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!
The winner is actually "2001 – a Space Odyssey", which inspired BOTH of them.
I don't think the two can be compared, simply due to the different mediums in which they occurred.
Star Wars is and always will be a film franchise, comprised of 6 movies and 1 TV show (4 years) spin-off.
Star Trek is and always will be a TV franchise, comprised of 5 TV shows (28 years) with 11 movies spun off.
Both have hundreds of books and comic books to support each universe.
However, the shear volume of work that has gone into Star Trek drowns out anything from Star Wars. Star Trek has simply had more screen time to explore and develop facets of its contents that Star Wars simply cannot. That in and of itself doesn't make ST better, but it does allow for a much fuller picture.
They do share the idea of hope (SW is redemption, ST is optimism) but SW is the story OF redemption, shown in both Anikan and Luke's stories. ST is the story ABOUT optimism, shown in continuous examples of how that optimism overcomes adversaries.
One point of clarification: Star Trek occurs in the FUTURE, Star Wars occurs LONG AGO!!!!!
in my opinion star trek is grounded more in reality. that's why i love the series. i did like star wars, when i was a kid.
Star Trek of course, after the first three movies which are called 4,5&6 now Star Wars went South.
Cant we throw both Star Wars and Star Trek into the Timewar and let the Daleks of Skaro and the Timelords of Gallifrey deal with them?
Another reason i watched star trek, was i had a crush on L.T. Uhura she was so beautiful and still looks good. ever wounder why capt, kirk had a big smile on the bridge.
I mean, I'm a fan of both franchises, for different reasons, and I thought Shatner and Fisher's videos were kind of silly. But George Takei is The Man, and I agree with him entirely.
star trek was the begining of all this, that was a show i did not miss saw it in black and white on tv, their technology was so far ahead in a time when movies today rely on computer graphics and 3d, they did it old school. Years after i always woundered what color their uniforms were, until we saw it in color. stars wars your good but papa taugth us everything we learned.
I've enjoyed both Star Wars and Star Trek over the years. Which is best is a silly argument since it's an apples & oranges argument. Star Trek is science fiction with elements of Space Opera at times while Star Wars is pure fantasy Space Opera that occasionally tosses in some Sci/Fi elements and settings. Star Wars involves evil sorcerers wielding mystical powers while Star Trek leans more towards hard science. Star Wars stories are primarily concerned with the battle of "good" vs. "evil", seeing the two as very objective, set values. While the more mature, adult Star Trek stories often see the line between "good" and "evil" as blurred and far more subjective if not often downright misconstrued. Star Wars stories are always straight forward conflicts while the tension and conflict in a Star Trek story is often more abstruse and involves inner, ideological struggles. The future vision in Star Wars is that life is an eternal struggle between the forces of darkness and light that will never be truly resolved. The future vision of Star Trek is that the "Age of Conflict" is simply a phase of our childhood as a species that we will someday outgrow, as do all species. The weapons in Star Wars are based on laser beam technology. The weapons in Star Trek are based on a technology that is meant to be the next generation advance beyond lasers and particle beams... phasers. The ships in Star Wars travel at light speed. The ships in Star Trek travel many times the speed of light, literally warping the fabric of space/time. Star Wars appeals more to the kid in me who loved John Carter's adventures on Barsoom while Star Trek appeals more to the young adult in me who loved tales of Galactic exploration and adventure that featured well considered "future science" written by authors such as Robert Heinlein and Larry Niven. Also I have to point out that I prefer the early Star Trek and Star Wars as both have suffered and degraded terribly over the years. This is due, primarily, to input from the fan base. When you allow the fans to have massive input to the creative process you end up with a story-by-committee. And as the Science Fiction author, Robert Heinlein, once observed a committee is a life form with 2 or more heads, 4 or more legs and no brain. Story creation should NEVER be a democratic process, it should remain the clear vision of a single, gifted individual. To be sure that vision will benefit from input and ideas garnered from many sources. But when the process becomes a joint effort the results will always be mediocre at best. And that's just what both Star Trek and Star Wars have become. Mediocre typical American mass produced crud . Maybe some new individual with a clear and astounding vision can take them over again. We'll see...
Really? "Who Mourns for Adonais" was rather thin on science. I enjoyed it, they they had their moments.
\\// vs. ===]----- I think both are great and important in their own way. So blame it on the people that used "star" for part of its name, both franchises are not quite the same.
I'm a Trekie, but I like Star Wars also. And I apparently know something about it that those in the article favoring it don't:
It takes place in the past not the future.
Easy. Star Trek for the win. Iit has no Ewoks, no Jar Jar, and no whiney heroine named Luke! Seriously, I'll bet most of the time Yoda just wanted to put a light saber through Luke's forehead just so he didn't have to hear that whiney voice another time. If I were his dad, I would have gone to the dark side, too, just so no one would know my son was such a kvetching girly boy. Gilbert Gottfried would have made a more believable hero, one that people would actually empathize with rather than want to see him slide under an AT-AT and taste his own blood.
lol, love your comment
Trek is by far the more influential franchise. I like SW ok but Lucas created Jar-Jar Binks and those wretched little Ewoks......anyone else want a Heartless Carnivore Special with extra Ewok from Pizza the Hut?
tar Trekkin' across the universe,
On the Starship Enterprise under Captain Kirk.
Star Trekkin' across the universe,
Only going forward 'cause we can't find reverse.
Both are great franchises. Parallel universes.
I'd say there are too many people with too much time on their hands.They are just Movies. Get Over It.
Two words: Darth Vader...Star Wars has the greatest villain of all time. The greatest character arc and possibly the best hero (Han Solo) as well. Say what you want about the message of Star Trek but it is characters that drive stories. Kirk and company were good and even Khan was a memorable villain but they just don't compare.
It's apples and oranges. Star Trek came about at a time when space exploration was new and racism was rampant. Star Trek broke much new ground, both philosophically and technologically (on screen and production-wise). Star Trek told us about our culture and gave us a peek at our future.
Star Wars on the other hand was a new age retelling of the classic Hero's Journey. It took advantage of the much better technology of the day in its creation of special effects. It is ultimately the story about each of us as an individual - what we can do if we follow a dream and never give up.
Both stories also show the power of sticking by those who care about us and whom we care about.
To compare them is simply non-sequitor. In addition to the different basic concepts ("Wagon Train" in space vs. Hero's Journey) one was created for TV with a TV show's budget, while the other was specifically created for the big screen, with appropriately larger budget.
Enjoy both for what they are. George Takei is right - we should all go after "sparkly" Twilight.
Why are people arguing about this?!!! The two are both great in their own right.I grew up on Star Trek and then Star wars came along in 1978 and cemented my love of SF.I still watch the original series of Star Trek and the original trilogy of Star Wars is also watched on regular occasions."Fan" rivalry is such a waste of energy just enjoy them for what they are!!
The ultimate proof that Star Trek is far superior - Steve Jobs. Yes, when the iPad was rolled out, they used Star Trek movies to demonstrate the multi-media abilities of the machine. Aspects of the iPad were based on the views of such "fictional" devices in ST: TNG. When the iPhone 4 rolled out, Jobs quoted "I grew up here in the US with The Jetsons and Star Trek and communicators, dreaming about video calling, and it's real now!". Heck, when Jobs was asked to imagine the future, his simply said "I want Star Trek". To put it simply, Jobs was a futurist and he worked long and hard to achieve that future for all of us (and make some money along the way). And his vision of the future was shaped and molded by Star Trek. To Steve, Star Wars was entertainment, and nothing mre. But Trek was a vision of the future, something he wanted to help achieve. Star Trek brought us the modern world we have. Star Wars brought us cute toys, and some great entertainment. It's no contest. Trek wins.
NUMBERS DONT LIE
I UNDERSTAND YOUR LOGIC NOW
YOURE COMPARING STAR TREK WITH WACINTOSH CRAPPLES
STAR WARS DOMINATES STAR TREK
Well, thanks for your well thought out response.
YELLING doesn't make you right
Star trek wasn't even that popular when it was first on TV – didn't reach cult status until mid 70's or when the first movie came out and compared to Star Wars, Star Trek has had very little merchandising related to it – Star wars embraced that as soon as the movies first came out
as of 2007, Star Wars movies had grossed $6.7 BILLION worldwide PLUS another $9 Billion in toys and 1.6 Billion in video games
according to Paramount, Star Trek total merchandising is only 4 Billion
the 6 Star Wars movies are all in the top 42 of all time movie grosses (just domestic/US box office).
only the 2009 Star Trek movie even made it into the top 100 at #54 – about $20 million in gross less than the lowest Star Wars Episode 5-Empire Strikes back that came out 30 yrs ago
google it if you don't believe me – I just did
George Lucas him self is worth 3.6 Billion ( or was in 2007) – that almost equals Star Trek's entire merchandising revenue
SO BOTTOM LINE STAR WARS WINS!!!!!!
MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU
Actually, what you point out is the big killer that shows Star Trek is better. Star Wars was designed and written in part to take part of Merchandising. Sort of like Yogurt in the Mel Brooks movie Spaceballs (which strips star wars down to it's comedy essence) and his wonderful "It's all about the merchandising" line. Star Trek has been far more concerned with good stories, story lines, and a vast universe. Star Wars concentrated on loveable characters like Ewoks and Chewbacca and other things so they could sell items to the masses. The fact that they've brought in so much money in toys is proof Star Wars is far more interested in the money that an actual story. Proof that Star Trek is the far superior series. Thanks for pointing that out!
Right on point, Ken
May the schwartz be with you.
Three words to explain why ST > SW:
And a follow-up phrase:
An entire trilogy made up of 80% CGI because it wasn't feasible to be performed by people in physical places.
If this discussion was constrained to the original SW trilogy versus ST:TOS it would be a discussion with merit. Broadening the horizons to include the entire Roddenberry mythos and the entire Lucas ... er ... "senility"? No ... "Greed"? ... No ... "Grenility"? Possibly ... Makes this a lost war for SW. SW:IV and SW:V were instances where SW won battles, but I think ultimately ST won the war ...
In terms of quality of the films, Star Wars blows Star Trek off the screen. And part of what made the Sta Trek films so good was the special effects, that were a direct result of Star Wars. Remember who made Star Wars and where Industrial Light And Magic came from... Not to mention that Shatner is so full of himself it's pathetic.
What was amazing was the special effects in the original Star Trek series from the late 1960's. I remember one episode where they used pipe cleaners in a scene showing some aliens dying. Just goes to show that you do not need much in the way of CGI to make a great story.
Now children...behave...both are fantastic. in terms of pure quality, BSG and Stargate whipped em both: BSG with it's stark, alien-free universe and intense writing (ok, except for the crappy finale, but after watching the finale for Enterprise team ST better just stay quiet) and Stargate for taking essentially our world and technology and saying "Ok...you have to fight not one, but two incredibly powerful alien empires (the Go'auld and the Ori) with 21st century technology...HAVE FUN!" And I'm sorry, Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Janeway are fine commanders but given my choice...I'll serve Adama or O'Neil or General Hammond and day of the week over them.
The original BSG was great. Very short lived, but great.
I can't believe anyone even compares the two.
Star Wars was fun, entertaining, but it was just a movie. Its fiction. It isn't real, unlike Star Trek.
If you're restricting the choices to these two, then Star Trek is easily the winner. But Babylon 5 beats either. ; )
Well if you're gonna toss in Babylon 5, might as well bring in that fan favorite Serenity. Turn this sucker into a cage match between the four.
Very true. Babylon 5 was probably one of the best tv series ever, regardless of space content. And Firefly-let's not forget that.....and both are true and worthy successors to ST.
As a huge trekkie I say... can't we all just get along? I mean we expect this from the Star Wars people, theirs was pure and simple an action movie (hehe friendly jab, I'm a SW fan too and I know the extended universe has way more to it), but we Trekkies are supposed to be above this! Ours has a MESSAGE! Make our Great Bird of the Galaxy proud and let's be the bigger fans. Let this be the Day of the Dove, not our Last Battlefield. :-D
I'm a big Star Trek fan too, but I wouldn't go as far as to call myself a Trekkie. Have you ever actually been to one of those conventions...... talk about weeeeeeird people. So while I am on your side as Star Trek being the supreme of the two. I can't agree with you that Star Trek fans are above this.
I am 100% Trekkie and you might even group me in with the "weird people." Frankly I don't judge. And of course we're not above it, we're humans, not Vulcans. We can throw "OURS IS BETTER" tantrums with the best of 'em... hehe
I do judge. I specialize in judging costumes every Halloween. So when I say weeeeeeird.... I do mean it using the full definition of the word.
Haha oh, well yeah, if you judge costumes you'd see some really out there ones. But you have to give them credit for having the balls to have fun with it!
Most are just having fun with it, however, there are a handful that really believe they are characters from the series.
Like some times there this guy that calls himself Bill Shatner that claims he's Captain Kirk.
If he *really really* believes it... maybe it's time for a psych eval, hahaha.
Why yes, I have been to a couple of those conventions (admittedly, 20 years ago, and I took my business partner's 9 year old because I felt a little foolish). I met a ton of great people, there were a surprising number of single women – intelligent, thoughtful women. Many years later, I worked at NASA, which is chock full of Star Trek fans. I can't tell you how many people say their interest in science started with Star Trek as a kid.
And on our diversity day at Ames Research Center/Moffet Field, the guest speaker wasn't anyone from Star Wars, it was Mr. George Takei. He was terrific, he's a shining example of America's diversity. While in real life the Star Wars actors are an example of...well, just actors (admittedly, some very, very talented ones).
KP wrote: "we Trekkies are supposed to be above this! Ours has a MESSAGE!"
A message? You see, this is EXACTLY the problem with Star Trek: its enormously inflated opinion of its own importance and moral value. Star Wars and Star Trek are both ENTERTAINMENT. Nothing more.
Captain Kirk was just a swashbuckling hero, and Uhura was hardly the vanguard of women's liberation: she was just the crew's RECEPTIONIST. Didn't you ever notice what she actually DID on the bridge? And no, Star Trek did NOT invent the idea of cell-phones; the Star Trek communicator is nothing more than a smaller version of the WW2-era walkie-talkie.
I'm not sure whether Star Trek's exaggerated sense of its own importance filtered into the fan base, or whether the fans created this exaggerated sense of its importance. Either way, it's annoying. Get over it; as Will Shatner himself once said on SNL, it's just a TV show.
Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" was entertainment as well. It was a complete work of fiction. You saying it didn't have a message? Entertainment is the BEST WAY to get a message across because it makes people listen to it without realizing they're listening. If they'd come out all preachy and said "prejudice and bigotry are bad things!" people would have rolled their eyes. Instead we had Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, which was an incredible, thought-provoking way of getting the point across without beating people over the head with it. Yeah, Kirk was a cowboy, but Uhura was a black woman on tv in the 60s who didn't play a maid – that alone counters your receptionist arguments all day long. Besides, she was an incredible communications officer who received multiple commendations during her Starfleet career. Just because the 60s weren't ready for anything more don't blame Gene – he wanted to make a woman second in command but the TV execs were like "uh, no." And as for the cell phones.... you can whine all you want, but the courts are with us on this one. So there.
(Before you get dumb and OMG YOU'RE WRONG, yes I know that's not real. That was a joke. I just thought about the fact that jokes don't come over very well on the internet.)
Apparently, KP has no idea how a cell-phone works. He doesn't understand the difference between a walkie-talkie (a point-to-point device) and a cell-phone (a networked device). Star Trek communicators are like walkie-talkies, which date back to WW2. The CONCEPT of the cell-phone was NOT invented by Star Trek, and Trekkies only make themselves look technologically ignorant when they say otherwise. Saying that "the courts side with us" just sounds stupid.
By the way KP, Uhura was STILL just a receptionist. You can call her "communications officer", but when her console broke down, guess what: SHE CALLED A MAN TO FIX IT. That's not a "communications officer"; that's a receptionist.
Huh? I recall an episode with Uhura working on the panel underseath, trying to fix her console. Spock asked how long it would take, she snapped that it was very difficult and delicate work, and he gave her some kind of compliment along the lines of, I can't imagine anyone more qualified to get it done.
Oh, and that thing in her ear? Bluetooth. Along with the iPad and the flat screen, just the bridge alone contained so many predictions of future technology. The Navy even studied the bridge layout to consider in future ship designs!
With regards to Uhura: you are missing the point. Yes, she was the communications officer and was mostly relegated to talking a lot, and never given much of an active role. HOWEVER, she was the first black female character to be portrayed on a US television show. She broke a couple of barriers at once that it might be hard to remember existed for people living nowadays, but were very evident at the time. Star Trek broke a lot of barriers in its time. I love the fact that Chekov was added because of a complaint from the Soviet Embassy that the USSR was not represented on the show.
Live long a prosper KP.
Firefly! But then again, some people would say Mal is just a rehash of Han Solo. However, to the debate at hand: I am a fan of both, but Star Trek did it first and did it best. I'll take ideas over special effects any day. And, well, Jar Jar Binks??
Yes, Jar Jar... but we have to be fair here. We had Wesley Crusher.
Wesley Crusher was a good actor, however, sometimes his lines sucked. However, Beverly Crusher was a hottie, even at her age. I would have chosen her over Dr Polanski any day.
Pulaski, but yeah she was a horrid character. They tried to make her a 24th century rehash of McCoy, being prejudiced against Data instead of Vulcans. It didn't work.
They were a little to literal with it, I do recall her saying she hated having her molecules spread all over the universe... Bones had the same phobia.
Exactly. The mistake they made with the Pulaski character was thinking that things wouldn't have changed socially in a century. In the 23rd century humans were still relatively new to the galactic community and Starfleet was pretty much entirely composed of humans. Just because we'd finally accepted EACH OTHER doesn't mean we were ready to accept aliens. The 24th century was WAY beyond that petty crap, even formalizing their views on equality and AI in Measure of a Man. What racism did exist usually came from ex-soldiers who clung to their old war-time hatred (eg against the Cardassians).
Even though I do love both Star Wars and Star Trek, give me Star Trek any day. For one thing, like mentioned before...a lot of our technology is around because of this show. Two it covers topics that most shows will not touch. I grew up with both, and still would rather watch a marathon of Star Trek over Star Wars. Though I will probably go and see the Star Wars movie when they are out in 3D. Hopefully they will make a new Star Trek movie as well.
This is not that complicated. They both stand in their own right. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other. What one lacks the other seems to have. There does not need to be a war here, they are both great. They are each *trying* to be different and show their unique outlook on the future. They each fill a different need. They are unique, not better than each other.
This is what I always say as well. That does not, however, make this any less funny
the original Star Trek and its succeeding series' and movies are by far superior to Star Wars. Intellectually, it is the world in which I would like to live in the 24th century. Now in my mid 50's, I grew up a Trekkie/Trekker and have passed it on to my son. Don't get me wrong, Star Wars was an entertaining series of movies but even on its best day could not compare the the depth of any one of the Star Trek episodes or movies. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" " LIVE LONG AND PROSPER" Star Trek!
Not that complicated, actually. After all, has Star Trek ever come up with anything as profoundly annoying, possibly racist, and just plain stupid as Jar Jar Binks? Even the Star Wars fanboys can't stand him! Star Trek wins on that basis alone, I'd say.
Not just Jar Jar, the whole gungan race. Look at them. Did you have to make them look stupid and then make them talk that way?????? C'mon George.... this is why nobody takes you seriously in your private life....... especially Harrison Ford.
Get a life people. Go out and get laid. You are starting to make me mad.
Kirk....I am you father.
Star Wars was only better in its Special Effects. A lot was was invented since Star Trek. But, like I said – it was just a battle between good and evil. Nothing more.....
Star Wars is superior. No contest. I can't even believe they're trying to make a debate out of this issue.
This Debate is getting crazy. Star Wars is nothing more than a battle between good and evil. Forget the fancy effects. The Dark Side, Darth V., and all the rest of that clan, represent the Devils in the human race.
Star Trek was a lot tamer. It represented going thru life trying to do right and, in some cases, leaving well enough alone – and finding a few devils along the way which had to be dealt with. And, of course, making some alliances. Star Trek was a lot more realistic by comparing it to our own voyages thru life.
Star Trek took us boldly to the future where we had not gone before. Star Wars took us back, long ago to a galaxy far far away. Star Trek wrestled with 20th century issues in deep space. Star Wars wrestled with timeless struggles within the human heart. I was a big fan of the original Star Trek, but think the Star Wars series is epic, like a Homeric tale. Star Wars is best....by a light year.
"through the Jedi Order we learn about tolerance, compassion and understanding in a chaotic world"
Tell that to the orphaned son of the Sith lord. You know, those Jedi eschew love and kill the Sith for loving their families. Evil Jedi...
*yawn, watches STARGATE*
ditto...stargate owns all other star/space related sci fi shows/movies!!
Stargate and Star Trek are too different to be compared well... Stargate's more militaristic, and kind of spends more time working on the overall arc of the plot. The characters (in my opinion) aren't as well developed though. On the other hand, they do have one similarity- both SGU and Enterprise are/were worthless.
Actually, the three would complete the cycle. Star Wars deals with a time long ago, Star Trek deals with the distant future, and Stargate is present time.
sniff sniff...... you complete me
Star Wars wasn't the first show to use "THE FORCE". Remember the official pilot's Gary Mitchell? How about Plato's Stepchildren? Who mourns Adonais?
This is not even close. I liked Star Wars. It was a good action packed movie series with a lot of new technological advances to the big screen. But, it was fantasy fiction. On the other hand, Star Trek debuted in 1966. We had not even been to the moon and it opened up our minds that there could be something out there. Would Star Wars even have been produced if not for Star Trek? Probably not. Star Trek gave us ideas of the future. GPS, Cell phones, on screen communication and many other things that we use today. Not based on one character, Star Trek gave us a chance to choose who our favorites were. All of the main characters had a personality that we could relate too. They actually made a complete and working language (Klingon). Hands down it is Star Trek. Star Wars, while I will always like it, is not even in the same ball park as Star Trek.
Apples and oranges.
Star Trek truly went where no man *ahem* had gone before. TV's first interraction kiss was Kirk and Uhuru. The Omega Glory (Yangs vs. Coms) was a powerful critique of the Cold War at a time when mainstream TV didn't criticize such government policies. Not to mention the numerous jabs at racism and other societal ills. Cerebral, groundbreaking, and occasionally totally stupid (the Gorn? really?).
Start Trek was a late 1970s show ten years ahead of its time.
Star Wars was groundbreaking in a totally different way. It didn't just define, it created the blockbuster movie. Before Star Wars, there was nothing like it. "2001"? An art film, not an oh-my-god-I-don't-believe-what-I-just-saw movie. Every child between the ages of six and sixteen in 1977 remembers the sense of awe watching the Imperial Star Destroyer chase down Princess Leia's ship in the open sequence. Jaw-dropping.
Without Star Wars, there is not Avatar, no Jurassic Park, no Indiana Jones, no Independence Day, no Terminator 2. Star Wars created a genre that has become a staple of American culture. Not cerebral, but truly enthralling.
Oops - "first interracial kiss was between Kirk and Uhuru"
There were plenty of interaction kisses before then :-)
Leonard Nimoy: Hey, we've done heroic things too!
Nichelle Nichols: Yeah! In the third season, I kissed Shatner!
You might as well compare and F22 Raptor to an Abrams M1A battle tank. They are not and never where in the same category. Both are good for different reasons.
Next up we compare Moby Dick and Gone With the Wind.
Actually, you should compare The Sound of Music with Gone With the Wind. Those are the #3 and #1 grossing movies of all time in the U.S (respectively)., adjusting for inflation. Star Wars is #2.
I'm having a hard time thinking of three more different movies that were all instant classics.
for all-time highest US Gross adjusted for inflation. Avatar is 14th.
Apples and Oranges. Both are possible worlds and celebrate the human imagination. We are not quite up to speed with either of them, yet, and if they didn't intrique us in their own right, we wouldn't be critiquing them now.
I think Star Trek was more true to life-what was fiction is now reality. Star Wars is still fiction for the most part. When we actually travel to distant planets in distant gallexies will be equal. I love both, but I only saw ST6 in the theater whereas I saw all SIX Star Wars movies on the big screen starting with the original (now Part 4), back in 1976 and was one of the last movies I saw at the drive in.
in an all out imperial war : fleet to fleet since star trek has cloaking devices so i give them the victory in space. ground battles i would have to say star wars wins. although i would like to see Kirk and Solo duke it out once it would be a good fight .
I disagree. Star Wars had the Death Star. One shot and there goes all of the higher-ups in Star Fleet command. Plus, the X-wings and TIE fighters had far more maneuverability than the Star Trek ships. While Star Fleet is scrambling to decide who is in command and redirect orders, they are taking on Imperial Star Destroyers.
Plus, here's the other thing. Stormtroopers. On any land based battle, the stormtroopers can take anything simply because there are so many of them, all with one, programmed purpose.
The only places where things MIGHT get dicey are if you involve Q (who is basically "God" for all intents and purposes) and the Borg. I think even Jedi would have problems with the Borg and considering their adaptability, I don't know how long the Force, lightsabers and "a good blaster" would work.
Storm troopers are men inside that white armor, not robots to be programed. Get this guy outa here.
Let's see here.....
1. "Star Wars had the Death Star." – with an insanely stupid design flaw. You don't think they could program a photon torpedo to hit that thermal exhaust port without even having to get in that close?
2. "stormtroopers can take anything simply because there are so many of them, all with one, programmed purpose." Programmed? Uhhhhh no. Watch SW again. They're humans in uniforms.
3. Q was probably the reason we got into this inter-universe battle in the first place.
No, what I am saying is not that criminals see a gray area between good and evil. What they see is a gray area between good and good. Anakin sat in the council chamber for a long time to decide between saving Padme and letting Palpatine go down. He couldn't decide which one he wanted more – that's a gray area. But whatever; I'm sick of writing.
Stars Wars was in no way a possible glimpse into our future, as one of the people said in this article. It was a glimpse into our past...you know the whole "A long time ago in a galaxy blah blah blah".
The basic misunderstanding here is that you are talking about ethical results and I am talking about ethical decisions. An outsider may observe a particular decision to be easy while the person making the decision is utterly confounded by it, torn between either options. Do you dispute this statement?
Can't we all just get along. I love both! Being bored in the 80's i grew up with both and feel a sense of loyalty and respect for both.
Did you mean "bored" or "born" in the '80's? Either one works in this context.
It's nice this article acknowledged the greats of Sci-Fi; however, the progenitor of the genre was omitted. The one person who more than any other defined the essential elements of the story, namely Mary Shelley.
If you said HG Wells or Jules Verne, I'd be with you. You lost me on Shelly. While she can certainly claim credit for Creighton's work, fear of technology is not what either Star Wars or Star Trek were about.
Let's see Tribbles verses Ewoks...who's cuter? Harrison Ford is still one of the handsomest man in Hollywood (I like my men mature and seasoned) and Carrie Fisher now she's lost weight is hot again.
Two of the oldest people in the business still alive. What do you mean by "hot"?
Odd photo choices for the article...a black and white photo of Star Trek...which was never broadcast in black and white and a photo of fan in an ill-fitting Darth Vader outfit.
live long and prosper
Yes there a few B&W shows that were broadcasted. I watched at least one with Captain Pike
I didn't have a color TV until 1982 so ALL the shows were in black and white.
lroy did you take your geritol today?
The real question is why bother with either of these deficient franchises when the real winner lies dead and canceled. Long live Firefly/Serenity!
Well Golly Gee... why don't we just throw in Lost In Space, Space 1999, Battlestar Galactica, in too.
Star Trek, of course. Live long, and prosper.
What a one sided story about Star Wars. This is an insult to the memory of Gene Roddenberry. He thought of creatures, places, planets, machines, computers way before any of it was actually real. No body had a computer in the 60's. We didn't even get to the moon yet when Star Trek came out. There's a lot more to Star Trek then what is criticized here in this one sided Star Wars biased article. They both have different story's and great Sci-Fi fun. But this article makes Star Trek look really bad with no facts to back it up whats so ever. I like both Star Wars and Star Trek but I don't like this attempt to criticize only Star Trek.
I loved both as a child, and both are now dead to me. Once Majel Roddenberry died and the rights went to CBS and JJ Abrams, I knew it would be bad. But I had no idea they would use their movie to destroy the entire Series by destroying the timeline. Granted Star Trek was failing by the time Voyager came out with its lack luster cast and crew. Enterprise, was the final nail in the coffin, and JJ took a dump on it after that.
As for Star Wars...Lucas killed that on his own. You need not look farther than the un-holy trilogy and innumerable spinoffs spawned from it. Everything that made Yoda bad ass was diminished. Likewise, everything about Darth Vader changed once the character of Anakin Skywalker was portrayed by that hack Hayden Christensen.
Have a safe trip back to Venus.
Sorry folks. Knight Rider wins. It's all about the 'Hoff.
Thank you for specifying that with "The Hoff". For a second I thought you meant that piece of $#!t remake they made a year or so ago, where the car was now a Ford Mustang that transformed into an Explorer...
I'm a fan of both.
The series are not the same and hard to compare. If you look at cell phones, ipads, etc., etc. you see Star trek technology. The guy that came up with the MP3 file for digital music says that he got the idea from watching an episode of Star Trek, where Data was listing to several symphonies at the same time on the computer. Once sensor technolgy advances, you will see the medical advances. Science just moved the first nano car, which will lead to nano machines, which will lead to the replicator. Which could possibly end hunger, poverty, etc.
Lets see what Star wars had given us in technology. Few if any. Nothing I use today.
Star Wars is a great story, and I love every movie as a child of the 80's, who wouldn't? My kids now love the movies. I am sure it will continue on in the future.
Some of the science fiction of Star Trek has not become science fact. I can't say that for Star Wars.
So even though I love both series. Star Trek wins hands down.
May the force be with you, always.....
Star Wars gave us $180 novelty light sabers, that make relatives and friends uncomfortable when nerds try to show them what they spent $180 on.
Actually Star Wars helped inspire lots of modern technologies: 3D video games, robotic prothetics, HUD's in fighter jets, holographic emails, robot servants, and computerized translators.
Jet Fighter HUD's were around long before Star Wars, as was using computers to render 3D objects, and I still don't have my own robot servant. ;P
Holographic email? Please send me an Holographic email, I want to see what it looks like.
University of Arizona professor Nasser Peyghambarian invented holographic messages recently.
PLEASE pick up a book. Any one by any of the scifi greats from the '50's – Azimov, Ellison, Boulle, etc. You'll find that none of these originated with Star Wars. On the other hand, the technology of Star Trek, other than warp drive, was based on what was considered possible in the '60's, if somewhat futuristic.
Might I remind you that helping to inspire a new technology is by no means synonymous with being the first work of literature to mention it?
As to computerized Translators, Star trek had the Universal Translator well before Star Wars came up with theirs.
By the way I enjoy both. but Star Trek rocks
Hard to compare because they are different genra. Star Trek is Sci Fi and star wars is space fantasy. One should not really look for a lot of technological advances out of fantasy, it is not supposed to be scientific.
That was not original research, by the way.
Nice remarks while standing your ground. Beam down the landing party!
Just keep in mind the target audiences: Star Wars is targeted for children, Star Trek for adults.
Star Trek is far too cerebral for the simple-minded. Star Wars is "fun". Personally, I like both for different reasons, but Star Trek necessarily wins.
The philosopher who fails to see the inherent reason in religion is just as simple as the theologian who fails to see the inherent compassion in philosophy.
There is more to Star Wars than just the fighting and aliens. There is deep political issues within the storyline. If you couldn't catch on to that, then I'd have to say you are pretty simplistic and take everything at face value. Such as since Spock is a logical being, then that must mean it's more cerebral. Sometimes the things are more complicated than face value.
These are movies for gods sake Get a life, move out of your parents basement, and get a job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My parents, sir, have allowed me to convert their attic into my sub space dwelling, thank you very much.
“These are sports teams, for God’s sake. Get a life, put down the cheap beer, stop ignoring your wife, get a real hobby, and stop trying to live your life through over-payed, brainless athletes.”
“These are rock bands, for God’s sake. Get a life, stop buying over-produced, culturally-devoid, corporately-owned garbage and read a book for once.”
“These are muscle cars, for God’s sake. Get a life and stop treating a damned car better than you do your own son. Nobody cares that you think a ’72 Olds 442 could take a ’69 Camaro in a race, and it’s a waste of energy and time to talk about it.”
“These are game animals, for God’s sake. Nobody cares about the number of points on that buck you downed except for you and the rest of your redneck crew. Nobody cares about the ‘Deerhunter’ sticker on your hick-mobile and stop wearing Mossy Oak as a fashion statement, because you look like a damned idiot who should probably be chemically sterilized.”
Where do you think we're typing these replys from jack@$$!?
My parents never understood Star Trek. Now I've done my best to corrupt..er, educate my kids.
Kahn is calling you.
Star Trek was a real departure from anything then found on television. Star Wars is warmed over Joseph Campbell in cartoon form. Stanley Kubrick's A Space Odyssey is definitely in a league of it's own but requires a higher degree of intelligence to appreciate because it's not laden with explosions and gun fights or swords. As far as creating a believable future space society(ies), Babylon Five.
Space odyssey sucked. 20 minutes of psychedelic lights while a computer sings Bicycle built for two. YAWN. 20 minutes of shoddy monkey suited men squabbling over a pond of water. YAWN again. 20 minutes of a guy taking a plane ride to the moon, not able to talk about what was found. YAWN. I want to punch people after watching any of that yawn fest, and I'm Vulcan.
Have you ever read anything at all by Arthur C Clarke?
1st Star Trek came out first no one aruges this it was good for its time. But lets face it if Captain Kirk was played by some other person besides William Shatner the show would of been Lost in Space.. The Star Wars movies at the time were more exciiting and won more awards then Star Trek ever did. And since this argument of who is better came out lets add both Star Trek and Star Wars have a MMORPG on the market lets see how they fare . And let the chips fall where they may.
Star Wars had over 2 million subscribers in little over 3 days can see the numbers for self Star Trek is free to play because Ftp basically means game sucks and want people to play.
The cutscenes and video clips in Star Wars alone out do Star Trek in any way shape or form
If ANYTHING, your argument demonstrates which franchise is more popular; not which one is superior.
Most music and movies that are popular are devoid of anything remotely intelligent or innovative about them. Case-in-point: Avatar.
hey hey hey hey..... You leave Avatar out of this. That was a spectacular movie. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that movie, and I would even pay IMAX fees if they made a sequel in IMAX form.
Like Twilight, and Dr. Who, Avatar is not part of this debate, so leave it alone.
I wasn't allowed to watch Star Trek when it was on. Why? Because it was on too late, that's why. Not appropriate for a four year old. I've seen them all since.
Season 1 and 2 were on during prime time..... it wasn't until the third season that it was on at 10pm on a Friday night..... NBC was actually trying to kill it, I guess 10pm on Friday did the trick.
Things that target the common denominator are usually more popular. SW appeals more to the younger audience and it is probably one of the reasons it sells more merchandise/toys.
I personally prefer Star Trek since the episodes of TOS were thought provoking and covered interesting topics. I am happy to watch them without any flashy special effects since it is the story lines that count.
A Star Trek fan who can't see the deeper meaning behind Star Wars is like a mathematician who can't see the deeper meaning behind a great painting – your ruler isn't going to help you extract it. Here are some questions posed by Star Wars: Is love a corrupting or ennobling force? Is technological advancement always a good thing for society? What is the proper balance between public safety and personal freedom? How much ambition is too much? Is it appropriate to betray or abandon your friends for the greater good? In the end, how does one choose between competing goods? It is far more complex than good vs. evil. No one turns to the Dark Side for purely malicious reasons – Darth Vader, for example, turned to the Dark Side in order to save the life of his beloved and bring peace to a galaxy torn apart by war. A very similar emotional choice would eventually bring him back into the Light Side of the Force – to save the life of his son. A logician like Spock would have a hard time understanding the nuances of the Force.
Spock would understadn the force very well. It's a microscopic life form. Plain and simple. He may not agree with the motives behind why people manipulate it the way they do, but he would very easily understand the phenomenon itself.
Exactly – he would see it as a bunch of midichlorians, which misses the point entirely.
Let's not forget how Star Wars has copied the same stories we've heard for eons. Now you just reminded me that Lucas even stole the sacred Virgin Mary story from the Bible. So now the force (Midichlorians) can cause immaculate conception. See The Phantom Menace on Tatooine. Qui Gon talking to Anikin's mother about his father. And then later when arguing with the Jedi Counsel on whether Anikin will be trained or not, and discussing his Midichlorian levels.
I would incorporate knowledge of the force only in blaming Scotty's shoddy ventilator shaft work on the sporadic lifting of Uhrua's skirt. Logically, I would invite McCoy along on these exploits, but not Kirk. His toupee would be apt to spin counter clockwise on his head.
Then I have to know: what is the "point?" It's a force that people manipulate as they see fit, not unlike magnetism, atomic and covalent bonds, etc. The only difference is that you don't NEED scientific instruments to manipulate the force, but you can still use science to do so. If spock can understand the motives behind Kahn seeking revenge, I'm sure he can see why people would use the force for their own means, even if he doesn't agree with the emotions behind it. Just because Spock doesn't show emotions, does not mean he does not have or understand them.
The point is that the Force is not just a physical phenomenon like magnetism, nor is it a morally neutral tool. Spock would have a hard time explaining the difficult moral choices that Star Wars characters make because they often defy or ignore his precious logic. My point in the above comment is that Star Trek fans fail to see the deeper meanings in Star Wars because they think too logically, like Spock. One example of this is the misinterpretation of the saga as a simplistic story of good vs. evil. Morality has never been good vs. evil, but rather good vs. good, and Star Wars is no exception.
"You wouldn't understand that, would you Spock? You see, I feel sorrier for you than I do for him. Because you'll never know the things that love can drive a man to. The ecstasies, the miseries, the broken rules, the desperate choices, the glorious failures, the glorious victories. All of these things, you'll never know simply because the word love isn't written into your book. Goodnight Spock." – McCoy, episode Requiem for Methuselah. By comparison, Star Wars is a story almost entirely about the crazy things that love can drive men to. This is a quote from Star Trek, yet very few of the Trekkies on this board can see it in Star Wars.
Here are your answers. They are correct answers. I did a lot of research to get these answers for you. I hope you appreciate the time and effort I put in to get these answers for you.
1. Is love a corrupting or ennobling force? – Corrupting
2. Is technological advancement always a good thing for society? – Yes
3. What is the proper balance between public safety and personal freedom? – Down with Socialism!
4. How much ambition is too much? – There is no limit.
5. it appropriate to betray or abandon your friends for the greater good? – Yes
There is no grey area. There is either good, or bad. There is no two goods and one bad, or one good and two bads. It's always either good or bad. Think about that for a minute. How can you have competing goods. Give me an example, and I'll quash it before you further embarrass yourself.
Saving Padme vs. saving the galaxy. Now there are too competing goods. A logician would have a hard time understanding why it would be possible for someone to choose the former.
If you saved Padme over saving the Galaxy, that would be "evil"....... See, it's as clear as black and white. No grey area.
Yes but someone dying is evil, so saving the galaxy is evil too by your definition. It is not a black and white decision, especially if you dearly love the person in danger of dying. Love throws logic out the window and explains why Anakin made what to you is an irrational choice. The idea that love motivated Anakin to make that choice is one of the strong points of Star Wars, demonstrating that it is not all about good vs. evil or about maximizing the good. It is much more complex than that.
Tberg, I'm saddened by your lonely, miserable life. Who has hurt you so deeply that you have embraced the worst of Ebenezer Scrooge with such vigor?
There is a very interesting exploration of this theme in Malory's Morte D'Arthur. Why did Lancelot continue to see Guinevere even though it meant treason against Arthur? Why did Gawain force Arthur to invade Benwick even though Lancelot and Arthur were willing to make peace? Combined, these actions led to the downfall of the Round Table. And the reason for them? Love. If you look closely you can see that just as Arthurian romance isn't just a bunch of knights riding around killing people, so Star Wars isn't just a bunch of flashy lightsaber battles. There are deep philosophical and theological themes behind each story.
I was hoping I wouldn't have to explain this to you in detail. But it's obvious that you don't have a moral compass to guide you the rest of the way. It's been said a gazillion times in every genre. "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the one" (or few).
If you are so selfish to let the Galaxy die in order to save Padme then you are evil. You are quite noble and good if you choose to save the Galaxy.
This is exactly why there is a Jedi rule that prohibits a Jedi from getting romantically involved.
There is no gray area. Not in Star Wars and not in real life.
Why would you say such a thing Bemused? Please explain why you think I'm lonely and miserable. I've ready all of the posts so far, and am surprised you chose me to point all this negativity towards.
There still is no gray area :-)
This is easy KLW, While Lancelot was generally a good and noble soul, he like the rest of us made mistakes and committed evil deeds. I hate to bring a main stream religious character into this conversation, but can you give me an instance where Jesus committed any such deeds? I ask this because as the story is told, Jesus never committed a sin (or act of evil).
You may or may not believe in Christianity, so if you are a non-believer, then consider the biblical tellings a creative story thought up by it's writers. In any event, Jesus still is said to have never committed an evil act.
This is basically an argument between moral objectivism – there is always a correct choice dictated by logic vs. moral relativism – moral choices are complicated and must only be considered in context. I am not arguing for one of the other. What I am arguing is that practicing moral objectivism is impossible when love or other irrational forces is involved. Therefore it is invalid when discussing irrational moral choices like Anakin's. It is clear to us and to the Jedi what he should do, but it completely understandable that he doesn't know what to do and that Gawain and Lancelot don't know what to do. I think Star Wars demonstrates well how love muddles moral decisions that seem completely cut-and-dry to those who are not in love.
So what I've been saying all along is not that morality is all relative, but that moral choices are not all black-and white to those who make them. There was definitely a gray area for Anakin.
Are you saying Jesus didn't love?
Love is very much over rated and can be bought. (and I'm not talking about the oldest profession)
Would my wife love me if I didn't have any money and couldn't keep her in the lap of luxury that she has become accustomed to? Who knows, and she's so frakking hot, I don't want to find out.
So yes, love may muddle things, but that's a problem for the week. Committing an evil act because you are in love does not negate the fact that it was evil. So it doesn't enter into any kind of gray area. Evil is evil, regardless of your reasoning.
One more thing. Dying is not evil.... but murder is.
What you seem to be saying is that there is simply no such thing as an ethical dilemma. I say such things do exist.
The basic misunderstanding here is that I am talking about moral decisions being muddled in the mind of the decision-maker, while you are talking about moral decisions observed objectively from an outside perspective. Can you agree with me that ethical decisions can have gray areas for those making them?
I think the very existence of ethical indecisiveness is proof enough that moral dilemmas do exist and that therefore, moral gray areas exist. To return to my original point, the existence of moral dilemmas in Star Wars makes it a rich and valuable story.
I can agree that Anikin was an evil being. He was easily swayed to the dark side by Palpatine/Incidious. Even with all the influence of Obi Wan, and the Jedi counsel, he still ended up being evil.
I'm sorry, but you asking me to agree that a criminal saw gray between good and evil. Sometimes good people do evil things, so it's not surprising that evil people do evil things.
Yes, in the end, he decided that Luke was right, and that the light side was the way to go...... or did he? He had finally lost the battle, and then wanted to change sides...... Pure evil!
That's exactly what I'm saying. Anakin chose his course of action because it appeared to maximize the good. He made what appeared to him to be an ethically sound choice.
What I am saying is not that criminals see a gray area between good and evil. What they see is a gray area between good and good. Anakin sat in the council chamber for a long time to decide between saving Padme and letting Palpatine go down. He couldn't decide which one he wanted more – that's a gray area. But whatever; I'm sick of writing.
I'm not buying it. He had tons of examples of "good" in Obi Wan, the Counsel, along with his entire upbringing. But it took no time for Palpatine to currupt him and entice him to the dark side. Palpatine made it clear that the "Dark" side was more powerful than the light side. He didn't even try to cover up the fact that Dark sounds alot less "good" than Light.
No, Anikin knew what he was doing, he wanted more power and needed to feed his ego. He was pure evil.
Who's to say that having that much of a concentration of midichlorians doesn't lend to the corruption? Perhaps the more midichlorians you have the more likely to become evil. Who knows, they never got into what midichlorians actually are and what exactly they do.
Also, are you saying that Star Trek didn't have it's fair share of ethical and moral dilemas?
No; just pointing out that Star Wars is more ethically complex than a struggle between good and evil (which was a charge leveled in the article); no comment on Star Trek at all really.
This is the last time I repeat my theory. Morality isn't good vs. evil. It is good vs. good whereas one of the goods is simply less good. But which of the goods is less good is not always clear, causing indecisiveness on the part of the subject. This creates a moral gray area in the subject.
And yes, that means that in my opinion, Anakin's sin is mitigated by the fact that he did it for love. As Malory writes of Guinevere, who was an adulteress whose actions clearly helped destroy the Round Table, "She was a true lover and therefore she had a good end."
I thought you were tired of writing.... anyway, Anikin's evilness was not mitigated by love. If anything love should have turned him away from the Dark side, as Padme was truely good. After Anikin got a taste of the power of the dark side, he dove right in. There was nothing pushing towards it (other than Palpatine), yet there were loads of things that should have been able to pull him away from it. He was an evil loser, and died and evil loser. Oh wait, he did do one good thing, he killed the emperor on his way out.
Well, I disagree with you, but we’ll leave it at that. I enjoy both franchises, but I’m also a very critical person when it comes to media. I enjoyed SW more than ST until the material became garbage (imho), and at the same time, ST had some excellent writing going for it and CGI was really beginning to flesh out the series visually. So basically, as one declined in quality, and the other elevated, my respect and admiration changed thusly. Still, if you want to talk about decisions or morality, good v evil, and all the greys in between, the last 4 seasons of Deep Space 9 have, arguably, some of the best televised sci fi writing of the last 20 years. I don't think ST is as morally/philosophically/theologically cut-and-dry as you might believe it to be.
I don't think that ST is that cut-and-dry. But some of the short-sighted Star Wars-bashing comments under this story are.
Opinions can only coincide with facts – they cannot be stated as such. The fact is that neither franchise is superior than the other, and arguing one position over the other is rather silly. Both have done great and revolutionary things. Both have had abysmal failings. Both franchises deserve respect and admiration. Yet, my personal opinion is that Star Wars fans cling to little more than nostalgia and their lasting first impression of the franchise as “proof” that it is superior because they refuse to accept that Star wars, as a franchise, is becoming a parody of itself. With an entire library of poorly made video games, lousy novels, cheap comic books, lame cross promotions, woeful TV shows, undesirable toys, and 3 terrible prequels, Star Wars has had more misses than hits. Yet people still buy it up? Why is that? Well… the simple reason is “because it’s Star Wars!” Now that’s not to say Star Trek has not had some eye-rolling groan-out-loud moments. It certainly has. The one thing I have noticed, however, is that Trek fans are more readily willing to acknowledge the faults and failings of their preferred franchise whereas Wars fans usually reply with an insincere “Oh, it wasn’t ‘that’ bad.” Yes, my friend… yes indeed, it was. Most hardened Trek fans will gladly tell you why certain movies or TV episodes should not be considered canon for the franchise or which ones were simply painful to watch, but to Wars fans?... well, EVERYTHING seems to be canon, even when Lucas jokingly suggested that the home world of Obi Wan be called Stewjon (in honor of John Stewart, whom Lucas is a fan of). Less than a day later almost every official and unofficial Wars site had cemented the absurd name as Kenobi’s birthworld, and all because it was simply uttered by the ‘deity who can do no wrong’ himself, George Lucas. Both franchises are in dire need of a rebirth, but while Trek writers, creators, and license-holders are trying to meet that goal head on, Wars is at the mercy of a lunatic who is out of touch with his audience, has a runaway ego, and has an uncontrollable urge to destroy his own work by constantly trying to better it.
Trek’s greatest chance at survival lies in the writers and innovators who keep trying to bring new appeal to new generations and audiences without alienating what made it special to begin with. Even when Trek fails, it at least fails because it tried something new and different.
Wars’ chance at survival rests in the hands of rabid fans who refuse to think critically or say no to Lucas and mechanically fork out their money for anything Star Wars-related because they keep expecting him to capture Force-lightning in a bottle a second time, despite that he doesn’t appear to really care what he slaps a Star Wars label on anymore, nor does he care that every time he tries to improve on what made his work so wonderful in the first place, he destroys a part of the delicate foundation and balance of qualities that made it what it was. When Wars fails, it’s because Lucas has nothing new to offer it and just keeps putting out different versions of the same garbage.
I think you are all forgetting, that Star Trek is supposed to be set in our future. Star Wars is set in a different universe, a parallel world. Both are excellent series. They can equally be this because they are in their own universes.
How do you figure? Star Wars takes place in "A Galaxy far far away". Where does it say another Universe? You do realize that there is no relationship between a Galaxy and a Universe don't you? A Galaxy is a place, a Universe is a dimension in space time. Which is why you can have a parallel Universe. Have you ever heard of a parallel Galaxy? Goober!
While you are correct, I get what he is saying. In short, Star Wars takes place A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away. Star Trek takes place in our future, after all Kirk grew up on Earth. Earth is not even close to any part of the SW galaxy. I guess what he is saying is we are comparing dissimilar things with completely different storylines, roots, and objectives then trying to say which one is better. It's like saying what is better, Peperoni Pizza or Steak? Sure both are food, but so different and more a matter of personal taste.
Actually, you missed the point Cybberia. He was saying they are apples and oranges. Normally I would agree, but read these arguments from the SW side. They have made this an apples to apples battle.
Tberg, what's your deal? Were you beaten with a stuffed wookie as a child?
This video should sum up everything.
How have I never seen this video. That is just too cool.
But Trek still wins over Wars. Sorry.
It says, "The video clip doesn't exist".
Just as a point of clarification. Star Trek is the future. Star Wars was, A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Just sayin, if Strickland is going to debate she needs to get facts right. :)
...a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" is nothing more than "once upon a time"
What about Spaceballs?
PIGS IN SPACE!!! It had to be said. Carry on.
May the Schwartz be with you!
Star Wars was greater than Star Trek in fact it wasn't even close at one time. The original series is grossly over romanticized by Trek fans and should only be recognized for inspiring the source material for TNG and DSN. It couldn't hold my attention then and it holds up even less so now. Voyager and Enterprise are flat out terrible. When it comes to the movies there is Kahn, First Contact and the Reboot. Everything else is bad to heinous. You can critcize Star Wars for being over simplified, it's true. But it doesn't get more oversimplified than the ridiculous altruism of the the United Federation of Planets. The idea that such power could exist and the people in control of that power would unilaterally use it for exploration, acquisition of knowledge and nothing else (albeit with weapons to defend themselves from aggressors) is as far from being realistic as the force or anything in Star Wars. I think it's funny that DSN is the red headed step child of Trekdom. DSN saves Star Trek from the simplicity that they always project onto Star Wars. It got into the inevitable political back biting, that would have to exist within the Federation, ulterior motives and challenged the ethos of the Federation in some ways. It was a much more layered and realistic view of Rodenberry's universe.
The problem is George Lucas killed his own franchise. Sometimes it's good for extremely gifted artists to seize complete control of their IPs to shape and mold them in an uncompromising fashion. But when you mistake your overal all vision for actually writing and directing talent (even though you are in fact a hack in both arenas) it doesn't turn out very well. People say that Lucas values syle over substance and focusses on Effects too much. I don't think that's it. I just think when it comes to crafting a story he's bad at it. I think he does put a lot of energy into his story, he just doesn't know how to write a good one without taking heavy input from others. He actually believes that the prequels and the changes he made to the original movies make for a better story. You dno't go back and tinker with 30 year old stories if you aren't paying attention to the story telling aspect. Sadly, when you can't understand the fact that Han's willinginess to shoot first is what made him a more compelling character than the one note Luke, it's an indictment of your intelligence. The Clone Wars animated stuff is decent but it would have been a lot better without the souless droid army which are also as incompetant as a Scooby Doo villian far too often.
Lucas had a better vision but he torpedo's it with a consistant commitment to simplicity. I would have to agree that Star Trek wins, but more by default than anything else. When people came along and later pushed the franchise, TNG, DS9 and now the reboot, it gave the universe the ability to breathe and expand. Until Lucas agrees to relinquish his stranglehold on the story telling aspects of the Star Wars cannon, and allows people with actual writing talent to expand on his source material, Star Wars is going to be trapped in a prison of it's own making. And Mark my words if Lucas ever does let someone else take the reins with some creative freedom, Star Wars will end up smashing the Trek Universe.
I just watched a TOS last night. There was a scene where both McCoy and Spock wanted to investigate a life form that was sucking the energy from the galaxy. Both knew it was a suicide mission. Both wanted to do it for reasons of learning something knew about an unknown life form. But that's not what was cool.
What I thought was cool, McCoy and Spock are in an elevator. Spock was chosen over McCoy to go on the mission. McCoy and Spock are arguing. Spock, in a human moment, suggests that McCoy wish him luck. McCoy doesn't. He's silent. THAT is character development. It felt real, human, and for two guys, one wearing pointy ears, debating about who's turn it is to fly around in a shuttle craft, it's buyable.
Lucas's best attempt at capturing that moment was his "I know" line.
Did you capitalize Mark because you were thinking about Mark Hammill?
Just one thing, 'Jar Jar', that was the whole Star Wars fell into.
I enjoy both franchises a lot, but Star Trek is clearly superior. Star Wars is told like a fairy tale, and, by the way, it's set in the past.
I like both of them. And I actually read most of the article. But when one of them said "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." " it made me laugh.
If it wasn't for expository dialogue, there wouldn't be any subtext in Star Wars. Either it's city planet or forest planet or ice planet, there are no nuances in that universe. The only character who must face a moral choice beyond "kill kittens or hug rainbows" is Lando, and he gets all of about 5 minutes of screen time.
Star Wars loses for one reason and one reason only; George Lucas. The first Star Wars has a great story, great effects, and good character developments. This carried through wonderfully in The Empire Strikes back, and started to fade a bit in The Return of the Jedi. Then Lucas got completely lost. He completely lost the story through his obsession with computer graphics. Star Wars crashed.
Star Trek on the other hand had staying power. Through several series and 15 some odd movies. Sure some of the movies were better than others, Only one was a complete bomb IMO. Plus we had a high quality "Next Generation" cast and the latest iteration with the young Kirk and Spock was truly excellent.
Excellence over the long haul sets Star Trek apart.
To add to WWRRD's post. How many of us would go to another Star Trek movie -vs- another Star Wars movie? Someone should set up a poll.
Stars Wars and Star Trek have one major "oddity" in common:
SOUND IN SPACE!!!!!!!
Also why Stanley Kubrik's take on Space Odyssey 2001 was in a league of its own.
that is rather odd.
Sound it space? Not really. The only time we hear "sound" is from the characters vantage point, which is always within atmosphere, either artificially generated or natural.
I am both a fan of Star Wars and Star Trek. I loved them both – equally. But if I would gauge my fanaticism with the toys I own of either franchise... I have more Star Trek toys than I do Star Wars. I do not, however, like the rebooted Star Trek movie. I will no longer watch the reboot of the Star Trek movies from JJ Abrams. Sure towards the end Roddenberry had given the reigns to an entire group of writers and producers but they kept true to Roddenberry's Vision.
Star Wars was gritty and dirty. It is the exact opposite of what Star Trek is – Star Wars combined myths, legends and mysticisms – stories of old retold while adding new characters and twists... these stories have stuck around for eons passed through generation through generation. there is a reason why they have stuck around for so long - it's because we're fascinated by the battle of Good v. Evil. I love the episodes 4-6 – not as much with 1 – 3 ... and i don't care for Luca's rewrite of Han Solo shooting after Greedo ... it is a survival of the cunning – if he shot first it was because he felt threatended.
Star Trek on the otherhand is awesome because it is exactly the opposite of star wars – it's not gritty. it is a view that we all want. a society that is accepts all from different planets and societies (for the most part). Their main concern is exploration and what's out there – curiousity drives this show. it had it's social commentary back in the day when fitting and it still fits even to this day as we have not reached that vision. Who can forget "let that be your last battlefield" episode – both men last of their kind – battled to the end just because their white faces mirrored each others. But Star Trek also had the otherside as well – with klingons and romulans to add a little flavor to the show.
I am fans of both Star Wars and Star Trek – so May the Force allow you to Live Long and Prosper
Star Wars is "Gritty"? Come on, it's the most polished, bubble-gum eye candy ever. No gritty story lines, just re-hashes of old (tried and true) good vs. evil schtick. There's no thinking required to watch a Star Wars movie, just enough patience to wait for the inevitable final clash, with obvious loose end hinting at another installment.
gritty and dirty in a sense that when you get on the subway and you are approached by a homeless man asking for money and all you want to do is get out of his way and let him move on. All of Tattoine felt that way. maybe it was just the sand........
Star Trek for the win! When someone gets to the point that they use the argument that Picard is supposed to be french but speaks with an english accent you know that someone is grasping at straws. I've lost all interest in the rest of that person's argument just based on that alone.
Without Trek there would have been no Wars. Without Gordon or Rogers or even Wagon Train there would have been no Trek.
Each has its own merits (of course I refer to the "real" SW-epsodes IV-VI), but Trek contributed more to society than Wars ever could.
But for the record, it's Trek...or it's nothing.
At least Star Trek did not do a Christmas Special. Case Closed.
No, but they did do a Halloween special. The castle and the cat one.
As a fellow dork, I love the fact that this battle is being waged in the first place. :)
HEY! I resent that...oh, never mind. You're right.
The original Star Trek was too campy for my tastes, I've always been more of a Star Wars guy. But the newest Star Trek movie was really impressive to me on all fronts, much more so than the most recent Star Wars movies.
I'm with George Takei. We need to set aside our differences and demolish the crappy teen vampire romance spin-offs.
The original Star Trek series was campy because it was made in the 60s. Star Trek 2 movie with Kahn matches or exceeds any of the Star Wars movies.
Or could very well be considered thee best Star Trek movie period!
And The Winner is Khaaaaaannnnnnn!
Which is why TNG is so much better than TOS. That said, you still need to take Kirk and Co. in context. Given the production values of the mid-1960's the results were great. The problem was the whole "wagon train in space" imposed by the network. When Roddenbury was given free reign with TNG it was much closer to his original vision. Keep in mind that Kirk would never have died for the prime directive, but Picard took an arrow to prove that he would.
Its like chopin vs Ravel. The are not the same and one is not better than the other. I appreciate them both for what they are. I would love it if there was a theme park dedicated to just the worlds of sci-fi movies – what a rush that could be!
Your post was well said.FYI there is a Science Fiction Museum now;I am pretty sure it is in Seattle.Hope to see it one day.
Are you kidding me?!?!? Chopin beats Ravel hands down!
Not if you're old enough to have been a Bo Derek fan.
I am old enough, and was a fan of her's, especially in 10. I miss Dudley Moore, did he die? I'll google him.
Any serious sci-fi fan would not ever feel the need to choose between these two great series. The whole thing has always been a big joke, so I'm not sure why they take this stuff seriously.
They are in two separate genres. Star Wars is fantasy; Star Trek is sci-fi. Star Wars has always struck me as geared to children; Star Trek to adults.
Star Trek did a lot of social commentary for it's day in the 1960's.
Star Wars did a lot for CG/Special Effects in movies. I saw Star Wars, long before it became A New Hope, and in the opening sequence when the Star Destroyer came over head and kept coming and coming and coming it was an experience us nerds haven't seen before in a movie, everyone in the audience emmited a collected WOW. The badazzed nature of Darth Vader, like lifting up the captain by his throat and tossing him aside like a ragdoll, let us not forget, of course, the Force Choke, just too cool. The Death Star and all the effects with it.
Star Wars was a movie going experience which was unparalleled for it's day. I stood for two hours in a line just to get tickets to see the next showing two hours later. Then came back the next day and did it agian, I was not the only one. SW gained it popularity by word of mouth, there was no internet in that dark, unenlightened age.
As for those who dislike GL messing with the originals, try to think if the remakes had been the originals? this was GL's original vision but technology wasn't there to do the justice to the film so he left it until technology could make it possible.
so which is better? Each has it nitche and it's place in SciFi history. Which do I prefer? I guess I would give the edge to SW because ST can get preachy and SW takes me to a galaxy far far away.
Please note that Trek had so many well known authors help write many of the original episodes. The other items that weren't touched on were that Trek actually bothered to look into some of the science that is developing like the Dyson's Sphere. There were also more ethical deliemas mentioned in the various episodes and movies.
If you go back to the episode with the people who had black and white faces which is clearly about racism; how is that message any different for this time. We are still dealing with that problem. You could put religion in there if you really wanted.
The entire argument is bogus.. The idea that star wars was a good vs evil 2 dimensional story is absurd. Each character was locked in a struggle between good and evil and when you look at the saga over the 6 movies the idea that this cute little boy grows up to be a mass murdering physcopath who kills children and eventually sacrifices himself to fulfill the prophecy and save the galaxy is about as multidimensional as one can get. As a fan of both I do not mean this as a dig against star trek but against the authors of this article who, on both sidesm missed the point.
You guys forget about the EU (extended universe) of star wars. All the books and comics and wookipedia articles that have made Star Wars so much more than just the 6 movies it was spawned from. (though technically, many of us pretend that the prequels were written by someone else, or that they don't exist period) Star Wars isn't any better than Star Trek and vice versa.
Star Wars strengths were born of the timeless battle between good and evil for dominance, which is never quite black and white. and like the article said, shows that sometimes even the most black hearted can be worthy of redemption. Yet at the same time it doesn't shy away from flat out telling you that yes, there's evil out there for evils sake and that we're ultimately responsable and must accept the consequences of our actions, both light and dark. It shows us a part of ourselves that sometimes we wish didn't exist but that we see every day or hear about in news stories, but it also shows us that there are those out there who through trials and troubles can shine through the most impenetrable darkness with the help of friends and being honest about our own moral compass points.
Now Star Trek; Humanity has always evnisioned Utopia. A place and a time where the best of humanity is embodied in select individuals who work together for a common good, where rules aren't arbitrary and where parables are actual teaching points. It shows us that we can't forsake the past for the future and that yes indeed, there's something to aspire towards in the judgement and morality of both the good and bad guys; IE..the Cardassians and the Bajorans.
Both show us a different facet of ourselves, of humanity as a whole, the good and the bad parts, like holding a mirror up to our hearts. Saying one or the other is "better" is like saying we're two dimensional beings with no depth.
How many "full fledged" languages spawned from Star Wars? None! This is because nobody really takes "Fantasy" seriously. Star Trek spawned the Klingon language. This is a full fledged language started by James Doohan (Scotty), and finished by Mark Okran. Does your "Jedi Church" have it's own language? ....... I thought not! Unless you consider whatever Yoda is speaking to be another language. To me he just sounds like an idiot.
Wrong. Maybe just that you know of. But there are full flegged languages in SW. You can get books that help you learn to speak Wookie as well as Mandalorian.
You're hilarious. "To me he just sounds like an idiot." Kinda what I think when I hear people speaking klingon.
Cybberia, can you point me to a URL that shows there are "full fledged" languages that were spawned by Star Wars? Here is the wiki site for Klingon :
There's even a Klingon to English dictionary.
Where can I find a Wookie to English dictionary?
Star Trek > Star Wars
As a person of a certain age, I have been fortunate to live through the advent of both of these phenomenons. Personally, while I enjoyed the first two Star Wars movies, I found the third to be a bit camp, though still entertaining. There was no OMG I can't wait for the movie excitement for the first Star Wars like there was for the first Star Trek feature film. One telling aspect of this debate is that the original Star Trek TV series resulted in a wildly successful feature film. Star Wars emerged as a film, and this has remained as the primary delivery of the "messages" it demonstrates. The Star Trek Universe has continued to be successful on the small screen as well as the big screen. There was even a forray into the animated genre as well. As a chld watching Star Trek on a routine basis, the ideals and values portrayed were delivered to me contiually. I didn't have to wait years for reinforcement. Fortunately for me, my own children had the opportunity to receive the benefits of the same messages since there were new Star Trek series airing at the time. Even my grandchildren have enjoyed the same benefits. While the Star Wars movies were entertaining, they didn't hold the same importance in my family. My grandchildren have no interest in the animated series. They've never asked when they would be airing. They do frequently ask if there are any Star Trek shows on. To me, this shows the lasting impact that Star Trek in its many incarnations has had.
I feel exactly the same. My daughters learned the values about themselves and others and society that I wanted reinforced by what they watched with the original reruns and TNG. I wish kids today had anything even remotely close to this intelligent and moral show to help mold them. I remember watching the original as a child with my father. He never said a word about what I was learning as I never had to say anything to my girls. Just talking about what was happening, why individuals or societies were a certain way and joyously following the relational balance between Kirk, Spock and Bones was enough.
Star Wars forever.
Love it! Characters full of life. Life full of solutions. Possibilities. Star Wars full of one lines. Full of shoot em up's. Can turn on the news for that. Don't get me wrong, have seen all the movies. But, with each new movie, came new disappointment. Rather look to a future of unity, exporing, rather than a dismal one, dead ends or just dead.
I like both, but I would go with Star Trek. Main reason, the prequel trilogy (especially Jar Jar Binks). It had its moments, but it is almost painful to associate the original Star Wars films with the more recent films.
That said, answer this question: Who is the second worst character in the Star Wars movies.
Got an answer yet. No...probably because you are still thinking about the worst character (Jar Jar).
And Star Trek had tribble trouble and how can you forget Neelix. Not to mention the God Awful acting and fight scenes. I mean, the fight between Kirk and that lizard alien make just about every worst fight scene ever list.
Stupid tags... s/b “I’m-from-France-but-speak-with-an-English-accent”??? LMAO!. As opposed to "I'm from [insert planet name here] but speak with a(n) [insert nationality here] accent."?
Star Wars for the win !!!!!! Never got into star trek when the tv program plyed few episodes i partly watched were boring.. therefor never bother with any of star trek movies boring, boring, boring and spock was just annoying
What the The young viewers of Sci Fi in today’s world don’t understand is the impact Star Trek had on the viewers when it first came out in the sixties, it cannot be explain, you had to had lived in that epoch in time to understand.
Same can be said for those of us who were kids in the 70's when Star Wars came out. The new movies didn't have the same impact the OT had.
“I’m-from-France-but-speak-with-an-English-accent”??? LMAO!. As opposed to "I'm from but speak with a(n) accent."?
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.