Why do people love''WARS'' more then''TREK''?

[J Archer]

Some people just get more out of roaming the streets in robes believing in the force (true story, well apart from the robes) - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8003067.stm http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.2504086.0.pc_pam_owns_up_to_being_in_jedi_force.php)

 

[RAMA]

I hate to sound "elitist" but SW really is a lot simpler to understand and looks better visually to the public. That's why the avg person tends to like it better.

RAMA

 

[Strider]

Star Trek isn't nerdy where I'm from. If you have the privilege to wear a Star Fleet uniform you get all the girls and the guys want to be like you. Star Wars on the other hand is for losers.

Unless you're from the future or something, you are seriously deluded.

 

[Praetor]

I tend to agree that 'Wars' is simpler. I know it tends to make the Trekker sound like a snob to make that argument, but I really think that's what it is.

'Wars' is a fantasy epic that happens to be set in space. 'Trek' is a western that happens to be set in space, but which, beginning with TOS, had a lot of thought put into establishing a very realistic, well-thought-out and potentially plausible future universe - ultimately putting Trek into a harder 'scifi' category - which IMO became a strength rather than a weakness. I think this affects the accessibility of the two franchises, and therefore 'Wars' is more appealing to the general public because it is more easily accessible.

In some ways, 'Wars' appeals more directly emotionally, whereas 'Trek' (at its best, anyway) appeals intellectually.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Going back to the originals and changing them with CGI

So, you haven't seen TOS-R or the Directors Ed of TMP?

 

[miraclefan]

I hate to sound "elitist" but SW really is a lot simpler to understand and looks better visually to the public. That's why the avg person tends to like it better.

RAMA

Could not AGREE MORE! that's the view I've had for a LOOOONGGG TIME!

I tend to agree that 'Wars' is simpler. I know it tends to make the Trekker sound like a snob to make that argument, but I really think that's what it is.

'Wars' is a fantasy epic that happens to be set in space. 'Trek' is a western that happens to be set in space, but which, beginning with TOS, had a lot of thought put into establishing a very realistic, well-thought-out and potentially plausible future universe - ultimately putting Trek into a harder 'scifi' category - which IMO became a strength rather than a weakness. I think this affects the accessibility of the two franchises, and therefore 'Wars' is more appealing to the general public because it is more easily accessible.

In some ways, 'Wars' appeals more directly emotionally, whereas 'Trek' (at its best, anyway) appeals intellectually.

THAT'S why I love TREK MORE! it really appeals to us ''Intellectuals'' HELL! even Frasier Crane was starfleet captain!

 

[Strider]

THAT'S why I love TREK MORE! it really appeals to us ''Intellectuals'' HELL! even Frasier Crane was starfleet captain!

oh please, star trek feeds you its "lessons" with a big spoon and a healthy side of bad acting and worse writing.

 

[Praetor]

Let's not start a 'bad writing/bad acting' contest shall we? First, 'bad _____' is often subjective. Second, there are a lot more hours of Trek on film than there are Wars. Third, I can think of about six hours of mediocre to bad writing and acting that account for half of Wars.

 

[miraclefan]

Let's not start a 'bad writing/bad acting' contest shall we? First, 'bad _____' is often subjective. Second, there are a lot more hours of Trek on film than there are Wars. Third, I can think of about six hours of mediocre to bad writing and acting that account for half of Wars.

 

[trevanian]

THAT'S why I love TREK MORE! it really appeals to us ''Intellectuals'' HELL! even Frasier Crane was starfleet captain!

oh please, star trek feeds you its "lessons" with a big spoon and a healthy side of bad acting and worse writing.

Even the stuff Gene Coon wrote under pen names was more fun than most of Lucas' post AmGraf stuff.

If GL hadn't had Huyck and Katz fix SW with some dialog, the first one probably wouldn't have even caught on, no matter the eye candy.

 

[trevanian]

Let's not start a 'bad writing/bad acting' contest shall we? First, 'bad _____' is often subjective. Second, there are a lot more hours of Trek on film than there are Wars. Third, I can think of about six hours of mediocre to bad writing and acting that account for half of Wars.

I think I'd raise you at least another 2.5 hours, maybe three ...

 

[Newt]

They have the stun setting in Star Wars, too, BTW.

As for ewoks...

Haha that's very disturbing.

 

[grace]

I vote for fewer creepy Ewok pictures.

Let's not start a 'bad writing/bad acting' contest shall we? First, 'bad _____' is often subjective. Second, there are a lot more hours of Trek on film than there are Wars. Third, I can think of about six hours of mediocre to bad writing and acting that account for half of Wars.

I concur.

I am a Star Wars freak (okay, short of dressing up, but only barely) but even I will admit that yes much of Star Wars is shite. Considering what GL created/added in when he finally had total creative control and oodles of cash and shiny computers, I'm surprised it wasn't more shite. (RotJ really needed a musical number? what? and I stood in line Jar Jar Binks?) The dialogue is painful, the plots are pleasantly familiar but not shocking or clever, the acting is average. But I love it so.

And I don't really think it's fair to try to judge which is "better." I think it's acceptable to have a favorite, and root for it, but just b/c you like something doesn't mean it's qualitatively better. It's all just subjective.

Really even though they're both sci-fi it's like comparing apples to oranges. Each series is trying to do something different, in a different medium.

 

[Praetor]

Let's not start a 'bad writing/bad acting' contest shall we? First, 'bad _____' is often subjective. Second, there are a lot more hours of Trek on film than there are Wars. Third, I can think of about six hours of mediocre to bad writing and acting that account for half of Wars.

I think I'd raise you at least another 2.5 hours, maybe three ...

Yeah, I probably was being a bit generous... but I may be the one person who likes the Ewoks for what they are.

I am a Star Wars freak (okay, short of dressing up, but only barely) but even I will admit that yes much of Star Wars is shite. Considering what GL created/added in when he finally had total creative control and oodles of cash and shiny computers, I'm surprised it wasn't more shite. (RotJ really needed a musical number? what? and I stood in line Jar Jar Binks?) The dialogue is painful, the plots are pleasantly familiar but not shocking or clever, the acting is average. But I love it so.

And I don't really think it's fair to try to judge which is "better." I think it's acceptable to have a favorite, and root for it, but just b/c you like something doesn't mean it's qualitatively better. It's all just subjective.

Really even though they're both sci-fi it's like comparing apples to oranges. Each series is trying to do something different, in a different medium.

Very well said, grace. I don't want to convey the idea that I dislike 'Star Wars' either - I'm actually a fan. But like you say, apples to oranges. Fantasy to sci-fi. It'd be like comparing 'Jaws' to 'Gone With the Wind.'

 

[Hartzilla2007]

The Ewoks are somewhat redeemed in the fact that they eat people.

Wait WHAT!?

 

[grace]

The Ewoks are somewhat redeemed in the fact that they eat people.

Wait WHAT!?

well they were trying to roast Han and Luke and Chewy for dinner, right? before C-3PO's Fabulous Flying Act. (also R2-D2, but I think they overestimated how delicious R2 would be.)

 

[miraclefan]

Yeah, I probably was being a bit generous... but I may be the one person who likes the Ewoks for what they are.

HA! whatayaknow! I like the Ewoks for what they are TOO!

 

[Hartzilla2007]

The Ewoks are somewhat redeemed in the fact that they eat people.

Wait WHAT!?

well they were trying to roast Han and Luke and Chewy for dinner, right? before C-3PO's Fabulous Flying Act. (also R2-D2, but I think they overestimated how delicious R2 would be.)

Damn, I though they actually ate a person. Which actually WOULD have made them cool.

 

[Praetor]

I would have absolutely loved to have seen some Ewoks chowing down on some Stormtroopers. The look on the faces of the Rebels would have been priceless.

 

[miraclefan]

I would have absolutely loved to have seen some Ewoks chowing down on some Stormtroopers. The look on the faces of the Rebels would have been priceless.

That would have been GREAT! and may have shut-up alot of Ewok bashers we have today! But then it would not have been PG rated, and unless PG-13 was beeing used at the time (Don't belive it was) I think the movie would have been R! Oh well!