Star Trek vs Star Wars

[Cobalt Frost]

...but not how you think.

"Revenge of the Sith" was on TV the other day, and whilst flipping back and forth between that and some cartoon (either "Family Guy" or "Phineas and Ferb", can't recall which ), the thought occurred to me that the Star Wars universe seems more "lived in/liveable" than the Trekverse. As much as I love Trek, it seems fairly often IMO a bit "clinical", kinda like a nice hotel or fancy building that you visit but don't live in. Star Wars, on the other hand, seems very much lived in, especially in Star Wars, Empire, and Jedi, which are not as 'burdened' with CGI as the prequels.

Thoughts? Comments? Anecdotes?

 

[CommodoreKong]

I have to agree. I think at least part of that is because in Star Wars they've had space travel for thousands of years and the technology is so advanced/perfected that it's able to last a lot longer then stuff in Star Trek. You look at something like Luke's landspeeder and it looks like it could easily be 50 years old or more, while you'll rarely see something that looks that old in Star Trek. Of course they're are things like the Death Star or Star Destroyers that are newer and have the same newness as Starfleet ships, but they're pretty rare.

 

[Myasishchev]

It's primarily an effect of the difference between the budget of a feature film and the budget of a television show... but I can see your point.

 

[Praetor]

I think Kaijufan put it quite eloquently. From what I recall, Lucas made it a point to have the universe be 'lived-in.' In Trek, the Federation seems to go to great pains to maintain clean vessels in good working order, as for that matter do most other races. You might suppose that there are unseen civilian efforts might not be so tidy.

 

[Myasishchev]

Also, in Star Wars, there are no transporters to beam out dust and dirt.

 

[Praetor]

Or replicators to (re)make new stuff, so if you don't want to buy new stuff, you have to keep reusing your old stuff.

 

[Cyke101]

A couple years ago, on another board, I set up a match up of the Galaxy class Vs. a Star Destroyer. Not a fight, but rather which vessel would Donald Trump choose as his own

The consensus was that Trump would probably pick the Galaxy Class because of its room, interior, and prestige. The odd thing is, the normal advantages that one would prefer in a Star Destroyer -- more technical, larger, stronger, faster, more commonplace, with lots of weaponry, worked against Trump's decision, as he was more for the look, feel, sleek design, and model exclusivity/availability.

How does this anecdote relate to the thread? It just sort of makes sense with Star Wars having the "lived-in" feel.

 

[Praetor]

Trek humans are definitely a cleaner and probably more hygienic folk.

 

[Myasishchev]

First Contact implies they are no longer familiar with urination. Again, transporters. The future is awesome.

 

[USS KG5]

First Contact implies they are no longer familiar with urination. Again, transporters. The future is awesome.

You're joking right?

Just in case you are not, Geordi is unfamiliar with the term "take a leak" for urinating, not the procss itself. One would imagine a chili and a few beers has roughly the same effect on them as it does on us.

 

[trekjiro]

ROTS is my fave SW film. SW has always had the budget and resources to make it a bigger production but i will say the new ST looks to have caught some ground. I have always liked both universes.

 

[Myasishchev]

You're joking right?

Just in case you are not, Geordi is unfamiliar with the term "take a leak" for urinating, not the procss itself. One would imagine a chili and a few beers has roughly the same effect on them as it does on us.

If they're going to have all this technology, why not use it? Either way, it has to be converted into replicator-ready matter, so why not just beam it out? It's not even inefficient.

Now I do think it's funny but I also think it's true. Our toilet technology has been stagnant for far too long.

 

[USS KG5]

Now I do think it's funny but I also think it's true. Our toilet technology has been stagnant for far too long.

Well I cannot argue with a stagnant toilet being a bad thing!

Though I'm not sure I'd want anything transported away from that part of my anatomy.

 

[Deks]

Lol ...
I personally think that Trek technology is more advanced compared to Wars as things seem to change on a regular basis and advancement is on the move (in just 600 years, Feds were able to use time travel on a regular basis on ships ... Wars never portrayed those abilities for example, and it's tech never really changed for thousands of years ... which of course is hardly evidence of the tech being superior).
Also, the Trek universe by itself seems to be more livable to me as far as everyday life is concerned.
With access to replicators, holodecks, transporters, and ships for exploration much faster propulsion tech available in the late 24th century) it's becoming even more intriguing.
Wars seems to be more religiously oriented and stagnant in comparison with plenty of violence to go around (not saying that Trek lacks those things ... but at the same time it seems better to me and much more intriguing)

 

[john titor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNxhrPaaCA4

as you can see one galaxy class can wreak havoc on a star wars fleet. Star Trek tech is superior.

However I agree with the OP, there is something horribly beige with the ST universe, that sanitized hotel look. They could have remedied this with Voy, I really think Voy was the ruination of ST.

 

[Praetor]

I dunno, would you really want to live in Star Wars squalor? And Voyager was really more chrome and light blue than beige.

 

[Cobalt Frost]

One of the things about Trek that always bugged me, well TNG anyway, was whenever they showed a character's quarters they were always perfectly spotless (although the quarters looked a bit more "lived in" in the TNG movies IMO). I mean, was Capt. Picard an obsessive-compulsive neat freak? I'm not saying his quarters should look like the cleaning bot took the year off, but you know, what's wrong with the half-finished cup of Earl Grey on his desk that he just forgot about, or a uniform jacket hanging over the chair after a long duty shift?

On the other hand, I wouldn't really call Star Wars "squalor", but for the masses it was a bit "low-rent". SW does seem to have a fairly large gap between the haves and the have-nots, and it is well-illustrated; one can get a nice comparison just with some of the Coruscant shots in the prequels.

In real life the difference certainly comes down to motion picture budget vs tv budget, although I suspect the creative direction as far as the "look" of each property has something to do with it as well.

You know, now that I think about it, Data's quarters on the Ent-D looked more lived-in than anyone else's.. paintings in progress, mementos from his holodeck adventures, and of course Spot.

 

[Praetor]

Yes but 'squalor' alliterates so nicely with 'Star Wars.'

I will concede that it's weird everyone's quarters are always clean. Maybe that's part of 'working to better themselves and the rest of humanity?'

 

[john titor]

their quarters are very spartan too imo.

 

[Myasishchev]

One of the things about Trek that always bugged me, well TNG anyway, was whenever they showed a character's quarters they were always perfectly spotless (although the quarters looked a bit more "lived in" in the TNG movies IMO). I mean, was Capt. Picard an obsessive-compulsive neat freak? I'm not saying his quarters should look like the cleaning bot took the year off, but you know, what's wrong with the half-finished cup of Earl Grey on his desk that he just forgot about, or a uniform jacket hanging over the chair after a long duty shift?

Well, there was that one episode of DS9 where Jake and Nog had moved in together, and Jake ridiculously messy. Seriously, Nog leaves for like half and hour, and when he comes back there are a dozen pairs of pants thrown around the room. What the hell was Jake doing?