Age old discussion, Star Trek vs. Star Wars

[Terran]

So I was having this ol' debate with a friend the other day, my friend being a Star Wars fan. His reasoning being that Star Wars is better because it caters to a wider audience, has a larger budget and better CGI. But for me, he just isn't getting it. Trek is just so much more involving for me. Not only is there much much more content out there to experience, but its reflection of real world issues, and its cultural diversity make it for me. I don't think I need to even point out that Star Wars has Jar Jar.

So, I wonder how many reasons we can come up with that Star Trek is better than Star Wars (or the other way round perhaps, for arguments sake).

 

[JirinPanthosa]

First of all, budget is irrelevant, audience size is irrelevant. If you use those as arguments you automatically declare Twilight as high art.

I prefer Star Trek, hard to say it's better. I could easily argue Star Wars is better. But, things Star Trek does better than Star Wars.

1) Greater variety of stories to be told in the universe
2) Better at moral philosophy, more nuanced in Star Wars you're just kinda either good or evil.
3) Universe is more expansive
4) Star Trek doesn't rely on planet-destruction to make you root against the bad guy.
5) The prequels.

Reasons Star Wars is better than Star Trek?

1) Less preachy
2) Star Trek is oversaturated, there's just so much of it a whole lot of it isn't very good
3) More straightforward entertainment, designed around action and adrenaline.
4) Relies less on technobabble and gadget-ex-machina.
5) Enterprise

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I like both kinds of music.

 

[The Wormhole]

I like both Star Trek and Star Wars, why do we have to pit them against each other?

Admittedly, I'm probably more into Trek than Wars, but Star Wars has entertained me since I was ten years old and has provided me many fine memories throughout life. Really, there is no Star Trek vs Star Wars, neither one is better or worse than the other. Granted we all have preferances for one or the other, but preferances do not equal quality.

 

[Gotham Central]

Star Wars is more popular because it was created as a straight old fashioned adventure. It benefits from the fact that its was tethered to more historical/timeless archetypes and storytelling. Star Trek was more understated and more reliant on military structures that had fallen out of favor by the time Star wars rolled around. Indeed, on of the things that Trek had going for it in the 60s was that much of its viewing audience had a favorable view of military service and experience with such service. Star wars was about the triumph of rebellion over oppressive authority. That's the world we've been living in ever since.

Star Wars is also more popular because Star Wars was an event. The was very little of it so when you got new product it was BIG news. Star Trek was on television uninterrupted for the better part of 20 years. Even the movies sometimes felt lacking because of the scope of what could be found on TV every week.

 

[The Wormhole]

Star Wars is also more popular because Star Wars was an event. The was very little of it so when you got new product it was BIG news. Star Trek was on television uninterrupted for the better part of 20 years. Even the movies sometimes felt lacking because of the scope of what could be found on TV every week.

It is true the announcement of Star Wars Episode VII has received a lot more fanfare than the announcement of Trek XI back in 2006.

 

[Gotham Central]

Star Wars is also more popular because Star Wars was an event. The was very little of it so when you got new product it was BIG news. Star Trek was on television uninterrupted for the better part of 20 years. Even the movies sometimes felt lacking because of the scope of what could be found on TV every week.

It is true the announcement of Star Wars Episode VII has received a lot more fanfare than the announcement of Trek XI back in 2006.

It makes sense if you think about it. Most people both in the media and fans knew that Star Trek would not stay dormant long. Where as with Star Wars, most of knew that there would probably be more at some point, but many thought it was going to have to wait for Lucas to become one with the Force before he'd let that happen.

 

[T'Girl]

things Star Trek does better than Star Wars.

3) Universe is more expansive

While I enjoy both ST and SW, I love Star Trek more, but on your point three, I think you have it reversed. The Star Wars extended universe is out and out huge. Even just going off what's on screen Star Wars has more species, more planets and most important, far more diversity of beliefs and concepts than is ever seen in Star Trek. Star Wars did have more money thrown at it and it shows. Star Trek has more hours behind it and you see that, but much of what you see is the same.

The Republic/Empire is depicted as enormous, in comparison the Federation is tiny.

 

[MacLeod]

Does TV Sci-Fi have a stigma attached to it, or did it in the past?

I'd bet there are some peope that won't admit to watching the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre on TV but say they went to see one of those genre movies at the cinema.

 

[-Brett-]

Apples and oranges, as they say.

Other than the name and the fact that they're both set in space, they don't actually have a hell of a lot in common. Well, they're both creatively dead properties whose best days are long past and whose fanbases have only endless mediocrity to look forward to, if they're lucky, but that's about where the similarities end.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

The ONLY reason these two keep getting pitted against each other is that they each start with the word Star.

This is why Stargate cleverly used the star word as the first syllable rather than the first word. To avoid these retarded comparisons.

 

[Nerys Myk]

There is only one reason I can think of: I like it more. Your mileage may vary.

 

[FreddyE]

For me it´s a non-issue. I don´t get why people see both shows as somehow "warring" (pardon the pun). Granted, they are of the same main genre...but have decidetly different sub-gerne characteristics. Star Wars is sci-fi fantasy / space opera, Star Trek is sci-fi utopia most of the time. It´s like comparing apples and bananas.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The Star Wars extended universe is out and out huge. Even just going off what's on screen Star Wars has more species, more planets and most important, far more diversity of beliefs and concepts than is ever seen in Star Trek.

If you include the SW EU, you've gotta include Trek's too, and although I can't compare it directly to the SW EU (of which my knowledge is nil), it's far more diverse than anything in TV/film Trek. It's also insanely enourmous, covering countless locations, Human, Romulan, Klingon, Tzenkethi, Cardassian, Ferengi and a great meany other wordviews, and multiple alternate histories.

 

[T'Girl]

Semi concede the point KingDaniel, while my knowledge of EU-Trek is above nil, it likely isn't as extensive as yours. If you include the source books for the various role playing games going back to the 1980's, the Federation becomes far larger and more powerful entity than what little we saw on screen. Beyond even the Dominion War Starfleet.

Plus, the Federation will alway have two important advantages over the Empire. One, Starfleet would find a valuable ally in the rebel alliance. Two, it would never be necessary to actually defeat the Imperial Starfleet. If you kill the Federation president and the upper members of the council, the Federation would simply replace them, disruption would be minimal.

If Starfleet (or S31) kills the Emperor and his top "henchmen," any war would end with their deaths.

The federation would leave the rebel alliance to pick up the pieces and go about their merry way.

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

I don't see any need for conflict between Star Trek and Star Wars. I manage to like and enjoy both of them without any difficulty or internal turmoil.

Mind you, Space: 1999 is superior to both!

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I agree the war between Star Trek and Star Wars is silly, but in this thread I don't think anybody is bashing Star Trek or Star Wars. We're having a more friendly debate about it than most geeks are stereotypically capable of.

I don't think both starting with 'Star' is the reason they are compared. They are the two most loved and obsessed-over science fiction franchises in the world and they've both gone through several phases of completely different creative approaches. Gene Roddenberry's version of Star Trek versus Ron Moore's versus Rick Berman's, or 1970s George Lucas vs 1990s George Lucas vs Disney vs all the novel and video game writers aiming at a far higher age range than Lucas ever wanted to. Star Trek isn't all the same Star Trek and Star Wars isn't all the same Star Wars.

Out of all I prefer Ron Moore's Star Trek first and 1970's George Lucas Star Wars second.

 

[The Wormhole]

There is no "Ron Moore's Star Trek." Ron Moore was a writer who wrote several dozen Trek episodes (plus two movies) under someone else's supervision. He never called the shots as far as the series was concerned, nothing we saw on Trek was "his vision."

 

[AggieJohn]

I see both as iconic in scifi but they take very different approaches. SW is a conflict between good and evil. This is often done really well using classic allegories of father and son, freedom vs oppression and so on. ST is about growth and exploration, self discovery and the potential of mankind.

As far as a war between the two galaxies. I see the Empire winning early on due to their overwhelming military might but as pointed out already the Federation would forge alliances with the Rebel Alliance and most likely with the other nations of the Milky way galaxy ie Klingons, Romulans,ect... This collation would eventually prove decisive as each faction shares its strengths. so you would end up with Constitution or Galaxy class star ships with cloaks launching x-wing fighters at Imperial soft targets spreading the Empires forces so thin that they could be soundly defeated in a turning point battle.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

His reasoning being that Star Wars is better because it caters to a wider audience, has a larger budget and better CGI.

Those are reasons why Star Wars is more profitable. (You could also add, Star Wars has more kid appeal, which is a big boost to toy sales, where the real money is.) I doubt Disney would have paid $4 billion for the rights to Star Trek. But noneof that has any bearing on inherent quality.

Neither is superior to the other, since both can be done well or poorly. At the most basic level, Star Trek is about ideas and Star Wars is about emotion. People are more likely to seek out emotional experiences in their entertainment, so Star Wars is more profitable. But there's nothing bad about that.

Another distinction is that Star Wars' strengths are movie strenghts - visuals, action, emotion - and Star Trek's strengths are TV strengths - ideas, character, complex plotlines and themes, modern day parallels.

So when you turn Star Trek into a movie, it naturally must get more Star Warsy. But the reverse is also true - The Clone Wars has more detailed and convincing character psychology and political plotlines than I've ever seen in Star Wars before, and in fact, it's better than much of Star Trek (though still well below DS9's standard.)