http://www.debate.org/debates/Star-Trek-vs-Star-Wars-Ultimate-Nerd-Showdown/1/
Thought you guys would enjoy that.
Thought you guys would enjoy that.
Star Trek vs Star Wars (Ultimate Nerd Showdown)
- Thread starter WrathofGod
- Start date
Star Wars hasn't gotten worse. It was good in the OT, took a hellacious nose dive in the PT but The Clone Wars is bringing it back up.
Star Trek had a similar, if less dramatic, trajectory. TOS, TNG, DS9: creatively strong. VOY and ENT: big step down. Trek XI: back up on top.
The real difference is financial. Star Wars has always been highly successful, regardless of how bad.
Star Trek had a similar, if less dramatic, trajectory. TOS, TNG, DS9: creatively strong. VOY and ENT: big step down. Trek XI: back up on top.
The real difference is financial. Star Wars has always been highly successful, regardless of how bad.
antiquityscion
Commander
To the Moon, yeah, the US won that race, so you are essentially right. But a lot of people consider the Apollo-Soyuz mission the "formal end" of the overall space race, in July 1975, when both craft docked together. The soviets and US were still sending unmanned probes to Venus and Mars up to and beyond that. A sit turned out the Soviets focused on Venus, and the US focused on Mars.Let the dismantling begin, I'll start.
Wasn't the "space race" basically over in 1969 when America landed on the moon, and Russia (you know) didn't?
antiquityscion
Commander
I agree, I like both.
I'm sorry to have to be the one to say it but it looks as though STAR WARS won.
Let's face it, the last film proves that inorder for STAR TREK to attract new (read modern & dumber) fans, it had to become very STAR WARS at it's core. What JJ did well with the new film was to take the cliches of STAR TREK that the general (non Trekkie) public knows; Kirk is brash, Spock is cool and logical, Scotty saves the ship, the ENTERPRISE, primary color uniforms, transporters, "captain's log" etc...and place that veneer of STAR TREK over what was a very thin STAR WARS framework.
The success of STAR TREK (2009) is really the death knell of "real science fiction" STAR TREK, and the true victory of George Lucas' damn "science fantasy" STAR WARS. God, I hate George Lucas!!! He's now managed to directly or in-directly ruin THREE franchises that I loved.
John
Let's face it, the last film proves that inorder for STAR TREK to attract new (read modern & dumber) fans, it had to become very STAR WARS at it's core. What JJ did well with the new film was to take the cliches of STAR TREK that the general (non Trekkie) public knows; Kirk is brash, Spock is cool and logical, Scotty saves the ship, the ENTERPRISE, primary color uniforms, transporters, "captain's log" etc...and place that veneer of STAR TREK over what was a very thin STAR WARS framework.
The success of STAR TREK (2009) is really the death knell of "real science fiction" STAR TREK, and the true victory of George Lucas' damn "science fantasy" STAR WARS. God, I hate George Lucas!!! He's now managed to directly or in-directly ruin THREE franchises that I loved.
John
I'm interested in the numbers, too. Can anyone possible compare all Star Trek related revenue (TV, MOVIE, Merchandise, Conventions. etc.) to all Star Wars related revenue.
Since I can get the movie numbers easily, I'll post those. All numbers are domestic box offices taken from boxofficemojo.
6 Star Wars Movies:
episode IV - $460 MM
episode V - $290MM
episode VI - $309MM
episode I - $431MM
episode II - $310MM
episode III - $380MM
Total - $2,180MM
11 Star Trek Movies:
XI - $257MM
X - $43MM
IX - $70MM
VIII - $92MM
VII - $75MM
VI - $96MM
V - $52MM
IV - $109MM
III - $76MM
II - $78MM
I - $82MM
Total - $1,030MM
Obviously, in movie dollars, its not even close. SW blows ST out of the water.
Now can someone else find and post the TV dollars?
antiquityscion
Commander
That's not fair to say. Without Lucas, there would be no ILM. ILM did the FX for Star Treks 2-11 and TNG series. And let's face it, TOS wasn't pure sci fi, either. It was billed as a Western in space, IIRC.
Actually, based on the votes on that site, it looks like Star Trek is winning the debate quite handily...
I disagree with Temis as to the quality of the Clone Wars cartoon. I think that the only real place to go for adult stories in the Star Wars universe at this point is the Expanded Universe of comics and novels. I'm going to be curious to see if the 3d releases bring in any money for Lucasfilm or not. I'm guessing they will because SW fans pretty much go see any shit GL shovels out for them, but I'm kind of hoping he starts seeing a bit more red ink.
Star Trek has gotten more fun with the new movie. Sure, it's replaced it's imaginary pseudo-science with other imaginary pseudo-science and that has people in a tizzy for some reason, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of consumers found it REALLY entertaining.
I disagree with Temis as to the quality of the Clone Wars cartoon. I think that the only real place to go for adult stories in the Star Wars universe at this point is the Expanded Universe of comics and novels. I'm going to be curious to see if the 3d releases bring in any money for Lucasfilm or not. I'm guessing they will because SW fans pretty much go see any shit GL shovels out for them, but I'm kind of hoping he starts seeing a bit more red ink.
Star Trek has gotten more fun with the new movie. Sure, it's replaced it's imaginary pseudo-science with other imaginary pseudo-science and that has people in a tizzy for some reason, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of consumers found it REALLY entertaining.
I've never been a Star Wars fan. I think it's the characters - I couldn't care less about what happened to any of them. Every version of Star Trek has featured at least a few characters that I cared about.
I'm not into the swords and sorcery aspects of SW, either.
I'm not into the swords and sorcery aspects of SW, either.
Also, not a compleatly fair assesment. ILM or something like it was inevitable at that point in the '70s. And as for Lucas being THAT important, well Gary Kurtz might have something to say about that.
John
Amen. Even at what is supposedly its best (the second movie in the original trilogy?), I never found Star Wars particularly memorable. The first three movies were all inoffensive, but unexciting to me. I watched them all in the same period and I think of them sort of like a single thing that's just so-so.
"Revenge of the Sith" is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, though. On the other hand, "Star Trek" has been capable of greatness on both television and film. Some amazing direction, performances, and acting has gone into that franchise.
Can't say that about "Star Wars", which has a few cute one liners, and one strong, iconic character (Han Solo). Leia, Chewbacca, and the two robots are arguably iconic too, but more for aesthetic reasons than any substance.
Leia's most famous for a bikini, Chewy grunts and people understand what he's saying, which makes him a one-joke character, and the two robots have striking designs (and like Chewy, one of them only speaks gibberish). Pretty pathetic compared to all the well-rounded multi-faceted characters in various Star Trek shows and movies.
antiquityscion
Commander
I am not here to argue with you, I am just pointing out what is. You can speculate on whether or not another company would have filled the void of ILM. There probably would have been. But as it turned out, it was ILM. that is just a fact.
Star Wars had nothing to do with the "demise" of Star Trek.
In fact, without Star Wars, there would probably not been a revival of TOS films, or the series that followed (which many people involved with Trek, including Roddenberry, have acknowledged over the years), anyway, and by extension probably other sci fi shows like Babylon 5, too.
Trek had a great run from 1987-2005: 4 shows, and 6 movies. That is almost 18 years of having a Trek TV show on, or put another way 25 seasons of Star Trek. You know, few other TV shows can claim that. After that long of a run, I would hardly call that a failure.
...and by the way, I happen to be a fan of both Trek and Wars. I see them as 2 different animals, and it need not be this or that!
number6
Vice Admiral
Star Wars and Star Trek were created for very different reasons. Lucas wanted to do a modern take on the Saturday sci-fi serials he enjoyed as a kid. GR wanted to do a social commentary show set in space. Apples and Oranges. No reason to enjoy either or both on its own merits.
number6
Vice Admiral
My opinion is informed by fact. The origins of both ST and SW are well documented facts.
I agree. They are like apples and oranges...if the apples are rotten. And the apples are Star Wars. 
True. Mythical far-off past and nearby scientific future don't conflict at all.
Buuuutttt....
I'll take STV over Episode 1 any day. Jar Jar is an abomination.
Similar threads
