'Star Trek' vs. 'Star Wars:' The ultimate showdown
December 29th, 2011
05:53 PM ET

'Star Trek' vs. 'Star Wars:' The ultimate showdown

No look back at the year in nerd culture can be complete without one of the most interesting developments in quite some time for fans of "Star Wars" and "Star Trek."

William Shatner took to his YouTube channel in September to declare, once and for all (reminiscent of the movie "Fanboys"), that "Star Trek" is superior to "Star Wars." In the midst of that, he took a few shots at Carrie Fisher (who appeared at Dragon*Con at the same time he did a few weeks earlier).

Fisher defended "Star Wars," and Shatner did not go unscathed either. "Shat" had a retort to Fisher, as well. George Takei, meanwhile, urged peace between the "Star-people," since they have a common enemy: "Twilight."

This debate for the ages inspired us to settle it once and for all, with you, dear Geek Out readers, as the judges. Meet "Team 'Star Trek": Michael Saba and Ashley Strickland. And "Team 'Star Wars": Topher Kohan and Nikki Rau-Baker.

Without further ado, we commence the ultimate battle!

Ashley Strickland begins, with the logic of Spock, describing what makes "Star Trek" special ...

It’s hard not to love "Star Trek" - intellectually fascinating, overflowing with characters with whom you can relate and fanning out in numerous directions of intriguing moral dilemmas while preserving a utopian integrity.

"Star Trek" paved the way for sci-fi and fantasy to be taken seriously. Unlike other sci-fi, it was not motivated by militaristic war until "Deep Space Nine," which even then poses questions about the duality of terrorism versus freedom fighters. Roddenberry introduced space as a final frontier that needed to be explored by a diverse but unified group of aliens and humans. Curiosity, rather than control, is their mission. Their utopian society is accepting, encouraging and peaceful, to a point. The members of the Starship Enterprise reflect personal struggles of moral justice, often helping one another to discover the best possible solution. It is sci-fi at its best, laying the groundwork for movies such as "Star Wars" to even exist (although SW is sophomoric at most in comparison).

"Star Trek" is driven by characters, rather than flashy weapons and fight scenes. They are engaging, endearing and lack perfection - their flaws make them likable.

From the incomparable captains, like brash Kirk, calculating Picard and the fearless Janeway, to the crews that keep those same captains in check, "Star Trek" never focuses solely on one person, rather how those people exist around one another. Spock, Scotty, Bones, Uhura, Chekov and Sulu could never be confused as foils for Kirk - they stand on their own, empowered, while accentuating Kirk’s character.

Picard’s leadership alone is worthy of intense admiration, but he also succeeds because of the myriad individuals that comprise his crew. We are exposed to all sides of the "Star Trek" characters, and they each have a deliciously long time to develop, so they become woven into our lives - a part of the family.

"Star Trek" brings together the most diverse of races and ideas and has them functioning on one spaceship. It is the fine juxtaposition of camaraderie and conflict that keeps Star Trek’s many incarnations so intriguingly convivial.

Nikki Rau-Baker calls upon her Jedi powers to make the case for "Star Wars"...

On Halloween of 1978, I donned my homemade R2-D2 costume, and that was the beginning of my fascination with "Star Wars."

Being a child of the '70s, "Star Wars" left an indelible mark on my life. Space pirates, lightsabers and the dreamy Luke Skywalker drew me in. But it’s the life lessons that kept me hooked. The choices that we make now affect not only our generation, but the generation we leave behind.

"Star Wars" brings us the future but with the gritty realism of the everyday struggles we all face. There isn’t an idealized version of the future that "Star Trek" tries to portray where people live in a perfect society with self-cleaning clothes and androids who can play the violin. The heroes do what they can to help each other

There are some who say that "Star Trek" has more social commentary. I would argue with that. In fact, through the Jedi Order we learn about tolerance, compassion and understanding in a chaotic world. Master Yoda and Obi-Wan teach us about sacrifice for the greater good.

The world of "Star Wars" delves deep into the spiritual realm with the Force. It teaches us to recognize that everyone, no matter how far gone they may seem, still have a chance at redemption and that is a story worth it’s weight in gold-pressed latinum.

Michael Saba fires the first photon torpedo at "Star Wars"...

After seeing "Star Wars" for the first time, my brother and I spent an entire month running up and down the hallways of our house, imagining that we were Han and Chewie scrambling through the narrow corridors of the Millennium Falcon. I wanted to live in that universe, but that was because I was a child.

When you take a look at other kinds of sci-fi and genre fiction, you inevitably realize just how simplistic the "Star Wars" take on the military-themed space opera was. It’s about on par with a pulpy daytime soap, dripping with a Manichean, good-versus-evil philosophy where the show’s secular (Empire vs. Rebellion) and spiritual (Sith vs. Jedi) realms square off with all the subtlety and charm of Rock-'Em-Sock-'Em Robots.

Once you’ve seen the original series "Star Trek" episode "The City on the Edge of Forever," there’s no going back. Loosely based on the titular classic Harlan Ellison novel, it was a stark and brutal commentary on the Vietnam War, drug use, peace activism and how good intentions are often the surest path to hell.

It’s illustrative of the biggest difference between the two franchises: You can change the name of the characters, locations or even the films themselves in the "Star Wars" series, and it’ll still be a modestly goofy and outsized take on the hero’s journey monomyth. With Jawas and Ewoks.

"Star Trek" gave us something different: An idealistic vision of what a multicultural (and multispecies) future utopia could look like, and what this speculation tells us about the here and now. It’s science fiction as social commentary in the grand tradition of Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Heinlein.

"Star Wars" gave us lasers, lightsabers, and action figures – in other words, science-fantasy. Maybe Harrison Ford said it best after reading a script for "A New Hope," dense with unpronounceable jargon and fantastical characters: “George, you can type this s-, but you sure as hell can’t say it.”

Topher Kohan "Strikes Back"...

Really? You believe for one second that all "Star Wars" gave us is “science fantasy?" Wow, I would never want to see what you thought Einstein gave us. Yeah, I just did that: I compared "Star Wars" to Albert Einstein, he gave us the theory of relativity. If you ask me, that is as much “science fantasy” as anything you see in "Star Wars."

Do you believe that "Star Trek" is not military-themed? How about "Deep Space Nine" or the neutral zone. It has as many oh-my-God-we-are-about-to-be-attacked episodes as any sci-fi show on the air. Ever. Now I will give you that if you look at the "Star Trek" universe as a whole, there is a big story arc, more so than in the six "Star Wars" movies. But that is only because they let anyone write for "Star Trek."

Strickland unleashes her Vulcan death grip on "Team 'Star Wars' "...

"Star Trek" may not have “the Force,” but that’s because it didn’t need a vehicle with a name motivating it forward. Acceptance is widespread, not something that is shared amongst a few robed figures. All of the characters have a chance at redemption, and the captains and their crews offer these chances to friend and foe alike.

"Star Wars" and "Star Trek" portray two separate futures. Gene Roddenberry envisioned a future that one would hope isn’t idealized in its themes of equality and acceptance, even if it is clean and imaginative in other aspects. But let’s not forget, "Star Wars" includes droid armies in our future. A society that creates machines that can mindlessly kill others bears no equality or acceptance.

Things are black and white, or blue and red rather, in "Star Wars." You’re good or bad, and you can’t take the middle road. Moral complexity is what creates a society of acceptance in "Star Trek." The gray areas, the flaws and our inherent diversity from each other is, in fact, uniting.

"Star Trek," in many ways, has and continues to inspire our future, and not just in a societal way. The tablets, communicators and other devices used in "Star Trek" inspired the social media and technology we use today. Children that watched this show did more than wear a costume each Halloween or fight with plastic lightsabers in the backyard – they took it a step further and invented prototypes for devices that would shape and change the way we live.

While "Star Trek" is not as strictly militaristic as "Star Wars," it does include thematic elements, battle scenes and decisive foes – no sci-fi series of this caliber would do well without it. But it is not the main focus, unless, as I alluded earlier, you include "Deep Space Nine." The action in "Star Trek" instantly captivates, but the philosophy of it remains with you longest.

The story still continues for "Star Trek," and not just “anyone” can write for this ever-evolving franchise. Roddenberry’s creative team shapes and evolves like any writing team, adjusting when there are conflicts and taking the story where it needs to go. Captain Kirk can’t guide the Enterprise through space alone – he needs his crew. And "Star Trek" was never just Roddenberry’s property. As Nichelle Nichols personally told me, it was the writing and production team as a whole that produced what millions still love today. It doesn’t rely on an animated series to keep it going or capture young viewers – "Star Trek’s" movies and TV series are good enough to do that on their own.

Kohan executes Order 66 to terminate "Team 'Star Trek' "...

Well, I would argue that today, there is a larger audience for "Star Wars" because of the animated series and if the "Star Trek" audience is based on movies, well …  SW ranks as one of the highest grossing movies of all times and one of the greatest movie trilogies of all time.

I would rather have a "Clone Wars" on TV than the show "Enterprise." If that is what “Roddenberry’s creative team” is creating, then all Trek fans should be bowing at the feet of J.J. Abrams for saving your franchise from utter destruction.

In the world of good sci-fi movies, there is no conversation. The original "Star Wars" trilogy rules supreme. If you add in the TV shows, and you have to if you are talking about "Trek," then I put the three prequel SW movies up against the last three "Trek" series all day long, and again SW will be king!

The Force will always be with us, but we will not always live long and prosper!

Rau-Baker finds "Team 'Star Trek's'" lack of faith in "Star Wars" disturbing...

Maybe if "Star Trek" had the Force, they could more effectively defend themselves against the random tragedies that seem to beset them. The wormholes, cosmic dust waves, giant blobs of oil and angry rocks are just a few of the things that could be tamed with the Force.

On the topic of machines that kill, let’s take a look at the Borg. They fly around in their giant metal cube assimilating species and even take the beloved “I’m-from-France-but-speak-with-an-English-accent” Captain Picard into their collective. But they are not mindless; instead they have a hive mind where diversity is frowned upon.

Things in the "Star Wars" universe are not always black and white (or blue and red as has been said). Characters struggle with moral dilemmas just like anyone else. When Obi-Wan duels with Anakin, it’s not something as simple as “he is going to be bad, so I have to kill him." During the duel, Obi-Wan even says “You were my brother, Anakin. I loved you.” That right there shows the humanity that exists in "Star Wars."

"Star Trek" may have inspired some tech, but "Star Wars" has spawned an entire religious movement. The Jedi Church has become a widely recognized and accepted form of religious expression with some people listing the religion on their census forms. I’m not saying that I will go out and start wearing a cloak and carrying a lightsaber to work, but it is pretty interesting that the philosophy of "Star Wars" has inspired people to follow the Jedi code.

Just as the story continues for "Star Trek," so it does for "Star Wars." With the films, the books and video games, the world of "Star Wars" is ever growing and continues to offer the fans new material to enjoy.

Shields up, Strickland prepares to engage to warp speed, but not before one last volley...

George Lucas has said that he was writing "Star Wars" during the heyday of "Star Trek’s" syndication. He watched the show and even attended "Trek" conventions. “ 'Star Trek' expanded your mind in terms of what was possible,” he said. “The story is what makes it work.”

Simply, without "Star Trek," you wouldn’t have "Star Wars." "Star Trek’s" foundation and philosophy has and continues to give us “infinite diversity in infinite combinations.” It inspired the science fiction and fantasy that has come after its pioneering days on television in the 1960s, boldly going where no one had ever thought possible and paving the way for future stories.

You’re welcome, George.

Kohan prepares the Death Star to fire at "Team 'Star Trek'"...

You are 100% correct in that "Trek" might have inspired Lucas to move his tale to the stars, but to say without "Trek," there would be no "Star Wars" is like saying, with no Ford, we would not have cars.

Lucas took a timeless story, and put it in a universe that is ever-growing and expanding. All the time, exploring new corners of it, be it his or Her Universe.

I am glad we have both for fans to watch and pick what they like to see, and for me, and all fans of good storytelling, that pick is and will always be "Star Wars."

May the Force be with you.

Who won this battle royale? Let us know in the comments!

soundoff (916 Responses)
  1. HWAV-DS9

    in the text it says star wars created a religion but rememer this. Star Trek created languages like klingon or vulcan and in the end you have to pick religion or language i know what i would chose and the main reason for that is we know there is no jedi religion after life but with language u know how to speak it and its is something very cool thing to impress your friends and prove it but with the religion you can just say you belive it withno proff so in the end i say live long and prosper

    July 10, 2013 at 10:10 pm |
  2. tmendez

    I know both are still fantasy, but I still look at the scientific theory behind the technology. I'm still wondering how a light-saber emits a powerful beam of energy that somehow stops itself after traveling a short distance from it's source. Although star wars is very entertaining, to me it's no more than a good action story. Knights, a princess, almost like reading a take of King Arthur. Star Trek, much more believable, much more organized, and much more depth as far as the themes covered in the shows and movies.

    Basically, it's comparing comic books to best seller novels. Comic books can be entertaining, but no where near the novel.

    July 2, 2013 at 7:01 pm |
  3. TD23

    All you guys talking about who would win in a fight is stupid. Star Trek takes place in the future, while Star Wars takes place "a long time ago." Star Wars would have be much more advanced by the time it caught up to Star Trek.

    Also, if pre episode iv Star Wars fought Star Trek, Star Trek would lose, because The Empire could just use Starkiller and he would just smash the enterprise with the force.

    June 27, 2013 at 11:28 pm |
  4. 48GOAT

    Star Wars has an evil empire full of mindless soldiers that get Force-choked by their own superior for making a bad call. Their motto is 'The Dark Side is more powerful; Join us and we'll rule the galaxy.' There is supposed to be some balance in the Force, but we generally see that the bad guys have an over-abundance of resources, and Rebel forces can barely scrounge up a couple dozen fighters. I have no idea what they're doing in their 'Expanded Universe' but from what's presented, the quick and easy path to Evil proves far more rewarding.

    Star Trek is generally not about conflict whether you accept this or not. It's about exploration, meeting new cultures that may be receptive of your visit, want you to get lost, use you as a pawn in their own conflicts, or maybe capture you and take your technology. But their goal is exploring, learning, and helping those in need. It's a far more adult look at humanity and interaction. Along the way, viewers get to question their own morals based on the situations presented.

    In a question of which is stronger, the galaxy with the best resources is the one with the most versatility. Star Wars is based in fantasy: The Force magic, and a realm of hyperspace that allows faster than light travel, and hypermatter which is basically an endless source of energy, with which they make enormous super strong ships, weapons, and shields. Star Trek is based more in reality, using physics and science theory to develop and modify, always creating, expanding and evolving technolgy to even include time travel. While Star Wars relies on tactics of bullying through bigger, stronger, and greater numbers, Star Trek relies on the power of the mind to assess situations and use the most efficient means of accomplishing the task.
    Unfortunately for Star Wars, battles take place in normal space where Star Trek ships are very quick, very nimble, and able to escape harm for as long as necessary. The Empire simply cannot destroy what they can't catch, but what they CAN do is follow Star Trek ships around long enough for someone to observe a weakness and exploit it. If this proves unsuccessful for longer than we're willing to endure, just get the temporal weapons active and cut through the nonsense. Or have USS Relativity pull Palpatine himself off whatever ship he's hiding on and purge the transport buffer rather than re-materialize him. Star Wars may have powerful weapons but they'd be scared back to their galaxy by the variety of quantum mechanics technology in Star Trek.

    June 22, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
    • TD23

      If you compare the technology the way you do, I say Star Wars wins, because Star Wars takes place "a long time ago" whereas Star Trek is in the future, so the Star Wars technology will be far more advanced.

      June 27, 2013 at 11:12 pm |
      • tmendez

        Very silly to just assume star wars would advance even more. Why even bring that up? We are comparing the two as we know them, not as they could be in fantasy time frames? How do we know star wars didn't blow themselves up and started against as bacteria before reaching star trek time? Strange concept.

        July 2, 2013 at 6:51 pm |
  5. Ke

    Let's see how long this discussion goes with JJ Abrams directing both Franchises. Star Trek and Star Wars directed by one man.
    I like both SW and ST and each is good on their own.

    May 24, 2013 at 5:13 am |
  6. Beauhooligan

    I love both series. I am not caught in this never ending "which is better" conundrum. I don't waste my time dissecting the two to make one or the other look like less. That is a waste of time that I can fill nicely but watching more and equally amazing series/films. I would put a stop to the constant comparisons and bickering, and suggest that people watch the films, enjoy them as stand alone events. Some things need to be kept separate from each other to reduce constant criticism. I prefer Trek to a degree, but still love the original Star Wars trilogy. I think the Star Wars prequels were a step backwards for that genre. I hope the promised Star Wars films are better than the prequels. My 2 cents. ;-)

    May 22, 2013 at 8:03 am |
    • BJKz

      Oh come on! The Star Wars Prequels were fun. I agree that they are not as good as the Original Trilogy, but they brought in some great inclusions into the saga. The Effects were good, the overall story was good (though how it was executed was often choppy), what the Jedi Order was is great. I also agree that they do have some bad inclusions into the saga (Jar-Jar Binks, Midichloreans, the Anakin-Padme Romance), but saying they are outright bad movies has no logic in it. I can understand why people hate Episodes 1&2, but Episode 3 was just Awesome. Besides, there are many Star Wars Fans, including myself, who enjoy both the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy. I am looking forward to the upcoming Sequel Trilogy though, and I pray that J.J. Abrams does a good job (I bet he will).
      Anyway, I prefer Star Wars over Star Trek, but I do appreciate how Star Trek influenced Science Fiction and Pop Culture today.

      June 21, 2013 at 10:38 pm |
  7. Oli

    Star Wars or Star Trek? Its easy, SW was the little guy vs Government, ST was the government vs the little guy!
    SW was all about individualism, about having faith in yourself, where ST was about rules and procedures and being a small cog in a very big wheel.
    In the cold light of day, Star Wars is your traditional old school conservative, pushing to provide for their family in a self sustained kind of way and everyone is live and let live, as long as you keep your head down! Star Trek is a socialist ideal where everyone is the same, and follows the same rules – ironically, the greatest enemy in their universe is the Borg, a great twist on communism!

    The best part though is how both these stories have made a whole generation avoid the real world! :)

    May 20, 2013 at 11:48 am |
  8. Rick Wired & Ben Dover

    Star Trek is for adults while Star Wars is for kids. It's that simple. Star Wars is a cheezy fantasy world with weird hero costumes (kind of like Batman) while Star Trek presents a more realistic futuristic scenario the charms of various personalities, from the hot "Counselor", to Captain Picard's leadership, to the coolest of them all – "Data".

    May 18, 2013 at 7:14 pm |
  9. Redjon

    http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html

    thats about all i have to say.

    May 18, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
    • 48GOAT

      stardestroyer site is a biased SW fanboy site and the fact you reference it shows a lack of creativity and credibility. It's a site for the mindless followers who can't think for them self.

      June 22, 2013 at 5:33 pm |
  10. Marc

    Star Wars is definitely the more exotic universe, and they're technology was unfreakenbelievably cool, especially in 1977, they wouldn't stand a chance against the Star Trek universe in a battle. First off, nothing in Star Wars ever seemed to work right. everything always seemed to need fixing or bangin to get it started. Secondly, Star Wars technology was built with some awful design flaws. Why exactly does the bridge of the star destroyer need a glass window and a view on top? and why put the bridge shield generator on the top of the ship too, and not give that sheilds? and the Death Star's poop shoot? that thing was BEGGIN' to get blown up. But star trek, they got shields up the wazoo. Cloaking devices, and they're stuff never seems to break down. the enterprise has crash landed on planets and travelled through time. Darth Vader would be a black stain on Captain Kirks boot.

    May 17, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
  11. The Truth

    Logically looking at both through the words of the creators would be acceptable to both Vulcans and Jedis so lets begin. Lucas always claimed that Star Wars was fantasy in space and often compared the characters to typical fantasy types like the hero, princess in distress, wizard etc. So Star Wars is logically developed for escapism and entertainment. Roddenberry has always stated Star Trek had a two prong approach. First was hope in the future by showing the Enterprise and Federation as a socially evolved utopia compared to modern day. Second was to use the show as social commentary for modern issues. So Star Trek was more for hope and social change.

    For who would when in a fight, it all depends on the scenerio. Both are highly advanced technologically and both have the means of destroying each others ships and infastructure. I would have to give a general edge to Star Trek. Star Wars characters tend to have two tactics fight and flee. Star Trek characters will use those two but also look at all other alternatives as well. Also an entire legion of the Emperor's best troops were routed by a stone age race of teddy bears, so it has that against them.

    May 17, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
  12. curtegg

    I enjoyed both ST and SW. However, my heart goes to other series, SG1 and B5 (way better than Galactica). SG-1 was really interesting because it showed an unprepared humanity reaction to technically superior civilizations (both good and bad). B5 because the whole series was premised on the fact that two superior races basically used the civilization pool of their galaxy has a chessboard to determine which of their ideologies was correct.

    May 17, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
  13. Liz

    In response to the thread about Star Trek being an influence on Star Wars and without Star Trek there would be no Star Wars is a complete error. First of all, George Lucas wrote Star Wars based upon the serials (12 to 15 part shorts that showed before the main feature during a Saturday Matinee in the early days of cinema), which would mean more inspiration from the likes of Flash Gordon. In addition, the force concept was a mixture of his Methodist background, Greek mythology, and the growing influence of eastern religions during that time period.

    May 16, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
  14. jerry

    Lets face if there had been no Trek, Star Wars may not have been, and how much of Trek did influence Lucas, and did he not get the script from some one else,
    Both suffer same issues out of 6 Star Wars movies only 2 were good what is now Star Wars 4 and 5 EMpire Strikes Back. Trek has had maybe 3 that were good possible 4 out of what 10 Wrath of Kahn, the 4th one I think name was Voyage Home, the Next Gen one where they go back in time fighting the borg, and the reboot.
    But to be fair Wrath of Kahn and the reboot are the best 2.

    May 16, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
  15. Jane Smith

    It seems the main factor in a fight between Star Wars and Star Trek will be speed of travel. I am assuming that both Star Wars and Star Trek would each be able to destroy the other's ships in a space battle.

    With hyperdrive and the ability to travel almost without any time loss between any points in space the Star Wars clan has the upper hand. They merely have to produce a large fleet and keep it blobbed in a few areas. If a Star Wars planet or fleet gets into a fire fight they merely send scouts to the blobs of fleet and tell them where to go and an over whelming Star Wars fleet destroys the Star Trek fleet.

    Same for defending planets the Star Wars fleet merely has to see the approaching Star Trek fleet which they can see coming a mile away and arrange for over whelming fleet to meet them in transit. Cloaking would help but the Federation does not have it.

    The clear winner will be Star Wars because of it's much much faster travel time.

    Star Wars can punch a Death Star into a Star Trek base power it up before the Star Trek fleet can get thru the Star Wars fleet protecting the Death Star. Then blast the base and be at the next target before you can say Scotty Beam me up.

    The only way that Star Trek could keep up with this mobile fire power would be to develope a transporter able to transport a whole fleet any where in the galaxy. A tech they do not have.

    May 16, 2013 at 11:19 am |
    • Raife

      That conclusion is false. Time does pass while in hyperspace in Star Wars Universe. Why do you think they show Luke having time to work on all this training with Obi Wan aboard the Falcon while they're enroute to another planet. It's not instantaneous at all. Not to mention, look how slow the Death Star is... In the midst of a massive conflict they had to wait ages for it to just come around a planet so it could destroy Leia's homeworld. Plenty of time for things to happen – otherwise when the rebel fleet attacked the Death Star it could have just moved out of the way "instantly" and just kept jumping place to place so the rebel fleet could never knock it out. Sorry, but you're assumption is just wrong.

      May 22, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
  16. Jesus H. Valladolid

    What about Doctor Who? The Doctor could rewrite history and eliminate both worlds if he wanted to.

    May 16, 2013 at 6:54 am |
    • willard43

      Two different genres: Star Trek is Science Fiction while Star Wars is Fantasy (albeit with a sci-fi twist). Hear me out on this:,Star Wars has all the hallmarks of a fantasy story: A reluctant hero, on a quest, guided by a wise old sage (wizard), with a magical element (the Force, though they tried to explain that away with "mitaclorians" or whatever in the horrible prequels), taking place in a "galaxy far far away." While their are humans in Star Wars, they are not Earthlings. Star Trek has a tangible connection to Earth. It may be the Earth of the future, but it is the story of us, guided by Science and Humanity. Star Trek, however fanciful, has a basis in real physics and a foot in our world. I like both, but it's like the Beatles and Rolling Stones question, and I have to go with Star Trek as just a smidge more than Star Wars. Love em both though.

      May 16, 2013 at 9:01 am |
  17. John

    When I think of Star Wars, I think of Medieval fantasy stories, knights and dragons. And I like it.
    When I think about Star Trek I think of modern day sci-fi and (a little bit of) fantasy, and I enjoy it. (Especially Voyager!)
    The two aren't really comparable and both are enjoyable. I think Star Trek is quite family friendly and I grew up on TNG. In fact if my ideal view of us flying around the galaxy and how we conduct ourselves would be based on that. Unfortunately I feel reality will most probably be between the two and (hopefully, for a while in this solar system) somewhere between Cowboy Beebop and Firefly. : )

    Oh and don't forget Farscape!!! That was a damn cool show too.

    May 16, 2013 at 3:22 am |
  18. miscreantsall

    I love both for different reasons.

    Star Wars is designed for and geared to family and children. It has some great and wonderful "things" and some silly and childish stuff. There are some serious moments with lots of fantasy land fairy story flavorings interspersed.

    Star Trek is more serious and more adult. The social commentary is more direct and more often. I believe the "science" behind Star Trek is more sound and realistic.

    My vote goes to Star Trek and all of its incarnations.
    :-)

    May 16, 2013 at 2:31 am |
  19. Mike

    Uh, Star Trek actually is driven by Conquest. The Federation merely uses non-militaristic means in most cases, resorting to force only when the heathens refuse to convert peacefully of their own accord. The Federation is actually a form of religion or religious philosophy that uses the presence of it's "ideals" as excuse for invasion. It makes a great many promises it refuses to keep because the promises were unrealistic. Eventually, even the Borg will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Star Trek is written around a central premise that humans will conquer all of the galaxy and all of history with their deluded feel-good self-contradicting quasi-moralistic nonsense.

    May 16, 2013 at 2:05 am |
    • peridot2

      The Prime Directive is meaningless to you, isn't it?

      May 21, 2013 at 7:57 pm |
    • Bennett

      Oh Mike...that is patently false and you know it. The Federation has turned down numerous planets for various reasons (see ST: TNG episodes "First Contact", "The Hunted" and "Attached"). They are far from a "conquer them with peace" regime.

      July 4, 2013 at 11:37 am |
    • gene

      Spoken like a true Romulan.

      July 5, 2013 at 8:13 am |
  20. Scott

    Star Wars hands down!!!!!

    May 15, 2013 at 10:38 pm |
  21. Chauncey Einfeldt

    The general meaning of ethics: rational, optimal (regarded as the best solution of the given options) and appropriate decision brought on the basis of common sense. This does not exclude the possibility of destruction if it is necessary and if it does not take place as the result of intentional malice...-

    Over and out
    <http://www.prettygoddess.com/

    May 3, 2013 at 6:45 pm |
  22. click here

    What's up, it is understandable piece of writing along with this YouTube video; I can’t imagine that one can not understand this simple piece of writing having with video demo. click here http://www.hydro-pumps.co.uk/index.php?/member/4605/

    February 28, 2013 at 6:09 am |
  23. internet

    This article is pleasant and fruitful designed for all new PHP related web programmers; they have to read it and perform the practice. internet http://lkfs.com.au/member/21159

    February 28, 2013 at 6:09 am |
  24. robienie stron

    Some people are eager to watch comical video clips, but I like to watch terrible video clips on YouTube. robienie stron http://www.iannfriedman.com/?/member/11560/

    February 28, 2013 at 6:04 am |
  25. strony internetowe

    There is also one more method to increase traffic in support of your webpage that is link exchange, so you also try it strony internetowe http://www.goingforgolf.com/member/60288/

    February 28, 2013 at 5:32 am |
  26. ohsnap

    When I think of Star Wars, I think of fantasy, cartoons. Good bad a s s, 'kick down the door we're coming in' fun (think the Darth Vader theme). But Star Trek is just more intellectual, more lofty. And Star Trek spurred on scientific studies and inventions to this day. Things that we use everyday. Look at the hand-held communicators, the color-coded instrument boards. About 5 years ago there was an article in the NYT about how scientists successfully tested a VERY BASIC 'beaming up' procedure. And here's another Star Trek item that has got scientist excited: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/real-life-tractor-beam_n_1546482.html. That's why people at NASA were big fans when Star Trek first aired. Star Wars is good entertainment but Star Trek is the real deal.

    January 30, 2013 at 8:33 pm |
  27. Jason

    First off id like to say its been very interesting reading all the posts, and seeing all the various opinions and ideas on this topic. Long live sci-fi and the ongoing debates it spawns! As for picking one or the other, if i had to pick, im going with Star Trek. Dont get me wrong i am also a fan of Star Wars, i think lightsabers are badass nomatter how unrealistic they may be, (i dont think even the borg would stand much of a chance against a saber wielding Darth Vader or any competent swordsman for that matter) just my opinion though. But then again if a vastly outnumbered rebel alliance can take down countless star destroyers and a death star or two, whats to say a few fedaration Star Ships couldnt do the same? Again just my opinion. Power Charts aside. Its tactics vs numbers in both universes. And something i've enjoyed thinking about since i became a fan of both. Ive always wondered what would happen if Capt. Kirk and the TOS Enterprise & Crew ended up in the SW episode 4,5,6 universe.. Best of Both universes in my opinion. (Can you imagine Kirk and Spock trying to reason with the Emperor and Vader?).. I guess that sums up my position on this.. Huge fan of both, both have cool similarities and cooler differences and both have inspired and entertained countless people. but for me there is just more to love about Star Trek..

    January 5, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
  28. Metastases au foie

    Tremendous things here. I'm very glad to see your post. Thanks so much and I'm taking a look ahead to touch you. Will you please drop me a e-mail?

    December 31, 2012 at 4:18 am |
  29. Sean

    I do not know if somone said this already but if you look at the laws of physics you will find that Star Trek though a long shot could theoreticaly happen. Star Wars on the other hand does not rely on science it relys on magic. ex.1 Star Trek relys on antimater created by ionizing lithium crystals then coliding the anti-particles with normal particles causing a complete removal of all matter turninig it inot pure energy. Star Wars relys on fusion reactors. A fusion reactor can only at the most remove one percent of the matter theirfore the eficiancy of a star trek reactor is 100x the eficiancy of a star wars reactor... this means that their is no way that the power outputs in star wars ships can be acurate. Secondly star trek propulsion relys on the bending of space time also known as warping space. To dispute star trek you need to dispute the whole of PHYSICS. now in star wars their is another universe within it that they trevel through. This does not work in modern physics now another thing is that star wars technology minus blasters and what I have aformentioned is very infrquently and poorly explained. If you look through star trek almost every single part is thoroughly explained.

    December 27, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
  30. nate

    Star wars takes place long long ago in a galaxy far far away. Not the future, get it right, dingus.

    December 15, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
  31. 1 Letter

    Q

    December 6, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
    • Pwned

      Vader would choke the sh!t out of Q!!

      May 15, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
      • sam

        HAHAHAHAHA you're a silly person, Q could destroy Darth Vader quite literally an infinite number of times.

        May 20, 2013 at 5:51 pm |
  32. bbb

    My 6 year old loves Star Wars and can quote pages of dialogue while brandishing his light saber. He's have to get a lot more sophisticated to appreciate Star Trek. SW is for the masses; ST is for true geeks and thinkers.

    September 4, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
  33. Alex Grizzle

    Star trek, becuse everything was more than what it seems, Even The borg were occasionally portrayed with sympathy. Star Trek is also about hope, look Star wars gave us a way to destroy planets, Star Trek Gave a way to give a world Life (Even if the prototype was flawed) I think that right there sums up the Ideals of both series

    August 20, 2012 at 9:27 pm |
  34. Timsgil

    There is only one true way to settle this question. The way most things are settled in the U.S. The star Trek franchise has made around 6 billions dollars. The Star Wars franchise has made around 27 billion dollars. If you just take the box office gross. Star Trek's 10 movies has made almost 2 billion, while Star Wars' 6 films have made almost 6 billion. Star Wars is the clear winner. All the other arguments are completely based on opinion.

    August 15, 2012 at 6:56 am |
    • cardinal

      So... that which makes more money is better. Your statement is an opinion too, genius. According to you, opinions don't matter. Therefore, your post does not matter.

      October 3, 2012 at 3:09 am |
      • half-a-sandwich

        Does that mean your opinion does not matter either? Wait, then my opinion of your opinion is worthless, unless, wait – no. Oh brother, I just realized that I’ve just been wasting 1 minute of my life on this non-fact finding comment section. Well, back to my sandwich.

        May 16, 2013 at 8:55 am |
  35. The Venture Catalyst

    Thanks for that, and keep up the good work.

    May 5, 2012 at 2:23 am |
  36. pirater facebook|pirater|hack facebook

    I was recommended this web site via my cousin. I am not certain whether this submit is written through him as no one else realize such special about my difficulty. You're incredible! Thank you!

    April 18, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
  37. chad

    Star wars wins.

    The original trilogy of Star wars is better than any of the movies or episodes of Star Trek. The SW plot holds together, the aliens are more diverse and unique than ST, plus SW doesn't try to muddy up the waters by using "techno-babble" which makes viewers think they said something based on real science.

    When I watch Star Trek, I find myself cringing as much as I did when I saw Jar Jar Binks on screen. The writing is bad – there is no consistency. One episode the time space continuum will be screwed up just by saying what you are going to eat for dinner, the next episode you can destroy all of the Borg's worm hole networks with no consequence.

    Better acting, better writing, better characters, better special effects – Star Wars hands down.

    April 15, 2012 at 3:22 am |
  38. magic seo

    I do trust all of the ideas you've offered on your post. They're really convincing and can definitely work. Still, the posts are too short for beginners. May just you please lengthen them a little from next time? Thanks for the post.

    April 13, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
  39. gamekeys

    Thanks a lot for sharing this with all of us you actually recognize what you are talking about! Bookmarked. Kindly additionally discuss with my site =). We can have a link alternate agreement between us

    April 8, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
  40. Joe Camel

    This is stupid. Star Trek is the militaristic property – Starfleet is a navy for God's sakes. Star Wars is about a farmer, old robots, a thief, and his monster best friend – that's the human take. Arguing about this is absolutely ridiculous though. Star Wars is about nostalgia. Star Trek is about fantastic common ground for fringe types to share. Star Wars is for children. Star Trek is for children who can't make friends in middle school easily. See what they share?

    January 27, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • Phil

      Rod Serling's 'Twilight Zone' can be similiarly compared categoricly SciFi – wise as Star Trek: exploring the humanity here on earth or in the outer realms of space. I wish Rod didn't waste his time with the 'Night Gallery' route... but it did seem that those stories were along the same lines as TZ. In comparison, I think the SciFi authors Philip K. Dick ('Bladerunner') and Isaac Asimov were somewhere in between. I wish we could have Stephen Spilberg create a series of movies with the Star Trek vs Alien twist, to incorporate the mindworks of Serling, P.K. Dick, Asimov, etc.... We could use a new SciFi saga that applies actual technologies we have now and that which make reasonable sense of their potential future-developed states. Tragically, Star Wars (so story-book-like 'E.T.') is way too 'cartoonic' and even sub-(SciFi)intellectual to be included in the same discussion of the above....and don't let me not reference Robert A. Heinlein (the 'Dean of SciFi Writers')... unfortunately, movie-makers of today delve deep enough into the works of the SciFi writeres of our past and present to come up with any truely good SciFi flics... 'Live Long and Prosper'

      January 27, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
      • Phil

        ooops, meant to say, 'movie-makers of today DO NOT delve deep enough into the works of the SciFi writeres of our past...'

        January 27, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
      • Ronbo

        Good points. I think the new Battlestar Galactica is pretty close to what you're describing, Ron Moore (of ST:TNG) did a great job with it.

        January 27, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
  41. maida

    Hands down, it's Star Trek....all the way!!!! Nothing comes close!

    January 4, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
    • Mike in NYC

      Agreed. Star Trek all the way and I'll give you three words to explain why ..... Jar ... Jar .... Binks! lol

      January 20, 2012 at 10:28 am |
      • A

        two words: wesley crusher.

        March 21, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
      • Timsgil

        Like Jar Jar is any worse than Tribbles

        August 15, 2012 at 6:38 am |
      • ohsnap

        HEY...Tribbles can scare a Klingon. Can't say the same for Jar Jar.

        Lay off Tribbles.

        January 30, 2013 at 8:36 pm |
  42. John Harvey

    Interesting read. Star trek is closer to literature than Star Wars. Star Wars, on the other hand, is more entertainment. While both have very high entertainment goals, Trek at least attempts to show a world where humans have to act according to physical laws. Wars on the other hands resorts to magic.

    January 4, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • Justin

      Interesting you should bring that up. I'd argue that, in literary terms, Star Wars is analogous to an epic poem. It's the tale of a clearly defined hero central to a history or mythology of a culture/ nation, in this a galaxy. The films begin with the famous scrolling text which serves to give context and thematic overtures of what has happened and what is to come. Each film even begins in media res! Star Trek, however, could be compared to a saga, specifically the Icelandic Sagas. Instead of one, overarching story, Trek is composed of many, separate stories, often episodic. Some of the heroes from different tales have "cameos" in others. Instead of familial histories comprising the colonization and cross-pollination of cultural values to lands dangerously far away from the Scandinavian homelands, Trek entails humanity's exploration of the stars as well as the discovery and subsequent interaction with new, vastly different civilizations. DAMN forgive me for rambling too much guys. For the record, I like Wars, but I love Trek. IDIC

      February 3, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
      • Cabelos

        Very well said. I enjoyed your dissection at the literary level.

        February 3, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • Timsgil

      I guess you didn't see The Final Frontier

      August 15, 2012 at 6:40 am |
  43. bbk713

    Farscape beats them both without working up a sweat.

    January 4, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
    • Tberg

      Show me 6+ Farscape movies, and then we'll talk. Until then, get the F outa here. This is a ST and SW debate, Farscape didn't even make the cut.

      January 4, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
      • bbk713

        Sad. Your mind is so closed it's useless.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
      • Tberg

        Really?????? That's all you've got?...... My mind is open. We are having a Star Wars -vs- Star Trek debate, and you bring up Farscape, a fine show, but not Star Trek or Star Wars related. So stay on topic.

        January 5, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
      • dlt

        Tberg everything you say is pointless, stupid, baseless and rude I sure hope they ban start banning your comments.
        Btw Farscape is the bomb, but Star Trek all the way!!

        January 27, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
    • echologin

      A real SciFi fan likes them all, theres a lack of good scifi why bash on any of it.

      January 5, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
      • bbk713

        I love them all. Let's look at them from the prospective of evolution. The original Star Trek was cutting-edge and spawned a huge franchise that improved with time without rejecting the elementary principles of Gene Roddenberry. Outstanding. Star Wars told a different story for a different age, with a few tantalizing parallels between it and TNG. Using the big screen effectively, the original trilogy was just as outstanding as Trek, but in a different way, as its perspective differed. Even comparing Trek Films with Wars films, the storytelling was different, although some elements were similar. Farscape took advantage of expanding science and expanding storytelling technology to tell yet another story, even more brilliantly, in some respects. The reboot of Trek promises more along these lines. Cross your fingers. Unfortunately for Trek and Farscape, TV is an extremely fickle medium, run by marketing types, with to many hands in the pie. We can only hope that future storytellers find some independent, insightful backers, and take the next step in SciFi development.

        January 5, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
      • Tberg

        You started out pretty good, reallly..... but then you mentioned Farscape which is not a part of this debate. Stay on topic!

        January 5, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
      • bbk713

        Try expanding your mind.

        January 5, 2012 at 7:50 pm |
      • Tberg

        My mind is wide open. In fact, I liked Farscape. But let's face it, Farscape is nowhere near the scale of Star Trek or Star Wars, which is what this debate is about. It's not about Farscape. How many Farscape conventions have you gone to?

        I mean, even Jericho had a cult following and has had conventions where Joss Whedon actually attended. What about Farscape, any conventions where the create of the show actually attended.?

        January 5, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
      • bbk713

        Sorry, I forget that this is a geek site. You really take that to heart. Sad.

        January 5, 2012 at 7:52 pm |
      • Tberg

        What an idiot..... Realizes he's in the wrong section to comment on Farscape, and then insults me to take the focus off his damaged character.

        January 5, 2012 at 7:56 pm |
      • SciFiFan

        Right on Tberg!

        January 27, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
      • Cecilia

        Really, cnomig and being cute? Duh, FAIL.The last one? That was awesome.I'll come nanny, what is the weather there?

        February 1, 2012 at 1:54 am |
    • A

      I sense a disturbance in your logical processes. Both far outstrip farscape. no offense, but the topic is why this is here, so straying is illogical. may the force be with you so that u live long and prosper. :)

      March 21, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
  44. frank

    One thing Paramount has not done and if we really want to explore diversity, I think a star trek movie should be done with Uhura, SULU, Chevo as captains or at least their chilren as captain. Since they gave Janway a ship, Uhura should have been a captain.

    January 4, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Ronbo

      Not every officer becomes a captain. Why would a communications officer be particularly well suited to leadership?

      Sulu has been portrayed as a captain in one of the movies (I think it was STVI:Undiscovered Country). We've had a plethora of catpains of all both genders and all races in the tv series, including black women. There was an entire series with a black commander whose first officer was female. And that isn't enough diversity for you, because the communication officer didn't get her own ship?

      If you want to argue about diversity, the glaring omission is that there have been zero gay characters. It was contemplated for Enterprise (Reed IIRC), but dropped. In terms of captains, we've seen families on starships but not a married captain (except for Sisko, briefly).

      January 4, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
      • Cabelos

        Ronbo, I like your arguements. A gay captain could raise some interesting story lines. I think back to Janeway's pseudo-relationship with Chekote (sp?) and I can see where you could spin something that way. Is a tv audience ready for that?

        January 4, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
      • Ronbo

        Will and Grace had a gay character, two actually, and was a very successful show. Plus I think the Star Trek audience tends to be more forward thinking. Back in the 1960s the network was worried when they featured the first interracial kiss (between Kirk and Uhura, and even then it was under the plot twist that aliens were forcing them to do it). The network braced for complaints, but according to at least one book that I've read, they didn't receive any at all. Kind of gives you hope that this country is getting smarter.

        January 4, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
      • Tberg

        Let's not forget that many southern states refused to air Star Trek in the 60's because of the black female actress. So of course there were not complaints, it didn't air in the states that would have had complaints.

        January 4, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
      • Dee Neely

        Despite the lack of openly gay characters and lack of various family examples this is another area where Star Trek actually beats Star Wars.
        In Star Trek we had women characters in various important roles. They were scientist, engineers, star ship captains and others woven through the movies and multiple series.
        What roles to women have in Star Wars. They were princesses, ladies in waiting or slaves. There were no women on the Jedi council. There were no females in charge of any of the ships.

        January 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
      • Tberg

        Queen Amadila was the Ruler of Naboo, you idiot.... and later she was the Senator that represented Naboo. Wake up.

        However, I'm still voting for Star Trek!

        January 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
      • Ronbo

        So in Star Wars women can be leaders, if they inherit the job. Well, its good to be queen, but its better to be captain. :)

        January 4, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
      • Tberg

        Actually, Naboo actually elects their queen democratically, which is how Amadila went from being Queen to Senator. Once she did her term as Queen, she was then elected to the Senate.

        Look. If you're going to vote for ST or SW, that's fine. But don't try to justify your vote if you don't actually know the story! Idiot!

        January 4, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
      • Ronbo

        Did they actually state that in the movie? If so, I must have missed it, that's easy to do considering how godawful boring episodes 1-3 were. If it was in something else, like one of the bazillion Star Wars books, then in the words of that great Canadian poet/philosopher William Shatner, "Get a life!"

        January 4, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
      • Tberg

        They didn't talk about Amidala's election, but did say something about her successor's electoral win. And I only watched each movie only one time. I'm just smarter than you, and actually process everything that goes into my brain.

        And many of our most prominent Sci-Fi successes are either filmed in Canada, or their talent is tapped from Canada. So until you know all the facts, stay out of it.

        And since you are not actually a fan of either of these shows, you get a life, and stop trying to encroaching on ours.

        Good Day sir..... Now get the hell out of here!

        January 4, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
      • Ronbo

        When you're as handsome and charming as me, you don't need to be smart. Given your utter lack of charm or tact, you must indeed be a genius.

        As for Canadians, what a remarkable bunch. The actors are able to learn English so well you'd never know they're from the Arctic. Plus its such a lovely place, I had a great time working in Ottawa. We really should invade and take over, if only for the beer.

        January 4, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
      • Tberg

        Hmmmmm..... I'm rather good looking myself. Does it make you feel smarter hanging out in Canada?

        Being raised in Minnesota, I really love Canada, just can't handle their socialistic government, the likes of which Obama would like to duplicate down here. I think Obama should be forced to live in Canada for at least a year or two, then he'd learn a thing or two about the policies he's trying to shove down the throats of Congress and us tax paying Americans, not to mention the poor uneducated bunch of Americans that voted him into office in the first place. Shame on you "The Majority of Americans".

        January 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
      • Dee Neely

        Wow. You are complaining about a socialist government while trying to defend Star Wars. A setting where they take children from their parents to raise them for military, which is what the Jedi are, service.
        However, I can see where Star Wars would be a rallying call for the anti-socialist. Wealthy criminal syndicates – check. Slavery – check. Ruling class – check. Empire ruled by the powerful and rich – check. Misogynistic – check. I bet you secretly root for the empire don't ya.

        January 4, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
      • Tberg

        Dude.... take the time to read my other posts. How can you comment on my posts if you haven't read them all.

        My vote goes to Star Trek. Just like yours, however, I'm not liking your tone.

        January 4, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
      • Dee Neely

        Let me see if I got this right. You are arguing the following: 1)Star Wars promotes equality because one woman, on one little planet on the outskirts of the galaxy was elected to the position of Queen. 2) You know this because of a sideways comment from one character during one of the movies.
        All of this in the middle of a male masturbatory war fantasy.
        Sorry, my vote still goes for Star Trek.

        January 4, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
      • Tberg

        My vote goes to Star Trek too. You'd know this if you'd read my other posts. The problem I have with you, is that you are voting as an uninformed voter (as all of Obama's supporters are). You need to be informed before voting on something, you can't just listen to one side and then decide.

        January 4, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
      • Bleeh

        You know, you guys are kinda forgetting Mon Mothma, the leader of the Rebellion? She may not have had a big part in the original series, but she still is pretty much the most powerful woman in a galaxy far far away. There are also numerous female Jedi Knights who are pretty badass.

        May 16, 2013 at 11:39 am |
    • Tberg

      Uhura was offered the Voyager, but declined. And who the hell is Chevo? Did you mean the "Wessel" driving Chekov?

      January 4, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • Alla

      Hmmm maybe the Mormon Horse Wrangler tiknag out a few more then dying saving a kid. Just putting it out there.

      February 1, 2012 at 3:01 am |
  45. vel

    well, ST: OS (in my opinion the other series were awful) didn't have an idiot doing an inept rewrite like Star Wars has suffered through. Robot Chicken does those "rewrites" justice for the drivel they are.

    January 4, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
  46. RPCinHawaii

    Yet again, Star Trek leaves the SW defender's without a leg to stand on. Kiddies embrace your Ewoks, while the rest of us explore the stars!! Complete vcitory for the ST team...AGAIN!

    January 4, 2012 at 11:32 am |
  47. Sarah

    No Trek= no Star Wars. period.

    January 4, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • Ronbo

      99% of art (and more like 9.9% of popular culture) is derivative.

      No American westerns, no Akira Kurosawa films as we know them. Which would mean Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress would never have been made. Which was the template for Star Wars Episode IV ("A New Franchise").

      If want to play that game, we can say, no Forbidden Planet, no Star Trek.

      January 4, 2012 at 10:50 am |
  48. Spunky DerWondermonkey

    Why does it have to be one or the other – Both are fantastic, groundbreaking science-fiction. They are both great in their own ways, albeit different. I consider myself privileged to have grown-up with both of these. Thanks Gene and thanks Steven.

    January 3, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • Ronbo

      Good old Steven Lucas...wait, what?

      January 3, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
      • Tberg

        LoL hahahaahahah

        January 3, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
      • Scott

        You must be thinking of Gene Speilberg or was it Steve Roddenbery

        January 4, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
  49. john

    UNIVERSE-WISE: Star Wars kicks Star Trek's ass.

    FILM WISE?

    STAR WARS = 2 wonderful films, 4 crappy ones.

    STAR TREK = 3 wonderful films, 8 crappy ones.

    TV WISE:

    STAR TREK FRANCHISE = 400+ total episodes. 50 good ones.

    STAR WARS/CLONE WARS FRANCHISE = 90+ total episodes. 0 good ones.

    January 3, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • Cabelos

      I like your "nuts and bolts" approach to the question, although I might argue your ratios. Truly, I've been entertained far more over the years by ST than by SW. One other poster raised an interesting talking point in that Lucas has stayed within certain boundaries of his universe while Trek has opened up a huge amount of new material. It would be interesting to see, dollar for dollar, which franchise has brought in more money, including movie, tv, & licensing revenue (games, toys, etc.) My gut reaction says Star Wars, but it's just a hunch. I still prefer my Trek. I was surprised to see you thought there were only 50 good Trek episodes. I think Next Gen would have had that alone.

      January 3, 2012 at 11:24 am |
  50. b33cux

    Ahh, so THIS is where they got the idea for Phineas & Ferb:"Nerds of a Feather"... you guys are now immortalized as a cartoon, which is pretty fitting, I must say. Here's a clue: it's all ENTERTAINMENT, kids... idle entertainment – so try to relax and save your energies for IMPORTANT issues, liiiike saaayyy... oh I dunno... world hunger, perhaps?

    January 3, 2012 at 3:42 am |
  51. Duncan

    It's ok, they both fail to live up to 'Babylon 5"

    January 2, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
    • Charles Boyung

      Wow, that's about the most idiotic SF-based comment I've ever heard.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
  52. ohsnap

    Another one in Star Trek's favor...http://gizmodo.com/205448/beam-me-up-scotty-scientists-transport-a-hunk-of-matter-18-inches

    January 2, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
  53. Dee Neely

    I found the idea that Star Wars is better than Star Trek because it started a new religion so horrible that I just had to step in.

    Does anyone really think the planet needs another religion promoting pseudoscience and crappy morality? We have enough of those and the Church of the Jedi is just as bad as Scientology. The main idea of the force in Star Wars wasn't about being good or bad. it was about everything being in balance which leads a person to think that evil is necessary for balance to exist. If you take the religiosity of Star Wars seriously that is what you get. A bunch of people in charge who think that there must be an equal balance of good and evil in the universe. What kind of morality would insist that only 50% of the people need to be good and its okay for the rest to be evil because things will be balanced.
    What kind of things do we get with Star Wars. A theocracy in charge of the universe. A group that takes young (as early as possible) children from their parents and raises them in a religious monastery where they are taught not to get emotionally involved with suffering and that loving your parents is a path to the Dark Side. An organization whose members are perfectly willing to accept slavery as an economic engine.
    Sorry. I take the humanist philosophy of Star Trek over that mess any day. With Star Trek we get a vision to look up to instead of just another version of business as usual in a galaxy far, far away.

    January 2, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
    • Tberg

      Thanks for you opinion on Scientology, but this is a question of what is better, Trek or Wars.... idiot... crawl back into your hole now.

      January 2, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
      • Dee Neely

        The fact that Star Wars led to the creation of a new fantasy called religion makes it much worse.

        January 2, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
      • Ronbo

        I thought Dee Neely's comment was very insightful. While others obsess about merchandising dollars or other silly criteria, Dee brought it to the real world.

        January 4, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • Tberg

      I suppose you belong to a church that believes in some sort of god that you can't see, feel, touch, hear, smell.... Hmmm, sounds alot like the force..... hehehehehehe

      January 2, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
      • Dee Neely

        No, I am an atheist thank you very much. All religions are nonsense and Jedism isn't any different. In fact, the idea that it was created based on a movie makes it even more nonsense. The planet is littered with religion and we don't need more added to it.

        January 2, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
    • John Harvey

      Excellent points!!!!!!

      January 4, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • James

      Seriously, did you bother to ever try to understand anything from the movies? Nothing the Jedi did had anything to do with balance. Nothing they did had anything to do with promoting slavery. In fact part of their primary mission was in hunting down slavers and that was one of the things that they were sent out to do by the council. The force itself has no good or evil, true, but the limits placed on it were placed by emotion and that is defined by the person themselves. So if the person themselves is evil, then their actions are going to be evil. Their actions have nothing at all to do with the force. The true Jedi did not act out of hate, anger or greed, so they did not act on baser emotions which would lead to the dark side, which would then lead to evil.

      As far as them living a life of service, they lead a live of service similar to what a person in the military would live, or an ambassador, which is what they acted as from time to time. As far as being taken from their parents at a young age, it was considered an honor to be chosen to be trained as a Jedi, they were not taken by force (pardon the pun) they were welcomed and taken gladly. And the children who were tested and found that the Force was strong enough could be tempted to the dark side unknowingly and so it was for their protection also to be trained against that possibility. As far as someone starting a religion based on the Jedi model, if it is truly based on some of the principles talked about in the movies, a lot of those principles came from other, older Oriental religions and teachings so they have been around for thousands of years. Seriously, try to learn a little bit about what your talking about before you open your mouth.

      January 4, 2012 at 11:30 pm |
      • Dee Neely

        The main thing I want to address is your defense of the Jedi practice of taking children away from their parents for "their protection" and the "greater good." This is nothing more than a defense of the religious practice of "the ends justify the means." It is the same rational that Christians have used to remove native children and place them in special schools where they can be protected from the religion of their cultures and trained in Christianity and European ideals in the name of the greater good of being raised Christian. It is just as wrong in this situation because it violates their human rights.
        The second part of this is that the Jedi were allowed to do this and had the support of the state. They were taking young children and training them in the official state religion. This is no different than the Buddhist of Tibet visiting poor parents and telling them their children were reincarnations of tulku. Same thing and just as much a violation of the children's rights as the jedi taking children from their parents at young ages and raising them in barracks like the children of Sparta. Places in which they were told forget about their parents. They weren't even allowed to visit them again when they were older because they might become attached to them.
        Sorry, but that is a world ruled by a theocracy where children are taken from their parents and loved ones to be trained in the official state religion of the Jedi. I wouldn't want to have anything to do with it and certainly wouldn't try to practice the religion in the real world.
        The idea that the "religion" of the "jedi" may be loosely based on older Oriental religions doesn't mean anything to me. It wouldn't matter to me if jedism was based on Scientology, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, Jainism, Raëlism, Rastafarianism or any of the other -anities or -isms. They are all equally false. As I said. The fact that Star Wars led to the creation of another religion on a planet littered with them is a point to the negative not the positive. Especially one that is based on a fictional religion from a movie. As a friend of mine said about the Jedi religious movement, "When they bring me a working light saber I will think about converting, but until then its just more crappy escapism from reality."

        January 5, 2012 at 8:00 am |
      • Cabelos

        Wow, Dee Neely, just wow. I love it. I'm actually learning some stuff by reading a CNN post about which series is better. These posts should be archived into a book or something. All this talk about Star Trek got me watching Voyager again last night on Netflix.

        January 5, 2012 at 9:59 am |
      • Tberg

        I tried to read your post, honestly I did. But it's just too darn long. Please make your posts more brief and to the point, and stop rambling on and on and on and on.

        January 5, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
      • Ronbo

        You lecture people about rambling on and that you don't appreciate their rude tone? Pot, meet kettle.
        Dee has made some very salient points about the religious themes in Star Wars, and how they relate to these ideas historically (particularly Eastern religions). Not every important concept can be explained in three sentences. If you can't manage to wade through a couple of hundred words and keep focused, then don't comment on the post you couldn't make it through.
        Sheesh.

        January 5, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
      • Dee Neely

        Sorry, I don't speak in bumper sticker.

        January 5, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
      • Dee Neely

        In addition, way to jump to the defense of the Jedi religion. You performed the maneuver just like any other true believer.

        January 5, 2012 at 8:01 am |
  54. Lake City Lollerskates

    Being a fan of both Trek (minus Deep Space Nine) and SW, I tend to stray away from the debates. Reading/watching and listening to them is a whole other story. I grew up watching Star Trek with my father, a true nerd at heart albeit you wouldn't know unless you were family; I loved every minute the Enterprise took me on. Being only 21, I was born after the release of both the original shows and movies. That didn't stop my father from getting me hooked on the my first episode, then recording the current episodes while watching them all from beginning to current with me. Then on that fateful October day at the age of 6, my father rented the first Star Wars film and it was downhill from there.
    They both have their advantages and their disadvantages (Like the unfortunate release of Star Wars: Attack of the Suck or Star Trek's 'Deep Space Nine') but I love them both the same and always will. I'm a father of an entergetic 2 year old Nerddler and I plan on letting him explore it all.
    P.S- I married a Nerdlet that gives me a run for my money on my nerd knowledge base. :D

    January 2, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
    • Tberg

      Being only 21, your opinion doesn't really count anyway. Good thing you aren't joining the debate.

      January 2, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
    • Dee Neely

      It is nice to see someone else that has such a low opinion of Deep Space Nine. It is nothing more than a long war movie and I don't care for war movies. For the record that is another reason I don't care for Star Wars.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:03 am |
      • Cabelos

        I didn't care for DS9 either although I caught a lot of the shows after the initial run. The concept was awesome; out on the edge of space, the Federation is essentially alone. I think things are supposed to be dark and difficult way out there, but I thought the show missed the mark on some of the characters and the plot. Some the Bajoran (sp?) characters were dreadful.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:00 am |
  55. Cabelos

    Someone count up all the SW vs ST votes and post here. I am too lazy. That will determine the winner and put the debate to rest...FOREVER.

    January 2, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • Cabelos

      By the way, I used to be 50-50% on it, until Episode 1, 2, & 3 were released, then went 90% Trek. Yes, I was that turned off by the new SW movies. I still hang onto the originals like an old teddy bear.

      January 2, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
      • Ann

        Agreed. The original trilogy was great – the prequels were just embarrassing.

        January 3, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
  56. Dave

    It is fruitless to pick the better of the two since the origins are so different. Trek is a televison format and SW is cinema.

    I do give Trek more credit since it branched off into other shows, whereas Lucas stuck with SW over the past 30 years.
    Come on Georgie give it a rest. You can only ring a wet towel before it becomes dry. The creators of Trek advanced that world in every possible way. But Ole Georgie decided to keep releasing special editons after specia editons of the same story. The same worl/time-line you have created. 30 YEARS of the same thing. Why didn't you expand your universe instead of sculpting it over and over.

    Now you paln to release SW 3-D. Come on, man. At least JJ is doing something with Trek. You've spent so much time cultivating the same garden that nothing else will grow there. Is that how you are gonna leave a legacy? Hopefully not. Can the idea of 3-D and come out with new SW stuff.

    Otherwise Trek will just keep on expanding. Looks like that towel will always be wet.

    January 2, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
  57. lance corporal

    choose? argue about it? why? watch both.
    and for the record neither is perfect and both are wonderful
    if you had only incl the first run of star trek there would have been no contest but 2d gen and the other spinoffs where great and star wars for all it's technical prowess and a couple of really good plot devices sometimes sucks because of the writing and direction

    January 2, 2012 at 8:32 am |
  58. Pianoman13

    Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn is better than all SW put together.....just sayin

    January 2, 2012 at 4:04 am |
  59. Catfish

    I like them both, but I probably like Trek better....less fantasy. But there's one main criticism of Trek that a friend of mine made that's always stuck with me....he said Trek was "too clean"....unless there was an explosion there were almost never any dirt, dust, piles of junk, human or alien "fights", etc. which show in any of the series shows. He said humans (and aliens too, I suppose) being the way they are things would never be that clean/neat, etc. For that reason, he liked Babylon 5, which he felt was a more "realistic" depiction of the future.....one not all as neat and tidy as Trek.

    January 2, 2012 at 1:48 am |
  60. Brigadier

    One Dalek would wipe out both universes.

    January 2, 2012 at 1:13 am |
    • gremlinus

      Well said.

      January 2, 2012 at 3:14 am |
    • Ronbo

      Starfleet outwitted the Borg, they'd take a can opener to the Dalek's and wipe 'em out.

      January 4, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
      • Tberg

        Especially since the Dalek's technology was so damn ancient, and mostly based on magic.

        January 4, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • Honey

      Unparalleled accuracy, unequivocal clarity, and unendilabe importance!

      January 29, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
    • fsglxoutbz

      SPkEvf nzmiiisulezo

      January 30, 2012 at 3:45 am |
    • yamcabku

      rKhw1o dtkzwocsqwee

      February 1, 2012 at 3:45 am |
  61. JohnF

    Trek vs Star Wars, Alien vs Predator, Mac vs PC, Karl Marx vs Groucho Marx... To quote Shatner on SNL, "Get a life!"

    Nothing like a click magnet to bring in the revenues for CNN.

    January 2, 2012 at 12:10 am |
    • sam

      how does me browsing the comments section bring any money to CNN?

      May 20, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
  62. Bob

    To be nice about it, comparing these to is like comparing a modern navy to one of 200 years ago.
    Trek- Today's navy. solid, sound, experienced and disciplined. Knows what it needs to do and how to do it. Looking to keep the peace. Using a plan of many ideas, not just a few lucky mind readers.
    SW- Almost pirate like. Undisciplined, broken up no sense of the big picture. Non uniform weapons, swords(L/sabers). If they don't get what they want they try to use the "force". I mean come on a small group of these rebels took on a whole galaxy wide military and won? Does that really make any sense? That is like a tee ball team beating a world champion team.

    January 1, 2012 at 9:55 pm |
    • Jose Chung

      ...from hence mature sci-fi emerged...Moore's BSG (Battlestar Galactica to the uninitiated). Gritty, realistic, with real issues, imperfect people and ships (as well as people) that age.

      January 1, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
  63. Mike

    Not even close. The special effects in Star Wars was far superior to the Shatner Star Trek era. The acting in Shatner's Star Trek was so ridiculous that it was laughable.
    The alien creatures were more like Sesame Street or Muppet characters than actual believable beings.
    I watched Star Trek myself back then but to compare it to Star Wars, the single greatest movie experience ever, is just plain asinine.

    January 1, 2012 at 9:18 pm |
    • Tberg

      Ok idiot, you're showing your maturity level. It's not about TOS, it's about the entire franchise. Did you watch any or the Star Trek movies?

      January 1, 2012 at 9:29 pm |
    • Ann

      You wanna talk about bad acting? Check out Anakin and what's her name in the second prequel. He looks like a pouting 6 year old, not a jedi.

      January 3, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • TC

      You realize Yoda was an actual Muppet, right? Voiced by Frank Oz and everything?

      January 5, 2012 at 10:27 am |
      • Tberg

        Look you stupid dork face (look up the definition of dork), this is in response to Mike, not TC. Star Wars fans will not accept the fact that without the original Star Trek series, there would be no Star Wars. So they say that Star Wars predecessors are the one's that made it possible for Star Wars. Take a look at the acting and the special affects and the aliens of those said predecessors. Mike, you are grasping at straws. Of course the special affects suck by today's standards, but that was then. Then it was not too shabby. As far as the acting is concerned. The actors did what they could with the shoddy writing of the 3rd season. NBC cut off money to the series, so the good writers left, and all that was left was the very junior writers that couldn't get work elsewhere. NBC doomed Star Trek TOS, not the actors. NBC is the one that put them in a 10pm timeslot on Friday night. NBC are the bad guys, and seems they continue to be by screwing Conan out of his dream job, which he worked for all his life. NBC are a bunch of idiots!

        January 5, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • Ramakant

      No worries; the einrte Act I is finished and I'm now merely tweaking. I'm pretty confident I'll hit my one-act-per-month goal all the models needed for the episode are completed and it's pretty quiet at work (bad for my income but good for this project!).

      April 14, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
  64. KA

    If lightsabers are magic what the hell is Q? Seriously?

    January 1, 2012 at 7:57 pm |
    • sadtosay

      A creature with advanced abilities of energy to matter conversion

      January 1, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
    • Tberg

      He's an omnipotent being and a member of the continuum. Don't you pay attention. At least he represents the 'God" or "Gods" of our time and place. And he is clearly above mere mortals and does not pretend to be on their level. And let's not forget, he does not choose sides as the Jedi do.

      January 1, 2012 at 9:23 pm |
      • ohsnap

        Or Jar-Jar Binks or whatever the thing's name is.

        January 2, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
    • x

      Omnipotent. Duh.

      January 1, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
  65. KA

    What is intellectual about Star Trek? How every species is a monkey with spots or ridges on it's head? or maybe that starships bank against all the resistance a vacuum creates? Or maybe Kirk would use his unique fighting style of overhanded double fist punches.... Come on... That show was crap...

    January 1, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
    • x

      At least intellectual dilemmas appeared in which the power of the mind and available resources solved issues and won battles rather than resorting to energy readily disposable and directly proportional to one's will power.

      January 1, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
  66. captnavenger

    As a young, young child, I loved sitting in front of the TV watching Trek in syndication. I grew to know the characters intimately, though it took maturity to love them all for what they were. When I was 7, Star Wars came out, and suddenly Star Trek paled. Star Wars was big storytelling on the Big Screen and it blew all of us away. I still loved Star Trek, but it suddenly seemed cheaper.

    I was 10 when Empire came out, and I loved it even more than the first. By this time Star Wars was practically my whole world. But here's where it changed. I was 13 when Jedi came, and even at that young age could tell how cynical and pandering the whole thing had already become. My 13 year old mind could not allow for half of the action to involve teddy bears. The flick was so uneven and ridiculous, and it was at that time that the slow, steady decline of Star Wars began for me. To this day, whenever I watch Jedi, I find myself chomping at the bit for them to get back to Luke, Vader and the Emperor. Any scene without them, or Yoda, in it, is NOT WORTH WATCHING. It is possibly the most uneven blockbuster film in the history of film.

    Yes, Star Trek has some bad flicks too (half of them, I would say), yet somehow they remain watchable. Star Wars' prequels are almost completely unwatchable. They are filled with the convenient failings of supposedly wise people, to allow for an outcome with which we are already familiar, and to allow it with the least resistance and the least drama imaginable. They work neither as plays nor as opera. They are failure as drama and only barely passable as storytelling. Everything spiritual and great created by New Hope and Empire is destroyed by the prequels. The Mythbusters can polish a turd, but Hollywood can't, and Lucas is Hollywood, however much control he retains over his universe.

    Star Trek never was a turd. It was, and is, a grown up discussion of how people must learn to interact with one another, and a deep and meaningful examination of how we fill the holes in each other's lives. The stories range from routine who-dunnits to epic quests. It tells the Hero's Journey as well as Star Wars does, but suffers from little in the way of inflexibility and, paradoxical as it may sound, does not suffer from rigid re-imagining and retconning, since it pretty much is not worried about it (much in the way of grand storytelling like the Prose Edda). Ironically, Star Trek is more like Saga than Star Wars is, precisely because of broad strokes telling big stories without the nitpicking minutia of trying to tie every single thread together.

    I still love both. But in truth, I believe the only Star Wars that will really matter as art and mythmaking a hundred years from now will be New Hope, Empire, and the scenes in Jedi concerning the two Sith and the Jedi Apprentice. Everything else was useless and poorly wrought and simply will not survive history's scrutiny. Star Trek, on the other hand, will survive largely intact, due to the universality of its message, the depth of the characterizations, and the technological and societal foresight of its writers and creators. It is Sci Fi for adults that kids can enjoy too. And if you need any more proof of its vitality and validity, consider the fact that these characters and their stories have changed hands. Kirk, Spock, McCoy and others have now outlived the lives or retirements of the actors who originated the roles. Just like any great characters from literature, they now belong to literature at large. Other people have re-interpreted the characters and they have survived that ultimate test.

    And for the record, Star Wars is Fantasy. It is space-based fantasy. It is not speculative, and it is not concerned with technological advance. Thus it is not Science Fiction. It is Space Fantasy.

    January 1, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Tberg

      I got through the first line of this post and just decided it was way to long to read the entire thing.

      January 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • sadtosay

      Good post

      January 1, 2012 at 8:35 pm |
    • Waway

      wonderful clip , I was there two months roefbe you .same clear sky except one day the one roefbe Thorung La it snowed but it was no problem .went all the way down then to Pokkhara .

      April 14, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
  67. bvicente

    Stargate SG-1!!!

    January 1, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • x

      Still not as gay as twilight.

      January 1, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
  68. MagnusRF4K

    It leaves us where we started, in the classics, play or opera?

    January 1, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • Turras

      Dazu kommen noch die Schiffe und die Lego-Sets. Echt gcaluublinh die Komplette Sammlung kf6nnt ihr hier betrachten. Ver ffentlicht in Alles, Film/Serie, Games Space

      April 14, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
  69. Lisa

    Absolutely no question – Star Trek is infinitely better.

    January 1, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
  70. YounanMarketingAndManagementAssociatesInc,Int'l Intst'r

    We just got shot up with nuclear poison in the hot water line. they said the hot water tank broke. there was a cloudiness to the hot water tap water only, which i have seen a number of times before, not regularly.
    the honeywell people are responsible i beleive – i did have search information about the military corruption links, and they do have involvements in that type of industry equipment. plus they have a lot to do with alarms.
    It isn't due to me or my battles in a direct manner that this happens. It happened when i was at leader publications as a advertising co-ordinator later media rep/news farm trade writer. they would throw sulpur into the thames river there.
    i was minding my own business and wasn't investigating anything or fighting for industrial secrets and such or playing politics.
    the cloudy poisoning is different from the sulpher which gives the water a rotten egg smell.
    while publishing my london & company magazine i got a free-lance writer's story on chemical warfare in Canada but i didn't get to put it in my next issue because the financial plug was pulled on me in addition to money launderer troubles by the body parlors.
    in the waves of assault using chemical and biological poisons in the water then in the food system then in contaminated pharmacueticals then in direct various street crimes, they profit from lots of needs for medicine, medical treatment, defense services, related to different socio-economic problems, etc. then the buying shoots up in those related business/government departments, plus there is that turnover of employees because waves of them get too sick and end up on some kind of disability, etc. contaminants of radioactive elements and others are not just damaging in themselves but they produce irritant tissue infections. so antibiotic groups of medication, pain pills and such are still needed.
    who is the crook's birthdate you used that lunar orbit launch for....answer me immediately right now.

    January 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
  71. darinc

    Also, Star Wars is a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. It's not a story about humans from Earth who have overcome our prejudice and moved out into space to explore.

    I love both Star Trek and Star Wars for very different reasons. Star Trek is intellectually interesting while Star Wars is an escape.

    January 1, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • The Awful Truth

      Exactly

      January 1, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
    • Prof Krueger

      Precisely.

      January 2, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
  72. Gavilan Salvaje

    Battletech rules!

    January 1, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
  73. Gavilan Salvaje

    Star Trek is about us, the people of Earth, surviving and spreading through the galaxy and learning how to deal with what we find. Star Trek makes us believe that we will survive our petty issues on this planet, but also shows us that we still need to learn how to deal with the issues we find when dealing with other civilizations

    Star Wars is about a galaxy far, far away, where self-appointed champions of "good" challenge a democratically elected leader who is trying to bring order to a chaotic system of worlds. These champions of "good" are religious fanatics who impose their "hokey" religious beliefs on others and who act as judge, jury and executioner on other people who do not do as the Jedi wish.

    January 1, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • Lisa

      Agree with all that but it's also about quality.... Star Wars is very poorly written. Sure there are bad Star Trek's episodes and movies (TOS third season, Star Trek Voyager, Star Trek 5, Generations) but overall,Star Trek is great stories, well written and well acted.

      January 1, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • KA

      Acting? You mean Shatner? Really? Well written? You mean the same plot over and over again?

      January 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • Lisa

      KA – not Shatner, but Nimoy, and the others on STTOS, and everyone on STTNG.

      January 1, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
  74. Josh

    To me, the biggest difference is that Star Wars is just six stories. Star Trek is several hundred stories. Excluding from both, the cartoons.

    With hundreds of stories, Star Trek might have a few duds,but it also has a few clear gems. With more than six gems, it out weighs Star Wars' six total.

    January 1, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
  75. Kyle

    Resistance is futile!

    January 1, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
  76. Chris Synfield

    I found Star Wars lack of real faith disturbing. Lets review – Darth Vader kills people on a planetary level. He murdered younglings. And yet all he has to do to be welcomed by The Force is save, belatedly, his own sons life? Pretty low standard for forgiveness there, wouldn't you say? Weak.

    January 1, 2012 at 10:16 am |
    • Hypatia

      Would it have met your approval if he'd been crucified first?

      January 1, 2012 at 11:42 am |
      • Chris Synfield

        Too Jewish.......

        What?

        January 1, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
      • Tberg

        So now you're putting him up there along with Jesus? Shame on you!

        January 1, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
    • Gavilan Salvaje

      Don't Xians just have to accept X in order to get their rapture tickets?

      January 1, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Tberg

      he's pure evil. He's putting on a show, he still does not care about anything good. In fact as we speak right now, he is in the nether fighting with Obi Wan and Yoda for the rest of eternity.

      January 1, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
  77. Doug Shiloh

    Both, for different reasons.

    January 1, 2012 at 9:12 am |
  78. Starnois

    I'm gonna go with Twilight on this one.

    January 1, 2012 at 8:11 am |
  79. Red

    Neither. Dune (and the series of Dune Books) by Frank Herbert wins as they both took Idea's from Dune. But I agree with George Takei we have a greater foe: Twilight. Sparkly vampires who walk in the day?!?!?! Next we will and lemon/fruity scented Zombies.... so wrong. LOL

    January 1, 2012 at 7:28 am |
    • Tberg

      It's no surprise to me why George Takei thinks Twilight would compete with anything. Remember he's pretty poofy.... not that I have anything against one's lifestyle choices, and I'm not juding. But he's pretty much batting for the other team, and the other team is partial to those chick flicks.

      January 1, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
      • bvicente

        lol!!!!!

        January 1, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
  80. Duck Dodgers

    I like apples and oranges.

    January 1, 2012 at 7:24 am |
  81. WmBlackstone

    Star Trek (the original series) had some of the worst special effects and cheapest budget but the more interesting (if hackneyed) storylines. Star Trek -The Next Generation had more in-depth characterization and more imaginative storylines. Star Wars, on the other hand, was born out of Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers serials and it showed in the shallow action-driven stories and stereo-typed characters. It was an attempt to present a battle between "magic" (The Force) and science-fiction technology. Good guys versus bad guys in a kind of Wild West set in "space". To me, Star Wars was extremely childish (not childlike). The nostalgia and appeal, I think, is not so much geeky (there are far better sci-fi films/series) but rather the nostalgia for one's own childhood and swash-buckling "adventure". You need a "pay attention" mind for Star Trek-Next Generation, not so much for Star Wars.

    January 1, 2012 at 4:05 am |
    • Vicki

      "It was an attempt to present a battle between "magic" (The Force) and science-fiction technology

      No. The Force was never ever presented as magic. It was absolutely and without a doubt, a religion!

      January 1, 2012 at 10:29 am |
      • Gavilan Salvaje

        "The Force" was a "hokey" religion with fanatic followers who sliced arms of people who disagreed with them. Did the Jedi's victims ever get due process? Or did the Jedi "Knights" simply slice of body parts without hesitation? How anyone can think of people who routinely mind-controlled helpless civilians as "good" is beyond me.

        January 1, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
      • Tberg

        Doesn't really matter how something is presented, how it's perceived is what counts.... And I for one see it as kind of silly to think you can control any force to do what you will it to do.

        January 1, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
      • Joe Camel

        Within the universe there are races of aliens removed from intergalactic culture who use the Force and consider it magic. Even that guy Vader choked in New Hope said "sorcerer's ways." It was clear from that line – some 20 minutes into the first film in the series – that the general public of Star War's universe considered the Force magic. That was the whole point of the prequel trilogy – to show how the Empire manipulated the public perception of what was supposed to balance existence out.

        January 27, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
  82. L.A.

    Star Trek is chess; Star Wars is checkers.

    January 1, 2012 at 2:41 am |
  83. Mark

    All I can say is that I have never seen Mark Hamill or Harrison Ford perform a version of "Rocket Man".

    January 1, 2012 at 2:17 am |
    • The Awful Truth

      Yes! The perfect answer...thank you.

      January 1, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
  84. Galactus999

    Star Trek is the winner for me, but Star Wars is the winner for my son. They are both great.

    January 1, 2012 at 1:46 am |
  85. Lewis

    Perhaps, as LoveSciFi alluded to, the authors in this piece (and the nitwits in Hollywood in general) should take a look at a few other kinds of science fiction. Babylon 5 is an EXCELLENT example, and most episodes of Rod Serling's original Twilight Zone still hold up well today.
    The biggest problem is that most of the Hollywood nitwits think Sci Fi is only Star Trek or Star Wars.

    January 1, 2012 at 12:51 am |
    • OvernOut

      Amen to that, Lewis! I love watching "The Twilight Zone" marathons, just as Gene Roddenberry must have many years ago. Many of the guest stars on TTZ ended up as characters on "Star Trek" including William Shatner as Kirk himself. I do like "Star Trek" though, we are big fans of the original series and my now-college age daughters are fans of ST: Voyager, my 20-something son prefers ST: The Next Generation, and my husband really liked ST: Enterprise. My kids are writing college papers based on "Hitchhiker's Guide" and "Doctor Who", there is so much more out there than ST or SW.

      January 1, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
  86. Love Scifi

    I love both but I also love Babylon 5. Babylon 5 was set in the future so they had more tech than we have now but still have all the same vices; which is more realistic.

    January 1, 2012 at 12:10 am |
    • The Awful Truth

      Babylon 5 was great..

      January 1, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
    • Tberg

      Hmmmm... I don't smoke, drink or do drugs so I guess I can't relate as well as you. So I don't agree.

      January 1, 2012 at 9:27 pm |
  87. Robert Buchler

    Both series are completely overated. As a child, I was a fanatic of Star Wars. I still hold high esteem for the first 3 movies. It is the last 3 films that were "produced" by Lucas that killed the francise for me. Terrible characters (Jar Jar Binks) and acting more wooden than 300 year old Sequoia's (Liam Neeson and Samule Jackson) have turned my feelings for the franchise from excitement to boredum.

    Star Trek had decent stories but aside from the great character( The excellent Patrick Stewart) of Picard, campy performances by Shatner found in a dinner theatre. Star Trek did have more humor than the last 3 Star Wars movies going for it. And it did have better writing.

    Both series are to be commended for their groundbreaking techniques in Special Effects. Star Trek in particular, was well deserved in having the 1st Space Shuttle called the Enterprise.

    Ill stick to watching The Twilght Zone marathon tonight. Rod Serling was a genius.

    December 31, 2011 at 10:38 pm |
    • Bla blogger

      @Robert Buchler

      You re an idiot , you re just repeating what others have been saying . G. Lucas did not kill Star Wars , it got better , I love the Clone Wars series and I prefer not the first 3 movies but rather the Last 3 .

      Star Wars rules and I am a collector of clones.

      January 1, 2012 at 12:51 am |
      • shawn l

        Hate to break it to you bub, but you are the idiot if you think the last 3 star wars movies were anything more than a pile of steaming dog crap. If they didn't have the star wars label on them, they would have bombed harder than Pluto Nash.

        January 1, 2012 at 4:18 am |
  88. canudunk

    Darth Vader would chop off Captain Kirk's head with a lightsaber.

    December 31, 2011 at 10:28 pm |
    • ZCups

      Yeah, but at least Kirk got to sleep with chicks of every color of the rainbow :)

      January 1, 2012 at 12:54 am |
    • shawn l

      No he wouldnt. Lightsabers are science fantasy, light doesnt stop three feet from the base of the emitter as if magic occured lol

      January 1, 2012 at 4:20 am |
    • Chris Synfield

      As if Kirk wouldn't have phasered Vader into powder before he could smite the good Captain. FAIL.
      And yes, Twilight Zone rules them all. Nobody writing for either ST or SW was a better writer than Rod Serling, Richard Matheson or Charles Beaumont.

      January 1, 2012 at 10:19 am |
      • Tberg

        Shut the F up! Twilight Zone????????? get with it buddy.

        January 1, 2012 at 7:44 pm |
  89. Bryan

    Which one has Ms. Glau in it? That's the one that wins–oh, that's neither of them.

    December 31, 2011 at 9:15 pm |
1 2 3 4