Star Trek or Star Wars? Which franchise is better now?
- Thread starter marsh8472
- Start date
Both have suffered blows in recent years, with output doing more to divide the base (aka the longtime and/or hardcore fans) than unite them. When one thinks of the JJ-Trek films & Discovery's torrential flood of fan conflict, then look at the infighting among SW fans about The Force Awakens and Rogue One, it suggests both franchises are sort of walking a fan-critical tightrope now. One thing is certain: both franchises have been criticized for either rejecting or not understanding what made the properties so enjoyable/important/great in the first place.
Never much cared for Star Wars, but enjoyed Force Awakens and Rogue One.
Both are ridiculously bloated with entire series' that aren't worth watching - and more content coming. More and more, until it becomes unprofitable (again, in Trek's case)
Both are ridiculously bloated with entire series' that aren't worth watching - and more content coming. More and more, until it becomes unprofitable (again, in Trek's case)
Is this even a question any more?
Star Wars, a lot. And I'm not really an avid fan of it.
Star Trek's pretty much creatively exhausted now. The people managing it couldn't put two inspired ideas together if ideas were 2x4s and someone drove a nail half through and handed them the hammer. The corporation that owns it doesn't give a fuck and the audience doesn't grow.
Star Wars, a lot. And I'm not really an avid fan of it.
Star Trek's pretty much creatively exhausted now. The people managing it couldn't put two inspired ideas together if ideas were 2x4s and someone drove a nail half through and handed them the hammer. The corporation that owns it doesn't give a fuck and the audience doesn't grow.
I'm kind of leaning toward Star Wars too. Just look at the last 2 movies produced by each. Star Trek Beyond grossed about $343 million in the box office whereas Star Wars Rogue One grossed about $1,056 million in the box office. Star Wars has the rebels series. Star Trek has a series that you're supposed to pay to watch?
In terms of what looms big in pop culture now, Star Wars matters a lot and Star Trek scarcely at all.
Disney's SW has two big movies being released shortly, and a new trilogy has already been announced.
Paramount is struggling to hold itself together, has no new ST in its schedule, and CBS is using Trek as niche subscription bait for a streaming service that has a very narrow path to profit in a crowded segment of the industry.
Disney's SW has two big movies being released shortly, and a new trilogy has already been announced.
Paramount is struggling to hold itself together, has no new ST in its schedule, and CBS is using Trek as niche subscription bait for a streaming service that has a very narrow path to profit in a crowded segment of the industry.
Plus they're transforming Star Trek into a more actiony Star Wars type genre. Why would they be trying to copy Star Wars if it wasn't better?
SW is a lot better.
It's not possible to compare the two. Everyone who answers the question (one way or the other) is correct, as personal preferences are the only thing that matters.
Apples are a lot better than oranges, because apples are red. Red is a better color than orange. Oh, and some apples can be green, which is better than red or orange. So apples, definitely.
Make logical sense? No? That's because you can't compare them. Same with Star Trek and Star Wars.
I don't know why it's impossible for fans to understand that you can like both, equally, just for different reasons.
Make logical sense? No? That's because you can't compare them. Same with Star Trek and Star Wars.
I don't know why it's impossible for fans to understand that you can like both, equally, just for different reasons.
Unfortunately, extreme factionalism will always exist. Hell, we see it in politics all the time.
Also happens in fiction. There will always be rivalries - or, more accurately, what are perceived to be rivalries. Trek/B5, Trek/Wars, Trek/Orville, Prime/Kelvin Trek, Old Who/New Who, any combination of SW trilogies being set against each other (PT, OT, or ST), ad nauseum. There's never any NEED for it, as you say. But it's a hard habit to break.
That's wrong. I can decide which I enjoy better. That's me comparing them.
I can enjoy them both, but also enjoy one more. See how that works?
Furthermore, the OP's question was very specific (underlining mine):
"Which would you say is the better franchise at this point in time?"
I've enjoyed Rogue One and most every episode of Rebels way more than I've enjoyed any episode of Discovery, so that's the very definition of an easy decision. In two weeks, there's a chance I'll reevaluate.
Of course everyone decides what to enjoy. No problem with that. People like what they like, and shouldn't feel the need to justify or defend their choices.
But the use of specific terms like "better" or "worse" implies that an objective standard exists and that there can be consequences for violating it, which is not the case. Those words literally have no meaning when discussing personal preferences.
Think of it this way: There has never been, and never will be, a show/film/book/whatever which is so bad that someone, somewhere will not enjoy it. The reverse also applies.
But the use of specific terms like "better" or "worse" implies that an objective standard exists and that there can be consequences for violating it, which is not the case. Those words literally have no meaning when discussing personal preferences.
Think of it this way: There has never been, and never will be, a show/film/book/whatever which is so bad that someone, somewhere will not enjoy it. The reverse also applies.
"I find it better" and "I find it worse" are examples of subjective senses of the words better and worse. They do not imply objective standards, in that they do not necessitate that they be read that way. I read the OP's question as asking for my subjective opinion. He asked for what I would say about it. 
Similar threads
