Gug Eyewalker Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 It's 'future science' in Trek versus 'we made this up as we went along' in Wars, really. Sisko for king IMHO. That is a common view. But Star Trek makes things up as they go along just as much, they just happen to try to explain how things work with the known physics of the time. In TOS the warp nacelles did not generate a 'warp field'. Now we know they do. In Star Wars originally the lasers were really 'lasers' at first yet they didn't act like true lasers. Now we know they are captured light energy packets aided by a physical substance like Tibanna gas.
Redtech Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 I didn't know about the gas thing. I'm referring mainly to the newer series where they attempt to be consistant about things. I mean, are you telling me that Stormtroopers are a successful replacement for Clone Troopers? Saying that, yeah, Trek goes OTT with technobabble often, which is alienating, but in it's favour, the characters are a lot more richer and 3-dimensional. Commenting on Sisko again, after seeing Kirk and Picard blather around, it was refreshing for an African American father (and religous prophet) to make huge decisions, raise a family and fight a war with his integrity intact...something that Ep3 just cannot do, unless you really think "NooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOO!" is a plus point. Yeah Star Wars is far superior in action, but with the prequels, I just couldn't give a fung about the characters, it was all lethal technology on CG and a cameo by a human.
JediLandon Posted January 24, 2007 Posted January 24, 2007 STAR WARS!!!!!!!!!!! never been a star trek fan and never will. "THE JEDI TURNED AGAINST ME DONT YOU TURN AGAINST ME"
Lt_Justin Posted January 25, 2007 Posted January 25, 2007 Star Wars one Imperial II class star destroyer could hold the enterprise. and the Exucuter and Lusakia + Iron Fist and Razors Kiss could wipe them all out Let's not forget Death Star's I and II
Nedak Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 You really can't have a debate about which is better on Lucasforums, because I bet everybody here likes SW better then ST.
darthcarth Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Yeah i think han sala is right and yeah that website 10 or so posts up explains everything.
Gug Eyewalker Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 I don't like Star Wars better than Star Trek. But I dont like Star Trek better than Star Wars either... I actually think Star Trek has infinitely more depth and realism. The character development, the acting, the energy of all the star trek characters FAR outweighs Star Wars. The Galaxy of Star Trek is far more detailed. In science fiction, because of the all the TV serieis, Star Trek is the biggest, most in depth, universe. Star Trek is still the longest running and largest science fiction franchise. It has been in the american culture longer, and has had greater impact. Star Trek is about the development of the human spirit, the exploration of new places and new ideas. Star Trek explores the human issues of the time from a safe and unique point of view. Star Trek's strength is in its stories, and its message. Star Wars doesn't really do any of that. Also, if it weren't for Trek, there would be NO Star Wars, trust me. Now all that being said. Star Wars is artisticly, and astheticly superior. Star Wars is a classic mytholgical story about heros. Star Wars is an opera, with creative drama and action done with the utmost aplomb. Star Wars touches on theological and mythological themes. It touches us because we all want to be, and sometimes strive to be, the kind of passionate fighters and heros in the story. Star Wars, with the idea of the force, has the theme that there is something greater than all of us, something we can be in touch with. Star Wars is also just cool. If it weren't for Star Wars though, Star Trek may well have died back in the late 60's when it was first canceled. Right now Star Trek is dead. Star Wars still thrives. Why? I'm not sure. Maybe because the creator died his predecessors were allowed to ruin it.
Carlo El Sanchez Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 Come on people, Star Trek is so old and has such lame lines and scenes. No wonder on the Simpsons they make fun of it so much, but Star Wars too. I mean, Star Wars has way more games, reputation and comics/books everything! Star Trek is old and is set in a boring ship most of the time. Star Wars has so much more history and entertainment.
Astrotoy7 Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Oh dear, this When asking this question in a SW forum .... the responses received tend to be a bit predictable, especially from the younger more excitable members "OMG!!!10101011!! CH3WiE PWnZ K4PtN KRK" >>>closed mtfbwya
Bass Patriot Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 well... think about it... star wars would have 2 win... our galaxy knows nothing about the force... vader and luke and wat not would see kirk comming a mile away. it would b slaughter.
GeneralPloKoon Posted November 18, 2007 Posted November 18, 2007 wow, star wars would eradicate star trek. does it even need a discussion?
adamqd Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 I feel Like I'm committing adultery on Star Wars by playing Mass effect.... So star trek ain't got a chance!
Jvstice Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Lord Zack: you're reckoning without the interference of the Borg or the preservers, but otherwise I agree with your prediction of how things would go in a conflict between the classic star trek governments and the largely unified galactic empire under palpatine. Also the Q continuum. Gug Eyewalker: As to the merits and flaws of both universes and the stories within each, I couldn't have said it better myself.
Fredi Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 There's only one answer to this question ... and that is STAR WARS
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.