The Big Divisive Question: Star Wars Or Star Trek?

[Vortigar]

Mmm, I read all the posts just to try and see if someone could give me a convincing argument either way. No luck.

I guess I'll give it to Star Wars as the key moments in those films stuck in my head way more than the best Star Trek moments. I've also got a bit more background info on SW than ST. I have a TNG + DS9 crew compendium lying around but could also tell you the names of everyone in the cantina. ^_^

I also prefer my sci-fi in the written form. The Foundation for example.

 

[SaturdayS]

Star Trek is probably the better science fiction, but I always enjoyed Star Wars more.

This represents my soul.

 

[Baldr]

I just want to add that Modern Day Star Trek owes part of it existence to the success of Star Wars.

It would have stayed in a collection of 1960s Sci-fis few people care about, it was Star Wars that made Paramount green-light the Original Motion Picture of the series that restarted the franchise.

 

[deth2munkies]

I wonder if age is a factor here? Star Trek debuted in 1973 as a TV series, while Star Wars debutted in the movie theatres in 1976. Both were pretty revolutionary at the time, and if you were an adult or at least a teanager back then you'd be able to judge them equally and have a good distinction. For anyone born during or after that time then wouldn't there be a strong bias towards Star Wars? That's the cooler and more kid friendly of the two, a timeless classic which we all would have watched and enjoyed before we were at an age to appreciate Star Trek. And by the time we were old enough to get into Star Trek it's no longer as revolutionary or new as it once was.

Personally I loved Star Wars starting as a kid, and for Star Trek as a teen was a big fan of The Next Generation... but that was the only series I liked, they're all actually fairly different. So for someone my age (near 30) I don't think it's a fair question because I don't see the two as being on equal standing to be compared with each other, like an older geek would

Absolutely. If you were a kid when there was no Trek on the air, you probably don't have as big an attachment to it. Similarly, if your first exposure to Star Wars was *shudder* the new trilogy, you're not going to feel the same way about it as someone who saw the original trilogy in the theaters as a child.

Me, I'm a Star Wars girl. Don't get me wrong, I adore Trek, but Star Wars quite literally changed my life. The idea that an ordinary person could make a difference and should stand up to the bad guy is a very important concept for a child to embrace.

It doesn't help that, for the most part, the span where Star Wars came out was the only span in the history of Trek where they didn't have a strong TV franchise (Original ended in '69, TNG didn't start up till the 80s) Star Wars ruled the '70s.

 

[Harry Buddha Palm]

"If your answer to The Big Divisive Question is Star Wars, you are likely introspective, compassionate, attentive, and detail-oriented. You probably prefer fantasy to science fiction (more princesses, swords, empires, and sidekicks, please), and your interaction with the world is always with the greater consequences in mind. You're probably an interviewer's dream, a good listener, and ultimately someone I'd like to hang out with."

Yep! You hit the nail on the head, there!

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

I'm definitely a Star Wars man and that last bit was pretty spot on in describing me. I'm a little freaked out about that.

 

[MatsJn]

What about us Babylon 5 fans?

 

[hermes]

Neither. Both are inferior to Babylon 5. Yes, I went there.

Hell, yeah!!

On the question: they are different beasts... One is a scifi adventure, the other is an adventure set in space. You could as well ask "which version?".

In Star Wars we have the classic, the expanded, the prequels and the clone wars versions. In Star Trek there is the original, next generation, deep space 9, enterprise... Out of all those, my favorite is Star Trek: The Next Generation.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Star Wars for me. Your assessment of my personality was pretty accurate to.

 

[HK_01]

If I had to choose I'd say Star Wars, but only because of Timothy Zahn's books and the games, the movies I never cared about. They're mediocre, all of them, if you want my honest opinion.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

An interesting point to make is that Star Wars is nerds versus jocks, and Star Trek is jocks vs nerds.

Think about it:
Star Wars has a Wimp and Old Man, they pick up a Rogue and an Outcast and go to get the girl from the Team. They beat the Armoured Sports Team by tricking them.
Star Trek has the Jock, and his picked upon Nerd, the Mechanic and the Doc; with the outcasts doing the real work. They go up against Intellectuals and beat them by shagging them.

If it's between the two, It's got to be Star Wars. Purely because of the spectacle.

Carrie Fisher may have complained about her role, but she was the gutsiest heroine pre-Ripley. And you could tell why Luke was star-struck.

 

[Siberian Relic]

Interesting conclusion. I'm a much bigger fan of Star Wars than Star Trek, and yet I prefer science fiction to a much larger degree than fantasy. In fact, I only even tolerate fantasy in a few specific instances.

I think part of it is based on the fact that Star Wars, while taking on the trappings and titles of a fantasy work, operates more as a space-based adventure, which is far more appealing to me than either fantasy or science fiction.

 

[tautologico]

I like them both, for different reasons. For me, asking which is better, Star Trek or Star Wars, is like asking which is better, The Lord of the Rings or The Chronicles of Narnia They're both excellent, genre defining masterworks, but they're only superficially similar. It's why I was disappointed with the new Star Trek movie, even though, as a Summer action flick, it was excellent; the thing just smelled of Star Wars, and that does not sit right in the Star Trek universe. For the record, I'm one of those Star Trek fans who absolutely loves The Motion Picture, and even likes Star Trek V as the only Star Trek film aside from TMP to really seek out new life and go where no man has gone before.

Same here on the Star Wars/Star Trek divide and ST: TMP. I think TMP is the most "true sci-fi" of the Star Trek movies and I don't understand why the fans don't like it. Well, of course I understand some of it: it's slow-paced and contemplative, has little to no action (while fan-favorite Wrath of Khan has lots of space battles and action scenes), etc. It may be kinda odd in relation to the rest of the series, but I like it this way.

 

[Falseprophet]

I actually find both franchises to be illustrations of how a speculative fiction concept built around a high-minded vision can expand into fully fleshed-out, living and breathing setting that appeals to millions of people, and somehow along the way completely lose touch with its original vision.

Interestingly, one lost touch because the creator died and was replaced by a committee that couldn't agree about what his vision was or how it should be interpreted in the modern day, while the other was a result of the creator losing touch with his original vision (you could call it the development of his artistry, but I don't think he went in a positive direction). Which only goes to show, whether alone or in committee, you can rely on human beings to mess up a good thing.

 

[Rigs83]

Versus

​

 

[beniki]

The real question has always been, Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer.

... And Wedge Antilles was always way cooler than any of the main cast. Dude survived two Death Star runs and the massacre at Hoth. And he wasn't even a jedi.

 

[DazBurger]

[HEADING=2]Versus[/HEADING]

Bit of a tie I guess...

 

[qwijybo]

First one, then the other.