• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

The Ultimate Argument/Discussion...

Star Wars vs Star Trek

  • Total voters
    17
wraven

wraven

TMF Poster
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
124
Points
0
Star Wars vs Star Trek........Which is better?
I am neutral in this discussion and will remain so. You good people fight or discuss amongst yourselves. This should prove to be entertaining, and we shall all learn a great deal about useless information relating to nothing. Have fun folks.
 
Heh, just like if they fought each other in a battle, star trek rules
 
I didn't vote because both are good for different things. Neither is better than the other. People need to realize that Star Wars is a space opera filled with drama, suspsense and action. Its not a traditional sci-fi series. Star Trek is more about a journey that utilizes technology and science and so falls into the category of sci-fi completely.

I think nuances and the direction that the two series take are different and therefore make a difference in the overall composition. And because of that, people will or will not like them for different reasons.

Star Wars thrives on emotional contexts and personal relationships to tell a story whereas Star Trek is more about the technology and journey of human expansion into space. Star Trek is a story about human development in practice and humans learning to be all that they can.

Star Trek is more realistic than Star Wars. Star Wars is a fantasy, an exageration of reality centered though by very human things. Its very realistic in it's messege, its overall plot, and its a very moral story. Star Trek is necessarily anal so as to explain the human condition for the century humans exist in.

Star Trek is a work in progress telling the story of mankind and it's dealings in the universe whereas Star Wars (the current saga anyway) is a personal story about a select group of people under a specific condition.

People will like what they like about each and theres something good to watch from both. I don't think its about which is better, there is no better. Presentation maybe, but you really can't put a limit on what is and what isn't in either series. They both offer a similar story, only one is of self discovery and the other is about potential and the future.

In the end though I think someone who likes Star Wars will like Star Trek and vice versa, if only for the genre. Better to have the best of both worlds I think.
 
Last edited:
Vladislaus Dracula said:
I didn't vote because both are good for different things. Neither is better than the other. People need to realize that Star Wars is a space opera filled with drama, suspsense and action. Its not a traditional sci-fi series. Star Trek is more about a journey that utilizes technology and science and so falls into the category of sci-fi completely.

I think nuances and the direction that the two series take are different and therefore make a difference in the overall composition. And because of that, people will or will not like them for different reasons.

Star Wars thrives on emotional contexts and personal relationships to tell a story whereas Star Trek is more about the technology and journey of human expansion into space. Star Trek is a story about human development in practice and humans learning to be all that they can.

Star Trek is more realistic than Star Wars. Star Wars is a fantasy, an exageration of reality centered though by very human things. Star Trek is necessarily anal so as to explain the human condition for the century humans exist in.

Star Trek is a work in progress telling the story of mankind and it's dealings in the universe whereas Star Wars (the current saga anyway) is a personal story about a select group of people.

People will like what they like about each and theres something good to watch from both. I don't think its about which is better, there is no better. Presentation maybe, but you really can't put a limit on what is and what isn't in either series. They both offer a similar story, only one is of self discovery and the other is about potential and the future.
Click to expand...


Trek offers alot of self discovery with the evolution of many of their characters, such as data and picard. They didnt remain 1 dimensional, picard evolved from a hard liner captain to being more compassionate and lenient. Data went from a "typical" android and continued to aspire to be human and coming close to it.

Problem with comparing is for star wars, you can only base off the movies, while star trek has been 5 series' since the 1960's.

The movies for trek have been emotional based and personal relationships, in generations with picard\kirk, picard and his remose over never having a family, the desire to go back to what one percieved as "heaven", in in first contact we saw the relations betwene picard and his horrors over the borg experience and with data being seduced by the borg. etc etc i could go on
 
Yeah I know, but Star Trek has been represented in different formats, under different names in it's own form of self-expansion. If not for that and the movies I don't think individualism would exist very much. Star Trek focuses on individuals too, but from often completly different perspectives, mostly militaristic. Star Wars has that, but its often times more about the spiritual essence of whats going on.

Palpatine turning Anakin to the Dark Side for example is not a military agenda, or about technology or space or discovery. Its a personal agenda, and again, Star Wars is a personal story that confines itself to the resolution of these individuals. Star Trek can go anywhere it wants to because its broader in concept and doesn't require that level of commitment to individuals in order to be successful.

They're two different stories but nearly cut from the same cloth.
 
Last edited:
Harrrumph...well...

Harlan Ellison famously described "Star Wars" as adolescent nonsense and said that "Star Trek" would turn your brain to puree of bat guano.
My own opinions are not nearly that severe. Many of you are too young to remember when the first "Star Wars" burst on the scene like a bombshell in...1978, was it? No advance hype, nothing to prepare us for the eye-opening look of the thing, the jaw-dropping special effects and the fast-paced story (which, as Vlad points out, is pure space opera). That installment is still the only one in the series I really enjoyed.
"Star Trek," swung wildly from the sublime to the ridiculous in its original three seasons. I did become a fan, though never a Trekkie. And I've seen all the feature films. I still like "Wrath of Khan" best, though for a genetically engineered superior being, Khan never really does anything very smart. His strategies are on the level of a mafia don. And Spock dies a glorious death, worthy almost of Sydney Carton (to whom he is subtly compared in the film.) They should never have resurrected that character.
I watched only a few episodes of "Next Generation," mostly to ogle Marina Sirtis, then fell away from the franchise until "Enterprise," which I found diverting but not addictive.
Vlad is right...you are, in a real sense, comparing apples to oranges here.

I'll close by saying that, watching later episodes and films in both series, I find myself longing to see the Tardis materialize on the bridge of the Enterprise or the courthouse square on Tatooine. Then, the difficulties would get settled once and for all.
 
Yep. Apples and oranges. Both are great. I can only truthfully say I've only watched through Star Trek: Voyager. I don't recall any of the movies or other tv series other than First Contact, though I'm sure I've watched several episodes of each.

Voyager made an impression on me in ways the others could not. Perhaps, again, because it reminded me of Star Wars and the personalized heaven and hell the characters live in day to day. Its not about anything else really, its about them and their issues and seeing them through. I think theres more attachment possible to these characters in this way than in a much broader sense.
 
Last edited:
Vladislaus Dracula said:
Yeah I know, but Star Trek has been represented in different formats, under different names in it's own form of self-expansion. If not for that and the movies I don't think individualism would exist very much. Star Trek focuses on individuals too, but from often completly different perspectives, mostly militaristic. Star Wars has that, but its often times more about the spiritual essence of whats going on.

Palpatine turning Anakin to the Dark Side for example is not a military agenda, or about technology or space or discovery. Its a personal agenda, and again, Star Wars is a personal story that confines itself to the resolution of these individuals. Star Trek can go anywhere it wants to because its broader in concept and doesn't require that level of commitment to individuals in order to be successful.

They're two different stories but nearly cut from the same cloth.
Click to expand...

If you call trek militaristic then you must call star wars militaristic as well in the same aspect and not just spiritual, the basic star wars plot formula's base in the beginning of every ep with a battle sequence and end with a battle sequence but every movie has had and im not referin to the saver squences but the large scale battle scenes.

With anakin, you can say this is a military agenda because palpatine's goal was to rule the galaxy, hence how he played both sides against each other so he could gain control of the senate and create the empire.

It is similar to the borg queen and data in "First contact" She seduced him and tempted him so that he would join their side to gain control of the Enterprise.

The tv series' cant be personal unless you look at voyager because that was a confined timeline so they had to build characters but with the moves you got the resolution to the characters and their internal problems. The best example i can think of is star trek II where you have a return of Kirks enemy Kahn
 
Vladislaus Dracula said:
Yep. Apples and oranges. Both are great. I can only truthfully say I've only watched through Star Trek: Voyager. I don't recall any of the movies or other tv series other than First Contact, though I'm sure I've watched several episodes of each.

Voyager made an impression on me in ways the others could not. Perhaps, again, because it reminded me of Star Wars and the personalized heaven and hell the characters live in day to day. Its not about anything else really, its about them and their issues and seeing them through. I think theres more attachment possible to these characters in this way than in a much broader sense.
Click to expand...

That is what i liked about VOY, Deep space nine and to throw another genre out there, the buffy\angel series. They followed a timeline which they had to abide by. Things from previous weeks would affect the current episode. With VOY u had the constant trek home and whatnot, DS9 you had the dominion war so war eps influenced each other. With TNG, they did this limitedly but that i disliked was one week there at planet A, next week they're at nebulae C and its just a complete cold new ep
 
Def. Star Wars. Star Trek may be cool in the broader scope as far as the characters, the universe, the worlds, the general ideas behind it...but most of what I've seen (not a lot but not a little) has been total drek. I was never terribly impressed with the scrpts, the individual episode stories, or most of the actors.
 
Each series has value, but I prefer Star Trek because of its greater plausibility and efforts to portray science realistically. Star Wars' main virtue is that many of its concepts are dervied from Eastern philosophies and thus are more familiar to me than the sometimes-arcane technology of Star Trek. Star Wars' heavy-handed attempts at humour leave me unamused, while Star Trek seems to get it right, but then again, Star Trek doesn't have those cool light sabres 😀
 
MistressValerie said:
Each series has value, but I prefer Star Trek because of its greater plausibility and efforts to portray science realistically. Star Wars' main virtue is that many of its concepts are dervied from Eastern philosophies and thus are more familiar to me than the sometimes-arcane technology of Star Trek. Star Wars' heavy-handed attempts at humour leave me unamused, while Star Trek seems to get it right, but then again, Star Trek doesn't have those cool light sabres 😀
Click to expand...

Heh, who needs light sabres when ya got the Borg 🙂

Also Ness, how can you not like the versatile acting of patrick stewart?!
 
I have no qualms with Patrick Stewart. 😛 I'd say he was the best of the bunch.
 
Y'know what I think was better than either of them: the short-lived TV series Firefly. Could've really been something if it hadn't been cancelled.

But maybe that's just me.
 
MistressValerie said:
Patrick Stewart was great, and so was Brent Spiner, who played the Data role to perfection.
Click to expand...

I didnt like how too human they made data in the movies. I prefered the tv Data who kept striving to be human but you knew he was still an android.
 
As far as sci-fi tv programs I have to say I liked Sliders and Quantum Leap better 😛 But then, I dont watch much sci-fi...
The only Star Trek TNG movie I've seen was the first one, Generations, and I have to say it was freakin awesome. I saw ads for the other movies but they just didn't inspire me to see them.
 
I don't watch much sci-fi either but Firefly was amazing. Y'know what else is really good: the new incarnation of Battlestar Galactica. A terrifically moody evocation of loss, despair and indomitability, with really interestring characters and storytelling.
 
Star Wars.

The folks on Star Trek seem to spend an awful lot of time talking about their feelings, various moral quandaries, and the like. What makes it worse is that they try to do so in a cold, clinical manner, whilst perpetually mumbling about the "prime directive."

The various characters of Star Wars seem to prefer kicking ass to talking, which makes for a much more pleasurable cinematic experience, IMO...
 
I voted Star Trek, not because I think it is necessarily better (they're just completely different, and therefore uncomparable), but because I've seen every episode of Star Treks TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY (not Enterprise, that sucks rotten eggs! 😛 J/K!) plus all the films, but have never yet seen a single one of the Star Wars films.

So feel free to ignore my vote and call me biased. 😀

Personally, my favourite Star Trek incarnation was Star Trek Voyager, which had a story arc (like DS9) but right from the beginning.

On the other hand, I still think it's not that good compared to the best sci-fi show of them all; I speak, of course, of Doctor Who! 😎
 
I've seen every episode of Star Treks TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY (not Enterprise, that sucks rotten eggs! 😛 J/K!) plus all the films, but have never yet seen a single one of the Star Wars films.
Click to expand...

*insert shocked smiley here* Oh dear.....

In general I'd say the original Star Trek series...well...sucked. It does have appeal in the same way that campy B grade horror movies do but I just can't take it seriously (can anyone?). I do like the "This is the most dangerous planet in the galexy so let's send the entire senior staff" philosophy. They were definately a lot ballsier than Picard and co. 😛
 
Ness, you got problems with Captain kirk seducing every woman on the show!?!?

And the joke goes its always the main staff and then the minority guy who gets killed
Kirk-ok lets send a landing party, it'll be myself, spock, bones and ensign Rodriguez
Ensign-aw crap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
What's New

11/11/2024
Make a Wish!
Tickle Experiment
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
streaming tickling videos on demand at the TMF!
Tickling videos on demand!
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
 The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top