Star Trek Vs Star Wars

[mattttherman3]

hey people that hate the prequels, why don't you acknowledge their existence, they arn't that bad, I THINK THE ORIGIAL STAR WARS MOVIES SHOULD BE REMADE, just fix some of the small quirks n such(certain lines, the scene with the locked door among others), otherwise keep the story the way it is and keep the same lines but have better set design n shit, either way it will be done within the next 50 years, also make porkins FATTER

Edit: get rid of the kiss between leia and luke in empire, if you disagree with this point than that makes you in favor of incest!

 

[Moloch-De]

I have mixed opinions on the two great franchises. One thing to consider is that it's hard to put them together because Star Wars is SPACE FANTASY, where Star Trek is SCIENCE FICTION.

Both are science fiction, but Star Trek is written by people who do not know anything about science, whereas Star Wars is written by people who do not care about science.

I couldn't have said it better.
Star Wars is unrealistic but at least they have the decency not to try and justify why their technology works.


And for the battle of univeses: The enterprise would have a serious problem when they only count on range. A Battle in Star Wars COULD be fought at long range BUT with the Ability to leave warp on about any point it is up to the commander to chose at which range to fight.

The point here is that a single Star Trek ship could sit back outside of range where it can't even be seen, and sweep it's phasors back and forth over endless armadas of Star Wars ships and decimate them all. The level of tech performance is just that differant.

The whole fleet could just jump pretty close to the enterprise and launch an emidiate attack. Considering the size of a Destroyer the energy generated would be sufficient to get through the sjild of such a smal ship, if not there are a LOT of bombers...
I won't say star wars wins but its gonna be a very messy battle.

Edit:

Edit: get rid of the kiss between leia and luke in empire, if you disagree with this point than that makes you in favor of incest!

I'm no fan of incest but a fan of drama and as such i have to say don't cut out the tension betwen luke and Leia. It's one of the greatest twist of all times when it becomes clear they are all one big family.

 

[gamshobny]

Star wars use lasers, meaning light.

Star trek uses warp cores, which essentialy bend light.

Do I need to say anything more?

(oh, and star trek uses phasers, not lasers )

 

[mikoyan]

Wow....This type of thread is about as old as the Internet itself. And I'm glad to see the arguments haven't changed all that much.

 

[Laughing Man]

Star Gate > all other sci-fi's combined

Second that, come on people it's Sci-fi and it's got Macgyver in it, how the hell can it not own everything else?

The whole fleet could just jump pretty close to the enterprise and launch an emidiate attack.

I doubt it the very first Star Wars movie indicates that they don't possess the technology to determine what lies in normal space whilst they are travelling in hyperspace. When the Millenium Falcon comes out of hyper drive they had no knowledge prior to exiting hyperspace that

a). The planet they were aiming at no longer existed
b). That the death star was there

How on earth would they have a chance of hitting a target as small as the Enterprise if they can't even accurately map something as big as a planet whilst they are at light speed?

 

[karmapolizei]

It's more credible, you can actually believe a lot of the stuff that's going on'there. First off, characters are actual characters with some depth to them, of which there isn't a single one on Star Wars.

Han Solo. He was just some ruffian caught up in something bigger than himself, and a huge part of Empire and even the end of Hope showed how we was growing as a character - and as a man - and learned to accept and embrace the bigger picture he was suddenly a part of. Also, there was that Leia babe to deal with.

There are more examples (Luke coming to terms with the Force and learning about Vader, the love triangle with Leia, etc) as well.

I'm sorry, but in my book, that isn't characterisation, just tropes. That was my point, basically, that no character in Star Wars is more than just a trope - hell, a lot of Star Wars elements are even NAMED by their function for the narrative! And I'm not even talkin about Darth Grievous here (mostly because second trilogy doesn't count), but just take REBEL ALLIANCE and EMPIRE. C'mon, if Lucas had called them GOOD GUYS and BAD GUYS in the first place, it wouldn't have conveyed less whatsoever.

But I don't want to rant here, for what it's worth, I LIKE Star Wars. I just can't take it for serious like I used to (but then again, I couldn't even when I was ten and a fan - because, seriously, George: Parsecs as a unit for TIME? REALLY?)

Ok, I'll stop. Point made.

 

[darthzew]

I'm going to have to say the Star Trek managed to hold its dignity longer than Star Wars did. Though, it's been time for both to quit for a long time. ESPECIALLY YOU STAR WARS!! Man, the Clone Wars is awful...

I love both. I really do... If I were to argue on story and premise alone, I'd say Star Wars. But Star Trek just has stayed better longer. But then again, it looks like Star Trek is about to go down the toilet for good thanks to a certain Mr. Abrams.

 

[karmapolizei]

I love both. I really do... If I were to argue on story and premise alone, I'd say Star Wars. But Star Trek just has stayed better longer. But then again, it looks like Star Trek is about to go down the toilet for good thanks to a certain Mr. Abrams.

I don't think so. I think it's been driven to the wall and turned into a really, really ugly wreck , all within the space of a few years (say, about 1998-2004). And from what I could already see from the new movie, I guess it's coming back stronger than ever.

 

[Trace2010]

Nobody mentioned Mark Hamil doing Hobgoblin/Green Goblin in the animated Spider-Man? Or Mask of the Phantasm (an EXTREMELY underrated Batman film)?? Or the Return of the Joker (Batman Beyond made for TV- then edited because it was definitely NOT FOR CHILDREN)??? "How did your uneducated kind ever take Jerusalem???"

 

[Naterstein]

Well first off don't bloody flame each other alright.

I like Star Trek better, for the simple reason that it seems slightly more realistic, although Humanity would probably not be the head of a Federation of Planets, more like the aliens from Independance Day(movie). And at least Star Trek is taking a chance by going back in time, don't mess with the classics some will say, well what possible harm could that do? I really don't like the original series because of the fact that i grew up with The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager, Enterprise was sweet(except that bloody opening credits music).

Star Wars is always the same, always always always, you look at the Empire under darth sideous and then you look at the republic from KOTOR, there is not that much of a difference here people, except for swords, because people will use a sword instead of a laser pistol. Plus theres the whole force thing, nice thought but it will never happen, same thing goes with light sabers. My opinion on remaking the original series: Wait until Lucas is dead, then go for it.

Star Trek more realistic? Where do you live? Star Wars is way more realistic. Lets get rid of lasers, photon torpedoes, phaser, teleporters, lightsabers, the force, whatever. The corruption of politics, free trade, slavery, and constant warring is ALOT more realistic than a perfect utopian human society.

 

[Jursa]

Never watched Star Trek, it's just a bit too nerd than I'd like...

 

[Simalacrum]

Doctor Who rules over both. sorry guys

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Trek minus Enterprise and the films.

As much as I like (nay, love) Star Wars the sheer quantity of Star Trek wins me over. Hundreds of 40 minute episodes compared to three 2 hours films.

It really is quantity for me because I rate them about equally in quality.

This right here. /Thread

 

[aegis207]

Star Wars is that friendly, down-to-earth neighbor who's restoring a 70's Chevy pickup truck in his lawn for the past three years yet fails to see that he can never bring it back to it's former glory.
Star Trek is a toupee wearing crazy old man in a top hat riding in a jalopy thinking he's totally still relevant in modern society...and that anything good has from his ravings since the dawn of the previous century.

P.S. oh and British sci fi like Dr. Who, and its spin off Torchwood (great stuff BTW) is on a whole 'nother tier and does deserve its niche in the Sci Fi pantheon.
p.s. x10---- Farscape is and was the best Sci Fi show EVER... 'Nuff said.

 

[Laughing Man]

Isn't Star Wars just a prime example of special effects taking over the movie. Just it happened years before big budget special effects were common place. We will happily say that a movie is poor and that it's biggest selling point was it's special effects budget yet some how Star Wars managed to skip this judgement.

The original 3 movies at release were radical for the level of special effects used within them. No one had done anything like it, the movie itself set up ILM, is it not possible that it was this that stuck more in peoples minds and some how everyone has forgotten this fact as the movies have grown to classic levels of status over the years?

Now let's get this straight I am not saying the movies are bad and that the special effects cover that up but what I am saying is that the movies aren't the best thing ever committed to film. There are significant things in the movies that produce almost unspeakable levels of head palm (ewoks is a good place to start.)

I think a lot of the love for Star Wars is based solely around a misguided fondness in the older generation who saw them when they first came out. They loved the movies when they first saw them (maybe because of the SFX, maybe not!) and they don't want to let go of this love. A good example of this is the reaction by many 'fans' to the new Star Wars movies. They were released when big SFX budgets were a given so in real terms nothing we hadn't seen before was being shown during the big battle scenes. The overall story in the newer films had just as many equally face palming moments in them as the original ones did yet overall they were no less full of 'depth' or any worse 'in real terms' than the original three. Yet for some reason the newer films are not loved anywhere near as much as the older ones.

I suppose a better look at the situation would be to ask someone who never saw the original movies first and has seen them in order what they think. A member of the younger generation who never had to see the days of stop motion animation or crappy models being blown up in their films SFX. Ask them which ones they remember in twenty years time. I am guessing that the answer will be

a). None of them
b). A vauge description about 1, 2 and 3 being all right but the last 3 looking a bit rubbish in comparison.

Just for a side note. I was born the year after Star Wars came out. I managed to get to my third year of University (22 years old) before I saw any of the SW films in full. I went to the cinema with some Uni mates to see the re releases prior to the new trilogy coming out. My opinion on them was meh, not bad but not sure what all the fuss was about.

 

[Sigmarius]

I have mixed opinions on the two great franchises. One thing to consider is that it's hard to put them together because Star Wars is SPACE FANTASY, where Star Trek is SCIENCE FICTION.

Both are science fiction, but Star Trek is written by people who do not know anything about science, whereas Star Wars is written by people who do not care about science.

I couldn't have said it better.
Star Wars is unrealistic but at least they have the decency not to try and justify why their technology works.


And for the battle of univeses: The enterprise would have a serious problem when they only count on range. A Battle in Star Wars COULD be fought at long range BUT with the Ability to leave warp on about any point it is up to the commander to chose at which range to fight.

The point here is that a single Star Trek ship could sit back outside of range where it can't even be seen, and sweep it's phasors back and forth over endless armadas of Star Wars ships and decimate them all. The level of tech performance is just that differant.

The whole fleet could just jump pretty close to the enterprise and launch an emidiate attack. Considering the size of a Destroyer the energy generated would be sufficient to get through the sjild of such a smal ship, if not there are a LOT of bombers...
I won't say star wars wins but its gonna be a very messy battle.

Edit:

Edit: get rid of the kiss between leia and luke in empire, if you disagree with this point than that makes you in favor of incest!

I'm no fan of incest but a fan of drama and as such i have to say don't cut out the tension betwen luke and Leia. It's one of the greatest twist of all times when it becomes clear they are all one big family.

Ok, I'm going to make this my first post of substance, and truly show how much of a nerd I am.

I enjoy both, equally, for different reasons. I like Star Wars because of the Jedi, and the fact it seems...grittier. I like Star Trek because it tends to have more social commentary.

Now, on the point above about the SW fleet jumping near the enterprise and engaging them at close range...

This would depend on whether or not the battle was in deep space, or within a solar system. In deep space, yes, a Star Destroyer MIGHT be able to jump close to the enterprise, and engage them at close range. However, within a solar system, the gravitational pull of the star would pull the star destroyer out of hyperspace. That's the principal that Interdictor class cruisers use to keep ships from leaving the system.

However, even if the Star Destroyer was able to jump up close to the Enterprise, the Enterprise would still be able to outmaneuver the Star Destroyer, based solely on the Federation's much more precise control over warp fields and subspace. If necessary, the Enterprise (assuming it was captained by Picard or someone who knows his history), would be able to perform the Picard Maneuver (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Picard_Maneuver).

Also, Star Trek sensors, at least in the 24th Century, are capable of detecting ships that are still in warp/subspace. Star Wars sensors, to the best of my knowledge, are only capable of detecting when a ship is about to come out of hyperspace.

*flexes nerd muscles, realizes what this means, and goes and cries in the corner*

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Star Wars is absolutely NOT science fiction. It's fantasy, though Lucas seems to have tried to make it a little more sci-fi by explaining the Force with midichlorians (I can't believe I know how to spell that). Star Wars is all about mysticism and magic with some standard mythological archetypes thrown in. Don't get me wrong, I prefer SW to Trek any day, but I don't think it qualifies as sci-fi. Trek is at least sort of trying to say "this could be the future" but I get real tired of the aliens with different foreheads and nothing else.

Star Wars is space opera. That's not hard s.f. but it's still regarded as science fiction. Think about Lensman, for example.

Star Trek is pretty much space opera, too. It avoids a few of the big space opera tropes (such as mega-huge "epic" scale, like interstellar governments that last thousands of years, or planets with trillions of people on them, or a two-billion-year-long psychic breeding program, or battles fought by ripping whole planets out of another dimension to hurl them at stuff), but it's still space opera at its core. Star Trek just dresses up the magic with more phlebotium (tachyons! chronatons! trilithium! baryon sweep!).

-- Alex

I'm going to agree with you on Trek just dressing up the BS with pseudo-science, but at least they're sometimes using things based in theoretical physics.

One thing about both series that drives me nuts is the way the ships move in space. Unless you've got engines pointing in every conceivable direction there is no way the ships in Star Wars could move like airplanes. And it Star Trek, why are the ships always facing "right side up" when they encounter each other? Space is three dimensional with zero gravity (though the ships seem to have artificial gravity anyway) so it shouldn't matter how the ships are oriented as they fly between the stars. And yet they're always saucer-side up or whatever. At least Spaceballs got spaceship movement kind of correct.

 

[Moloch-De]

However, even if the Star Destroyer was able to jump up close to the Enterprise, the Enterprise would still be able to outmaneuver the Star Destroyer, based solely on the Federation's much more precise control over warp fields and subspace. If necessary, the Enterprise (assuming it was captained by Picard or someone who knows his history), would be able to perform the Picard Maneuver (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Picard_Maneuver).

Just for the fun of it i keep this argument alive

In case of a close combat, the size difference of Enterpise and Star Destroyer (or the even greater version which name i can't remember)would allow the Destroyer to make use of the tractor beam to keep the Enterprise from manuvering.
Another point that isn't mentioned is the force...I guess in terms of pure fightingpower it won't matter much since the Battleships involved are just to great in size (although i remember somewhere a jedi destroys a ship purly with the force) BUT the more sophisticated use of the force would be a great advantage, especialy when enterpize-universe-people are not used to such abillities. Examples:
-A powerfull jedimaster as fleet commander won't be surprises by many enemy tactics since some jedi can feel stuff that will hapen in the future (exept when it is clouded by the dark side^^)
-Use the force to detect enemys at a range a sensor couldn't
-Use force to trick enemy sensors into giving false information (ambush)
-use it to manipulate enemy coammander
-use a jedi to singlehandedly hijack a whole enemy ship since there is no way he would lose in close combat when he gets on board (getting there would need a huge distraction)

All that said the pure firepower of enterpize-universe-ships would still be devasting

 

[dragonforce]

I do agree with the fact that Star Trek is superior in realism...
But what is more fun? a man that jungles storm troopers with a light saber and force pushes? or Deh Phazers... Star Wars is more for the spectacle while trek is more for the actual drama. It is like comparing Metroid prime With halo... VERY DIFFERENT... But hell I haven't had much experience with both to say much... I'm a jack of all trades a master of none.

well Gate is more closer to reilism as any lazer tech is BIG (well bigger then a normal gun). and set in modern time. Any way Bullits have provern better then lazers at times

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'm gonna add a third option just to be snobby and say Dr. Who > Star Trek/Wars.

Obviously I have no preference