Star Trek vs Star Wars
- Thread starter steve1961
- Start date
If Star Wars has tended to be cool (which it only ever has been by certain values of "cool", certainly it's never been cool cool) and Star Trek has tended not to be, surely that's simply because of the difference in reaction to sci-fi films and sci-fi television. Of course, in our increasingly fragmented popular culture, who's to say what's cool and what isn't?
Saquist
Commodore
Following up to a post significantly earlier in the thread.
One of the things I've noticed about my generation IS:
Whenever I bring up Star Wars, it's always they like it, they can connect with that, it's, "Hey, I like Star Wars too, you seen Clone Wars, isn't that AWESOME," etc.
Whenever I bring up Star Trek, their eyes glaze over and they try to look for an excuse to walk away.
NOW--there is hope.
Some kids who previously wouldn't go near Trek see JJ's film, and they come back to me, and BEG my forgiveness, saying that Trek is cool, and they'll learn to love it.
I'm satisfied.
While I seldom come across many fellow Trekkies in person (just the area I live in, I suppose), in the instances where I do come across these newly 'converted' fans, I actually find their attitude to be more eye-rolling than gratifying. My inner commentary usually goes as follows: 'Right, so now that it's become 'cool' to like Trek after years of making derogatory comments about it out of fear of ridicule, you're going to hop right on the bandwagon? Pathetic.' This becomes even more irritating among newly-spawned fans of the Abrams generation are those behave as though loving the new Trek as well as the old inherently makes them a 'truer' or 'superior' Trekkie and that those who don't like the Abrams-verse are nothing more than close-minded fanboys. Excuse me? I'm sorry, but logically-speaking if it wasn't for the support for people like me and many others on this site, the franchise would never have lasted into the 21st century and you wouldn't have a reboot to enjoy! I didn't give a damn about what the 'in' crowd said; I sat down and watched the shows with a fair, critical mind like any other show I would give a try, was impressed with what I saw and continued to engage with the franchise no matter how many jokes it prompted from others. Yet people still have the gall to claim I am somehow a lesser fan? Ridiculous.
Anyway, enough of that tangent. Time to contribute to the primary thread topic.
At my current age (17) I can safely say that although Star Wars was a large part of my childhood and I recognise the significant influence of the films in cinema history, I am beginning to almost grow out of it while my appreciation for Trek has only intensified. Whilst it is not entirely accurate to make the 'Trek is sci-fi, Wars is fantasy' divide as a significant amount of the Star Trek universe is rather implausible from a realistic standpoint, it is certainly true that mythical/fantastical elements are far more prominent in Star Wars (The Force is magic and Jedi are wizards; there's no real way to get around that!) and all-in-all, I find Trek's thematic depth to be much more engrossing than Wars' 'swords and sorcery in space'. This is not to say I am entirely disinterested in Wars - in fact I frequent Wookiepedia quite often for Expanded Universe trivia - but overall, I'd say Trek is by far the more valuable.
This is how summarize both genre's:
Star Wars used to be great action and adventure.
Now it's just Adventure-less action.
Star Trek used to be Science Fiction.
Now it's Science-less Fiction.
I was never a fan of Star Wars
I'am no longer a fan of Trek.
For the last 6 movies the writing has been so horrid and contemptible it's nothing more than an insult to inteligence everywhere.
I'm a fan of past, so I've discovered.
Books like
Farenheit 451
The Seafort Saga
Ender's Game
Watchstar
Partnership
and the author's behind them and frankly the Trek books were much better then as well.
How, exactly, is that quote either conservative or non-conservative? It's a logical fallacy, I'll grant you, but I'm afraid I'm not seeing how it endorses a political position.
^It has to do with political correctness, and its implications.
Following up to a post significantly earlier in the thread.
One of the things I've noticed about my generation IS:
Whenever I bring up Star Wars, it's always they like it, they can connect with that, it's, "Hey, I like Star Wars too, you seen Clone Wars, isn't that AWESOME," etc.
Whenever I bring up Star Trek, their eyes glaze over and they try to look for an excuse to walk away.
NOW--there is hope.
Some kids who previously wouldn't go near Trek see JJ's film, and they come back to me, and BEG my forgiveness, saying that Trek is cool, and they'll learn to love it.
I'm satisfied.
While I seldom come across many fellow Trekkies in person (just the area I live in, I suppose), in the instances where I do come across these newly 'converted' fans, I actually find their attitude to be more eye-rolling than gratifying. My inner commentary usually goes as follows: 'Right, so now that it's become 'cool' to like Trek after years of making derogatory comments about it out of fear of ridicule, you're going to hop right on the bandwagon? Pathetic.' This becomes even more irritating among newly-spawned fans of the Abrams generation are those behave as though loving the new Trek as well as the old inherently makes them a 'truer' or 'superior' Trekkie and that those who don't like the Abrams-verse are nothing more than close-minded fanboys. Excuse me? I'm sorry, but logically-speaking if it wasn't for the support for people like me and many others on this site, the franchise would never have lasted into the 21st century and you wouldn't have a reboot to enjoy! I didn't give a damn about what the 'in' crowd said; I sat down and watched the shows with a fair, critical mind like any other show I would give a try, was impressed with what I saw and continued to engage with the franchise no matter how many jokes it prompted from others. Yet people still have the gall to claim I am somehow a lesser fan? Ridiculous.
Anyway, enough of that tangent. Time to contribute to the primary thread topic.
At my current age (17) I can safely say that although Star Wars was a large part of my childhood and I recognise the significant influence of the films in cinema history, I am beginning to almost grow out of it while my appreciation for Trek has only intensified. Whilst it is not entirely accurate to make the 'Trek is sci-fi, Wars is fantasy' divide as a significant amount of the Star Trek universe is rather implausible from a realistic standpoint, it is certainly true that mythical/fantastical elements are far more prominent in Star Wars (The Force is magic and Jedi are wizards; there's no real way to get around that!) and all-in-all, I find Trek's thematic depth to be much more engrossing than Wars' 'swords and sorcery in space'. This is not to say I am entirely disinterested in Wars - in fact I frequent Wookiepedia quite often for Expanded Universe trivia - but overall, I'd say Trek is by far the more valuable.
This is how summarize both genre's:
Star Wars used to be great action and adventure.
Now it's just Adventure-less action.
Star Trek used to be Science Fiction.
Now it's Science-less Fiction.
I was never a fan of Star Wars
I'am no longer a fan of Trek.
For the last 6 movies the writing has been so horrid and contemptible it's nothing more than an insult to inteligence everywhere.
I'm a fan of past, so I've discovered.
Books like
Farenheit 451
The Seafort Saga
Ender's Game
Watchstar
Partnership
and the author's behind them and frankly the Trek books were much better then as well.
I think you're simplifying it just a little, but that's just me.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
Did anyone see this yet? It's the litral Star Trek VS Star Wars!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8O8YbnworA&feature=player_embedded#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8O8YbnworA&feature=player_embedded#
That was fun!
Really good quality for a couple of kids. I think they may be future professional filmmakers. It's a good thing they are on our side!
Saquist
Commodore
That was science-less fiction
1-Time Travel-Through Black Holes -Not Scientific (It's actually Wormholes)
2-No such thing as Red Matter
3-Time Travel isn't Scientifically possible.
4-You can't view a planet being destroyed from another planet with out telescopic assistance.
5.Introducing enough mass to a planets core to collapse the surface would crush everything living on the planet
6. A planet wouldn't be sucked into a black hole of that size without:
a: producing powerful energetic beams from the poles
b: breaking the planet up and producing an accretion disk of debris.
7. No explosion could propel you fast enough to over come a quantum singularity.
So the last movie sort of goes into the negative on the science front.
#1 & #3 are contradictory. If time travel is scientifically impossible, then that would include black holes and wormholes.
#2 no red matter has been discovered YET.
#7 no explosion we know of YET.
Many scientific 'absolutes' have later been contradicted by new discoveries in science. Not long ago we 'knew' the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Later scientific discovery proved these 'facts' to be false.
As Clarke's Law states:
1) Tell it to Roy Kerr.
If I'm reading this right, a blackhole is a component of a wormhole.
And of course the idea for the use of an alternate reality comes from the Many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. [DOLBY]Science![/DOLBY]
4. Mind meld representation, not what Spock "saw"
5 & 6 I dont recall Vulcan surviving.
So what "science" do you have from the other 10 films to counter balance 11? After all that was the point.
Wormhole and alien AI in TMP?
The Genesis Project in TWOK?
Protomatter, Spocks new body and Katras in TSFS?
Slingshot time travel and weather control probe in TVH?
Journey to a planet at the center of the Galaxy to met "God" in TFF?
Sub space explosion in TUC?
The Nexus in GEN?
More slingshot time travel in FC?
Miracle radiation to reverse aging in INS
I dont even want to think about NEM.
Kirk get the girl right away.
It takes Han Solo forever to get one girl--one girl--and his only competition is the girl's brother!!!
As for fighting...I admit Solo's better at the quick-draw (just ask Greedo). But the only time we see him in an acutal fistfight is...sometime in Return. And he's terrible at it.
Kirk would beat the tar outta him.
It takes Han Solo forever to get one girl--one girl--and his only competition is the girl's brother!!!
As for fighting...I admit Solo's better at the quick-draw (just ask Greedo). But the only time we see him in an acutal fistfight is...sometime in Return. And he's terrible at it.
Kirk would beat the tar outta him.
I have seen this kind of topic before on the Science fiction boards. You get a bunch of Trekkies and Star Warriors debating and nitpicking on every little thing until the end of time. They get to serious about it and make it into a big deal. From Enterprise Vs Star Destroyer, blaster vs phaser, Hypodrive Vs Warpdrive, and Laser & Phaser.
Myk and Saquist - this isn't the place to debate the merits of the latest movie. That's better left to this forum.
Thanks.
The last 6 "Star Trek" movies?!? You mean you thought the last good one was "Star Trek V"?
There's no way "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country", "Star Trek: First Contact" and "Star Trek" have worse writing than the fifth installment.
