NationStates Jolt Archive

=NO SPOILERS=

Ok - I've not seen one of these threads for a while and, in light of the new film Revenge of the Sith, I think it's time we re-opened the debate.

To be honest, I've always been a Trekkie (or Trekker - whatever you want to call it). I found the messages in Star Trek to be much more sincere and relevant to real-life situations than those of the Star Wars counterpart. The characters may have seemed more wooden at times, but there were always clearly defining moments and episodes for every series (with the possible exception of Enterprise, I don't really like that 'series').

However, I haven't let my liking for Trek turn me away from Wars, I still enjoyed the Wars films from Episodes IV through to II (in respective order), and found them to be fantastic pieces of cinema majestry. Star Wars films are definately better than those of Trek, with the possible exception of Star Trek First Contact beating all Star Wars episodes apart from Empire Strikes Back. What Trek has going for it is the sheer volume of content, the endless episodes all contributing to the lore and fabric of the Trek world and weaving new patterns. The Trek novels are also much more interesting than the Wars ones, with the stories much more believable.

So - both series have their strong points and weak points, and I've always put Trek above Wars in order of priority, with LotR being in close proximity to Trek and above Wars.

However - Revenge of the Sith!! Wow - absolutely wow!!! Briliant film - beats ANYTHING Star Trek has EVER produced!! It is simply the best film I have ever seen; the darkness, the anger, the sorrow - all contribute to a storyline that we know is brilliant. From the action, to the confrontations we see towards the end, to the final lead into New Hope - the film keeps you enthralled from start to finish.

I came out just absolutely in awe.

In my own opinion, it bumped Star Wars to level pegging with Star Trek - and if we were to just consider Revenge of the Sith against the best that Star Trek has produced (DS9 Dominion War storyline/First Contact/Much of Voyager) - then Star Wars would win out every time. That's how absolutely fantastic that film is.

And this is coming from a guy who has his Nation in a Region modelled after the UFP, all the Voyager videos - with duplicate copies on DVD - posters galore, signed photos from Kate Mulgrew et al, and a DS9 calendar on my wall that I've had for 5 years and keep reusing just because of the quotes/pictures in it.

Hopefully that puts into perspective just how brilliant the film is, or to me at least.

In terms of whether overall I think Star Wars or Star Trek is better...I'm going to have to be absolutely treacherous and say that at the moment I think Star Wars is better. I haven't seen any Trek since watching Revenge on Thursday - so I may change my mind again - but Wars definately wins at the moment!

I was a huge Star Wars fan at around the age of 10 but once I cought some Star Trek episodes and movies I thought to myself "fuck this is great" and I've never turned back. I always will like Star Trek better than Star Wars and there's nothing Star Wars can EVER produce that can match the quality of Star Trek on ANY level (except special effects and maybe the all seasons of Enterprise). Star Trek 2: The Wrath Of Khan is fucking brilliant and Star Trek 8: First Contact is pure gold. I like Star Wars but I am turned off by the new ones because of the HOOORRIIIBLEEEEEEE acting. My god I have never seen acting that bad. They have better acting on Spanish soap operas.

I love star trek...even though the acting is corny sometimes (imho)...

Farscape and babylon 5 rocks too..

Star Trek. The stories are multi-layered, intelligent, and meaningful. Star Trek deals with more mature topics. Moral dilemmas, the definition of life, following orders or doing what is right, playing God, and other such mature, intelligent topics are staple in Star Trek. Watching Star Trek can often leave you wondering if they made the right choice. It can leave you wondering what you would do. Star Trek can lead to discussions about profound ethical questions.

On the other hand, Star Wars is just a visual extravaganza. You leave the theater after watching Star Wars and really have nothing to discuss because it doesnt engage you intellectually. Star Wars movies can be entertaining but they are ultimately empty.

Star Wars is popcorn. Star Trek is steak. There is nothing wrong with popcorn of course. But its not what you would preffer for dinner.

In my opinion, the older trek was better than newer trek. Imo, TNG and TOS were the best, with the Wrath Of Khan and 1st contact being the best sci fi movies ever, but it's a close contest between 1st contact and Empire Strikes Back.

Star Trek. The stories are multi-layered, intelligent, and meaningful. Star Trek deals with more mature topics. Moral dilemmas, the definition of life, following orders or doing what is right, playing God, and other such mature, intelligent topics are staple in Star Trek. Watching Star Trek can often leave you wondering if they made the right choice. It can leave you wondering what you would do. Star Trek can lead to discussions about profound ethical questions.

On the other hand, Star Wars is just a visual extravaganza. You leave the theater after watching Star Wars and really have nothing to discuss because it doesnt engage you intellectually. Star Wars movies can be entertaining but they are ultimately empty.


I agree. While Star Wars may be more breathtaking, it simply isn't as stimulating. It's brilliant entertainment, and to be fair it does engage the imagination, but it's just the classic old manichean epic of good versus evil.

Star Trek, by contrast, never falls into manicheism (even during the Dominion War; there's nothing like Dukat in Star Wars!), and therein lies one of its greatest strengths. It is much more profound than Star Wars in many ways. Besides, the utopian society of the Federation is far more appealing (and thought-provoking) than the Republic or the New Republic (in the novels) ever can be.

I would've said Star Wars, until the shitty prequels came along. Then again.. there's the last couple seasons of Voyager, as well as all of Enterprise. But I never saw those, fortunately, though I've heard of the horror.

In my opinion, the older trek was better than newer trek. Imo, TNG and TOS were the best, with the Wrath Of Khan and 1st contact being the best sci fi movies ever, but it's a close contest between 1st contact and Empire Strikes Back.

TOS was iffy at times, presenting the Federation as an interventionist power imposing its code of values on less advanced worlds, but TNG was the expression of Roddenberry's genuine vision. However, DS9 and Voyager did, I believe, carry forth the flame faithfully for the most part, and contain some of Trek's best and most thought-provoking episodes.

Oh yes - the Utopian nature of the UFP is much more appealing, but is it realistic?

And Voyager, whilst a fantastic series, just rehashed the same old storylines again and again; the Borg, hostile takeovers, nebulas with intelligent life inside, the whole 'technology that can get us home but we can't use it because of the Prime Directive', time travel, and Janeway's DAMNED principles.

I never considered the Federation Utopian. They clearly oppressed anyone who had yet to reach their technological level and they asked Picard to commit atrocities on more than one occasion. Remember Star Trek: Insurrection?

Oh yes - the Utopian nature of the UFP is much more appealing, but is it realistic?


It's not supposed to be, at least not in terms of society such as we understand it. But it's in line with a long and proud tradition of literary utopias, the aim of which is to start people thinking about alternatives to the society they live in, to point out its flaws and how things could be better. It inspires people with a long-term aim, and shakes people out of blind, unthinking acceptance.


And Voyager, whilst a fantastic series, just rehashed the same old storylines again and again; the Borg, hostile takeovers, nebulas with intelligent life inside, the whole 'technology that can get us home but we can't use it because of the Prime Directive', time travel, and Janeway's DAMNED principles.

That's certainly true to some degree, and, well, Janeway was just a psycho (see "Equinox"). It's not so much her principles that bother me, it's her aggressive inconsistency.

Still, Voyager did come up with some good episodes: "Tuvix", "Jetrel", "Repentence"...

Ah - but that was the misguided idealogies of one man and, as he said,

"It was for the Federation, it was all for the Federation"

I never considered the Federation Utopian. They clearly oppressed anyone who had yet to reach their technological level and they asked Picard to commit atrocities on more than one occasion. Remember Star Trek: Insurrection?

Insurrection was interesting in the sense that it showed the flaws in paradise, and that humanity still had a fair way to go even in the 24th century. I have mixed feelings about that. After all, it does put into question everything that came in Trek before.

As for oppressing less developed societies, that was true sometimes in TOS, but after that I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

It's not supposed to be, at least not in terms of society such as we understand it. But it's in line with a long and proud tradition of literary utopias, the aim of which is to start people thinking about alternatives to the society they live in, to point out its flaws and how things could be better. It inspires people with a long-term aim, and shakes people out of blind, unthinking acceptance.

Have you ever read The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood? Great example of a Dystopian society.

My favourite Voyager episodes are Twisted, Macrocosm, Year of Hell, Haunting of Deck 12

There are really only two things I disliked about Voyager. How they wimpified The Borg and the Kazon. Who the hell designed the Kazon? They look like freakin Oompa Loompas.

i prefer the message in star trek, and love the way its more than just a story or entertainment - almost every episode is a morality tale of some sort, some kind of moral/ethical dilema that really makes you think about your own values. plus i agree with the underlying message of star trek to the letter, so in making me question my ideas, beliefs and precepts/assumptions about issues, it generally strengthens my beliefs.

i have yet to find such a deep meaning to star wars - sure there is message and meaning, but its very black and white, relatively simple and, as a morality tale, could easily be covered in a single feature length star trek episode, imho.


the characterisation of star trek is also more complete - i empathise with the characters more, understand them more, know them more; wheras in Wars you still learn relatively little about most of the main characters except "he's Jedi and good" or "ooh homogenous bad guy". sure its part of the mystique and intrigue of the Wars story, but i prefer to know my characters rather than just follow their experiences.
but then there is a lot more Trek to watch out there than Wars, and i suppose if i were interested enough to learn more about the Wars characters i could read some of the books...


overall i don't usually like to compare them that much - i'm a fan of both, but i watch more of, and know more about Trek, so i voted for it.
star wars is brilliant, as is star trek.

Can't make up my mind. There are too many factors involved; Star Trek isnt any one ship/crew, Star Wars isnt any one movie. So I'll just throw some random stuff out there:

I believe that episodes I-II do not count as StarWars at all, because they dont give you that same innocent yet cool muppetty feeling you did with the originals. III doesnt give it to you either, but its just good enough to get past this little requirement. I bend the rules for it.

Han Solo always looked as though he had just stepped out back of Studio 69 for a doob - classic 70s.

The writing for Enterprise blew until the last season. Then the project was taken over by a trekkie and it started to get better. Too bad it was too little, too late.

Shatner was not as bad as people say he was. However in the Original Series, he was really hard to take seriously in any kind of emotional/though provoking scene (He was good in the movies though). Any loss of points on the side of Star Trek because of this can be countered with a single name: JarJar Binks.

When the writers had nothing, Gene Roddenberry (sp?) would always just have the Enterprise stumble upon a greek god and kill him. Always good for a lark.

Deep Space Nine and Enterprise both had excellent casts (as the rule, every rule has exceptions) but neither was taken to its full potential by the writers until both shows were circling the drain.

Star Trek tried to explain stuff scientifically. Points for this.

Star Wars didnt try to explain stuff scientifically. They just pulled out lightsabers and shanked eachother instead. Points for this.

So many things I could say, so many things I'm too lazy to type.

I agree with most of the above points, while Star Wars is a great movie, it's totally empty.

Imo, this might set me apart from most trek fans, but I think enterprise was one of the better parts of trek.

Have you ever read The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood? Great example of a Dystopian society.


No, but I've read 1984 and Brave New World.


My favourite Voyager episodes are Twisted, Macrocosm, Year of Hell, Haunting of Deck 12

I've only seen the latter two, and yes, they were good. If we're talking about good stories and not necessarily the most 'interesting' ones in terms of ethics, I liked "Equinox" (though that too does pose a fairly interesting ethical question) and "The Thaw".

"Tuvix" and "Latent Image" were very good; they showed ethical issues in which there was no good solution, though "Latent Image" explored the emotional consequences of that far more than "Tuvix" did.

I still think Revenge of the Sith on its own outweighs anything Star Trek has produced. Throw in Empire Strikes Back for good measure - and you have an unbeatable force.

Voyager will always be my favourite Trek though, and the DS9 Dominion Arc kicked ass. Enterprise was just a letdown. Stopped watching after second season.

Han Solo always looked as though he had just stepped out back of Studio 69 for a doob - classic 70s.
lmao :p:p

Star Trek tried to explain stuff scientifically. Points for this.

Star Wars didnt try to explain stuff scientifically. They just pulled out lightsabers and shanked eachother instead. Points for this.
yeah since ST: NG they've had a science advisor employed to make sure the stuff they come up with is feasable within the realms of physics.
ok there are a few exceptions... like warp drive... but that was thought up in the orginal series

star wars fans have tried to rationalise the science of Lucas' work, to tack science onto the inventions, and some of what i've heard is ok; but Trek was pretty much created within the realms of science in the first place = kudos.

:rolleyes: This has got to be a trick question. Star Wars all the way. Obviously. The only Star Trek I liked was the last few seasons of DS9 (which was ripped off of Babylon 5 anyway), and First Contact. The rest is just awful.

:rolleyes: This has got to be a trick question. Star Wars all the way. Obviously. The only Star Trek I liked was the last few seasons of DS9 (which was ripped off of Babylon 5 anyway), and First Contact. The rest is just awful.

No, the only trick involved is comparing Star Wars to Star Trek as if it were it's equal. :rolleyes: Like that will ever happen.

Who's comparing? I'm asking you to choose which you think is better ;)

If you like one much more than the other - then you know who to vote for

Star wars all the way I saw all the movies

:rolleyes: This has got to be a trick question. Star Wars all the way. Obviously. The only Star Trek I liked was the last few seasons of DS9 (which was ripped off of Babylon 5 anyway), and First Contact. The rest is just awful.

If that's what you're into. Star Wars and Star Trek are very different - and I'm guessing you haven't read the previous posts in this thread.

As someone once said, Star Wars appeals to the heart while Star Trek appeals to the mind. Star Wars is fine for those who just want a bit of simplistic entertainment. For those who are interested in a little more than that, there's Star Trek. ;)

You can't really compare the two... Star Wars was made mostly for people to enjoy themselves and have a good time. Star Trek has had hundreds, if not thousands of hours of episodes and movies to put in messages and meanings. Indeed these were often needed to keep the series afloat... as you can only blast the bad guy so many times without repeating yourself.

Metephorically, I think that you put a Star Trek and Star Wars fan in a room with a gun this is what would happen:

The Warsie would notice the gun as soon as he walks into the room and would run up to it and grab the gun with no caution and begin pulling the trigger and firing all over the place like a demented cowboy while screaming "yeehaawww" at the top of their lungs.

The Trekkie on the other hand would calmly walk in and examine the room, then notice the gun. They would then approach the weapon and examine the external features. Then they would carefully dissassemble the weapon and examine all the parts and then put it back together and locate a firing range, then fire the rounds.

As someone once said, Star Wars appeals to the heart while Star Trek appeals to the mind. Star Wars is fine for those who just want a bit of simplistic entertainment. For those who are interested in a little more than that, there's Star Trek. ;)

:rolleyes: That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. "Star Trek is for the mind"? You don't need to really know anything about science, or sociology, or any of the themes that Star Trek claims to explore to know that it's all simplified beyond belief or just plain made up. It's all a load of rubbish. Star Trek was only ever good when it ignores all that and does something fun and interesting, which is why I gave the example of the Dominion War arc in DS9. That actually made you care about those characters, and it didn't need all sorts of ridiculous made up science or mind-numbingly dull morality tales to do that.

If you want good tv SF, try getting Farscape or Firefly on dvd, or maybe watch some Stargate. Now that's SF that doesn't take itself too seriously, and because of that comes across as much more sincere and believable than anything in Star Trek - just like Star Wars, those series are about people, not about pseudo-science. Star Trek could have learnt something from that.

:rolleyes: That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. "Star Trek is for the mind"? You don't need to really know anything about science, or sociology, or any of the themes that Star Trek claims to explore to know that it's all simplified beyond belief or just plain made up. It's all a load of rubbish. Star Trek was only ever good when it ignores all that and does something fun and interesting, which is why I gave the example of the Dominion War arc in DS9. That actually made you care about those characters, and it didn't need all sorts of ridiculous made up science or mind-numbingly dull morality tales to do that.

If you want good tv SF, try getting Farscape or Firefly on dvd, or maybe watch some Stargate. Now that's SF that doesn't take itself too seriously, and because of that comes across as much more sincere and believable than anything in Star Trek - just like Star Wars, those series are about people, not about pseudo-science. Star Trek could have learnt something from that.

I think the technobabble makes the show MORE interesting. Don't blame the show if you can't understand it or see how it COULD work if it were real, blame yourself. I just like the fact that they take time to explain how things work. If Star Trek wasn't for the mind then why are there colleges that have Star Trek Physics Programs? I don't see any Star Wars programs, I don't see any Farscape of Firefly programs. I love Stargate, so I'm not gonna say any crap about that.

When I first got into the Sci-Fi world, Star Wars was my motivating drive. The characters were real heroes, the CG was awesome, and the thought put into the storyline of the Jedi and Sith was phenomenal. Plus, the amount of detail put into the vehicles and whatnot in EU reference books is amazing.

However, after watching a few episodes of Star Trek, I said "Wow, screw the hell outta Star Wars. This shit is great!" I've now been watching Star Trek for about 5 years, and have loved every minute of it. The stories are deep, the characters are developed, the tech makes sense, the background info is amazing. And all of this is done BETTER than Star Wars, imo.

I can safely conclude this, because I have greatly examined both series. I happen to own all 5 SW movies (I plan to get the 6th when it comes out on DVD), and all 10 ST movies, and I hope to get the ST series too.

I'd also like to go out on a limb and say that Enterprise was a great series. Having watched the entire thing from start to finish (minus the last 5 episodes, which I still have to go and watch on tape... damn school), the characters are the best that have ever been created in ST. They're especially wonderful, because they're like any of us would be in space. We'd be like "Hey, we have giant laser cannons on our ship. That's just cool!" and we'd use em alot. We'd also be pretty conerned about going into battle, cause we have no idea how to do it right yet. The stories were also good, although I think they ran the Xindi thing way too long, and kept getting sidetracked while trying to finish it.

Regardless, I'm for Star Trek. Live long and prosper, is all I can say now.

When I first got into the Sci-Fi world, Star Wars was my motivating drive. The characters were real heroes, the CG was awesome, and the thought put into the storyline of the Jedi and Sith was phenomenal. Plus, the amount of detail put into the vehicles and whatnot in EU reference books is amazing.

However, after watching a few episodes of Star Trek, I said "Wow, screw the hell outta Star Wars. This shit is great!" I've now been watching Star Trek for about 5 years, and have loved every minute of it. The stories are deep, the characters are developed, the tech makes sense, the background info is amazing. And all of this is done BETTER than Star Wars, imo.

I can safely conclude this, because I have greatly examined both series. I happen to own all 5 SW movies (I plan to get the 6th when it comes out on DVD), and all 10 ST movies, and I hope to get the ST series too.

I'd also like to go out on a limb and say that Enterprise was a great series. Having watched the entire thing from start to finish (minus the last 5 episodes, which I still have to go and watch on tape... damn school), the characters are the best that have ever been created in ST. They're especially wonderful, because they're like any of us would be in space. We'd be like "Hey, we have giant laser cannons on our ship. That's just cool!" and we'd use em alot. We'd also be pretty conerned about going into battle, cause we have no idea how to do it right yet. The stories were also good, although I think they ran the Xindi thing way too long, and kept getting sidetracked while trying to finish it.

Regardless, I'm for Star Trek. Live long and prosper, is all I can say now.

Damn, I'm going to end up saluting two people today.

I salute you! *salutes you as one Denzel Washington style tear drops down my cheek as The Flag Of The Federation blows in the wind at sunset*

I never liked Star Trek.

I never liked Star Trek.

I never liked people who never liked Star Trek.

STAR TREK! STAR TREK! STAR TREK!!!!!
yeah, star wars is amazing, but the newer films are no where near as good as the originals. the classic ones are better.
but then again i grew up with my mum as a HUGE trekky, so i was dragged into it too
:sniper: :mp5:

:rolleyes: That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. "Star Trek is for the mind"? You don't need to really know anything about science, or sociology, or any of the themes that Star Trek claims to explore to know that it's all simplified beyond belief or just plain made up. It's all a load of rubbish. Star Trek was only ever good when it ignores all that and does something fun and interesting, which is why I gave the example of the Dominion War arc in DS9. That actually made you care about those characters, and it didn't need all sorts of ridiculous made up science or mind-numbingly dull morality tales to do that.

If you want good tv SF, try getting Farscape or Firefly on dvd, or maybe watch some Stargate. Now that's SF that doesn't take itself too seriously, and because of that comes across as much more sincere and believable than anything in Star Trek - just like Star Wars, those series are about people, not about pseudo-science. Star Trek could have learnt something from that.
of course its made up... its science FICTION! :rolleyes:
and at least with star trek there's a real emphasis on the science, rather than just the fiction part. this is why its, for me, more believable than Star Wars, Stargate, Farscape, Babylon 5 or any other sci-fi you care to name.

Once you get into the technobabble you can begin to understand it - just watch enough episodes and actually pay attention and it'll begin to make some sense. even if you don't know exactly what they're talking about or exactly how it works (something you do get if you're a good trekkie of course), the science and technology at least makes sense and is consistant.

as Ariddia said, Trek is for the mind. you mention the "boring" morality plays - for the mind, no? is it something you actually have to pay attention to in order to really enjoy? yes... for the mind? yes. is it more than just going round guns blazing and taking time to think about situations/plots (unlike some sci-fi *coughcoughstargatecough*)? yes. for the mind? yes.

does Trek not have heart as a result? no. the characterisation is some of the most complete and well rounded i have ever seen in a TV show or other medium - especially with Voyager where much of the crew come onboard with little in the way of known back-history (with a few exceptions), meaning they are shaped by the events on Voyager's journey, leading to a real connection between you, the viewer, and the whole crew.

and thats another thing. Voyager is the best ST because the story is so endearing.... but thats my own little rant for another day;)

of course its made up... its science FICTION! :rolleyes:
and at least with star trek there's a real emphasis on the science, rather than just the fiction part.

There is no emphasis on science in Star Trek, but on pseudoscience. It is soft sci-fi, because none of the 'scientific issues' it deals with are real, and in fact, Red Dwarf offers about as much scientific insight. It uses liberal amounts of technobabble and handwavium to explain away effects that have little purpose other than plot convenience and deus-ex, and takes itself far too seriously in the process.

Neither Star Trek or Star Wars are shining examples of sci-fi, but Star Wars wins out on shere visual spectacle, something rather lacking in Trek. For real sci-fi, read a book by Asimov or someone, not a clown like Roddenberry.

There is no emphasis on science in Star Trek, but on pseudoscience. It is soft sci-fi, because none of the 'scientific issues' it deals with are real, and in fact, Red Dwarf offers about as much scientific insight. It uses liberal amounts of technobabble and handwavium to explain away effects that have little purpose other than plot convenience and deus-ex, and takes itself far too seriously in the process.

Neither Star Trek or Star Wars are shining examples of sci-fi, but Star Wars wins out on shere visual spectacle, something rather lacking in Trek.

i beg to differ. the science in Star Trek may be pseudoscience, but at least it tries. there is NO scientific explaination of how things work, nor such an emphasis on the science (including astrophysics, particle physics, chemistry, medical science, as well as the technological aspects evident all through Trek) in Star Wars. its just assumed that these things work with almost no explaination. in Trek one can gain a real understanding of how the ships systems are SUPPOSED to work, even if it is ridiculous technobabble. this is what makes Trek more realistic and believable than Wars to me, as well as more immersive.
plus Star Trek employs a number of people to make sure the tehchnocrap they come up with conforms within the realms of feasable science and the laws of phsyics.

basically, at least Star Trek tries. there is a clear way that the Warp Engines are supposed to work and if you watch/read enough you can gain a clear understanding of far more, including all those subsystems that always seem to go wrong every episode...
tell me just how the engines on a Star Wars vessel works, then? how about the hyperdrive?
this info may be available to true Star Wars nerds, but, to my understanding, it wasn't built into the story or thought about by Lucas himself. nor is the backing science as readily available as in Star Trek.

i happen to like the technobabble, largely cos i've been watching Star Trek since i can remember (used to with my trekkie Dad when i was a little kid) and i can pretty much understand the technobabble - its not just babble to me, its part of the plot and part of the excitement
yet another reason to support Ariddia's claim that Trek is for the head, Wars is for the heart.


For real sci-fi, read a book by Asimov or someone, not a clown like Roddenberry.
well duh! nor a clown like Lucas for the record

of course its made up... its science FICTION! :rolleyes:
and at least with star trek there's a real emphasis on the science, rather than just the fiction part. this is why its, for me, more believable than Star Wars, Stargate, Farscape, Babylon 5 or any other sci-fi you care to name.

Once you get into the technobabble you can begin to understand it - just watch enough episodes and actually pay attention and it'll begin to make some sense. even if you don't know exactly what they're talking about or exactly how it works (something you do get if you're a good trekkie of course), the science and technology at least makes sense and is consistant.


To my mind attempting to "explain" everything with constant references to warp bubbles, energy fields, plasma conduits, matter-antimatter injectors, self sealing stem bolts... yeuch. It means nothing. This is not science at all. And no matter how many episodes you watch, it's still meaningless. By bringing up all this phoney science that you know is rubbish all it serves to do is make it less believable. Fake science isn't believable. Star Wars is believable. Farscape was believable. Stargate is too, although, to be fair, it is guilty itself of a little bit of technobabble at times. If you want long scientific explanations of what's going on, however, there's lot's of fiction out there that does that too, with real science. Try reading stuff like Alasatair Reynolds, or my personal favourite Greg Egan. You'll see that Star Trek doesn't come close to actual science, don't try to fool yourself otherwise.

as Ariddia said, Trek is for the mind. you mention the "boring" morality plays - for the mind, no? is it something you actually have to pay attention to in order to really enjoy? yes... for the mind? yes. is it more than just going round guns blazing and taking time to think about situations/plots (unlike some sci-fi *coughcoughstargatecough*)? yes. for the mind? yes.

My point was that the morality plays are as shallow as the science. The same old dillemas involving the Prime Directive, the hologram's/android's right to life, the trapped energy lifeform.... it's all endlessly repeated and done to death. Real drama is about characters, and imo most of Star Trek didn't have any of those.

To my mind attempting to "explain" everything with constant references to warp bubbles, energy fields, plasma conduits, matter-antimatter injectors, self sealing stem bolts... yeuch. It means nothing. This is not science at all. And no matter how many episodes you watch, it's still meaningless. By bringing up all this phoney science that you know is rubbish all it serves to do is make it less believable. Fake science isn't believable. Star Wars is believable. Farscape was believable. Stargate is too, although, to be fair, it is guilty itself of a little bit of technobabble at times. If you want long scientific explanations of what's going on, however, there's lot's of fiction out there that does that too, with real science. Try reading stuff like Alasatair Reynolds, or my personal favourite Greg Egan. You'll see that Star Trek doesn't come close to actual science, don't try to fool yourself otherwise.



to me these are less believable because they offer no basis or grounding for whats happening. i always like to know how things work and can't just accept that "it just does" or ignore the fact i don't know. i play guitar: i learned how amplifiers work, how the pickups translate oscillation into electrical signal (at least on a basic level). i use computers: i've endeavoured to find out how they work, what the different bits do, and have now built 2 of them for myself from scratch. i don't like not knowing how something i'm using or watching works - if i don't know that i just find it hard to get into it. just the way i am.
so things like star wars, or farscape, or stargate, all of which offer very little in the way of background tecnological explaination (compared to star trek), i just find it harder to get into. hence why i prefer the false technobabble of star trek.

but can you seriously say that the technology that is so 'fake' on star trek is any less believable than that of farscape, for example?
i believe that of star trek more because at least it offers SOME explaination. don't forget, its all fiction :rolleyes:


My point was that the morality plays are as shallow as the science. The same old dillemas involving the Prime Directive, the hologram's/android's right to life, the trapped energy lifeform.... it's all endlessly repeated and done to death. Real drama is about characters, and imo most of Star Trek didn't have any of those.
the character dynamics of star trek are as interesting and intense as any other series i have ever watched. if you've watched for as long as i have you really know these characters, and feel for them. there is still a strong character dynamic on star trek... something which other Sci-fi's are entirely based on. star trek is therefore more than these other sci-fi's in my estimation.

but there are often hidden, underlying morality plays within the grander, more obvious ones which are, granted, endlessly repeated. however, at least there are morality plays - star wars is a morality play, but only really one relatively simplistic one (with some interesting offshoots of course). hence why i said the morality issues of star wars could easily be fitted into a (feature length) star trek episode - and that would be just one episode. star trek deals with a far greater range of issues and morality questions than star wars, or most sci-fi programs - who are usually just entertainment and leave out the morality issues alltogether- ever do.

I like both, really. Star Wars has its problems, but the original trilogy is undoubtedly a classic in film.

i beg to differ. the science in Star Trek may be pseudoscience, but at least it tries. there is NO scientific explaination of how things work, nor such an emphasis on the science (including astrophysics, particle physics, chemistry, medical science, as well as the technological aspects evident all through Trek) in Star Wars. its just assumed that these things work with almost no explaination. in Trek one can gain a real understanding of how the ships systems are SUPPOSED to work, even if it is ridiculous technobabble. this is what makes Trek more realistic and believable than Wars to me, as well as more immersive.
plus Star Trek employs a number of people to make sure the tehchnocrap they come up with conforms within the realms of feasable science and the laws of phsyics.

The fact is, there is no need to explain how, say, a blaser pistol or a hyperdrive works. Nobody sits there watching star wars thinking 'I wonder if that's a solid-state laser or a chemical laser'. It's completely unnecessary to the story or the experience of watching it. The fact that Star Wars doesn't explain these things works to its advantage, because it's a fantasy spectacular where much of what happens cannot be explained other than by the vague term 'high technology'. Where Star Trek falls down is it tries to foist ridiculous descriptions and definitions on us, that just make it look silly. The Technobabble is probably the single most heavily ridiculed aspect of Trek.

Star Trek doesn't offer a 'real understanding', it merely offers a load of gibberish, which is about as much use as not knowing. The words are meaningless, and generally don't offer any insight into technology at all. And, within the realms of feasible science? Hello? It involved time travel to the past, of all things. The majority of technology in star trek might as well be magic. Transporters, phasers, etc. The idea that you can vapourise someone, and not have a big stinking cloud of steam and scorchmarks up the walls is silly.

To be fair, the films are significantly better than the series, but I find much mirth in the idea of anyone taking Star Trek's pretend science seriously.

I never liked people who never liked Star Trek.

Hey! We don't take kindly to people who never liked people who never liked Star Trek.

Star Wars all the way. I've tried Trek, both the original and the Next Generation, on few occasions, but I just never could keep a straight face watching it. The world of Star Wars has certain ruggedness which gives it a degree of believability, whereas Star Trek just always felt like a bunch of actors on a set. I'm just not capable of suspending my disbelief that much.

Star Trek never caught my interest at all. However, it's hard to compare, because Star Wars is a movie trilogy and Star Trek is a TV show.

Like my right side typing?

In my opinion it's STar Wars,never really liked Star Trek as much.

Look its all about star wars :) . Who couldn't love a Wookie. Star Treck never really could do better than a Tv series. :gundge:

Look its all about star wars :) . Who couldn't love a Wookie. Star Treck never really could do better than a Tv series. :gundge:

Watch Star Trek 8: First Contact, THEN come back to me.

Farscape is better than both of them.

Watch Star Trek 8: First Contact, THEN come back to me.

First Contact kicks ass - but Revenge of the Sith is better ;)

Ok - worst Star Wars film versus Worst Trek film

In my opinion - Clone Wars vs Nemesis

What do you all think? Same for you? Different? Which is worst?

i think you should watch the original films before calling nemesis the worst. some of the later original films were copies of earlier films.

I think you shouldn't presume that I haven't watched them all...

and - in your own words (my emphasis) - how can a later original film be a copy of earlier films?

I think Nemesis was THE worst Trek film so far - even worse than Final Frontier. However, it isn't as bad as Clone Wars.

Actually - Final Frontier is pretty disastrous

At the moment, Wars is beating Trek quite effectively. I thought it would have been much closer.

Is this what you all really think? Or are there some of you who haven't yet voted? ;)

I like Star Wars a lot more...It can be fun to watch a few episodes of Star Trek, but that's partly because it's so ridiculous it's funny. I don't think I've seen any of the movies or much of the recent stuff, though.
To my mind attempting to "explain" everything with constant references to warp bubbles, energy fields, plasma conduits, matter-antimatter injectors, self sealing stem bolts... yeuch. It means nothing. This is not science at all. And no matter how many episodes you watch, it's still meaningless. By bringing up all this phoney science that you know is rubbish all it serves to do is make it less believable. Fake science isn't believable.I agree...The random faux-science stuff kills suspension of disbelief for me; better to realize the stuff is fantasy nonsense and not try to trick the audience.

=NO SPOILERS=

Ok - I've not seen one of these threads for a while and, in light of the new film Revenge of the Sith, I think it's time we re-opened the debate.

To be honest, I've always been a Trekkie (or Trekker - whatever you want to call it). I found the messages in Star Trek to be much more sincere and relevant to real-life situations than those of the Star Wars counterpart. The characters may have seemed more wooden at times, but there were always clearly defining moments and episodes for every series (with the possible exception of Enterprise, I don't really like that 'series').

However, I haven't let my liking for Trek turn me away from Wars, I still enjoyed the Wars films from Episodes IV through to II (in respective order), and found them to be fantastic pieces of cinema majestry. Star Wars films are definately better than those of Trek, with the possible exception of Star Trek First Contact beating all Star Wars episodes apart from Empire Strikes Back. What Trek has going for it is the sheer volume of content, the endless episodes all contributing to the lore and fabric of the Trek world and weaving new patterns. The Trek novels are also much more interesting than the Wars ones, with the stories much more believable.

So - both series have their strong points and weak points, and I've always put Trek above Wars in order of priority, with LotR being in close proximity to Trek and above Wars.

However - Revenge of the Sith!! Wow - absolutely wow!!! Briliant film - beats ANYTHING Star Trek has EVER produced!! It is simply the best film I have ever seen; the darkness, the anger, the sorrow - all contribute to a storyline that we know is brilliant. From the action, to the confrontations we see towards the end, to the final lead into New Hope - the film keeps you enthralled from start to finish.

I came out just absolutely in awe.

In my own opinion, it bumped Star Wars to level pegging with Star Trek - and if we were to just consider Revenge of the Sith against the best that Star Trek has produced (DS9 Dominion War storyline/First Contact/Much of Voyager) - then Star Wars would win out every time. That's how absolutely fantastic that film is.

And this is coming from a guy who has his Nation in a Region modelled after the UFP, all the Voyager videos - with duplicate copies on DVD - posters galore, signed photos from Kate Mulgrew et al, and a DS9 calendar on my wall that I've had for 5 years and keep reusing just because of the quotes/pictures in it.

Hopefully that puts into perspective just how brilliant the film is, or to me at least.

In terms of whether overall I think Star Wars or Star Trek is better...I'm going to have to be absolutely treacherous and say that at the moment I think Star Wars is better. I haven't seen any Trek since watching Revenge on Thursday - so I may change my mind again - but Wars definately wins at the moment!
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

I won't choose! You can't make me!!!! They're BOTH awesome.

Blarg...that's a bit hard to decide.

But I'd have to go with Star Wars. Star Wars was consistenly brilliant until Episodes I+II came out (Revenge of the Sith was much better than I expected it to be), while Star Trek was consistently crappy (usually to the point of hilarity).

I take Star Wars over Star Trek any day of the week.

Heh - seems to be the trend so far ;)

Star Wars has better weapons and more versitality than Star Trek Does.

Well - Kirk had his Corbomite weapon

Voyager has tri-cobalt devices, along with transphasic torpedoes

Although the Death Star does kick ass - as do lightsabers...but I'd rather have a pulse compression rifle as well ;)

Granted I've only seen Episodes I-III, and not a single episode of Star Trek, my vote is definately for Star Wars. I've only seen the prequels, but I'm addicted and looking forward to seeing the original 3. I've seen a few minutes of a Star Trek eppy (not sure what is was), but I think it was kind of cheesy. I prefer the well made movies. Revenge of the Sith was awesome!!!!!!!! and I highly recommend it to all of you.

Welcome to the forums Paz :)

Heh - I agree, Star Wars kicks ass - and Revenge of the Sith is brilliant!!

While Revenge of the Sith is fantastic, overall my vote goes to Star Trek. IMHO, though, B5 beats them both.

Radclyffe

I like Star Wars a lot more...It can be fun to watch a few episodes of Star Trek, but that's partly because it's so ridiculous it's funny. I don't think I've seen any of the movies or much of the recent stuff, though.
I agree...The random faux-science stuff kills suspension of disbelief for me; better to realize the stuff is fantasy nonsense and not try to trick the audience.

Technobable is necessary in Sci-fi just as magibabble is necessary in fantasy. There must be a solid foundation of rules in a fictional universe even if those rules don't mirror the rules of the real universe.

The problem with Star Trek technobable is simply that it was overused at times.

While Revenge of the Sith is fantastic, overall my vote goes to Star Trek. IMHO, though, B5 beats them both.

Radclyffe

I agree about Babylon 5. Captain Sheridan can run circles around half of Star Fleet, Imperial Fleet, AND the Rebel Alliance/New Republic

I'd agree with Karas there tbh

First off I have to say I love both Star Wars and Star Trek. They both have good and bad points.

Star Trek:

The techno-babble is not nonsence. I have taken extensive biology, chemistry and physics classes. I understand everything the people are saying and it makes sense. All the things in the show is based off of current scienticfic theories today, only they show how we could impliment those theories in the future. Plus, scientists today have built a transporter and transported atoms throuth space. This was based off the idea in Star Trek. And then notice that cell phones now open like tricorders and pocket pc's are like data pads... The pseudo science is becoming reality. This is the thing I really like about Star Trek, the science makes it more real. I can see how other people would find this annoying though, if you don't know alot about science, it won't make sense and could be detracting.


Yes, many of the story lines in Star Trek are annoyingly repetative but the moral issues they explore are meaningful and often reflect what is happening at the time era the particular show was made. Star Trek was the first show to have women and men be equals, it was the first show to have a black/white person kiss, the first show to deal with gay rights...there are many more. Also, I happen to like Enterprise very much. They explored many issues we are having today, such as our right to interfer in other cultures, when to invade or use force and when to use diplomacy. suliban = taliban etc.The whole thing was a social commentary on today. It also showed us how we would feel if another power (vulcans) had control over what we do. All the Star Trek series, TOS, TNG, Voyager, DS9 and Enterprise have wonderful character depth and meaningful storylines. That is one of the things that makes Star Trek great.

The special effects in the show aren't mind blowing, but they do the job. I wish the aliens were a bit more creative (humanoid with forehead ridges gets old) The fighting isn't that fantastic either, but the emphasis of the show isn't fighting, it's morals. I like how they go into other cultures, alien and human. The acting can be bad sometimes, but sci-fi is difficult to act for. There are some corny moments as well, but the many, many memorable ones out weigh them.

All in all, I love Star Trek because of the characters, storylines and releavance to our own lives.


Star Wars:

I'm sure everyone at one point or another wishes they could just use a lightsaber to slash their way out of a problem than deal with it diplomatically. Star Wars feeds my liking of great emotional fights. People fighting for what they believe in. Vader fights for peace and unity in the galaxy, the jedi and rebbellion for freedom. Both sides have valid points of view, but power corrupts, and this is seen in both the senate and the empire. The nature of humanity is explored. The story line may be simple, but it is a great Good vs. Evil film.

The special effects are mind blowing, the musical score is incredible, the various planets and cultures are alsome, the costumes are fantastic. When you watch Star Wars you get filled with excitement. It is a master piece of cinimatic effects.

The characters, while intriging and memorable need to have their relationships explored more. I wanted to see more of obi-wan's and anakin's relationship as well as luke- leah- Han. Luke's feelings about his father should have been explored more as well. Both the Acting and the dialog could use some work. There are corny, stupid lines galor. Yes, many of us would like to excise the first two movies, but like it or not, they are Star Wars. There are scenes in Star Wars that make me wince in pain. The line, "Noooo!!!!" has been used entirly too much. I think the bad acting though adds a bit to it's charm.

There are many things in Star Wars that just doesn't make sense. From medical to ship tech you are left scratching your head and wondering, what the hell? Much of it is simply based on faith, you just have to believe things would work the way they do without explanation. This detracts from the believabilty of the Films. One thing I feel the need to vouch for though is midichlorians and the force. If you have studied cellular biology, Then you will have learned about the theory of how mitochondria/chloroplasts are believed to be small organisms within every organism's cells. The function of mitochondria/chloroplasts is to produce ATP--which is the energy that fuels all body functions, from healing to movement. (plus the name midichlorians comes from mitochondria and chloroplasts) Also if you consider the scienticfic proof of kinetic energy transfer and the incedible things martial arts masters can do, the force becomes plausible.

I love the fights, music and special effects in Star Wars. The idea of a jedi order is just cool. The movies are incedible and even with their faults, they manage to take you to a galaxy far far away...

Conclusion:

Whether I like Star Trek or Star Wars better depends on my mood. They are both hard to compare since one is primarly a T.V. series and the other a Film series. There are rumors on the Star Wars website though of a Star Wars T.V. show, so things might change. If you want something that combines great story line with great special effects, watch Battle Star Galactica.


Now I have to comment on Revenge of the Sith.

After seeing it, I was toltally blown away, awe struck and speechless. It is one of the greatest movies of all time. Absolutly fantastic. Palpatine is alsome, Obi-wan is alsome, the fights are alsome and the whole thing is just beyond words. It was a great movie to lead into A New Hope.

SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!

The dramatic irony in the film was wonderful. You know anakin becomes vader and that palpatine is Darth Sidious, but no one in the story knows. You see anakin as a good guy, and want him to make the right choice. When padme says she thinks they should ask for Obi-wan's help I wanted to choke anakin when he said no. And when Anakin has to choose between helping Windu or Sidious I wanted to jump up and yell NO! Don't do it! Don't go to the dark side! And then there is padme's alsome line, "So this is how Democracy falls, with thunderous applause." That was cool, so was the yoda--palpatine fight. And the fight between Obi-wan and anakin? There could have been more dialog, but when anakin is left cut up and dieing, I felt so sorry for Obi-wan. You know he blames himself, and you know he still wants anakin to be good, still loves anakin, and was forced to nearly kill him. I also love the moment when Obi-wan sits next to padme and tell her anakin is evil. He's so CUTE! (sorry, fangirl moment, I love Obi-wan!) Any way, if you haven't seen the movie, see it!

I was raised on both and I say although Star Trek, Trek Next Generation, and Voyager are all good....

Star Wars is FAR FAR better and rox my sox anyday..... :D

First off I have to say I love both Star Wars and Star Trek. They both have good and bad points.

Star Trek:

The techno-babble is not nonsence. I have taken extensive biology, chemistry and physics classes. I understand everything the people are saying and it makes sense. All the things in the show is based off of current scienticfic theories today, only they show how we could impliment those theories in the future. Plus, scientists today have built a transporter and transported atoms throuth space. This was based off the idea in Star Trek. And then notice that cell phones now open like tricorders and pocket pc's are like data pads... The pseudo science is becoming reality. This is the thing I really like about Star Trek, the science makes it more real. I can see how other people would find this annoying though, if you don't know alot about science, it won't make sense and could be detracting.


I'd just like to note that most of the science in Star Trek is either made up, based on older concepts already disproven, or use of a concept in a way that completely distorts what it actually is. Not much of the science is real at all.

The transporter scientists have built only works in a tiny scale and it is predicted that it will never be able to used for anything macroscopic.

The transporter scientists have built only works in a tiny scale and it is predicted that it will never be able to used for anything macroscopic.

Not what I heard at all. I heard the extreme opposite actually. I have an article on teleportation somewhere in my Global Politics folder.

breaking them down by genre
starwars-space fantasy
star trek:
the original series-spagetti western in space
star trek
the next generation and onward:political correctness gone overboard

the trek movies with kirk and crew are the pinnicle of what trek should be, that being said. starwars is far more enjoyable from the epic standpoint.

trek has become a soapbox of political correctness and technobable overload.

:p

Not what I heard at all. I heard the extreme opposite actually. I have an article on teleportation somewhere in my Global Politics folder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2050210.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2050210.stm

Oh came from BBC! fine as I said I have an article here regarding Teleportation in my GLobal Politics folder. I just have to dig and find it.

Oh came from BBC! fine as I said I have an article here regarding Teleportation in my GLobal Politics folder. I just have to dig and find it.

Ooh, politics, even better.

-_-'

Ooh, politics, even better.

-_-'

Yea, got the article from my Professor too who was also in the ARmy in intelligence too if I remember correctly. Also aced the class too. :D

Star Trek can be completely ridiculous at times. I'm only a fan of TOS and the TOS movies. Next Generation and beyond is technology driven crap.

Technobabble: People often assume that because lots of sciency sounding words get thrown around, that therefore the show must have a good grounding in science. Rubbish. Remember Voyager and finding a "crack" in a black hole's event horizon?

Nevermind that the technobabble itself is just a plot device and filler material, how often do they say stuff like "I'm detecting a decaying thermal signature" rather then "I'm detecting fading heat." Really, ST just pads dialogue like a teenage girl's bra with useless technobabble, and expects the viewer to mindlessly accept it.

The Federation: Completely not utopian. When you strip away all the "mankind is evolved beyond their 20th century counterparts" nonsense, you get a military that has massive control over a communist government. There's no monetary system, Starfleet controls practically everything, and the needs of the state and society are emphasized over the needs of the individual.

Not to mention the main thing that pisses me off about TNG and beyond, the complete and utter absurdities of the writers. For example, senior officers do everything. How often did we see Captain Picard or Riker crawling around in a Jeffrie's tube to fix something or other? Where the hell are the maintenance crewmen?! Why is it always senior officers that go down to planets first, and not the science department? Why is the ship a floating time bomb? It seems everything and anything on it is a lethal device waiting to go off, like the bridge officer stations and how they explode like grenades even when a hit isn't even near the bridge.

Depends on what I want to see at the time. ;)

I have been a life long Trekkie and will remain so, but I do have to give Star Wars credit on world building. Like Lord of the Ring, SW's universe is rich in history and backstory. Things work well together and you can see how it all developed into what we saw, even if the history and backstory is only refered to in passing. Very rarely does it contradict itself in other words.

Star Trek however... as much as I like it, the universe it inhabbits is a patchwork, its history contradicts itself repeatedly, and of course any limit set by a previous ep will be broken soon enough. However, Star Trek also provides us with a very rich playground to play in, with a semi-decent sence of scale whereas Star Wars does not, for an empire that spans a galaxy, it seems to be very small.

But best villian goes to Star Wars for Darth Vader, I can't imgine any Star Fleet captain who would be able to face down Vader and NOT suddenly need a change of uniform.

Best evil race though goes to Trek for the Borg (Before Voyager decided it would be fun to have them show up every other week). They are just frighting in many ways.

Star Trek is way better than Star Wars. Now, I do enjoy watching SW, but it isn't close to ST.

Let's begin with TOS. We get intelligent debates from McCoy and Spock. Now they often resort to "you green blooded son of a bitch," but we still get a good moral debate despite the name calling. The best example is the debate over the Genesis Device in STII. We get good debates in STFC when Picard and the crew of the ENTERPRISE must decide if and how they should intervene in the 21st century.

We also get good death scenes. STII is a good example. IN SW, when a character dies, it isn't that emotional. It's, "oops he's dead, now lets go on." I love the Spock death scene, not because I hate Spock, but because it was wonderfully done. The dialogue is thought provoking and the scene likely made "trekkies" weep when they first saw it. "I have been, and always shall be, your friend. Live long and prosperr." THen add in Kirk's speech and Scottie's bagpipes, and you have a great death scene.

We also get good death scenes. STII is a good example. IN SW, when a character dies, it isn't that emotional. It's, "oops he's dead, now lets go on." I love the Spock death scene, not because I hate Spock, but because it was wonderfully done. The dialogue is thought provoking and the scene likely made "trekkies" weep when they first saw it. "I have been, and always shall be, your friend. Live long and prosperr." THen add in Kirk's speech and Scottie's bagpipes, and you have a great death scene.

I'm sorry but I couldn't leave this alone. Didn't you see Luke's reaction to the death of Obi Kenobi or how about the reaction by obi wan kenobi to the death of Qui Gon Jin? Sorry dude but that line about "oops he's dead, now lets go on" doesn't fly with me.

When Qui Gon died, it seemed to instill a renewed sense of attack in Obi Wan, he fought on to defeat Darth Maul and then grieved for his Master.

I think that the deaths in Star Wars are much more humanely presented than those in Trek - When Harry dies, when Lt Carey dies, when unnamed crewman dies - nothing really happens - no real period of mourning.

Ive been a Star Wars fan since age three.

Star Wars always meant excitement, and anticipation of the whole Theater Experience, and the breathtaking action, and of course...Vader...the Best Villian Ever...

Really..its apples and oranges, as one are a series of good (mostly) movies, and the other is a Televison Series, and a slew of really crappy movies.

Personally, while I like the Original Star Trek for its campy-ness, and its actually progressive social commentary for its time...the spin offs were pretentious and rather boring, often spending waaaaay too much time in over indulgent repetition, recycled plotlines.

What about the internal politics within the two shows?

Which do you feel is the lesser of two evils? The Galactic Senate or the Federation Council, or even the Galactic Empire?

Not what I heard at all. I heard the extreme opposite actually. I have an article on teleportation somewhere in my Global Politics folder.

I fear the teleportation scientists have actually realised is quantum teleportation. The science and concepts behind this bear no resemblence to the principles behind the teleportation devices of star trek. For one thing, there is no "beaming" involved.

The Federation: Completely not utopian. When you strip away all the "mankind is evolved beyond their 20th century counterparts" nonsense, you get a military that has massive control over a communist government. There's no monetary system, Starfleet controls practically everything, and the needs of the state and society are emphasized over the needs of the individual.

Why yes, as Spock said: "the needs of the many..."
Why is a working, non oppressive communist society non-utopian by the way ? It just requires a slight adaptation of human nature..

Not to mention the main thing that pisses me off about TNG and beyond, the complete and utter absurdities of the writers. For example, senior officers do everything. How often did we see Captain Picard or Riker crawling around in a Jeffrie's tube to fix something or other? Where the hell are the maintenance crewmen?!

Excellent point.

Why is it always senior officers that go down to planets first, and not the science department?

This on the other hand makes perfect sense. Most scientists in StarTrek are specialists, while the senior officers have had training in all fields relevant to planetary exploration. They in other words know less than specialists about specific fields, but can gather first impressions in many fields more efficiently.

Why is the ship a floating time bomb? It seems everything and anything on it is a lethal device waiting to go off, like the bridge officer stations and how they explode like grenades even when a hit isn't even near the bridge.
Well.. fuses are expensive..

Star Wars is popcorn. Star Trek is steak. There is nothing wrong with popcorn of course. But its not what you would preffer for dinner.

sums it up well

i think it all comes domn to what mood i'm in, some times a want to see flashy lightsabers etc., and sometimes i want to watch diplomatic disscussions end in a hasty teleportation and phasers

True - but Star Wars does have Diplomacy...it just doesn't always work out the way they plan ;)

One of the many reasons I like Star Trek more than Star Wars is because Star Trek has something Star Wars will never have: Spock, nuff said.

I love them both! Just saw the Star Wars III on Saturday. It was fantatic and yoda was sooo cute. I hated episode I, II was good. IV,V&VI are all great.
The only ST I like is Voyager.

Hey Mekonia - how come Voyager does it so much for you? What about DS9 and the Dominion War? (I like VGR best tbh)

Hehe - yeh, Revenge does absolutely KICK ASS! Action from the very opening scene - very Lucas style.

When Qui Gon died, it seemed to instill a renewed sense of attack in Obi Wan, he fought on to defeat Darth Maul and then grieved for his Master.

He used his death to defeat Darth Maul. "NNOOOOOO!!!!!!" He was furious when those beams disengaged and he attacked his Master's killer. Of course, because of that rage, he nearly died himself. In battle dude, you don't have time to grieve. Its only after the fight is their time to grieve.

I think that the deaths in Star Wars are much more humanely presented than those in Trek - When Harry dies, when Lt Carey dies, when unnamed crewman dies - nothing really happens - no real period of mourning.

Agreed though Janeway did show some emotion of the many times harry died. :D

What about the internal politics within the two shows?

Which do you feel is the lesser of two evils? The Galactic Senate or the Federation Council, or even the Galactic Empire?

Considering the Senate was a rubber stamp only for the Empire I'm going to say the Federation. Damn the Prime and Temporal Directives :D

True - but Star Wars does have Diplomacy...it just doesn't always work out the way they plan ;)

Agressive Negotiations anyone?

Hey Mekonia - how come Voyager does it so much for you? What about DS9 and the Dominion War? (I like VGR best tbh)

Hehe - yeh, Revenge does absolutely KICK ASS! Action from the very opening scene - very Lucas style.
cos Voyager rules and is the best ST of them all.

for me it has a fantastic and endearing plot: trying to find home is always an engaging plot - far more so than just 'lets explore the galaxy a bit'... or, even worse, the plot backbone of Enterprise: 'well we didn't mean to come this far from Earth, but while we're out here lets keep going why not?' :rolleyes:

Voyager is thus the most engaging, and keeps this overriding plot throughout the whole series, as a central backbone for all the other plots to come off & weave in & out of... a backbone the other Star Trek's lack.
interestingly there isn't such a backbone in Star Wars, but there is definatley a stronger overriding plot in SW than the other Trek's. then agian this is partly cos the material covered in Wars would be covered in a feature length episode of Trek, not a whole series - Wars is just one (bigass) story, and hence would fit best as an episode, not as a series plot arc.

secondly the characters in Voyager are open-ended. Kim is an endsign on his first assignment when he joins the ship. Paris has a history in a penal colony, but changes as if Voyager were a blank slate. the Doctor is an EMH switched on for the first time in the first episode - he develops humanity and his own character through the series. Janeway has pretty much no back history. Seven was Borg, trying to come to terms with her newfound humanity - another blank slate.
none of these characters are constrained by their histories... they grow freely with Voyager and as the viewer watches. for me that makes the characters very understandable and engaging.

so Voyager is a very human show, dealing with humanity in a very positive way... its uplifting and optimistic. thats the deal with all of star trek: its an optimistic look at where we could be if we play our cards right in the future. i like this - i watch Voyager often when i'm feeling down precisely because its not only entertaining and you really get to know the characters, but its uplifting and positive.

this certainly something Wars isn't. it deals with the darkness of human nature - the Sith taking power, the Empire, etc...
while thats an important subject to deal with and can't be glossed over, i just prefer the upbeat optimism of Voyager and Star Trek in general. i'm an extreme idealist, and i'm sure that has something to do with it.


sorry, question wasn't directed at me, but i was compelled to answer! :D

Heh - the thing I disagree with mostly with Star Trek is the continuity.

In First Contact, and Best of Both Worlds, we see an entire Fleet mobilised to stop one single Borg Cube. In BoBW, I think there are something like 49 vessels destroyed with 11,000 lives lost (not including the Cube obviously) and in FC we see a lot of vessels destroyed or severely damaged.

Yet in Voyager, Janeway consistently seems able to take on the Borg single-handedly. Granted - in Endgame she had futuristic help...but in Unimatrix Zero - Voyager was able to attack a Level 4 Tactical Cube and survive...these are the beasts that are supposed to be almost unbeatable. If 49 starships were destroyed against 1 Cube, then I don't see how Voyager managed to survive combat (twice) with a Tactical Cube - it makes minimal sense.

Also - it's amazing how many functions an anodyne relay actually has, or what a warp flux capacitor can actually be reconfigured to do. And the amount of times that rerouting warp power through the main deflector seems to defeat anything is quite shocking.

I don't know - Star Trek seems to be able to come up with an answer for everything. And it's interesting that there is rarely any continuity from episode to episode, as if the characters have forgotten what happened last week.

Eg - in the episode where Kes travels backwards through time (I forget the name - it's just before the episode Real Life in the 3rd season) - she learns of the Krenim and their temporal weaponry - and even warns Janeway and Tuvok about it...and it is implied that Tuvok wrote a security report about the species. Yet, when we get to Season 4 - Janeway and Tuvok have seemingly forgotten about Kes and her warnings now she has left the ship and just prance willingly into Krenim space without any memories of what she told them about.

Yet, in Season 6 I think it is, in the episode Relativity where Captain Braxton places a temporal weapon on the ship and Seven of Nine is recruited to find it - Janeway is able to recall the precise temporal variance that she detected in Dry Dock 6 years ago, and relate it to her current situation.

Tactics count my friend! Tactics count.

Janeway was industrious and invented new tacticle manuevers to defeat the Borg. And don't forget, she did have 7 of 9! :D

Heh - but 7of9 was a disaster in herself...just a way to boost ratings - bah!

Heh - but 7of9 was a disaster in herself...just a way to boost ratings - bah!

How was she a disaster?

Well - maybe not so much a disaster...

But she was used by Berman and Taylor to get more people watching the series. And whereas before Season 4 we'd had episodes exploring morality issues, we now suddenly get 7 of 9 who somehow becomes the direct focus of the show in her 'quest to discover her own humanity'.

Yes, there are some good episodes with her in, but not compared to some of the excellent ones from pre-series 4.

I just think that perhaps Berman began to focus too much on one single character - mainly her - for the majority of Season 4, and for much of Season 5...

Season 5 wasn't one of the best tbh - Season 6 was better, some darn good episodes in there...and the start of Season 7 whomped big time.

Best episode out of Season 5 was definately 11.59

Heh - the thing I disagree with mostly with Star Trek is the continuity.

In First Contact, and Best of Both Worlds, we see an entire Fleet mobilised to stop one single Borg Cube. In BoBW, I think there are something like 49 vessels destroyed with 11,000 lives lost (not including the Cube obviously) and in FC we see a lot of vessels destroyed or severely damaged.

Yet in Voyager, Janeway consistently seems able to take on the Borg single-handedly. Granted - in Endgame she had futuristic help...but in Unimatrix Zero - Voyager was able to attack a Level 4 Tactical Cube and survive...these are the beasts that are supposed to be almost unbeatable. If 49 starships were destroyed against 1 Cube, then I don't see how Voyager managed to survive combat (twice) with a Tactical Cube - it makes minimal sense.

Also - it's amazing how many functions an anodyne relay actually has, or what a warp flux capacitor can actually be reconfigured to do. And the amount of times that rerouting warp power through the main deflector seems to defeat anything is quite shocking.

I don't know - Star Trek seems to be able to come up with an answer for everything. And it's interesting that there is rarely any continuity from episode to episode, as if the characters have forgotten what happened last week.

Eg - in the episode where Kes travels backwards through time (I forget the name - it's just before the episode Real Life in the 3rd season) - she learns of the Krenim and their temporal weaponry - and even warns Janeway and Tuvok about it...and it is implied that Tuvok wrote a security report about the species. Yet, when we get to Season 4 - Janeway and Tuvok have seemingly forgotten about Kes and her warnings now she has left the ship and just prance willingly into Krenim space without any memories of what she told them about.

Yet, in Season 6 I think it is, in the episode Relativity where Captain Braxton places a temporal weapon on the ship and Seven of Nine is recruited to find it - Janeway is able to recall the precise temporal variance that she detected in Dry Dock 6 years ago, and relate it to her current situation.
yeah ok, granted, there's discontinuity. but then how much star trek is there compared to star wars?
Wars is a single, linear story; wheras you have one of those every episode of every series of Trek... there's bound to be some degree of discontinuity - frankly i think it holds together very well for the most part. especially the technobabble - it may be fictional bollox but at least they are relatively consistant with which doodaddle does what and what such and such going wrong does.

also, the character continutiy is very poor in TOS and TNG, but when you get to DS9, and subsequently Voyager, the intercharacter plots and happenings almost turn into a soap opera... something i like. there is definate continuity between what happened last week and this weeks episode, just often what happened last week isn't relavent at all to this week's plot, or those characters play less of a role this week.

Heh - the thing I disagree with mostly with Star Trek is the continuity.

In First Contact, and Best of Both Worlds, we see an entire Fleet mobilised to stop one single Borg Cube. In BoBW, I think there are something like 49 vessels destroyed with 11,000 lives lost (not including the Cube obviously) and in FC we see a lot of vessels destroyed or severely damaged.

Yet in Voyager, Janeway consistently seems able to take on the Borg single-handedly. Granted - in Endgame she had futuristic help...but in Unimatrix Zero - Voyager was able to attack a Level 4 Tactical Cube and survive...these are the beasts that are supposed to be almost unbeatable. If 49 starships were destroyed against 1 Cube, then I don't see how Voyager managed to survive combat (twice) with a Tactical Cube - it makes minimal sense.

Also - it's amazing how many functions an anodyne relay actually has, or what a warp flux capacitor can actually be reconfigured to do. And the amount of times that rerouting warp power through the main deflector seems to defeat anything is quite shocking.

I don't know - Star Trek seems to be able to come up with an answer for everything. And it's interesting that there is rarely any continuity from episode to episode, as if the characters have forgotten what happened last week.

Eg - in the episode where Kes travels backwards through time (I forget the name - it's just before the episode Real Life in the 3rd season) - she learns of the Krenim and their temporal weaponry - and even warns Janeway and Tuvok about it...and it is implied that Tuvok wrote a security report about the species. Yet, when we get to Season 4 - Janeway and Tuvok have seemingly forgotten about Kes and her warnings now she has left the ship and just prance willingly into Krenim space without any memories of what she told them about.

Yet, in Season 6 I think it is, in the episode Relativity where Captain Braxton places a temporal weapon on the ship and Seven of Nine is recruited to find it - Janeway is able to recall the precise temporal variance that she detected in Dry Dock 6 years ago, and relate it to her current situation.

I'm a bigger trek fan but I know more about Star Wars. With the addition of the prequals SW continuity went straight to hell. The clone wars had nothing to do with stormtroopers, in fact, there is evidence in the Heir to the Empire trilogy that cloning technology hadn't been developed and thus was a big deal when Thrawn started churning out clone stormtroopers. The clone wars had to do with the race that made Bobba Fett's armor. Speaking of fett, he grew up as a farmer on some back water planet and was later exiled for murder, he was never a clone nor was his dad even a bounty hunter... For the sake of everyone here I will not mention Mr. Binks. I must give SW credit though, it kept it's continuity intact trough EPIII flawlessly (as far as I can tell I havn't seen it more than once). Oh well it's hard to pull somthing like that off w/out getting in your own way so I like 'em both (minus EPI and EPII in SW :sniper: )

Yeh - Ep 1 + 2 in SW weren't the best in my opinion, but they did open up the Star Wars market to an entire new generation.

I will start out by mentioning that I have not seen Ep III, yet.

I was disapointed by Ep. I, Ep. II was OK, but has a lot of problems in it.

I was raised on ST and SW, I have read Asimov, Heinlein, Clarck, Zahn, and many, many others.

I got the second highest grade in my class in both Physics, and Chemistry.

I have been raised with a study of science and history.

I like Star Trek better than Star Wars.

If you want a moral dilemma, try the DS9 episode where they invite the Romulan Ambassidor to the station to try and bring them into the war against the Dominion.

I have read and listened to many attempted explination of the SW technology, from SW fans, and have read many of the tech source books, and the ideas there are even more laughable than anything put out about ST. ST has a lot of problems, and the tech is flawed, for the purpose of the story. If you or I were to face the problems in either SW or ST with the resources provided we would find ways to solve the problems in 5 minutes or less, but that would make for a really short story. The technical problems in either storyline are just there as backdrop, but the growth of the people is the story. The people and the univers in ST feel more grown than in SW. Try watching the DS9 episodes about the Orion Synicate, or about Section 31, these are things that would be there in any real universe.

These are just my thoughts after reading this thread, a little jumbled but I don't have time right now to clean up.

I personally disliked the Orien Syndicate episodes (the one with O'Brien in it).

My only problem with ST technobabble is that any random piece of technology can be reconfigured into whatever is needed, and some technologies can be used for endless purposes.

Also - something I just realised...the Federation (according to the Treary of, I think, Chiron?) is not allowed to use a cloaking device, or develop cloaking technology. Yet in Insurrection, we see Starfleet officers using personal cloaking devices to watch the Ba'ku...hmmm...

ok, I've seen both. Loved both. But Star Wars has it all the way.

FC was great, cool movie, best of the ST movies/shows ever. Star Trek is fun but very very fake. you can almost see the cardboard peeling off the control panels.

The science of ST is just as good as the science of SW. And just a probable. The only thing in SW that is impossible are the light sabers. Everything else is kosher.

Star Wars is great because it is an epic about good VS evil (just like LOTR)
the great thing about SW is it shows how subtle evil is and how you cannot always tell you are wrapped in its net. I thought it was great social and moral commentary.

As for the acting. The acting in the newest three is no worse than the acting in the original SW. So stop worrying about the acting. ST acting is a million times worse.

The only reason ST is scientifically more credible is because they have 1000s of hours of shows to fill with explainations, while SW just had 12 hours to tell a story.

Next Generation was the best ST, Voyager turned rotten halfway through, Enterprise was horrible and should not even be CALLED ST. DS9 I tolerated, but give me Jean Luc Picard anyday.

Final Verdict: Star Wars has more bang for its limited buck than ST has for its countless hours of Scifidom.

Star Wars is popcorn. Star Trek is steak.

Star Trek is not steak. Star Trek is crackers. Dry, laborious to eat, and only worth considering when there's no alternative. Any other time, you'd be feeding them to parrots.

"UNLIMITED POWER!"
- Darth Sidious, Revenge of the Sith

Dry, laborious to eat, and only worth considering when there's no alternative. Any other time, you'd be feeding them to parrots.

Lol - I'd never thought of it like that...

Then, to me, Farscape and Stargate are a bit like lumpy porridge

Star Wars: The finest cinematic rubbish ever created.

Star Trek: Goody-goody USA-derivative socialist(!!??!!)-utopia fantasy...

Babylon 5: Cheese on cheese laced with cheese. Damn good.

I would have to go with star wars, star trek just seemed to be a bit cheesy at times and Star Wars was alot more action packed also

Trek is beautifuly done minus the original I mean come on i seen more convincing acting on a after school tv special. DS9 def was killer the intricate stories were amazing and the idea of a star base where so many things can happen was pure genuis. The characters are well thought out and you see into their ideals more than you do in Star wars in general Trek makes your mind think...I dont want to think when watching a movie or show I just want to be blown away and thats what S WARS does for me it is highly political and explosive. the effects in both go toe to toe but id rather see a lightsaber fight than a phaser shoot out anyday ...although getting disinegrated by a phaser is worse than an arm cut off by a light saber. If you want to truely judge the two u have to do it movie for movie since wars never had a tv series you cant rightly compare it. That said if you are going by movies Wars wins hands down although wrath ok is the best trek movie ever but cant compare to S WARS episode 2 and 3. Besides wouldnt u rather see wookies with blasters who smell like popcorn on your side wookie could take the borg anyday! :D

Star Wars: The finest cinematic rubbish ever created.

heh - so do you like Wars or not? ;)

Heh Wiccan - I'd love to see an assimilated Wookie ;)

cos Voyager rules and is the best ST of them all.

for me it has a fantastic and endearing plot: trying to find home is always an engaging plot - far more so than just 'lets explore the galaxy a bit'... or, even worse, the plot backbone of Enterprise: 'well we didn't mean to come this far from Earth, but while we're out here lets keep going why not?' :rolleyes:

Voyager is thus the most engaging, and keeps this overriding plot throughout the whole series, as a central backbone for all the other plots to come off & weave in & out of... a backbone the other Star Trek's lack.
interestingly there isn't such a backbone in Star Wars, but there is definatley a stronger overriding plot in SW than the other Trek's. then agian this is partly cos the material covered in Wars would be covered in a feature length episode of Trek, not a whole series - Wars is just one (bigass) story, and hence would fit best as an episode, not as a series plot arc.

secondly the characters in Voyager are open-ended. Kim is an endsign on his first assignment when he joins the ship. Paris has a history in a penal colony, but changes as if Voyager were a blank slate. the Doctor is an EMH switched on for the first time in the first episode - he develops humanity and his own character through the series. Janeway has pretty much no back history. Seven was Borg, trying to come to terms with her newfound humanity - another blank slate.
none of these characters are constrained by their histories... they grow freely with Voyager and as the viewer watches. for me that makes the characters very understandable and engaging.

so Voyager is a very human show, dealing with humanity in a very positive way... its uplifting and optimistic. thats the deal with all of star trek: its an optimistic look at where we could be if we play our cards right in the future. i like this - i watch Voyager often when i'm feeling down precisely because its not only entertaining and you really get to know the characters, but its uplifting and positive.

this certainly something Wars isn't. it deals with the darkness of human nature - the Sith taking power, the Empire, etc...
while thats an important subject to deal with and can't be glossed over, i just prefer the upbeat optimism of Voyager and Star Trek in general. i'm an extreme idealist, and i'm sure that has something to do with it.


sorry, question wasn't directed at me, but i was compelled to answer! :D

You have to be shitting me. You think Voyager, that piece of crap that deserved to be canceled its first season, is the best of Trek?

First off, the series shouldn't have happened in the first place. The crew could have easily just left a time bomb behind to take care of the array. But noo, the writers are dipshits.

Nevermind the horrible science, such as finding a "crack" in a black hole's event horizon. A damn crack in gravity? What next, the defanging of the Borg? Oh wait....they did. They took the only actually fearsome enemy in Star Trek and pussified it.

Character development? Ha. "Oh crap, our story sucks, here look at Jeri Ryan's tits!111!"

You have to be shitting me. You think Voyager, that piece of crap that deserved to be canceled its first season, is the best of Trek?

First off, the series shouldn't have happened in the first place. The crew could have easily just left a time bomb behind to take care of the array. But noo, the writers are dipshits.

Nevermind the horrible science, such as finding a "crack" in a black hole's event horizon. A damn crack in gravity? What next, the defanging of the Borg? Oh wait....they did. They took the only actually fearsome enemy in Star Trek and pussified it.

Character development? Ha. "Oh crap, our story sucks, here look at Jeri Ryan's tits!111!"

I thought Voyager was the best one as well. It was the only worth buying. SOrry you didn't like it but I wish it went on for more than 7 seasons.

Star Wars easy.

Even Babylon 5 owned Star Trek like a pimp and his ho.

Star Trek was sweet with TNG and movies. The others are debatable even though I did happen to like Voyager and enterprise.

Storywise per episode, story continuity wise, and universe-wise though Star Trek suffers. Their tech, their aliens, their societies, and etc leave a lot to be desired.

Even the old SG-1 kicked a lot of Star Trek series in the arse and they were using modern tech vs sci-fi tech.

I thought Voyager was the best one as well. It was the only worth buying. SOrry you didn't like it but I wish it went on for more than 7 seasons.

Agreed - I think Voyager should have run for longer, instead of finding that shortcut home.

Could have done another couple of seasons.

i agree about the voyager thing-the ending was too rushed and rather cliche! stargate is the best sci-fi since...EVER! although the series 8 finale did suck a bit...as did a few episodes of that series...like "citizen joe" big yawn

Agreed - I think Voyager should have run for longer, instead of finding that shortcut home.

Could have done another couple of seasons.

Or at least have them run missions in the Alpha Quadrant.

Star Wars, by far. A heck of a lot easier to get into, and the universe expands so far. Besides, does Star Trek have anything like the FORCE???

Yes - a well aimed phaser blast

Or a Betazoid ;)

Betazoids, or the Force?

Which is better? Both have weaknesses...

Betazoids, or the Force?

Which is better? Both have weaknesses...

The Force

The Force.

Everything in Star Wars is just BETTER than Star Trek.

Ahh - but the Force can be used for evil purposes.

Well, I suppose you could use a Betazoid for evil purposes if you so wanted. ;)

Ahh - but the Force can be used for evil purposes.

Well, I suppose you could use a Betazoid for evil purposes if you so wanted. ;)

so very true. bwahahahahaha

Ahh - but the Force can be used for evil purposes.

Well, I suppose you could use a Betazoid for evil purposes if you so wanted. ;)

Those damn Changelings could be used for some even more evil purposes, I think. :D

the Force

The Force makes Star Wars more monumental than Star Trek.

I'm definately a fan of both, but does anyone here notice how Trek fans seem to say "Oh I love both but I like Trek better because of reason 1, reason 2, and reason 3" while the Wars fans just say "Trek sucks, man. Wars all the way! The force! The force!"

Just an observation.

The Force makes Star Wars more monumental than Star Trek.

how?

Although Star Trek shown first and all due credit will be given to it. Star Wars has one thing that Star Trek could never beat - chair ripping action!!!!. I find that Star Trek is a bit boring and walks along at the speed of a snail and thats insulting a snail, whilst george lucas (sci-fi god ) always seems to keep you on you're seat. No better illustration of this is the number of cheers from the audience in the cinema for just the opening credits and battle scene in the chapter 3 - A New Hope. Yes as you can already guess I much prefer Star Wars than Star Trek, although I do find voyager quite stimulating ;) :D ( seven of nine is very fit )

how?

They can use lightsabers better than anyone else. They can sense trouble happening and they can see the future :D

Although Star Trek shown first and all due credit will be given to it. Star Wars has one thing that Star Trek could never beat - chair ripping action!!!!. I find that Star Trek is a bit boring and walks along at the speed of a snail and thats insulting a snail, whilst george lucas (sci-fi god ) always seems to keep you on you're seat. No better illustration of this is the number of cheers from the audience in the cinema for just the opening credits and battle scene in the chapter 3 - A New Hope. Yes as you can already guess I much prefer Star Wars than Star Trek, although I do find voyager quite stimulating ;) :D ( seven of nine is very fit )

Actually that'll be chapter 4 A New Hope. Chapter three is Revenge of the Sith :D

Heh - aren't they called Episodes? ;)

Although Star Trek shown first and all due credit will be given to it. Star Wars has one thing that Star Trek could never beat - chair ripping action!!!!. I find that Star Trek is a bit boring and walks along at the speed of a snail and thats insulting a snail, whilst george lucas (sci-fi god ) always seems to keep you on you're seat. No better illustration of this is the number of cheers from the audience in the cinema for just the opening credits and battle scene in the chapter 3 - A New Hope. Yes as you can already guess I much prefer Star Wars than Star Trek, although I do find voyager quite stimulating ;) :D ( seven of nine is very fit )

I agree to a point.

I love Trek's action much better (lightsabers are the greatest "invention" ever) and I like space battles more focused on fighters than on capital ships like in Trek, but other than Palpatines shady rise to power and Anakin's turn to the dark side, Wars is rather shallow. Trek makes you think and relate to the problems they're going through. You can relate to the people in Trek because they're realistic. I can't relate to yoda. I just see him at face value. There is no depth.

Also, Trek's dialogue is much more inspired. I can, and I have, written better dialogue sequences than George Lucas. As great as Episode III was, the love scenes sucked, and who can forget Vader's "NOOOOO!" with his arms outstretched, staring at the sky. How corny.

Star Trek...... Thats all you need to know! :D

Heh - aren't they called Episodes? ;)

True but comeon. Don't mess with semantics! :D

Hehe - awww, ok ;)

Results of the poll so far show what I thought - Star Wars is more popular!

(Come on - refute it!)

Hehe - awww, ok ;)

Results of the poll so far show what I thought - Star Wars is more popular!

(Come on - refute it!)

I know I can't! LOL. I love Star Wars more than Star Trek. I love B5 more than ST too. :D

I'm definately a fan of both, but does anyone here notice how Trek fans seem to say "Oh I love both but I like Trek better because of reason 1, reason 2, and reason 3" while the Wars fans just say "Trek sucks, man. Wars all the way! The force! The force!"

Just an observation.

That is because you REALLY can't just make a few reasons for liking Star Wars over trek. Look I LIKE Trek a lot. I grew up watching it.

The problem is that Trek really has a LOT of reasons why it doesn't compete with Star Wars. I'll name a few:

1. Technology is lamer or less believable than in Star Wars

2. Aliens and species are less believable than in Star Wars.

3. MORE variety in species in Star Wars

4. Star Wars easily has more action.

5. The politics are much more intimate to many, especially in America.

6. The visual quality and effects are more believable.

7. Weapons are better. FAR FAR BETTER than in trek.

8. A lot of idealistic mumbo jumbo in Trek that REALLY doesn't make it feel real. In fact, even the situations feel scripted as opposed to the generally good acting.

... hell I can go on. Even the concept that they are OUR future heirs makes it seem kind of ridiculous believeing that man is going to be so damned "clean" in a few hundred years. Hell even Star Trek's history is kind of shoddy.

I've seen Star Trek a bit, and to me it was alright. But I chose Star Wars much, much more. I'm a hardcore Star Wars fan.

The things about Star Wars that makes most people Star Wars geeks is that the movies in Star Wars, although really nice in their own manner, and also pretty awesome as well, doesn't compare as much to the expanded universe of Star Wars, like the comic books and the videogames. In those expanded pieces of Star Wars, you get to see its more 'extreme' side. For example, there is the sotry of Darth Plagieus in the Labyrinth of Evil, which was a confusing but pretty cool book. And in KOTOR II you get introduced to the story of the Jedi Exile, and the Evil Sith Lord (who I think is the most kickass Sith Lord of all time) Darth Nihilus. Most people who hate Star Wars or think Star Wars is retarded or stupid usually haven't seen the expanded universe, like the Mandalorian Wars or the earlier excerpts of Darth Bane's Sith Order.

Also, Star Wars is more an emotional and human attribute. I couldn't care less about the technology. As long as they seem to be at least logically simple (people dying from natural causes, GRAVITY, space suits and such IN SPACE) then I'm alright with some fudging. I went with Star Wars.

Anybody up to try and smack my reasoning? ;)

Heh - nope, not gonna try and shake your argument, mostly because I agree with it ;)

I've never really gotten into the Expanded Universe, simply because I didn't think of it as canon. However - I've seen quite a few people discussing it here.

Anyone got any ideas where would be the best place to start in the EU?

That is because you REALLY can't just make a few reasons for liking Star Wars over trek. Look I LIKE Trek a lot. I grew up watching it.

The problem is that Trek really has a LOT of reasons why it doesn't compete with Star Wars. I'll name a few:

1. Technology is lamer or less believable than in Star Wars

2. Aliens and species are less believable than in Star Wars.

3. MORE variety in species in Star Wars

4. Star Wars easily has more action.

5. The politics are much more intimate to many, especially in America.

6. The visual quality and effects are more believable.

7. Weapons are better. FAR FAR BETTER than in trek.

8. A lot of idealistic mumbo jumbo in Trek that REALLY doesn't make it feel real. In fact, even the situations feel scripted as opposed to the generally good acting.

... hell I can go on. Even the concept that they are OUR future heirs makes it seem kind of ridiculous believeing that man is going to be so damned "clean" in a few hundred years. Hell even Star Trek's history is kind of shoddy.

Wait - so are you supporting Trek or Wars?

You know.. I REALLY can't tell how you confused my post for promoting Star Trek over Star Wars.

It was worded many times saying Star Trek was ineffective as a universe as compared to Star Wars.

Star Trek have lots of people know as "Q"......

God he's great, at the snap of his fingers and the galaxy is no more. "Q", the undisputed ruler of the Universe.

Star Trek have lots of people know as "Q"......

God he's great, at the snap of his fingers and the galaxy is no more. "Q", the undisputed ruler of the Universe.

I prefer the superweapons in the Star Wars Universe, Death Star, Sun Crusher, so many evil powerful names!

You know.. I REALLY can't tell how you confused my post for promoting Star Trek over Star Wars.

It was worded many times saying Star Trek was ineffective as a universe as compared to Star Wars.

Heh - sorry, I misread a couple of lines

I think that the morals that Star Wars presents to us are much more apparant than those of Star Trek, who's meanings are often so deeply hidden beneath treknobabble that it's hard to work out what they're saying

I think that the morals that Star Wars presents to us are much more apparant than those of Star Trek, who's meanings are often so deeply hidden beneath treknobabble that it's hard to work out what they're saying

I can't agree more AP

Wow - 929 posts, and no-one has ever said that to me before ;)

...and who can forget Vader's "NOOOOO!" with his arms outstretched, staring at the sky. How corny.

Although I completely agree, Trek is not without it's screams:
Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan! (http://www.khaaan.com)

I think that the morals that Star Wars presents to us are much more apparant than those of Star Trek, who's meanings are often so deeply hidden beneath treknobabble that it's hard to work out what they're saying

Not to start a ruckus, but the morals in Star Wars are little beyond, "What if Jesus Christ was bad?"

edit: And as this is my 13,000th post, I hereby dedicate it to Tink, because she dedicated her 10,000th to moi.

Anyone got any ideas where would be the best place to start in the EU?

The videogames such as KOTOR and KOTOR II are fairly accurate, since there is nothing going against their information and some actually following those information. Even Lucas agreed with the idea of Revan and the Sith Empire.

For books, I've read only the Labyrinth of evil and the one with MArko Ragnos in it, although I can't remember which one. I suggest the book is a good place to start off. There's some cool information that the movies sometimes miss.

Start with Labyrinth of Evil then? I think I've heard of that

Start with Labyrinth of Evil then? I think I've heard of that

Guess so.

Not to start a ruckus, but the morals in Star Wars are little beyond, "What if Jesus Christ was bad?"



Nah: the simple moral of SW is 'don't trust science: better to shuck the whole Enlightenment malarky and place your trust in mysticism and superstition'.

Heh - nope, not gonna try and shake your argument, mostly because I agree with it ;)

I've never really gotten into the Expanded Universe, simply because I didn't think of it as canon. However - I've seen quite a few people discussing it here.

Anyone got any ideas where would be the best place to start in the EU?

Start with the post-movies EU. It is, in general, easier to get into. Look up the X-Wing Series, the Thrawn Trilogy, "I, Jedi", and the Thrawn Duology. Then look into the Black Fleet Crisis series, maybe even delve into the New Jedi Order stuff.

The Lord of the Rings rules all!!!!!!!! yeeeeeee!!!!!! :D
okay i'm leaving now....., just had to comment *he he he...

The Lord of the Rings rules all!!!!!!!! yeeeeeee!!!!!! :D
okay i'm leaving now....., just had to comment *he he he...

It stunk! :D

From Hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
and thus ends my knowledge of Star Trek

From that one quote? :)

"I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up!"

Like both Star Wars and Star Trek (I do however hate Episode II), but ST gave more hours of entertainment, more complex plot, likeable characters, etc. However, ST episodes were hit and miss, many of them being nothing more then 45min of scrambling to find the right technobabble to save the day.

Ultimatly I like Star Trek over Star Wars but my favorite is Babylon 5.

Up until Episode 3, I much preferred Star Trek myself - as Ep 1 and 2 had been...lacking... - but after that, I now think I like Wars better. Simply for what you just said - Star Trek is very hit-and-miss. There are a lot of good episodes, and a lot which are...hmmm...

I agree that they spend a lot of time figuring out how to reverse the polarity of the warp core, or extend metaphasic shielding around the port warp nacelle to protect it from the heat of a star's corona...

Still good tv though

ah, its a photo finish ;)
on the one hand, star trek has taken the old moralty plays of old and reminded us that just couse they were ye olde does not affect their revelance.like a ten commandments for us nerds, thou shalt not play God, thou shalt not commit sins of bad acting(does as we say, not as we do) :D

ah, but star wars is a modern opera, following a dynasty of powerful warriors.
the father is born, ascends to power, sires the next generation, falls from grace, and then the story shifts to the son, who learns his destiny is to be a knight like his father, battles a mighty weapon and a powerful warlord(darth vader), helps the rebelion, duels the warlord, learns that he is the son of the warlord,helps the rebelion defeat the empire in battle after battle, duels his father before the emperor,refuses the temptation of power, is struck by the emperor, saved by his father, who he has redeemed, but Ah! too late, for death has come for him now.but it is too a happy after life he goes, and a new era of the jedi is born.
That's Entertainment.

Ok, this is how I see it. (sry if this point has been made, but once i red 5 pages it started to take a toll on my will to live) I rate Star Wars better. Now, I do like Trek, I just like Star Wars better. Its has been said that Trek is better because you get to know the characters more. I find this comparason a bit unfar as Trek is a telivison series(s) frist and movies second, while Wars is only movies(except for Clobe Wars). Is you watch all of both, you will know more about Trek that about Wars. To get the same level of knowlage about the Star Wars universe, you have to do a good bit of reading (which is faster and better for you than watching 8 kagillion hours of tv), but I enjoy it and thusly have done a good bit of it. All in all Trek jus gets tired after a while, while(for me any way) Wars can hold you attention better. The great technobabble debate is irrelevent. That is a neat part of Trek (if you understand it as I do) but it is not key to being entertaining. As for "deeper meaning" in either...come on now don't take si-fi that seriously. Little can stand up to eye of reality.

Oh and B5 and StargateSG1 rock! :D
Had to do it, sorry.

Golly - Star Trek really is tailing behind here ;)

And I thought it would be more evenly matched!

That is a neat part of Trek (if you understand it as I do)
No - I understand the technobabble. I could write you a discursive essay weighing the pros and cons of reconfiguring the deflector dish to work as an interplexing beacon...but I'm not going to - because it would bore people to tears.

And I don't agree that you can't compare Star Trek and Star Wars. They're both in the Science Fiction genre, both have aspects which are similar and are different, and are therefore comparable.

Nah: the simple moral of SW is 'don't trust science: better to shuck the whole Enlightenment malarky and place your trust in mysticism and superstition'.

I think the moral of most Star Wars is that there are many kinds of one thing.

Star Trek is crap and physically impossible. Star Wars actually follows known theories. It's as simple as that. No contest.

Star Trek follows scientific theories just as well as Star Wars. The matter is that Star Wars seems to be a bit simpler to understand.

Star Trek follows scientific theories just as well as Star Wars. The matter is that Star Wars seems to be a bit simpler to understand.

Neither follows scientific theories in the slightest.

The difference is that Star Wars doesn't try to give the impression it does, with a load of sciency-sounding gibberish.

Neither follows scientific theories in the slightest.

The difference is that Star Wars doesn't try to give the impression it does, with a load of sciency-sounding gibberish.

Okay...guess so then. I'm not a big science major. More of a political monster.

I think Star Wars does have some technobabble, just to a lesser extent than Trek.

Ok - if the U.S.S. Enterprise-E was to go into combat against a Star Destroyer, which would win?

Ok - if the U.S.S. Enterprise-E was to go into combat against a Star Destroyer, which would win?

The Star Destroyer.

Star Wars for me. I've tried to watch Star Trek, but it bores me to tears......

I do think we have to acknowledge the obvious difference: Trek is mainly a series and Wars is movie-based. As such Star Wars' story would kick the hell out of star trek. If its story couldn't do that, it wouldn't have survived the critics!

And Sel Appa, i thought it was the other way around? Although Star Trek has made its use of artistic licence (Heisenburg Compensators :eek: ) most of it is based around actual scientific theory. Note THEORY, nothings been actually made but in theory its mostly plausible. Star Wars' technology was TOTALLY made up just to fit the storyline at that given situation. All you SW fans have just turned it into a cult following. How on earth does a light sabre work?

Be cool if they did though.... FWOOM!

Nah, Star Trek all the way for me. SW is good for a 2 hour movie, but the sheer lasting effect of 35'ish years worth of pure Trek sets a much more plausible scene.

Star Wars doesn't acknowledge that stupid teleporter which seems to be REAL science fiction. Star Wars with its continuing series in books has a larger universe with many more alien species with a more interesting story to boot. Go Star Wars! :cool:

Ok, Star Wars is way cooler than Star Trek. Just wanted to get that said right away. Not that Star Trek is bad, I liked the movies, but I just think that Star Wars is better. Now, I haven't seen that many episodes of any Star Trek series, but can somebody answer this question: Has there ever been huge ground battles and huge space battles going on at the same time in Trek? I don't think there have been. I don't think that there have been any huge ground battles in Star Trek period. I'm not saying that detracts from Trek's value, but the Star Wars movies are more rounded, having a lot of both space battles and ground battles and usually at the same time. Plus, the Jedi just plain kick ass.

Star Trek, because it's more realistic (in an imperialistic post-modern fashion, that is) and because it has evolved continuously for almost half a century (as such, it's almost an "actual" universe).

The realism can be debated, but I shall give one example. For instance, the transport system (you know, "beam me up" and such) seems far reached. It is, at the moment, and especially when it was first conceived. You see, in physics there is something called "Heisenberg's rule" that states that you cannot know both speed and place of particles at the same time - which would make it quite impossible to "beam" anything anywhere, since you would have to perfectly register all particles of the objects you would want to beam. So, what did the Trek-writers do? They incorporated a system called "Heisenberg compensators" (something Geordi Laforge mentions being broken each time someone is caught in the buffer, and such). See? It's as simple as that. They didn't find an actual solution, but recognized the scientific difficulty and incorporated it in the Star Trek universe.

Also: Star Wars is an imaginative past. Star Trek is a presumption of a possible future - the "what if" factor makes it highly enjoyable.

Yeh cant bad mouth the jedi :)

It was annoying in Trek where at the last show of a season, you see this HUGE fleet moving to fight a battle that you know would be cool, and then in the first of the next season you just see the twisted wrecks of the battle. SHOW US THE BLOODY FIGHT!!

True SW has around 280 planets, with only 48 appearing in ST, but most of them in SW play little if NO part in the story. And about the battle scenes, graphics isnt everything. Too many films nowadays think they can just spend a few billion on SFX and hide the fact that they have no story. SW may have a few good scenes (VERY good i must say...), but ST has had over 18 different wars in its lifetime.

And SW only has one real story. ST has had 5 different settings and 703 different (but related) stories so far. And counting.

Hey i love Star Wars, but just going from the numbers, Trek wins (for me) hands down

The debate between Star Wars and Star Trek is actually quite similar to the debate between liberals and conservatives. Basically, in its simplest form, it is thinking versus feeling. One series is loved for its realism, the complexity in thought it provokes and the plausibility of potential future tech yet to come. The other is loved by its fans for the emotional and “feel good” feelings it inspires in them, along with the eye candy. Thinking versus Feeling. If you are unable to tell which franchise relates to which analogy, than you are part of the “feeling” crowd. ;)

I was reading a report from a convention years ago, and someone asked Michael Okuda how "Heisenburg Compensators" worked. His answer was "very well thank you!" Classic.

EDIT Nice point Free State!

Nice point Free State!

I think it's a wild generalisation. I'm a very emotional person, and I still like Trek more.

I think it's a wild generalisation. I'm a very emotional person, and I still like Trek more.

Trek has been on TV for a while so it is reasonable people would be suckered into liking it more than Star Wars which along with movies only has books to continue the story. I know how hard it is for people to read a book so TV can be easier to watch an inferior story but... it's TV right? The Admiral Thrawn trilogy is an excellent series that I hope any Star Wars fan would have read. Much better than anything Trek!

Dont be afraid to explore wild generalisations. People too often dismiss them without thinking that sometimes sterotypes start for a good reason :p

Haha if were opening this up to other series then i'd like to change my vote to Stargate! Or probably Sharpe, or even the Flashman books.

I thought Star Wars main media was moving picture, as well as Star Trek? ST also has a myriad of books to continue its story....

Trek has been on TV for a while so it is reasonable people would be suckered into liking it more than Star Wars which along with movies only has books to continue the story. I know how hard it is for people to read a book so TV can be easier to watch an inferior story but... it's TV right? The Admiral Thrawn trilogy is an excellent series that I hope any Star Wars fan would have read. Much better than anything Trek!

I loved the Thrawn Trilogy. I also loved the Thrawn Dualogy too! :D

And Sel Appa, i thought it was the other way around? Although Star Trek has made its use of artistic licence (Heisenburg Compensators :eek: ) most of it is based around actual scientific theory. Note THEORY, nothings been actually made but in theory its mostly plausible.

No. In fact, one of the few technologies that is any way plausible is the ship's computer, and even parts of that throw plausibility to the wind.

Star Wars' technology was TOTALLY made up just to fit the storyline at that given situation. All you SW fans have just turned it into a cult following. How on earth does a light sabre work?

Be cool if they did though.... FWOOM!

The difference is that SW never tries to make anyone think it is in any way plausible (though some of the explanations for certain things I've seen certainly do make a ton more sense in physics than the crap ST throws around)

Wait - Strongbad-land, you're saying that Star Wars makes up the use of technology more than Star Trek?

Haha - good one

The problem with Trek is that any random piece of technology is reconfigured to suit the plot of the day, and to save the ship, crew, Data's cat Spot, or Picard's Lionfish from an (un)timely demise.

At least in Wars they are consistent.

My vote goes to Star Trek, TOS, TNG and DS9. Voyager and Enterprise were crap.

But I also enjoyed watching Star Wars. Especially the last movie. One thing doesn't fit though: a guy delivers the whole known universe into the hands of a Sith Lord, just so some stupid girl (ok, the mother of his children, but still) could be saved? And fails to... How does somebody like that become, and stay, a Jedi? Weren't they supposed to cut emotional ties to objects and people? Yoda said something like: "Don't mourn the dead but accept that they are one with the Force." I mean, somebody must have noticed in all those years that Anakin was an emotional trainwreck who could place the life of one person above that of millions? If he was that close to Anakin, Obi Wan should have noticed he could not handle situations like that. Yet they did not kick him out of the Order...

But yeah, they had to make it fit because it was a prequel to A New Hope...