipped protagonist/antagonist), is a recurring sub-plot, and only vaguely a shared theme between the movies, it is not, what Star Trek: First Contact is about, nor why they're there, it's a personal issue Picard has to deal with throughout the film.
the "Spock-like" character, his name is Data by the way, doesn't sacrifice himself at all, he's captured and 'seemingly' reprogrammed by the Borg, he then turns against them without them knowing, and helps Picard rescue the Enterprise.
Comparing that to Spock repairing the engines, and being exposed to radiation is too far of a reach, the closest it gets is when Data hits the coolant pods and exposes his skin grafts to the vapours, but he's not in any real danger.
That last sentence in that first paragraph doesn't seem to contain a point, nor anything factual either, so I'll just say that they're brilliant actors, I don't see why would say otherwise...
Oh and last, but not least, anyone who thinks, anything, in Abrams Trek, could remotely, possibly, conceivable, even hold the tiniest of candles, to anything up to and including real Star Trek (ST:ENT finale), is totally delusional, and without and true appreciation of what good Star Trek is. I think debating anything further with you would be pointless.
I'm likely the greatest Trekoholic you could have the fortune of meeting on here at the Escapist almost certainly, I've studied all of Star Trek, and those latest two travesties of films, are not Star Trek.
Eh. They're both embarrassing schlock. Star Wars at least seems aware that it's embarrassing schlock, and embraced it to good effect for a couple of films. Alas, it later became unwatchable garbage, which is a step too far.
Trek has always had this veneer of serious-minded, furrowed brow sincerity, which was always hard to take, since it was very evidently embarrassing schlock. The newer films seem more aware of what Trek actually is and treat it accordingly, but they both have pacing issues. And lens flare issues.
I dunno. Wars by a nose overall for playing to its strengths more effectively. As far as their modern incarnations go, Trek by a mile, but the new Wars movies should remedy that.
Trek has always had this veneer of serious-minded, furrowed brow sincerity, which was always hard to take, since it was very evidently embarrassing schlock. The newer films seem more aware of what Trek actually is and treat it accordingly, but they both have pacing issues. And lens flare issues.
I dunno. Wars by a nose overall for playing to its strengths more effectively. As far as their modern incarnations go, Trek by a mile, but the new Wars movies should remedy that.
Overall, Star Wars. Because I find it less fantastical(no, I'm not kidding, I find the Force far easier to stomach than some of the bizarre shit from Star Trek, especially OS). I'm also biased in that I include the EU books in this, which is where most of my Star Wars love comes from.
Though if we're speaking strictly new stuff, then Star Trek.
Though if we're speaking strictly new stuff, then Star Trek.
I like Star Wars books, video games, toys, etc... but I really only see the movies as ok. All the interesting stuff was left out. Don't get me wrong, the family clash twist is awesome, but thats it. I need more... solidity.
Star Trek on the other hand aside from a few glaring continuity issues is a far thicker universe. They just arn't aliens from a planet. They are a libertarian race on a rainy cold world and see other races who don't share their views to be barbaric and immoral. There is substance to the world, a depth below the surface. That is why I like Star Trek better. It just feels more real.
Star Trek on the other hand aside from a few glaring continuity issues is a far thicker universe. They just arn't aliens from a planet. They are a libertarian race on a rainy cold world and see other races who don't share their views to be barbaric and immoral. There is substance to the world, a depth below the surface. That is why I like Star Trek better. It just feels more real.