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!
I prefer Star Wars, but Star Trek did alright, considering it was basically a (comparatively) low budget TV show about space hippies. It was the granddaddy of modern day scifi, and it was interesting considering the characters had to sit around and talk most of the time. The original Star Trek was an allegory about real life issues of racial tolerance and international relations in the backdrop of the cold war. I did like "Next Generation", although the ones after that I thought were boring and I didn't like any of the Star Trek movies, personally.
Star Wars was ingenious in the way it combined old samurai films, WWII dogfighting and Buck Rogers space piracy into this archetypal space opera centered around the age old good vs. evil. There were elements of politics (the Empire is a pretty easy WWII German comparison, complete with Imperial marches, stormtroopers and Vader's helmet) but no knowledge of contemporary foreign policy is required to sit back and enjoy the spectacle. Being that they are movies, they had the luxury of spending less time talking and more time in visual spectacle. Maybe that's why I prefer SW, no fancy intellectualism is required to "get" star wars, but there is plenty going on under the surface. However, I make no apologies for Jar Jar.
I applaud your balanced critique of both. Finally someone mentioned the cinematic roots of Star Wars with the Samurai Films, particularly Hidden Fortress in episode IV and the Seven Samurai in episode V. Star wars, I believe does not require "intellectual" understanding because it DOES tap into the Archetypal instincts we all have. The Lucas themes in THX-11138, American Graffiti, and Star Wars, are about being stuck in a small town and yearning for a greater adventure. The only thing I would critique about your review of Star Wars is that it is not intellectual. When George Lucas based his theory on the hero's Journey and used Joseph Campbell's book "the hero with a thousand faces" he inspired me personally to look into depth into the cultures behind the success of the story. The book "the hero with a thousand faces" points out that the hero myth is a complex journey.
there is no comparison between the two....Star Wars wwns hands down. With that said, it hink they should have left the original series alone (get rid of the "forgotten scenes" that were added into the new release series). And the new (first 3 movies) were terrible to say the least, although the 3rd was at best tolerable to watch. The first three Star Wars movies (#4,5,6) are the best science fiction movies ever made especially at the time they were made. Episode 6 "Return of the Jedi" was Hokie, but it is still Star Wars. I could never take Star Trek seriously, because it looked and sounded so fake to me. Although Shatner is a very funny person, and he is great on hte celebrity roasts, i have to disagree with him on this one!
Han shot first, the hallmark cantina scene ornament agrees.
Old enough to remember Star Trek as a prime time show on NBC, and saw Star Wars the first day it came out. I think the they are apples and oranges. Both necessary for a complete diet!
I too seen the emergence of both . . . and very well put :P
You got it. It's embarrassing to remember the episode about the space hippies looking for Eden, though. Cringe-worthy.
I always felt the problem with the prequels was Episode II. Episode I had it's flaws, JarJar, the over cute saccharine kiddie Anakin, long on set up, short on delivery.
But I think we would have forgiven it if that long set up paid off in a better Episode II. The trilogy was to be about the fall of Anakin and rise of Vader. I wanted to see that, I wanted to see how the Jedi were wiped out by Vader, I wanted to see the epic duel between Vader and Obi Wan.
The problem with II was that Anakin was a whiney teen the whole movie. He does not become Vader until far too late... near the end of Episode III (which was by far the best of the prequels at least). Forget the plot to II, what if it were something a bit different? What if at the end of II, Anakin had fallen, and the Emperor revealed himself (stealing those elements from III). Episode III could have begun with the suitless Darth Vader hunting down and destroying the remnants of the Jedi Order, ending with the epic duel with Obi Wan, being put in the life support suit, and the birth of the twins.
Long story short, I think Attack of the clones was the weakest movie and where the prequel trilogy went off the rails. As it was, there just wasn't enough time left for a believable, sympathetic fall of Anakin to darkside. It was more along the lines of 'oh crap, I helped you kill Sam Jackson.' 'Join the Darkside Anakin and help me rule the galaxy' 'Okie dokie'. There just wasn't time to develop or explore 'the fall'. That's why I think it should have happened at the end of II.
Anyway, my $0.02 on the disappointment of the prequels.
As for Trek versus Wars? Love them both... Star Wars haters can point to Jar Jar, but I always thought Neelix on Voyager was the Trek equivalent (the character just rubbed me wrong). Both have had good films, both have had bad films (I just ripped Episode II, but on the Trek side of the house, I just pretend Star Trek V doesn't exist... there is no V, they went right from IV to VI) .
Both have even had animated spin offs and countless games based on them. I am enough of a geek that I will even admit to currently playing both Star Trek Online and Star Wars: The Old Republic Online... I really am a neutral party on this one.
Both have inspired generations of geeks, myself included.
And I would argue for all the flaws in both franchises, both have enriched our lives and maybe even improved the world in their way.
I have no anger for fans of either. I save that rage for the morons that cancelled Firefly....
Live long, prosper, and may the Force be with you
Just don't ask me to pick a favorite
Oh! Firefly was a great show!
I still think 'Space 1999' had the BEST damn ships. Nothing beats the design onf an 'Eagle'.
I hardly even remember that show. I just remember how they would go down those chutes in order to get into their ships. I remember thinking "WoW, I wonder if I'll be alive in 1999?"
I'll take my DL-44 and lightsaber over a phaser any day. Kinda hard to talk yourself up when you're caught in a force grip about to have your arms hacked off.
I prefer my toilet paper mounted for an "under" distribution, and not an "over". Thank you.
Hmm.... I prefer 'over'. It's far more effective because it helps you grab the paper freely instead of laying too close to the wall. ;)
As many have already said, both "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" are worthy of the dedication of their respective – and occasionally shared – fans. At the end of the day, though, it's "Star Trek" for me. Between the two franchises it's "Trek" that tells the more profound stories and stimulates thoughtful reflection. With "Star Wars" it's harder to strip away the imagery and special effects to get to the core of the characters and the story, while with "Trek" those elements are front-and-center in every episode and every film. As a baby-boomer I was thrilled by the recent "prequel" and its loyalty to the original concept and cast. Gene Roddenberry's vision lives on for one simple reason: it's just plain good storytelling!
I grew up watching Star Trek re-runs with my dad. I liked the idea of space travel/battles etc. But then I went to the theater and saw the commercials for the release of "Star Wars". I can vividly see Luke swinging across that open space in the Death Star. All the amazing visuals really drew my attention. Then I went to the movies and saw it. I was in awe. I can't even describe how I felt when I watched that opening scene with the star destroyer chasing the other ship.
Star Wars took science fiction to a new level. Maybe it was mostly due to the special effects. But I think for me it was about the Jedi. I always liked the old movies about knights in shining armor having principles that they were willing to die for. George Lucas brought this to science fiction. It gave me exciting role models to look up to when I was a child.
While both were innovative, I think Star Wars was more exciting and interesting for me.
I am too young to have been at any of the original movies, and too young for kirk, but last time I checked depth/meaning is something you search for, and not something everyone can see. Love the 'Wars' and the 'Trek'. Apples and oranges people, they both come from trees but taste completely different. you catch me?
To me it boils down to this: ST makes me think of the Enterprise out in the unknown, a tiny speck in the sky, while Star Wars makes me think of Coruscant- crowded, materialistic and similar to our own world. Star Trek is about how big the universe is and how small we are, and how we should be curious and optimistic about the world around us. Star Wars is good vs evil- characters face the universe with aggression and an eye for power. Both have their appeal, but I think we have plenty of reminders in life about power struggles, and very seldom are reminded that we are not the center of the universe and that what we do not know is much greater than what we do. To me, power struggles divide us, while the vast unknown unites us. I'll take Star Trek,
Very, very, very well put :)
I never saw NASA name a ship after Star Wars.
You have the USS Space Shuttle Enterprise (OV-101), the first Space Shuttle Orbiter, used for test flights in earth atmosphere, landing procedures, and ground tests between 1975 and 1985.
The VSS Enterprise (Tail Number: N339SS) is the first of five commercial suborbital spacecraft being constructed for Virgin Galactic by Scaled Composites. It will also be the first ship of the Model 339 SpaceShipTwo class, based on upscaling the design of record-breaking SpaceShipOne. The VSS Enterprise's name is an acknowledgement of the USS Enterprise from the Star Trek television series. Entrepreneur Richard Branson, head of Virgin Galactic, offered William Shatner, the actor who portrayed Captain Kirk in the original Star Trek series, a free ride into space on the inaugural space launch of the VSS Enterprise, with a retail value of $200,000. However, Shatner turned it down, and said, "I do want to go up but I need guarantees I'll definitely come back." It was rolled out on December 7, 2009.
I hate to burst your bubble, but did the US Navy name the aircraft carrier Enterprise, used in WWII and thereafter, after Star Trek or do you think it was the other way around? I believe NASA was extending the name of the US vessel and not from the sci-fi series.
As far as VSS Enterprise, you are probably correct? I don't honestly know.
NASA named the Enterprise as such at the request of many ST fans. True story.
The Navy has had ships since the 1700's that have been named "Enterprise" , including the Carrier(CVN65) featured in ST4
Hey, smart guy. The British Royal Navy had a ship the HMS Enterprize, and the U.S. Navy had the USS Enterprise during WW2. If you WATCH THE INTRO FOR 'ENTERPIRSE,' it even shows them to you. How about you get out of your fantasy world and read some real history.
Oh, come on. This again?
I love them both for different reasons. I run a Star Trek fan group. I have a Star Wars Rebel Alliance crest tattooed to my back. I own three Star Trek costumes. I drove 2,000 miles for a Star Wars gathering.
(Oh, and yeah, I'm a geek. Vive La Geek!)
The point is, they're both different, and both have their good and bad points. Oh, and to whoever said it earlier, YES, Star Wars is actually quite simplistic. Of course it is! It's encapsulated in a few brief movies! In contrast, Star Trek has had a total of 11 movies and 28 seasons. Of COURSE it's more complex! It's supposed to be!
As I said... different. I love them both, differently, just like I love Stargate SG1 and Battlestar Gallactica and Doctor Who and so on for different reasons.
However... if I needed to take a vote... I'd vote for Star Trek. Why? Because after the prequel trilogy of Star Wars... George Lucas is dead to me.
Didn't Shatner once do a skit about you on Saturday Night Live?? I believe he was telling you to "Get a Life!"
Actually, Joe, I met Shatner last summer in Boston. He told some OTHER guy to get a life, but he pulled me up onstage and gave me a bear hug. Obviously, I'm not the droid you're looking for.
For the record, I have a life, a wife, a job, a house, a car, a lot of friends, and a very active social circuit. What's your excuse?
there's really a Jedi church? People embracing a movie's theme as a religion?
Well now I guess I've seen everything; and when i thought there was nothing stupider than taking lessons to speak Klingon.
"Sliders". Same earth, different dimension.
Dr. Who? Firefly? toping Star Trek or Star Wars. i think not. Babylon 5 all the way tops them all.
B5>Star Trek>Star Wars>Dr. Who> Farscape>Firefly.
I like Dr. who for it's characters, but some things in it are too fantastical... like Star Wars meets Alice in Wonderland (not in any good way).
As for Firefly I found it's characters kind of shallow and plot lines plainly boring. I thought Farscape was better.
B5 was truly a masterpeice of work. What separated it was ongoing plots and new things discovered each episode. It was a shame Paramount and JS killed it.
I liked the original Star Trek and Star Trek Enterprise, stopped watching after that. The Original Star Wars though was way more fun and moving to me. The Original Star Wars is by far my favorite, again though, I like Star Trek also.
I don't think it comes down to one or the other, anymore than today's fantasy stories should have to be compared with Lord of the Rings. Star Trek came first, and likely inspired Star Wars in some way. Nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't mean we have to choose one or the other. We can enjoy both.
I agree.....why choose...I enjoyed both as well.
The lines in Star Wars first prequel movie were abysmal. I almost left the theatre.
So, how about it gets settled by which franchise had made more $. Include ALL sales from all versions, toys, movies, tv, dvd's, apparel, cartoon versions, etc etc...... My guess is Star Wars wins that match!
Star Trek is definitely more character driven, just based on the shear hours of programming. Star Wars is grand space opera. But.... if it has Samual L. Jackson in it, it's got to be the schnitz!!! STAR WARS by a gimp's nose!
However, Star Wars toys rock! I've never seen a good Star Trek collectors item, although there was recently an auction in LA for Star Trek set pieces.
Good marketing does not equal good writing.
I really enjoy both ST and SW for different reasons. I cannot comprehend the mindset that emphatically dictates that one just HAS to be better than the other. I enjoy and accept both for what they are – fantasy vehicles that allow us to escape our realities for a while.
I enjoy both Trek and Wars (I prefer Trek as that is what I watched as child). I see the benefits of both, and each program are different creatures altogether. Star Trek is more "Space Opera" and general Sci-Fi. Born of the times that the show was produced. Star Wars is more glitzy, space fantasy. Designed to the faster times of the 70's and 80's. Each have huge fan bases, and brought each other fans from both sides. Star Wars would not be as popular if not for Star Trek inspiring the writers, FX people and the various actors and support people. Star Trek would never made it to the Silver Screen if not for the success of Star Wars. It's like the 6 degerrs of seperation. Each is seperate but also conclusive of each other. It is only "Logical"
Maybe I missed it, but I didn;t see a single mention of the allegorical nature of Star Trek. Trek was set in the future, but it was parallel to 1960s cold-war America. The Federation is the U.S., the Klingons are the USSR, and the Romulans were China. These real-world conflicts played out metaphorically in many of the Trek episodes. In Day of the Dove, we learn that hatred and mistrust between the Federation/US and Klingons/USSR will eventually destroy them both (Kang: "Only a fool fights in a burning house."). In Let That be Your Last Battlefield we see that racism is irrational and will destroy a society in the end. In The Way to Eden we see that hippie "idealism" is really empty, escapist nihilism (maybe you don't agree). There are other examples. And these episodes were followed up with the movies. In The Undiscovered Country the Federation and Klingons overcome their mistrust and make peace just as the Soviet Union is dissolving. In Nemesis the same sort of reconciliation is established between the Federation and the Romulans just as CHina is becoming a world power.
Overall this is what makes Trek superior. It's not simply a good-vs-evil heroic epic. It is instead a collection of parables about the human condition and current events from the tumultuous 1960s. I like Star Wars, but it is a completely different animal.
To keep this on task with the orignal commentators. Yes Lucas watched Trek series to start him on Star Wars, so thank you for that, but without Lucas coming out with the movie Star Wars i n 77, Rodenberry would not have the spring board to bring out the "movie" Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and give all the actors from the original a job again.
Hey, Captain Kirk has bagged many a alien tail. Luke had a thing for his sister. George Lucas, you are a sick, sick man. ;)
I was always hoping Janeway would find the Jupiter II in the Delta Quadrant
I still watch Star Trek. Love it. Saw Star Wars, wasn't impressed. Star Trek for me.
Dr. Who > Firefly > Star Trek > Star Wars
Dr. Who? It's pretty good, but it's the best the UK can do. OK storylines and OK effects with a standout episode once a season. Nothing to write home about.
The Death Star would catch the Enterprise in its tractor beam. Vador would capture Kirk who'd try to fight him, but Vader would put him down despite his dramatic attempts to fight back. Spock on the other hand would use the Vulcan Nerve pinch on Boba Fett and escape in the shuttle only to be captured later by Jawa's when the shuttle crashes in the desert on Tatooine. The Jawa's sell Spock to to Jaba the Hut for a six pack and three weeks in Flostin Paradise where the Diva is performing that weekend in spite of rumors of rebel activity. Meanwhile, Spock manages to get close enough to Jaba the Hutt to do a mind-meld and learns of the location of U'hura, Bones and Sulu in the caves with the Rancor. He tells Jaba the Hutt that they aren't the droids he's looking for and he for no other good reason, releases everyone and they drink until Sunday morning when Jaba realizes he's wasted his life and leaves to join a monastery of the Jedi so he can lean the ways of the forces from Yoda who tells him; "do or do not, there is no money in being a Jedi." Back on the Death Star, Kirk convinces a lovely lady to join him near his cell for a prayer, but Kirk gets her cared key and unlocks the cell power rods and frees himself. He sneaks up on Vader and whacks him over the head with one of those long metal poles from the trash compactor and then flies the Death Star with the Enterprise in tow to the nearest Star Base, after years in stasis Kirk is revived to find himself the last of his kind.All members of his ship are long since dead. A man hands him a towel and tells him to follow him and don't lose the towel. Kirk enjoyed dinner and the dinner told him he would. Kirk fondly recalled the end of the universe and that pig, in a letter he left behind for no one in particular.
You left me speechless..... what else can be said after this?
Tommy, that is the best!
Personally, I hated Star Trek growing up, too unrealistic, and a bit over the top.
I have never seen Star Wars............ or had the desire.
from a computer programmer
Then why did you "desire" to read this article, and then waste your time as you "desired" to comment on it?
Because you're as funny as Big Bang Theory......
Thanks, Norman, for taking time out of your busy schedule to comment on something you haven't seen. Good luck with your programming.
I'm a VP now thanks.
Norman. Norman, Norman... normal... normative Norman.
This is a sci-fi geek blog. Sci-fi is fiction. Nobody said it had to be realistic. Go back to your mundane world of code, and let the rest of us enjoy the fun of science fiction, just as humans have enjoyed fantastic, fanciful, and unrealistic stories since the dawn of humankind.
So you always go around interjecting comments about things you know nothing of? That explains why you've risen to the level of incompetence...
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that Star Wars was inspired by Joseph Campbell's writings about the hero myth. It's mythological roots were nationally recognized in Washington D.C. at the Air and Space Museum from October 31, 1997 to January 31, 1999. Star Wars has a justified place in American Culture. Star Trek does too but it was loosely based on science fiction writings at the time. Good science fiction but not in the category of a modern mythology.
"Wars" or "Trek", it's Star Trek all the way. I wish they'd come up with another TV Series (not a cartoon).
I did love Starwars as a child, but as I matured, it seemed that the one that was most believable was what I was drawn to. My 7yo son loves Starwars, and I can't even get him to take a look at Star Trek. But I believe as he gets older and more "Logical", he'll come to the Star Trek side.
Star Trek seemed and still seems possible for our future. Star Wars is a bit out there to even consider as a possible future for us. Remember, they are in a Galaxy far far away. In Star Trek we are still in our own Galaxy which is largely unexplored. Remember Voyager got stuck in the Delta quadrant which was totally unexplored by us.
My sentiments exactly. That is also what happened to me. I would love to see another Star Trek series.
Gotta say Star Trek.
Talking computers, cat scans, on the fly communications, cell phones, touch screens, teleportation (been done with Alpha waves), microwave food dispensers, shields, warp drive (been done by the French using proton drive), Holograms and the iPad that Picard was always using. Laser surgery, laser technology, alternate fuel sources, photo shop (you know, when Deanna would try different hair styles, colors etc... I could go on. I think I will.
Let's not forget Star Trek gave the world Tribbles which led to Ewoks, Furby and Gremlins . ;)
Oh, and let's not forget doors that open when you approach!
LOL. All Hail the mighty Ricardo Montalban who created THE best Star Trek villain ever. RIP
He made a great host on Fantasy Island too.
Star Trek is and forever will be the one who wins this...anyone who disagrees didn't come from that era. My sons watch both and I really like both but will always be a trekie first.
In a real contest, the winner would be DOCTOR WHO !!!
Doctor Who,...good stuff!
I wonder how a Dr/Q crossover would turn out...
It's been done.
Oh, and Rule 34 applies.
"Uh,..hI guys! ...
Is this where the SPACE:1999 fan-club is meeting this month?
Space 1999 was awesome. I had forgotten about that one. As far as these two is obviously Star Trek. I got a tribble for Christmas!
LOL...well, hopefully you won/t have trouble with your Tribble!
I prefer to live in a Universe without JAR JAR BINKS. Ergo, Star Trek is better.
...oh, and also; Star Trek wins because George Lucas is a pompous hump who doesn't know when to stop tinkering with his movies.
Hell, George Lucas still crams mayo and pickles down his throat to improve that sandwich he ate a couple years ago.
Get a life. Jeez.....
I'll second that f u.
star wars was just fantasy, star trek was an attempt at imagining a real future, its ideology, its technology, life on other planets. On my bucket list is to learn klingon, not be a jedhi. I really wished i could have been a vulcan, logic is cool. Star trek stretches out across the universe to the Q, the borg, to beyond while star wars was just a political religious family affair.
A real future?
With no war, no poverty, no hunger, no desire for material possessions and the entire human race united as one?
I'd love to see that future. I couldn't dream up a better one.
But to call that realistic future is, well, unrealistic.
I'm a Trek guy, but I have to say the Star Wars universe seems more realistic than the Star Trek universe. I mean, minus the Jedi magic, Star Wars is just a bunch of diverse species trying, and failing, to get along.
On the other hand, Star Trek tries so hard to both push the envelope and explain everything that it digs itself in deeper and deeper holes (or rather, more and more convoluted mobius strips). That, and too many underbudgeted productions, gives us a universe with space vampires, finite multiverses, and an omniscient being who can't even keep track of a few airplanes. Dammit Q, it's Juliet not Jane!
Star Wars is more realistic than Trek if you take out the Jedi magic?? Isn't that ridiculous Jedi magic one of the basic cornerstone tenets of their entire franchise? In which case, yes, I agree, with everything left in, Star Trek is indeed the more realistic vision of a potential future.
To find the best Star Wars, you have to leave George Lucas in the dust. Sorry Georgie, you had a good idea, but people with actual talent managed to take your idea and flush it out.
Look at Bioware's latest addition to the Star Wars franchize. It's wonderful. You have real depth in the sides of the force and the alien races are just that, alien. They're not humanoids with green makeup on or extra bony ridges.
Star Wars pulls you into an entirely different universe that is consistent and deep. Star Trek tries to be edgy by making weird stuff happen on a boat.
One thing I'll give to Trek was the concept of the Q. They were fabulous. Deities that managed to interfere! Awesome!
The original three "Star Wars" movies were great, and established the big budget action/sci-fi market. The last three movies were obviously just commercials for video games. They had no soul, and frankly, they sucked. I go with "Star Trek" all the way, but have to tip my hat to the original three SW movies. Star Trek made Star Wars possible, and Star Wars made E.T., Avatar, The Terminator and many other movies possible.
Also, what's with the DS9 bashing? Trek always reflected the times we lived in, and DS9 told the story of terrorism, war, darkness, religion, and even people with a common goal being at odds, which are very relevant themes. The Dominion War story arc was some of the best Trek ever written/produced. It was probably the most emotional Trek in the series, and the most solemn. And besides, they did AWESOME tributes to the original series, especially the tribbles episode, the three original Klingons and the Mirror Universe story arc.
Amen to the DS9 love... Talk about incredible character development, more so than pretty much any other entry in the franchise...
DS9 is awesome. The pilot alone is well worth it. Perhaps my favorite episode of all Trek.
DS9 was terrible. They left the boldly going someplace to boldly circle a planet. When that wasn't well recieved they found a ship they could explore with. when that didn't work they started hiring old Next Gen cast memebers. Terrible
I like both Star Trek and Star Wars And for all of you the complain About Episode 1-3 I got one show for you Enterprise.
Now they are on equal footing. Lucas and Rodenbury great guys with great ideas that I enjoy to this day. my daughter already knows Star trek (Sans DS9) and when Darth Vader stops scaring her we will be well into Star Wars. Thanks to all that worked on these projects.
This article is so stupid.
Both series were great in they own way.
What a slow news day so you post this non-story?
Love them both in different ways. Tendency within my own social group for males to prefer *Wars* & females to prefer *Trek*, can't comment on why.
Because... In Star Trek women are treated more equally then women are in Star Wars...
Thomas: Even if that's true, it has no bearing on the observation.
I love them both, but I'd have to pick Star Wars.
In my mind, if I run through all the "Best" moments of each series, it all boils down to which one is THE best moment.
And that moment is when Luke is being taunted by Vader during the final lightsaber dual in Return of the Jedi. When Luke almost goes to the dark side. Vader threatens that if Luke won't turn to the dark side, then perhaps his sister Leia will.
Star Trek doesn't have any moments like that. Close, but no cigar.
Not only that, but the Emperor in Return of the Jedi is the best villain ever. And yes, I do think it IS as simple as Good vs. Evil.
You are either one or the other. You can't be a fence sitter or lukewarm about it. The narrow way, it is.
That's an interesting argument to compare the two franchises based on "best" moments. Perhaps my best moment of either franchise comes from ST Wrath of Khan, when Kirk exchanges goodbyes with a dying Spock. It's an emotionally intense scene, delivered via superb writing and acting. Your SW best moment delivers via music, sound, and light(sabers). (My favorite SW moment is the "I love you / I know" scene when Han gets frozen in carbonite; and come to think of it, it uses the exact same tricks as your Luke/Vader scene.)
Like you, I'm a fan of both. But ST offers so much depth and complexity, while SW seems content to remain on the surface. As a thinking man, I have to side with ST.
Thanks, it was fun trying to remember the best moments! Pop quiz, name the movie for each quote:
1. "And I thought they smelled bad from the outside!"
2. "I.. have had.. enough of you!"
3. "This party's over!"
4. "And I... will make them pay for what they've done!"
5. "You're breaking my heart!" (Actually, this is from one of the WORST moments.)
Dude, go out and get some fresh air and sunshine, stop sitting in front of that darn idiot box. :-)
Did all of you forget the part at the beginning we star people need to put aside our differences and unite against our common enemy twilight
Sheeesh. Twilight isn't even in the same realm as either ST or SW. ST has 40 plus years, and SW has 30 plus years. Twilight is a love story, and at least 20 steps down the ladder from SW and at least 21 steps down the ladder form ST.
Star Trek had a utopian vision. I know someone else who had a utopian vision. They are called Communist. That hasn't worked out too well for them.. now has it.
Truth is that there will always be someone who will break laws, and struggle to gain power. Star Wars realizes this notion in its universe which is why it is a better franchise. Do I love the idea of the force and its morals.. yes of course, but they are no more idealistic than the ideals of Star Treks society. For me what it comes down to is that I can relate more to the Star Wars universe because I can easily picture myself there. Both universes inspire wonder and awe at what is possible, both have clear cut enemies of good and evil... empire/rebellion...Federation/Klingon/Romulan/Ferengi/Borg etc etc..but when it comes down to it.. I see the SW universe as more plausible (except remove the Jedi.. and put warp capability instead of light speed ).
And p.s. The answer to this argument is 42.
It is Star Wars for me, hands down. I like Star Trek but Star Wars was epic in its story and focus. It is pretty simple. Good vs Evil. There will never be a utopian society as depicted in Star Trek. If history and humanity has shown us, the human condition will interfere. In Star Wars it at least acknowledges this. And for those who are saying Star Trek inspired Star Wars? LOL Do some research or watch George Lucas interviews. The biggest influence on his movies were the Saturday matinee serials of Flash Gordon and other Sci Fi serials he saw at the movies as a boy. Star Trek had nothing to do with it
Communism isn't as bad as it was portrayed during the cold war. The way the USSR applied was bad, the way the Chinese and Cubans apply it is bad. But the vision that Stalin had was more like Chavez in Venezuela. I personally don't agree with Communism or Socialism which is why I didn't vote for our current president. However, it's obvious that this generation wants Socialism so they can sit back at take the freebies the government currently hands out, and all the upcoming freebies that will be handed out if this administration gets to stay. I believe at some point we Americans need to step up to the plate and take care of ourselves and our own, and stop expecting someone (the Government) to pay our way through life.
Boy, how soon we forget. There was a space movie in the mid 1950's that started the many things that existed in Star Trek. The move was called "Forbidden Planet." In this movie, Leslie Neilsen (I hope I spelled his name correctly) was the Spaceship captain. Robbie the robot was introduced. Things like the Force Field, Transporter, Holograms, etc., were also intruduced. Those features and many others were inserted into Star Trek. There were holograms in Star Wars also – R2D2 projecting the image of Carrie Fisher. "Forbidden Planet" is the father of these two series that we are comparing. And by the way – Anne Francis and Walter Pigeon were also in this movie, plus other individuals who went on to fame and fortune.
If you get a chance, obtain a copy of "Forbidden Planet." I am sure you will enjoy it.
I loved Star Trek when I was younger – I watched the series as much as I could – I didn't want to miss any episode. And I didn't miss any of the movies either. But I also enjoyed the Star Wars movies. I didn't miss any of those either. Those science fiction movies represent what the future may hold for us. Science Fiction usually turns into Science Fact ! I certainly will never see that type of future. I am into the winter of my years. I always felt I was born a thousand years too soon. I know that there is alien life out there. I would have loved to meet them.
I loved Forbidden Planet. But there was just the one movie, and it never saw the success of ST and SW. Plus it's not in this debate, just like Twilight is not in this debate.
How can a possible human future and something that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away even compare to each other ?
Cough.... Cough.... Firefly
No power in the 'verse can stop me.
Serenity for sure. It's in my top 5 sci-fi series favorites of all time.
Star Trek had a movie about saving the whales. It had another about chasing a yellow energy ribbon in the sky with Kirk and Picard teaming up.
And that's saying nothing of the very first Star Trek Movie which was universally panned. If there was no "Wrath of Khan"...this supposed debate is a foregone conclusion. Let's look at this in terms of their comparative lowpoints. Star Wars never had a bad movie. There were some "not great ones" but never a bad one.
Star Trek had some bad movies and some bad TV spinoffs...neither of which can be denied. Sci Fi movies will always be compared to Star Wars which is the benchmark.
Only Trekkies hold the Star Trek franchise in such regard.
Star Wars had no spinoffs(unless you count "The Clone Wars" which I don't) that I can recall,so stick to the original Star Trek. Star Wars also was not a tv serial either. Compare the Star Trek tv show to the Star Wars movies. There is none. Star Trek wins it hands down.
This was a comparison of franchises, not just the movies, not just the television properties. If so, there is no Star Trek the movies without the television show and the franchise means nothing for the most part in direct comparison to Star Wars. So if you want to "only" compare the television show of the 1960s (which was only on for a few years) to the 30 years in which the Star Wars movies spanned...then fine. The gulf between the two gets even greater.
The Star Trek television show was largely lightly regarded in its time. it's because of its rabid fanbase and Star WARS movie of 1977 that the idea of a Star Trek movie was even given life. Your argument defeats itself.
SW1 was baaaad. I mean, except for Darth Maul. Of course, Lucas repeats his Boba Fett mistake by killing Darth Maul off too quickly. SW2 was also terrible.
Also, you're way off on ST4 (the one with the whales). It was just on TV and it was rated a 3.5 stars (out of 4). That movie is hilarious!
I loved that movie! "double dumb-a$$ on you!"
"We are looking for nuclear wessels!"
I deny that! I loved every ST movie, and all the ST Series. I was rather disappointed with The Phantom Menace though, in fact, the three "prequels" kind of ruined it for me for Star Wars. The first three movies were pretty darn good, and left me with great memories of watching them on the big screen with my dad and brother way back then. But then The Phantom Menace came out and it was just not in keeping with the superiority of the original trilogy.
I guess you didn't see "Return of the Jedi" or "The Phantom Menace".
I love them both for different reasons. To me, the real difference that makes it very difficult to compare them is that you are truly comparing a television show to a series of movies. And that's not really fair. You're no longer comparing the same thing. Star Trek is just different because A) They have twenty four 45 minute episodes a year for several years to tell their story. B) The budget is limited so by necessity the action and effects are not as spectacular
Star Wars is a limited in minutes logged but has a larger budget. Apples and oranges.
Frankly, I love them both dearly. They bring something important to sci-fi, each in their own great way.
Star Trek is my left brain and Star Wars is my right brain. I need them both to survive.
Star Trek a thousand times over!
Cannot compare the two. One is a TV show and the other a series of movies. One spawned a series of movies where the other spawned a series of television shows. One had its most success as a TV show where the other had its most success as a series of movies. They really are opposite from one another, but nothing alike. They cannot be compared except on an enjoyment factor which is completely subjective.
Star Trek tries to tie directly into a hypothetical future based on our known history (human history) where Star Wars is completely non-related, with exception to the themes that are established (good triumphs over evil, religions overtones etc); not to say these don't exist in the Star Trek universe, but much more is explored scientifically through the various Start Trek iterations.
Star Wars is more 'fantasy' based where Star Trek is more 'fiction' based, though both are fiction in presentation; both borrow from the human condition, but focus of different elements.
Minus the 3rd party cannon for Star Wars, there were only the original three that established the 'universe' for Star Wars and from a single source. The Star Trek universe has been evolved from numerous writers (just for the television series alone; no books).
Just a few examples...
hey CNN, why didn't you make a poll for this???
While I find that both are amazing and I have both enjoyed and have been thoroughly entertained by both I will have to say the the better of the two FOR ME is Star Trek!
Star Wars wins this hands down for many reasons. First and foremost; utopian visions never end well, and that is what Star Trek is. There will always be struggles, intolerance, violence, pollution, and inequality. These problems do not "naturally" get better with time, nor is it in our power to end them. Can we mitigate these problems? Yes, but other problems always pop up. I know that sounds cynical, but it is simply realism.
Star Wars accepts that the universe will never be perfect, but this doesn't mean all is lost. On the contrary, it is only in an imperfect world that virtue can really stand out, for if everyone is perfect, perfection loses its value.
The second big reason is from the time period each show taps into; Star Trek taps into strains of thought present in the 1960s, the Enlightenment, and from Utopian Socialism, and then proceeds to make an idol out of each of them. Star Wars, by contrast, is based on universal values that are ingrained in the human heart and soul, and have been since humanity itself began to exist.
star trek rules. star wars drools. but new galactica might have beat them both
New Galactica was great, but unfortunately it wasn't great enough to erase the memory of Old Galactica.
Aw, come on. Old Galactica was like that farty, drooling, incontinent dog you own. A chore sometimes, but you have a fond spot in your heart for it anyway.
AMEN . . . dont know about the Galactica deal though . ..
Ummm, really? What are you 12? So sad that i have to agree with you.
LOL! only 12 mentally
The old Galactica was so bad that I never could stomach the idea of watching the new one.
You're missing out. The old Galactica and the new one really have nothing in common. The new one is the best science fiction I've ever seen – except for the series finale, which was incredibly dumb.
Ronbo, I agree that the new BSG was incredible. But, it is truly the only series I have ever watched from beginning to end where I started to think "God, I hope they end this series soon." Although marvelous in many ways, it was too gritty, too dark, and too depressing to me. Park and Heffner kept me coming back. Star Gate Universe started to get that way for me as well.
I have to agree, it was the Oz of sci fi series. They needed to break it up with a little humanity. So relentlessly bleak.
This ones a no brainer . . . Star Wars couldnt hold a phaser to Star Trek. Star Trek has stood the test of time since the mid sixties while Star Wars emerges with decent films every long so often . . . Besides . . . if there was no Star Trek . . . there would never be Star Wars. Roddenberry opened the door to space in television. The winner clearly is Star Trek . . . ENERGIZE!!!
And besides . . . Kirk ALWAYS got the hot chick . . . even if she was GREEN!!!
The original star trek series was awful. But I loved TNG
YOU KIDDING?? lol the original was the best of all the Trek runoffs . . .
I vote for Star Trek...and I currently play SWTOR and LOVE it...I saw the original SW at the movies back when it was new. I love the series but it's a case of the "Harry Potter" mythos vs all the other coat-chasers that appeared soon after.
Case in point? -> If you are the egg then don't blame the chicken for it. You are what you are....SECONDARY.
Star Wars is the hot chick in the mini skirt and tight top about whose thoughts and feelings you wouldn't entirely be preoccupied with once you get her because of how hot she is. Star Trek is that pretty librarian girl who ends up making you think about ideals and concepts before you can fully imagine what type of underwear she has on; every time. Star Wars for that wild, raunchy romp while under the influence and Star Trek for cuddling to sleep and kissing goodbye every morning before work.
Takei's got it right – the common enemy is "Twilight." – much more deadly than either the Borg or the Sith
BINGO!!! I tried watching the first Twilight movie and I could not finish it.
Star Trek, (I) Like to THINK and while yes SW has some deep elements because of the almost constant action you don't wonder enough to think after. After I watch a SW movie I just thought "wow that was good/grea"t-or with the first 3 "they sucked" and went about my business with ST some days after watching after school even as a HS I would ponder the episode more so when I became a true adult. Again I like to think and I like the concept of always "trying" to do what is best for the whole...and some times falling short
Star Trek vs. Star Wars is like philosophers vs. theologians. Both sides can legitimately call the other simple-minded. The philosopher fails to see the inherent reason in religion and the theologian fails to see the inherent compassion in philosophy. I don't think that either side is necessarily inferior to the other. If you think Star Wars is better then maybe you have a more developed aesthetic sensibility than a Star Trek fan, who uses more precise logic. You might think that a great painting is worth more than a great arithmetic theorem. The truth is that society needs both in order to thrive.
Star Wars appeals to simpletons while Star Trek appeals to the more sophisticated among us. That is the bottom line.
Not true at all. Ever heard of comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell? Star Wars echoes archetypal hero myths from around the world, man. Both Star Trek and Star Wars have equal claims of greatness with respect to the sci-fi realm, it is simply a matter of what themes they carry through their plot. This is clearly illustrated in the above article. Both arguments are completely valid. Why can't they both be right?
Didn't read all of the comments, so this point may have been made before, but there's a pretty clear symbiotic relationship between Star Trek and Star Wars. My take is that the success of Star Trek in syndication in the early 70's, along with the Trek conventions etc, helped get that first Star Wars movie made....and without the success of the first Star Wars movie, there is NO WAY there would have ever been a series of Star Trek movies...except perhaps on television. Most of my friends and I are "geeks of a certain age" who grew up in the 70's and 80's...and we're fans of both franchises, although not so much of the Star Wars prequels...or Nemesis...
Star Trek is more intellectual but I wouldn't call it more sophisticated than Star Wars. Comparing the two is like comparing a philosophical treatise to religious scripture. Star Wars is less scientific, but it is more artistic and does convey powerful themes that are not explicitly stated – deep moral struggles between competing goods, not between goods and evils (hence Vader's conversion for the good of Padme, not for evil reasons) and the constant tension between warm human compassion and cold human logic. I think that Trekkies are too Vulcan for their own good. There's a good reason that Mr. Spock doesn't get to be captain.
Ships that can do battle at faster then light speeds will always win over ships that can't.
I mean really, the lollygagging speeds of a Federation ship is faster then the turbo laser shots from a Star Destroyer...
Star Trek > Star Wars
Yeah, they may dodge the "turbo laser" shots of a Star Destroyer but you would never Expect the Star Destroyer to launch large amounts of Fighters and Bombers at you right ? Well lets see Star Destroyer Alone = Loss, But a Star Destroyer ALWAYS has Squadrons of both Tie Bombers, Fighters and Interceptors on Board. The Feds go against the Alliance lets just say that the Alliance Fighters also enough to take care of those Pesky Federation ships. So Star Wars > Star Trek
I am a fan of both ST and SW, but ST is the better science fiction show. It explored social and political ideas and asked the question of "what if it wasn't that way." The first televised interacial kiss was on ST. The first woman portrayed in a role as an officer in a military position was ST. ST encouraged us to question what would happen if we changed history? Would it better to save the woman Kirk loved, and risk Hitler winning the war? Or would it be better to sacrifice the love of his life to save the world? ST asked what do you do if doing the right thing is absolutely the wrong thing to do? Star Wars told a wonderful good vs evil story, but it never asked anything of us in return. It never caused us to ask questions about our own society. It never asked us to look beyond "today".
Not entirely true... the Jedi philosophy should make you question your own perceptions.
eg: In real science, knowing about Libet's 1/2 second delay alone makes many Jedi maxims make more sense.
I don't think that Star Wars is about good vs. evil. It's about very complex and blurry moral problems, just like Star Trek. Is love a corrupting or an ennobling force? Is technological advancement always a good things for society? How does one choose between too competing goods? These are all questions that are confronted by Star Wars. Those who claim there is nothing between the lines can be accused of failing to read between them.
I am a fan of both but Star Wars is better because even though it is in a fantasy world it is more realistic, even when Star Trek is trying to project our own future, it is too idealistic and assumes a fundamental change in human nature which is actually an even bigger silly fantasy.
Human nature is easy to understand
1) There is no free will
2) Negative incentive will never deter behavior
3) Positive incentive will incite action
Basically, our social systems do not account for the reality of the human condition, because it is advantageous for a few to keep things as they are (ala the Merrill Vinci from Matrix) Most people are educated in a way as to be unable to cope with reality, and would adopt a counterproductive nihilistic viewpoint when the truth is proven to them.
A "star trek" society is easily within our grasp with our present knowledge, but it will take some time and work that most people will fight against, because they are living in a fantasy land of misconceptions perpetrated by their leaders who either cling to the same false hoods, or use them to their own advantage.
Why waste time making one supreme over the other; both are two sides of the same coin of science-fiction. I love both, I don't need to demonstrate allegance to one or other. The dark side would want to create conflict on both sides so as to promote sales of murchandise. Is the Sith lord behind the capitalistic corporation behind all this?
I vote for a parrellel-universe cross-over show
Star Trek!! Loved it then, now and, far beyond tomorrow
As a fan of both, here is what I have to say; Star Trek is by far the better series. Trek has better story line and actually uses various scientific theories to aid in the story telling. However, as a kid, I never make believe played Star Trek but I did Star Wars. Star Wars is by far the better action series of the two and kids wanna be those characters. Final word: Star Trek; intellectual, scientific and moral fun. Star Wars; Check your brain at the door and escape reality for one helluva adventure.
SW just has not stood the test of time that Star Trek has. I watched the original series with my daughter, and she loved it. We couldn't even get through Star Wars. At this point it is high camp, at best.
As a fan of both, here is what I have to say. Star Trek is by far the better overall series. Trek has a better story line and actually uses various scientific fact and theory to aid in the story telling. However, as a kid I never make believe played any Star Trek characters, but I did Star Wars (I always did want a chair like Capt. Kirk's). Star Wars is by far the better action series of the two and kids wanna be those characters. Final word: Star Trek – intellectual, scientific and moral fun. Star Wars – check your brain at the door and escape reality for one helluva adventure.
and this is why arguing over a matter of opinion is retarded
There is no episode of Star Wars all of whose themes cannot be easily understood by an 8 year old. This is why they have such a big audience – Disney in space for a new generation. While Star Trek is hardly Shakespeare it often touches on adult themes you'd never find in the carefully mass market driven Star Wars universe.
Perfect explanation on the difference!
If you think that there isn't deep thought behind Star Wars then I could accuse you of using the critical skills of an 8-year-old. The fact that you see important themes in Star Trek but not in Star Wars may mean that the moral themes in Star Wars, rather than being absent, are in fact harder to grasp than those in Star Trek. Indeed, can it not be much more difficult to interpret the meaning of a painting than it is to have someone walk you through a mathematical proof? Calling Star Wars simplistic without examining it more closely is like calling Christianity simplistic without reading the Summa Theologica.
Just wondering.....is it bad to market a film to children when you are trying to make a film that portrays a modern mythology intended to help give young children a sense of values?
Doctor Who is what all the other Sci-Fi's want to be when they grow up.
Not really... Dr Who is Sci-Fi for the hypster. If it had never become trendy no one would have given a crud about it. Longevity is about all it has going for it. I wish people would be honest and say how many episodes they endured through just to have "geek" cred.
You must be kidding………….Dr. Who? THAT is British rubbish!!! In fact……most British TV, Movies and the like are really just stupid junk. There are exceptions, but for the most part their entertainment/arts is very pedestrian.
Dr.Who is okay, but they really put a smear on the series with Torchwood.
This is true it got the best lasting power of them all
Just because a story occurs in space doesn't make it science fiction.
Star Trek is science fiction. Star Wars is a shoot-em-up in space.
Also, "The choices that we make now effect" ... should be affect.
I miss Arthur C Clarke!
Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick were inspirations to many in their use of science in the film 2001. George Lucas was one of those influenced by those two when he made Star Wars. However, the mythological inspiration came from Joseph Campbell. See the above link to the Air and Space Museum's website from their exhibit.
They appear to have forgotten that Star Wars was not all black and white. There is much more to Star Wars than the movies. Books like the Republic Commando series provide a different aspect to much of the SW universe, i.e. the oppression of clones, the fact that Jedi could do whatever they wanted without having to repay anyone. Yoda ignored the fact that clones were people too... But that has little to do with the actual movies, and more to do with Karen Traviss. Don't get me wrong, Star Trek is awesome, but Star Wars is a little deeper than both teams portrayed it.
Star Trek > Star Wars. The end.
So why is it that anyone that loves Sci-Fi, Star Trek, or Star Wars is a nerd? That make no sense to me.
*clap* Makes no sense to me. We just cant function unless we put people in these tiny little boxes
Yeah, I don't get that either. I am not a Trekkie (don't collect stuff or go to conventions) but I am a vociferous advocate of the social commentary in Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica or the like.
Spock just did a 'Mind-Meld' with Luke Skywalker and came up empty. LMAO!
As much as you might think that Star Trek is "bigger," with all of its episodes, etc., I'd be willing to bet that Star Wars has several times the content (and the audience) of Star Trek. Ever heard of the Expanded Universe? It's a ridiculous amount of material including comics, novels, video games, and fan fiction that expands the timeline to thousands of years before and after the movies and adds hundreds of characters and worlds.
My personal preference is Star Wars. Star Trek made famous some of the major elements of the space opera: the ship, the fellowship of alien races, the laser guns, etc. But Star Wars popularized the Force, lightsabers, droids, and other elements of the space opera with much better artistic presentation. It is filled with moral dilemmas – how is Anakin's conversion to the Dark Side ethically simplistic? It took a multi-step downfall comparable to Shakespearean tragedy. You are not either Sith or Jedi. Star Wars is remarkable because it combined Fantasy and Science Fiction, inserting clerical knights with swords into a future where robots and guns and secularism should reign supreme. The saga develops a theme similar to the Lord of the Rings: you have a moral/spiritual society (the Shire/ Alderaan) vs. dehumanizing industrialization and technology (Isengard/ the Death Star). Star Trek, on the other hand, doesn't deal with this theme in much detail. (You guessed it: I am a Star Wars fan because I am a fantasy geek, not a science fiction geek. I would rather read medieval Arthurian romances than Jules Verne, and that is why Star Wars is more attractive to me, I think.)
I can't ever imagine bragging about seeing any of the Star Trek movies a hundred times as I did for Star Wars as a kid?
Even to this day-as far as imagination would go ... who would you rather be the three main characters of the old – Jim (space captain), Bones (space doctor) and Spock (space alien) of Star Trek or of Star War's Han (space pirate), Luke (Jedi Knight) and as a girl Leia (space princessl)?
When you talk about intensity between two actors and going through tough situations – name me one in the old Star Trek that would rival Han with Leia during Empire Strikes Back and how that relationship played out to the end? The one with Spock and Jim comes close when he has to go to Genesis to recover an aging Spock – but Spock didn't return the emotion – it was done all on the captain.
Also as regards imagination if everything has been played out as to what the future becomes and it fails to fruition – isn't that a step below a space fantasy where there are not as much restrictions?
Would you spend money on a mock intricate Millenium Falcon toy ship or a toy older Enterprise model?
Compare enemy ships where a T.I.E. fighter or A.T. & T. would trump a Klingon or Cube ship belonging to the Borg?
What was Star Trek's biggest ship to compare with the Executor?
Also, I don't see Star Trek Legos and I'm sure there is has been valid research on why that hasn't been done already!
Then on top of that being the greatest villain in the universe with the Emperor able to survive the Death Star through its bodies of clones (Dark Empire – comics)- to compare that with the Borg or Q as villains is mind-numbing?
But for me all the above is about personal choice. I'm entertained by both but more so by Star Wars – it doesn't make one greater than the other. It's like Coke over Pepsi – both too much are not good for you – because its far better to deal with reality than live a fantasy! And there was a time I had to learn to do such when all I did was watch Star Wars VHS movies as a young adult! Star Trek wasn't entertaining to me but for the Voyage Home and the Search for Spock.
No one can say with a straight face that Star Trek I (The Movie) was good – even Return of the Jedi is better than that one.
I enjoyed both of them very much. They both have their flaws... Star wars episodes 1-3 were a little too much CG didn't focus on the characters as much as the 4 thru 6. I'm in the minority in that i didn't see JarJar as a minus. He may have been a slight over kill but at least showed that in epic events even the slow witted get caught up... to me added a realistic value. 4-6 I grew up on... saw star wars at the drive in...
Star Trek I remember sneaking down stairs at midnight to watch the original series in syndication. I loved that show. the characters were great and had a great premise... I always thought beaming scenes were great. TGN was good too and so was Voyager... Did not really care for DS9... Enterprise... I liked the cast but the series ended too soon. Star Trek's flaws were mostly how things were resolved and plots. Techno Babble... "We can use a tekion beam to blah blah blah," Alien of the week or in Voyagers case alien of the season. Relying on Data to navigate thru something or attach or program something into his thought matrix. Jordi adjusting his visor to save the day. Of course Time displacement.
Everyone knocks star wars for being kiddish... Being a kid was awesome... much less responsibility... toys... fun... no bills to pay.. the world was huge and wild with possibilities... Star Trek is the more adult thought provoking of the two.. tackling issues and much more "real"
So although I love both.... Star wars wins... I long to remain young at heart.. to think of the world as the wild fun place... i dreamed of as a kid... but Star Trek... I watch you too if you are on at midnight maybe i will sneak downstairs again :)
Well, that was a solid victory for Star Trek. SW gave us a "religion?" Oh my god....
Trek inspired cell phones, tablet computers. It had an interracial cast in 1966, It touched every social issue. Star Wars is a fun story. I love them both and remember 1977 fondly and SW kicked ass on most of the Trek movies, and is in fact one of THE BEST MOVIES of all time. But Trek is the grown-up philosophical discourse that has changed the actual world, Star Wars the action drama.
Simple. Uhura and Kirk kissing, albeit against their will, was TV and cultural history for the better. In Star Wars, Luke and Leia, brother and sister, kissed. That is never a good thing. Star Trek wins.
I can honestly say that I'm a fan of both Wars and Trek, but I've been a Trek fan much, much longer; back in the day when I was ridiculed in school for being such a fan. But, anyway...
When I try to think of quotes from both genres that inspire me... Trek seems to win out every time. The best one is total camp, totally overdone by the Shat, but for me it epitomizes the 'feeling' of what Trek is all about...
"... RISK. Risk is our business! That's what these starships are all about. That's why we're aboard her..."
- James Tiberius Kirk
First off, there is no bigger critic of George Lucas and the prequels than I. George Lucas does not understand what good storytelling is and he basically take very childish, unsophisticated concepts and makes them out to be something so grand, extraordinary and philosophical.
That being said, I consider Star Wars the "bigger" of the two universes. All you have to do is look at what the Expanded Universe has provided us. Just about any story can be told within the Star Wars universe. There have stories about witches, kings, queens, corporate police states, even cyberpunk themes in the Star Wars universe. Star Trek, on the other hand, presents only one type of society. Every society is technologically sophisticated. There is no grittiness or a feel of having to fight for survival. There is so much more storytelling potential in Star Wars than there is in Star Trek. And oh, BTW, there is nothing else in the world more pretentious than Star Trek.
"And oh, BTW, there is nothing else in the world more pretentious than Star Trek."
Except for your opinion, of course.
Um, have any of you seen the Youtube video that compares the latest Star Trek movie to Star Wars?
No one has mentioned Firefly. If there ever was a show to satisfy everyone, that was it!
With the exception of how damn soon it was cancelled.
I loved Star Wars but it can't ever compare to Star Trek. Aside from the fact that my very first memory of life is watching the premiere of the original series in '66, any objective comparison of the two would find Star Wars severely lacking. Yes, the movies focused on a direct progression of a single story and the slowly meted-out backstories of its major characters, giving them a cohesion and direction that was mostly lacking in the original Trek series, (but found in the later shows). Lucas gave us phenomenal visual effects we'd never had on tv, nor even in theaters before. The Trek movies later topped all the effects of the first trilogy and the era of CGI allowed even the successor tv series to be their eye-candy equals. The later Trek movies had all the visual benefits of CGI and gave them to us without subjecting us to Jar-Jar Binks.
Star Trek was always far more sophisticated than Star Wars. Lucas' vision was simply the "Space Opera" of early Science Fiction writ large and loud. The Star Wars story, itself, (without all the eye-candy,) is far more primitive than the tv show that pre-dated it by a decade. Now, don't get me wrong; I love a good space opera. I have a collection of old pulps, (Astounding, Galaxy, Analog,) going back to the '40s. I discovered Asimov, Silverberg, Heinlein, etc. at age 8 and when you're that young the simplistic black & white of "good guys vs. bad guys" and the formulaic plotlines and oft-used story devices are easy to understand. As you get older, though, you discover that the world isn't all black & white, it's mostly shades of gray. Roddenberry knew this and Star Trek showed it to us. Situations weren't always good vs. evil. Main characters were actually fallible. Sometimes bad things happened without malevolent intent. Yet there were always the underlying themes of hope, tolerance, inclusiveness. IDIC; Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Television's first interracial kiss. Inter-species romances. No tolerance for intolerance, a theme throughout the original series and all its successors.
Star Wars is great to watch, yes, but Star Trek is also great to watch as well as great to read and great to think about. Trek's always had a message, it's always pushed you to think and often to challenge preconceptions. It's hands-down the winner.
Luke Skywalker and Han Solo are both great heroes but even combined they don't equal one Captain James Tiberius Kirk!
Highly logical explanation Captain! Star Trek is on such a higher plane intellectually, any comparison is completely without merit. Star Wars belongs in the comic book section, while the Star Trek crews (and combination thereof) speak volumes of the immense possibilities of alien life forms and possible human-alien relationships based on said encounters. Go figure: a robot-droid with a British accent. Um, my intelligence will not tolerate such childishness. R2D2 – give me freakin' break already. Tweegy from Buck Rogers was more believable. There is more rationale and leadership eminating from the red-shirt security guards of the Enterprise than 'Hans Solo' or 'Yoda'....who is right up there with Doby the elf from Harry Potter. Sheesh! Even 'Mudd' shenanegigans are more believable than any Darth Vader type idiocracies. And Chewbacca....I won't even go there.
These, briefly, are the key elements of the stereotype: logic cripples and constrains; it forces one into narrow and mechanical modes of thought that cut one off from a vast range of superior thoughts, feelings and perceptions; logic is an enemy of wit and humor (Mr. Spock's face was always an impassive mask); logic makes us dull and pedantic (Mr. Spock always spoke in a monotone); logic presupposes a simple-minded, black-and-white, yes-no conception of the world. ... Logic misses the point of half the things we ordinarily say and cannot match the insight of the humblest person's common sense. -John M. Dolan, Inference and Imagination
See Phil, it's people of such above average intelligence as yourself that really put off the masses on Star Trek. If you have to be intellectually superior to us proles to enjoy something, maybe it's not that good. And why does R2-D2 have to be "believeable"? He's a freaking mobile trash can with a dwarf inside.
Kirk wouldn't last a minute against Capt. Mal Reynolds.
Sheeeeeeeeit.... you mean Castle could write the hell out of a book, and Kirk can't?
Quoted: "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."
Then we are fortunate that no one is asking you, because that was an unbelievably stupid thing to say. You are why people roll their eyes at sci-fi fans - they think we're all like you, and can't tell the difference between something real (Einstein) and some fun popcorn flicks with spaceships and a bit of drama (Star Wars).
While both are interesting entertainment, and I was hooked on Star Wars as a kid in 1977, neither rates any kind of debate that elevates them beyond what they actually are... entertainment. This is the lamest discussion ever. The end!
Jar Jar Binks – nough said!
One also have to understand the limited content Star Wars provide. We have more than 450 HOURS of Star Trek content compared to about 15 hours for star wars. And within that 15 hours, there is lot of crappy long moment. There is just no comparison to be done. Star Trek is better in overhaul, but Star War is a nice small pause between Star Trek watching. Star Trek promote a philosophy (until Voyager came along and the TNG movies), Star wars is just for show. And I think they both have their place.
Star Trek v Star Wars. They are BOTH equally capable in their own rights to tell their perspective on the human condition. However, if you can't decide between the two, just go back to the one and only Doctor Who. It keeps surviving and is always entertaining.
I grew up watching Star Trek with my parents in the 1960's, and I loved it. When Star Wars came out I drove 80 miles just to watch it and immediately fell madly in lust with Princess Leia. Both shows are children of the time they came out (at the first 3 Star War movies) and both are excellent in their own right. Dr. Who, which I've watched for many, many years is also good and I still watch it on the BBC America channel every week.
Science Fiction is just that....FICTION!!!! Roddenberry and Lucas followed their own Sci-Fi dreams and gave all of us hope that someday, things may change. We might not like the change, but it it will happen. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but our great-great grandchildren's time, who knows.
Every Sci-Fi writer be it books or movies got their first impressions from the Twilight Zone, Flash Gordon, Outer LImits, "V", Bradbury, and many, many others. All of us have at some point in time looked in the dark skies and wondered "what is out there"? Why can't there be Star Trek and Star Wars along with Battlestar Galatica, and Storm Troopers, Firefly, etc? All are meant to entertain us and maybe tweak someone's creativity. All are enjoyable to watch which is why there are "Trekies" and "Waries"....sometimes the arguing is fun, sometimes it can go too far.
Paraphrasing my favorite quote of all time "Beam me up Scotty, there are twits down here". I love both Star Trek and Star Wars (all versions), and don't try to compare them to each other because there is no comparison.
Space Jam is the best. And yes I am black.
star trek is far more intellectual, and influenced technology and science far more, and obviously has a lot more hours of storytelling which is far better in every way than the story telling in starwars. However, starwars made more money and proved yet again that bad writing (twilight, the scorpion king, transformers, avatar) can become widely popular and financially successful because no one goes broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.
Both are great... agree with everybody else - it's like comparing two dissimilar objects ...like Ford & Chevrolet - it's a personal preference as to which is better. Personally – i prefer Trek!
There ya go! Ca-ching!!!
Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
Love the reference. Kubrick and Clarke's 1968 movie was a contemporary of Trek. Loved it all. Trek first, 2001-2010 second then star wars.
daisy, daisy, give me your answer dooo
I miss Clarke
star wars is lost.....
lucas didnt even know what he was doing when empire was over- Jedi and the prequels, all were crap by comparison to the star wars and empire films.
Besides, lucas let his adopted children ruin everything- from being a fat aass in his films (yeah his "daughter" is a chubster ) to their crap suggestions to dumb down the films with characters like jarjar etc
BY THE WAY LUCAS....Princess leia in the return of the jedi film, told luke that yes, she remembered her mother-
yet in the prequels, you show that she , leia, NEVER ONCE EVER Saw her mother....so.....get your crap together lucas youre screwing it all up
Yes she did say that but she did not know that the mother on Alderaan was not her mother. She died in Leia's early child hood. If you remember she did not know that Luke was her brother at the time nor did she know that the person she thought was her mother basically just adopted her!
Yes, GL left the prequels with plenty of plot inconsistencies that should be embarassing to him. The romance between Anakin and Padme was about as wooden as they come. Anakin should have been a sympathetic hero character that we liked, so that when he turned to the dark side we really felt what Obi-Wan felt when he said "You were my brother, Anakin!" Instead, Anakin was portrayed as childish, abrasive, and not very likeable. In the end, we didn't really care whether he turned to the dark side or not. That was the big missed opportunity of the entire prequel saga. No, GL is not the world's greatest storyteller. But he has created a universe that is far more exciting and fanciful than the Star Trek universe. Technology is great, and yes Star Trek can be credited with inspiring much of the things we see today. However, Star Wars fans tend to be more spiritual as opposed to Star Trek fans who are more "logical". That's where the differences come down.
All that said, it's kind of a cheap shot to trash GL's adopted family and put the word "daughter" in quotes as if to say adoption does not create a legitimate parent-child relationship. It may take a biological male to deposit the sperm that fertilizes the egg, but it takes a MAN to be a DAD. We should have all the respect in the world for George for stepping up to take on that responsibility. His kids are very lucky, regardless of biology.
It takes one to know one. When it comes to topics of interest to nerds, geeks, and superfans, we know how true that is. Geek Out! features stories from a nerd's perspective that you can still share with your "normal" friends and family.