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

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

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

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

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

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

Without further ado, we commence the ultimate battle!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topher Kohan "Strikes Back"...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’re welcome, George.

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

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

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

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

May the Force be with you.

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

soundoff (916 Responses)
  1. Wawawhat

    ""Star Wars" brings us the future but with the gritty realism of the everyday struggles we all face." ... Star Wars was Lucas' representation of the past, last I checked.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:50 pm |
  2. Jim T

    Speaking only of the original Star Trek TV series vs. the Star Wars culture, Star Trek is superior in storytelling and in predicting technological changes. Star Wars is really nothing much more than a movie serial style action film like the old westerns of the 40s, but placed in future. Star Trek is definitely better. It may not be action packed, but no question it is better. Star Trek, the Motion Picture, however, was lame in every sense.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:46 pm |
    • Bentley76

      But the problem is that Star Trek ONLY delves into its technology and storyline and does little to show people action. I honestly have to admit, the best of the Star Trek movies (yes, I have seen them ALL) is the "Wrath of Khan", but that was because I also saw the original show and know the background behind Khan's and Kirk's animosity for each other and how they both loved the same woman, yet she chose Khan at the end of the episode. The other movies and shows were not as good- though the one good point about the Star Trek shows is that they were brave enough to make them live-action, while the Clone Wars saga has to be done CGI.
      But if the next Star Trek sequel (supposedly coming out in 2013) is to have more action and story than the first, then I might retract SOME of my statements.

      December 29, 2011 at 10:54 pm |
  3. matt damon

    The only disappointment in both franchises is that it tells us that at some point, both allowed ni&&ers into space for some reason.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
    • matt damon

      But only star trek allowed one on the bridge.

      December 29, 2011 at 10:53 pm |
    • Jake Malone

      What is wrong with you?

      December 29, 2011 at 11:27 pm |
  4. Bob

    Star Wars for me. I suppose it brings out my inner child but that is not the only reason. For me anything presented in a visual medium is all about entertainment- I was more entertained by Star Wars. All the other nonsense about 'technology' and 'realism' is moot to me.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
  5. matt damon

    Star Trek is pure gold, Star Wars is poop, The Star Wars Prequels were like someone pooping in my mouth and forcing it down with harder poop.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:41 pm |
    • Bentley76

      Dude, no offense...but have you seen "Team America" lately?
      Go back to Hunting...Good Will....lol!

      December 29, 2011 at 10:44 pm |
      • matt damon

        Please dont "LOL" your own comment, you look desperate.

        December 29, 2011 at 10:53 pm |
  6. Bentley76

    I saw "Star Wars" when it first came out in 1977, when I was only 6 months old. From that point on, I had loved the original trilogy. I was also taken to see Star Trek when it first came out too when I was 3 years old, but I fell asleep during the movie and only caught the end of it. The best thing about Star Wars fanculture is that people don't live in it; you don't see or hear of people learning or speaking 'Basic' the same way people attempt to speak Klingon. Also, unlike the latest remake of Star Trek in 2009, people actually went to go see the Phantom Menace, which went on to be somewhat popular enough that 2 more prequels where made of the series, something you haven't heard much coming from the Star Trek side- even the original was not even a big hit when it first released in theaters in 1979 and the original team involved in the "Motion Picture" were not called back to help with "Wrath of Khan". And none of the characters really made it out of the "Trek" doldrums, accept for Kirstie Alley- eww!
    Shatner is like Hamil, they are stuck being remembered as the protagonists of their series- though I have to admit Shatner was more successful than Hamil in finding roles outside of Trek. But no one has seen him outside of the "Priceline" commercials- ha!
    The greatest questions in fanboy culture came from Star Wars; Who shot first- Han or Guido? Did the Rebel Alliance know there were innocent independent contractors on board the second Death Star when they blew it up?

    Finally, unlike Star Trek, there are literally millions of pages of books and comics in addition to thousands of hours of cartoons and shows based on the Star Wars universe and what does Star Trek have?.....a Klingon dictionary....whoopty doo!!!!

    December 29, 2011 at 10:37 pm |
    • Bentley76

      Oh, I forgot, the greatest question coming out of Star Wars that geeks like are dying to find out- Did Princess Leia wear underwear under her slave outfit? Something no one really wants to know about Aurora.
      I know and respect the place Star Trek has earned in American movie culture, but by far, Star Wars had a far bigger impact on geeks and nerds everywhere....why? They are far cooler....watch the movie "Fanboy" to find out.

      December 29, 2011 at 10:42 pm |
      • matt damon

        Yes, she wore my boxers.

        December 29, 2011 at 10:54 pm |
    • Jose

      Are you out of your mind? When Lucas wrote the first Star War he copied many of star war ideas from Star Trek. Just to let you know hyperspace jump very similar to warp drive, plus tractor bean, shields, weapons etc . . . Star Trek was always better written, with the exception of Empire Strikes Back, the other movies lack of any engaging dialog, and Star War character are shallow and badly acted. Only Mark Hamil gave the best performance in the entire series, when it was reveal that Dark Vader was his father. As for William Shatner, he is a three times Emmy winner for his "Boston Legal" role. The only real cinematic value that Star War has is the innovation in the special effect, green screen stuff that everyone used today.

      December 29, 2011 at 11:15 pm |
  7. matt damon

    I just "Shat" on the argument for Star Wars.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:36 pm |
    • D

      now THAT would be the ultimate franchise: SW + Shat!

      December 29, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
  8. Joe Schmoe

    No comparison. Star Trek is like literature. Star Wars is like a comic book.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:35 pm |
  9. celtichunter7

    In actually both Star Trek and Star Wars are going 'Back In Time'. What we see in the sky is a latent (albeit moving) picture of what the universe looked like billions of years ago. On that premise, Star Wars is going 'back-back-in-time (blue-shift) towards the 'Big Bang' era. Star Trek is going forward-back-in-time (red-shift) to the furthest reaches of the universe. But then maybe I could be wrong?

    December 29, 2011 at 10:33 pm |
  10. matt damon

    I wonder if Leia had to deep throat jaba all the way down to the pubes.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:30 pm |
  11. Poggle the lesser

    I'd watch the 3 new Star Wars movies over ANY of the Star Trek movies. You are comparing movie genius to TV tripe. New Hope ($1.4B as in BILLION), Empire ($781M), and Jedi ($748) dominate to the Trek best effort ($257M). You never see Trek toys from the 70's or 80's sold at comic shops. Yet stores (toys and so many others) have whole aisles of Star Wars toys today.
    Trek is for 60 year old nerds. Wars is for everyone.

    Shatner said it best on SNL – "Have you ever even touched a girl?"

    December 29, 2011 at 10:28 pm |
    • matt damon

      Everyone gets diarrhea and eats mcdonalds too. Popular things are poop.

      December 29, 2011 at 10:32 pm |
  12. Sally

    There is great in both SW and Star Trek – the first 3 movies and about 2/3rds of the Star Trek episodes. However, there was losey in both SW and Star Trek – the last 3 movies in SW and Off to Eden & Spok's Brain for Star Trek. I would have to pick Star Trek as my favorite, though. The great Star Trek episodes are unique inspiring stories; i.e. City on the Edge of Forever; that's classic TV at its best!

    December 29, 2011 at 10:28 pm |
  13. Reddit User

    This needed a TL;DR

    December 29, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
  14. matt damon

    Why didn't luke pull out before telling leia she was his sister. Kinda selfish if you ask me.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
  15. D

    The TOP TEN lines from the unreleased TNG episode,
    "The Enterprise Stops at Taco Bell":

    10) (Troi) I sense... indigestion.

    9) (Picard) Don't order the fajitas, Number One, they'll go through you at
    warp nine.

    8) (Wesley, guest starring) Look, mister, the sign says you get a free "Little
    Orphan Annie" cup with any taco salad purchase, and I'm not leaving here till
    I get one!

    7) (Worf) Klingons do NOT eat burritos!

    6) (Geordi) I bet if I allowed anti-matter to collide with these chimichangas
    we could boost warp power by 27 percent!

    5) (Dr. Crusher, pointing tricorder at a taco) Inconclusive meat readings,

    4) (Picard) You're on, Number One. Whoever can squirt the most jalapeno sauce
    up his nose gets treated to dessert.

    3) (Riker) What do you mean you don't serve tokelau here? What kind of Mexican
    restaurant is this?

    2) (Data, re-joining Geordi after bugging Picard with a boring monologue on
    the history of the enchilada) I do not believe it is physically possible
    for me to place an enchilada in the area suggested by the Captain.

    1) (Picard) When we get back on the ship and you have the conn, Number One,
    you'd better not fart on my chair!

    December 29, 2011 at 10:23 pm |
  16. CNN Reader

    Star Trek is "hard" science-fiction. The original series at least. While Star Wars is a drama played in space. I think Star Trek is post-modern, it's a child of the 60's. Its theme of "acceptance", as one of the debaters put it, reflects that kind of background. Star Wars on the other hand deals with much more timeless themes, hence its broader appeal outside the domain of sci-fi. Space is the premise of Star Trek, but it's not the premise of Star Wars at all. So it's not really a good comparison.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
    • matt damon

      You said "hard"

      December 29, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
  17. Ron

    Star Trek. One word: Replicators. The ability to turn pure energy into matter, especially into food, would mean the end of poverty. Star Trek - especially ST:TNG - offers up a utopian vision of what human could be if they were more advanced technologically and more rational.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:18 pm |
    • D

      Sadly, the replicators (and transporters) are the biggest pieces of fiction in the ST universe. by far, the least likely of things to be possible

      December 29, 2011 at 10:21 pm |
  18. matt damon

    Whose chest would you rather finish on. Ohurah's or Leia's? Any chick chained to a slug will make me cream my shorts faster than a penn state coach at a boys soccer match.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:16 pm |
    • matt damon

      Actually I think we can all agree it would be best to finish in the emperor's mouth, but I digress...

      December 29, 2011 at 10:23 pm |
  19. Son of Spam

    Who are these idiots claiming Star Wars gives a certain vision of the future distinct from Star Trek???

    To quote:

    "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...."

    Need I say more?

    December 29, 2011 at 10:14 pm |
    • Son of Spam

      In other words:

      Star Wars was never about the future. It was about the past.

      Having said that, Star Wars has always been a childish endeavour. Star Trek, on the other hand, appeals to both the intellectual and visionary aspects of our evolved natures.

      December 29, 2011 at 10:17 pm |
    • celtichunter7

      Actually both Star Trek and Star Wars are going 'Back In Time'. What we see in the sky is a picture of what the universe looked like billions of years ago. On that premise, Star Wars is going 'back-back-in-time towards the 'Big Bang' era. Star Trek is going forward-back-in-time to the furthest reaches of the universe. But then maybe I could be wrong?

      December 29, 2011 at 10:29 pm |
      • matt damon

        You are both wrong and a douchbag.

        December 29, 2011 at 10:35 pm |
      • Son of Spam

        Actually, celtichunter...I believe you are correct. Although I'm sure Monsieurs Einstein et Hawking would have something to say about it.

        December 29, 2011 at 11:53 pm |
  20. Derrick

    Both Star Trek and Star Wars are entertaining, engaging, and fun. They both have their own strengths and weaknesses. However, for truly GREAT Sci-fi / Fantasy movies, look to the LOTR series.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:14 pm |
  21. Gregory

    This article is ALL wrong. To start with Star Trek is a clear RIP OFF of the 1950's Forbidden Planet with Leslie Neilsen, Anne Francis, and Walter Pidgeon. Everything you see in Star Trek came right out of Forbidden Planet. Beam Me Up, Science Officer, Medical Officer and the captain always getting his girl on every planet. There was even a star fleet, and a host of special effects. There would NO Star Wars or Star Trek without Forbidden Planet.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:13 pm |
    • jamesnyc

      Ahhh George Pal. Where is he when you need him? I always felt that way about Star Trek expecially the special effects and of course Leslie "Let 'er rip" Neison. RIP.

      December 29, 2011 at 10:54 pm |
  22. Ms

    I love both, but William Shatney is a jerk sometimes. I do hate the prequels with a passion though.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:13 pm |
    • Ms


      December 29, 2011 at 10:15 pm |
  23. Chartreuxe

    So, are the STAR TREK WARS over now?

    December 29, 2011 at 10:12 pm |
  24. Don

    Comparing Star Trek to Star Wars is like comparing apples and oranges. They're both equally AWESOME but uniquely different so why can't we love them both? I do. But if I *had* to pick one it would be Star Trek because I really can't stand the Star Wars prequels.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:04 pm |
    • matt houston

      Star Trek would win of course...just beam a tiny grenade right into the soft spot of the Death Star and poof...yeah, great design Empire. Or transport Vader into a empty space or a sun. Hands down Star Trek.

      December 29, 2011 at 10:13 pm |
      • Steve O

        Why wouldn't that have been the same solution for every episode of Star Trek where they met up with an antagonist?

        December 30, 2011 at 11:09 am |
    • D

      you're high on something Matt. 1 small grenade would be completely inadequate to destroy anything on a Death Star. Plus it would have shields, ya know. Also, Vader (also protected by shields). could just open up a channel and choke the entire ST crew with a thought.

      December 29, 2011 at 10:27 pm |
  25. Jim

    Princess Leia or Yeoman Rand and all those other 60's hotties? No argument in my mind! ST wins the chick thing with numbers!

    December 29, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
  26. Jim

    Star Trek was The Beatles – perfecting old forms and changing culture. Star Wars were the Bee Gees – sold an awful lot of stuff, and left us with some coool memories. Apples and oranges. And, like the pop groups, they haven't aged that well.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:01 pm |
  27. Louis

    I don't take sides ... I like them both, but do prefer Trek.

    December 29, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
  28. Brian

    Trek wins. SW is for kids. Period. 🙂

    December 29, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
    • Tamerlain

      I agree 100%, Star Wars is for kids; Lucas even said it himself, in defense of the last 3 movies "...the kids love the last 3 films...”.

      December 29, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
  29. TomCA

    No contest both are good. I have to say though, I wouldnt want Shatner coming to my defence.

    December 29, 2011 at 9:51 pm |
  30. Tom

    Star Trek and its spinoffs got me thinking a lot about what might really be possible in the future. Star Wars was very entertaining.

    December 29, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
  31. Don Davis

    SW is the only movie that I have ever waited in line two hours for the next showing cuz they sold out of tickets for the current showing and is the only movie that I have seen multiple times in a theater. While Trek argues that technology of today was influenced by them ;ie, cell phones, ipads- I cannot imagine films like LOR series, and Jurassic Parks series being half as successfull if it weren't for blue screen technologies/animation that were created by SW.

    December 29, 2011 at 9:46 pm |
  32. Richard Buchanan

    I like Star Wars but I LOVE Star Trek, I think my life would be different without it. I would be different. Growing up I watched as much TNG as I could.. and today I still revisit an episode from time to time. I truly believe it expanded my mind, taught me great morals and values and made me a better person. That coupled with good parents.. 🙂 Thanks Mom! lol

    December 29, 2011 at 9:42 pm |
    • Chartreuxe

      There's plenty of room in the 'Verse for both. I love Star Trek and I enjoy Star Wars. So what?

      December 29, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
  33. Dunes

    The argument is dumb and those who argue it are dumber. I love and enjoy both, why do I have to choose? Both have valid and valuable points of view, messages to convey and stories to tell.

    December 29, 2011 at 9:40 pm |
  34. D

    Imperial Star Destroyer vs Enterprise-D

    Here's what would happen: (regardless if you are a Trekkie or not, it would more than likely happen this way)

    first, let's give a little more to it.... we have yet to see a single ISD anywhere in the flim... there are always a couple together... in this case we will say there are 3 of them... the Enterprise is almost ALWAYS by itself... if it came across the ISDs its first response would be to hail...
    great, fine, dandy... here's how the rest of it would go...

    ISDs would think ships are new Rebel type (or some race that needs to be
    squashed); ISDs move into range

    the ISDs probably wouldn't hail back and just open fire...

    the Ent's sensors might be able to tell when a ship is powering weapons, but ISDs always have their guns "on", thus it would read just like any other power reading [albeit a bit high]... the Ent. would have its shields down from the first shot...

    quick stats (as from WEG's RPG)
    ISD: 60 turbolaser batteries (20 front, 20 left, 20 right)
    60 Ion cannons (20 front, 15 left, 15 right, 10 back)
    10 tractor beams (6 front, 2 left, 2 right)

    more than likely the Ent would be facing forward at the centermost one (and the ISDs would be either in a wedge or echelon pattern). if all three ISDs opened fire you are looking at about 60 guns hitting the Ent. at once...
    that would at LEAST do some good damage...

    to make it fair, the Ent. gets their shields up at this point (Riker would be smart enough to yell his line)... Data notices the ships are slow moving and best attack would be from behind [he doesn't know weapon lay out but the big area in back, he thinks, is probably the least defended]... Ent. Makes a zip for the back area, while shooting and getting some damage inflicted... TIEs are already being launched, and would have been since start of battle (not to mention any sentry ships out with them).... [each ISD holds 72 TIEs as well as various other ships & such... including Zero-G troopers; which are also being launched on a transport...]

    main ISD has taken a lot of damage from Ent's fire (both photons & phasers) by this point when Ent gets back behind ships... the two supporting ISDs start swinging around... all TIEs [216] are out by now... Z-G troop transport heading to Ent. and begins to launch troopers... Ent. Has remodulated their shields against turbo laser shots [each shot now maybe doing quarter to half damage]

    Main ISD fires ion cannons at Ent. [ion cannons are DESIGNED to penetrate a ship's shields] First volley of shots hits Ent., frying most of its systems... weapons offline, shields offline, etc etc etc...

    Z-G troops attach to hull and begin to cut through... main ISD hits Ent.. with tractor beam and begins to pull the ship in... TIEs probably attacking any escape pods beign launched, and targeting any phaser emitters in case ship comes back online

    picard orders self destruction of ship

    computer doesn't respond since the ship has been ionized badly

    security teams (lead by Worf) go to main area of boarding Z-G troops...

    Ent in ISDs docking bay now... several squads of storm troopers waiting
    [there's no "normal" docking area for them to get into, so it will be a
    moment until they are on board]

    Z-G troops walk all over opposition (Worf dead) [even though phasers would be set to kill and Worf being a great warrior, Z-G's are covered in HUGE amounts of armor, and are armed with: concussion grenades, gas/stun
    grenades, mini-proton torpedoes, blaster cannons, & laser cutters]

    transporters also offline [although a ISD bridge assault would be
    interesting, but we are doing ship vs. ship... and it's over now anyway]

    S'troopers now aboard and shooting ANYONE they find... [each ISD holds 9700 troops, with the Enterprise they might send about 500 onboard... with most of the Ent. being civilians it would be a cakewalk]

    needless to say, the Enterprise would lose no matter what set of scenarios you ran it thru (even if it was a standard one-on-one the ISD still has Ion cannons on all four fire arcs) and 72 TIEs might be easy to take out BUT the sheer number would be too much [esp. if they started doing kamikaze runs thru the shileds] the Enterprise wouldn't know where to shoot to take out sensors, shields, etc... yes, their best chance WOULD be to take out the bridge, BUT they would have to get thru the shields first...

    the only thing the Enterprise might have going for it is that its phasers
    can be continuous beams and they might be able to cut through part of the
    shields and into the hull...

    my personal opinion in the end is that the Enterprise, as good as it is,
    would be able to do a lot of damage, but would lose in the end...

    now if you pit it against an SSD instead, or put Vader in there somewhere
    and the Enterprise is truly lost...

    end of story...

    December 29, 2011 at 9:39 pm |
    • Aaron

      lasers won't do any damage to the enterprise. They would need to upgrade to phasers. the enterprise wouldn't even break a sweat taking out those three ISD's

      December 29, 2011 at 10:00 pm |
      • D

        you know a 'phaser' is just a s3x'd up term for laser, right? same thing!

        plus the ISD's have Proton Torpedos and Concussion Missiles as well.

        December 29, 2011 at 10:18 pm |
    • jdurand1970

      NOW THAT lady's and gentlemen, is how you properly nerd-up a comments section.

      December 29, 2011 at 10:14 pm |
      • D


        December 29, 2011 at 10:19 pm |
    • Lawrence

      Have you even played a star wars games. I can take out a ISD with my little X-wing. Take out the two shield towers and then hit and run. Hit the ship with laser run recharge shields then recharge lasers. If there were a war between the Empire and the Federation, like the borg, there would be more then one ship. Warp drive is faster then Hyper Drive. The Ent faced laser equipped ships and nothing happened. The federation went through a laser phase to a phase cannon then phasers.

      December 29, 2011 at 10:25 pm |
      • D

        laser/phase/phaers is all just Trek tech-mumbojumbo, ya know. they're all the same thing: energy beam weapons.

        and, yes, i have played plenty of SW games and destroyed plenty of ISD from a puny X-Wing. you realize, of course, that the ability to do that was a gameplay design flaw and not indicative of what the reality would be, right?

        December 29, 2011 at 10:32 pm |
    • ww

      I disagree, the SW capitol ships while impressive in fire power and man power have a major flaw that would be easily exploited by the Enterprise. They only have two modes of travel, sub-light (when they are moving in normal space) and a jump to light speed which is a controlled worm hole through space in one direction per jump which take precise calculations which makes for a bad day if you get it wrong(fly through a sun as mentioned by Han Solo). Also they can not track other ships in jump, only calculate were they are most likely to have jumped to based on known routes and possible destinations.
      The Enterprise on the other hand warps space around it as a normal mode of travel and can track other ships doing so, as well as fight in real time in warp across large distances. To the capital ships the Enterprise would be a hard to track target that would appear and disappear while dropping Photon torpedoes traveling at warp speed which means the Capitol ships wouldn't even see them coming until they hit. And if that isn't enough to make a bad day for the capitol ships all the Enterprise would really have to do is grab a few space rocks of good size with the tractor beam, aim in the right direction and accelerate to a low warp and let go.at just the right time. Or better yet, use the transporter to drop a few packages inside the capitol ships while maintaining a distance well out of range(my preference) Then there is the cloaking device, what you can't see, you can't hit and the cloaked ship has the advantage of coming out were ever they want and when they want. Something the Klingons and Romulans have used many times to their advantage.

      December 29, 2011 at 10:44 pm |
      • D

        you're forgetting the dozens of small fighters and bombers attached to each ISD
        plus you're forgetting that ISD's have SHIELDS too
        plus you're forgetting that ISD's have TRACTOR BEAMS too


        December 29, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
      • ww

        Admittedly The cloaking device isn't standard hardware for the Enterprise so that isn't really an option under normal situations.

        December 29, 2011 at 11:23 pm |
      • ww

        Fighters and bombers not really an option as they are under the same travel restrictions as the SD's. You can't hit what you can't catch unless you get real lucky. I guess that's were you might pull out the 'ol force card, except most pilots of the fighters and bombers don't use the force unless they are Jedi or Sith. Not many of those running around. And also the transporter option is outside of the SD's ability to defend against.

        So not fail

        December 29, 2011 at 11:30 pm |
      • D

        nope, still calling FAIL.

        transporter option is OUT as the rule of the ST universe is 'no transporting with ANY level of shields up'; that would highly suggest that the SW shields would also block the transports

        also, the SD can 'micro-jump' and get within range of the ENT. then come the ion cannons and down goes the ENT

        December 29, 2011 at 11:40 pm |
      • ww

        Micro jump is irrelevant, once again it is one direction and a specific distance per jump. Takes time to calculate, execute and is sensor blind while in action. while the Ent is traveling at warp all the time unless they choose to drop to sub-light, can see the SD coming, can calculate an appropriate counter move and move in 360 deg's with full sensor capability. So while the SD's micro jumping in one direction blind, the Ent is going were it wants at what ever warp speed it is capable of. With full knowledge of everything around it within sensor range and full tactical capabilities.

        still not a fail

        December 30, 2011 at 12:02 am |
      • D

        Nah, still FAIL.

        The ENT can't run ALL of its systems at 100% at the same time. Why do you think they always have to yell "full power to the shields!" and whatnot.

        Granted they might have a good chance of annoyingly avoiding being hit, but at the same time they'd be incapable of delivering much damage. They'd be more like a pesky fly buzzing around. And the ISD can do some 'predicting' of its own as well; micro-jumps aren't that hard to calculate. Also, the ENT doesn't maintain 100% of its maneuverability at high warp (or even low warp), so it's not nearly as nimble as you're thinking.

        December 30, 2011 at 12:11 am |
      • ww

        I think the photon torpedoes would be more than a little damage, as mentioned before I believe they travel at warp and can be programmed for different trajectories. So even if a toe to toe sub-light fight would go bad for the Ent, they still have the option of maintaining distance(out of range for the SD's weapons) at warp and and hammer away. Also with the replicators(this one bugs some people, but it is still part of the ST universe and therefore an option) on board, any weapon that is on file is available. Gravity mines, anti-matter mines etc. All of which could be launched or transported within range of attack, even if just outside the shields. So more than a pesky fly. and still not a fail.

        December 30, 2011 at 12:49 am |
      • kkirk

        remember the Ent has a detatchable saucer section that has full capabilities. So that would make 2 Ents. one saucer section and the bottom section both with fire power, right?

        December 30, 2011 at 11:25 am |
  35. celtichunter7

    "Star Trek" may have inspired some tech, but "Star Wars" has spawned an entire religious movement. "SOME" technology? Lasers (phasers), smartphones (iPhone, Android), tablets, diagnostic recorders (Spocks tri-corder, Bones hand-held medical scanner), transporters (photons have been transported from two different locations already), shuttles, personal computers, universal translators, etc. What benefits come from a religious movement? Look at the Mid-East religious fanatics. My vote is for Star Trek.

    December 29, 2011 at 9:34 pm |
  36. James

    The whole SW = kid vs ST = adult argument; things we see as kids stick to us and are integrated into our personalities, affecting us much longer in our lives. The values learned from Star Wars we watched as children stick with us and have a HUGE cultural impact today. Star Wars is still teaching kids this day; not so much for Star Trek.

    And all of the Trek fans that said they liked Star Wars as a kid...you learned your values then guys. I say Star Wars stuck with you and made a bigger impact than your "mature" phasers and Vulcans (space elves; pointy ears and the whole wisdom thing).

    December 29, 2011 at 9:31 pm |
  37. Max in NY

    can we please have a remake of star wars episodes 1-3? How do you go from the amazingness of 4-6 to Jar Jar Binks?

    December 29, 2011 at 9:27 pm |
  38. James

    Star Wars. Space Opera versus Space Sitcom (with a few two hour long specials mixed in). I much rather go to the opera than the comedy club.

    December 29, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
  39. D

    It's a "Vulcan Nerve Pinch", NOT a "Vulcan Death Grip". FAIL on the moderators.

    December 29, 2011 at 9:23 pm |
    • James


      December 29, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
      • D

        Occasionally! 🙂

        December 29, 2011 at 9:30 pm |
      • James

        It's also a Wookiee not a Wookie.

        December 29, 2011 at 9:32 pm |
    • Chartreuxe

      You're forgetting an episode: THE ENTERPRISE INCIDENT. It was referenced therein. Of course, it was a trick, but Spock did claim there was such a thing.

      December 29, 2011 at 9:59 pm |
      • D

        Spock has been known to l1e when the situation calls for a rouse, ya know.

        December 29, 2011 at 11:42 pm |
    • ww


      December 29, 2011 at 11:39 pm |
  40. Rod C. Venger

    Let's put this in it's proper perspective, first:

    Star Trek has run for 40 years through multiple iterations plus the movies.

    Laid out end to end, the Star Wars movies total about 15 hours. Comparatively, I call that being canceled halfway through the TV season. Even if you count the cartoons, Star Wars doesn't come close to Star Trek's longevity and depth.

    Finally, this gem from Nikki Rau-Baker:

    "Star Wars" brings us the future but with the gritty realism of the everyday struggles we all face."

    Repeat after me, Nikki, "A LONG TIME AGO, in a galaxy far far away..."

    December 29, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
    • D

      Apples v Oragnes. FAIL

      December 29, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
    • James

      Run times? That "half season" made billions more than all of your two hour long specials combined.

      December 29, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
  41. Mark Linehan

    Star Wars is the spoiled brat child of Star Trek. Star Trek showed what was possible in a genre that was still in its infancy at that point. It brought the sci-fi of the silver screen from the b-movie lobstermen from mercury type movies to high production value films such as Star Wars. I agree that without Star Trek you would not have Star Wars, at least in the way you know it now. If Star Trek hadn't broadened the horizons of all science fiction then Star Wars might be nothing more than a sidenote in motion picture history because George Lucas might never have gotten the finances together that he got if it weren't for the insane popularity of Star Trek. So in a strange sort of way you could almost say that Star Trek helped pay for Star Wars. Let it be noted however, that I loved Star Trek and the first 3 Star Wars movies and the 6th and final movie. 4 & 5 were bad to me. I'd rather watch the dungeons and dragons movies than those two star wars films.

    December 29, 2011 at 9:11 pm |
  42. Jorge

    Star trek fan base is mostly based in the US... SW is Global... I Live in México and i remenber SW in the early 80's, i dont recall seeing ST back then.

    December 29, 2011 at 9:04 pm |
  43. Steve C

    Trek! Spock, Khan, Klingons. And how many space shuttles were named the Millenium Falcon? I rest my case.

    December 29, 2011 at 9:04 pm |
    • James

      How many people know what the Falcon is versus the... was it the Space Frontier Mobile?

      December 29, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
    • Kenny

      What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon???

      December 29, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
    • Tom

      Star Trek is about our galaxy's future. Star Wars is about some other galaxy's past. Are we trying to say our future is better than someone else's past or vice-versa? That means the question comes down to either our galactic arrogance, or our galactic inferiority complex!

      December 29, 2011 at 9:47 pm |
  44. Morgan

    I work with Trek, so I might be a little biased, but ... Trek is better. It simply is. Trek has inspired people to explore, to get into science, to develop new technologies. Wars is awesome escapist fun, but Trek brings more to the table in terms of cultural impact.

    December 29, 2011 at 9:03 pm |
  45. Occupy Wallstreet FOREVER

    I'll keep this simple.

    As a kid I liked Star Wars.

    As an adult I liked Star Trek.

    The last Star Trek film with Captain Kirk and Spock growing up as kids was better than all the Star Wars films combined.

    December 29, 2011 at 9:02 pm |
  46. Jeffrey Root

    If you would have asked me in high school "Star Wars or Star Trek?" I would have told you Star Wars hands down. Now that I am older and wiser I will have to admit that It's a dead tie. While Star Wars takes me into a story of space fantasy with adventure and action, Star Trek is the reality I see for our future one day. Sure Star Trek was a little dry at times, but with the 2001 series "Enterprise" and the latest Star Trek movie that changed my mind about the importance that Star Trek plays in science fiction and reality.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:58 pm |
  47. dk

    Star Wars is simple, main reason why kids like my 5 year old nephew loves it. Star Wars is like coffee with cream and sugar. Star Trek is bold like a regular cup of joe or straight up whiskey, it has more character than Star Wars will ever be. Simple minded people like kids and some adults cannot comprehend Star Trek for its complexity.

    I'm not a fan of either but I lean towards Star Trek a lot further because Star Trek is something that can become reality one day unlike Star Wars which is pure fantasy. Star Wars is simple as in terms of good vs evil, only thing different about Star Wars vs other good vs evil movies is that it happens out far in the galaxy. Star Wars is pure fantasy as you follow one person throughout the movie who'll become the hero and a prequel to the series where a kid becomes evil. It's too simple for my taste.

    Star Trek has a lot of character development within the series in which caters to everyone men, women, and child. Star Trek is like our NASA program, but in a far distant future. To go boldly where no man has gone before. Star Trek is not black and white like Star Wars, rather there are many emotions that can be played without being lame like Star Wars prequels. Star Trek also focuses between mankind and aliens where peace is possible. Star Wars is just plain good vs evil. It's great for kids, but I rather watch something that is not a fairy tale.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:57 pm |
    • Rod C. Venger

      I know you meant to say, "To Boldly go..."

      December 29, 2011 at 9:23 pm |
      • James

        Ouch, the Trek fan got a quote wrong?! And cream and sugar with your coffee is better than black.

        Who wants to watch a story that's boring and bitter?

        December 29, 2011 at 9:36 pm |
  48. Dude

    This is like the episode of South Park where the kids playing Lord of the Rings makes fun of the younger kids playing Harry Potter.

    Star Wars, Star Trek, Both great. End of story. The whole feud is just insider fun.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:54 pm |
  49. Bob

    Umm, how many Star Wars conventions have there been? What future technologies did Star Wars accurately portray? How may heros of society encouraged a Star Wars actor/actress because her role protrayed equality in ways unseen in the media previously? How many Star Wars television series were there? How many Star Wars movies were there? How much of the Star Wars audience demographic were composed of scientists and engineers? How many NASA rockets or shuttles were named after Star Wars devices?

    Don't get me wrong; Star Wars is/was great entertainment. But Star Trek brought great writing, a grand vision, and a hope for a better tomorrow. I go see Star Wars to escape reality. I watch Star Trek to try and change it.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
    • dk

      +1 glad to know you know the difference between pure fantasy where the them is plain, good vs evil. Star Trek reveals the possibilities of our future, plus there are lot of great characters in which make Star Trek great.

      December 29, 2011 at 9:01 pm |
    • D

      Actually, the 'science' in the fiction of SW has been judged to be more likely to be valid than the 'science' of ST. Ie: Hyperspace v Warp Fields, Transporters, etc. Sure, ST gave us the cellphone, but we'd have had that develop anyway regardless.

      December 29, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
  50. Cyberpred

    Forbidden Planet beats them both.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:44 pm |
    • Someone with no Name


      December 29, 2011 at 9:23 pm |
  51. Dan C B

    trekker? yes, Star Wars? 50% just the first three. Can I say anything about Forbidden Planet? I mean you want to talk about who was first?

    December 29, 2011 at 8:37 pm |
  52. Ryan

    I was born in '74 and remember meeting Darth Vader and Chewbacca at a car dealership when they made an appearance when Empire was released. Darth Vader scared me when my dad turned aroun with me on his shoulders and Vader was right behind us and I was looking in to his chest. but I digress. Both are good shows. TNG, eh, not so much. Couldn't really get in to DS9 either, even though that one female symbiot was hot. Voyager was okay. Really enjoyed Enterprise but Bakula is a good actor, at least to me. TOS was good at the time. I did go to one convention in Austin and met James Doohan and got his autograph!

    Okay, so, Star Trek deals with the future of mankind, according to Roddenberry. 200-300 years in OUR future, after WWIII. It deals with moral issues, social issues, war. It reflects todays society. Klingons represented the old Soviet Union, etc. But it gave us technology we use today: cell phones based on the old communicators, iPads based off of TNG, talking computers, even the new communication devices in TNG et al. (where they touch their emblems on the uniforms and talk) resemble the bluetooth.

    Star Wars is Lucas' version of the classic serials of old. It has more religious undertones, is darker, and not based on any specific societal issues. It is good versus bad, democracy versus empirialism. There aren't any real social issues dealt with, but more individual ones. The Republic does not rely solely on technology but rather thinking and using their brains and the resources available compared to the Empire that relies heavily on technology to meet it's goals (the Death Star.) The Storm Troopers in their masks, and Darth Vader, and even the Emperor with his veiled face, represent the faceless evil of the galaxy, the oneness compared to the Rebels who represent everyone, the individuality.

    Both are great sci-fi shows/movies, each offering it's own perspective. Star Trek is more societal based, more modern, what we have the potential of becoming while Star Wars is more religious (even though Lucas said it really wasn't) and shows the conflict between good and evil.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
  53. No Brainer

    The problem with Star Wars is they had the movies. You didn't have a chance to truly explore each character. Star Trek brought you into the lives of the crew to know them on very personal levels. I would say besides TOS, Voyager surpasses TNG simply because they are all working to get home, rather than doing duty assignments from the federation. With Voyager you are with them every step of the way. At least I was. So I would say, without a doubt, that Star Trek leaves Star Wars in their warp trail!

    December 29, 2011 at 8:29 pm |
    • YES

      You are SO RIGHT! I am a huge Voyager fan too. Wars pales in comparison to Trek! I like the "leaving in the warp trail" part! LOL

      December 29, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
    • D

      Ah yes, ST ... a soap opera drama for nerds!

      December 29, 2011 at 9:33 pm |
  54. KL

    The kicker for me: there is a LOT more cannonized Star Trek to enjoy than Star Wars. That said, I wonder if there are any Star Trek fans out there who don't enjoy the original Star Wars movies at least a little (even if they won't admit it)...

    December 29, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
    • KL

      You can experience the cannonized Star Wars universe in 1 day (six movies). There is enough cannonized Star Trek to keep you entertained for months (29 total seasons of shows, plus 11 movies). Note that my use of the word "cannonized" is pretty strict (so none of the Star Wars novels count, nor does the Ewoks cartoon from the 80s, nor does the animated Star Trek from the 70s, etc.)

      December 29, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
    • dk

      I enjoyed watching the original Star Wars trilogy. Lucas totally dumb-downed the three prequels for a younger audience in my opinion. Star Wars doesn't get me excite as much as Star Trek because many audiences grew up watching the series for the last 20 plus years. Star Wars is just another box set movie like Harry Potter. btw Star Wars to me is like soap opera in space, you can actually make Star Wars into a musical, it has all the ingredients. Star Trek in the other hand can't be made into a musical because it's far to realistic vs a pure fantasy based movie like Star Wars.

      December 29, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
  55. Da Noid

    Kohan got it right in the end.

    Star Wars as it debuted in 1977 was the timeless "fairy tale" that we've always been told. Sure, the characters changed for a sci-fi universe but the story is the same...

    The Princess, The Farmboy, The Pirate, The Wizard, The Evil Prince...the brothers Grimm would have been proud of this story.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:25 pm |
  56. Chach

    I love 'em both for completely different reasons, because they are two completely different things. The only things that are the same is that their stories mostly take place in space ships or on alien worlds. The similarites end there. I don't want to chose between them and I don't have to, so I won't. ST is great for intellectuality and SW is great for just plain fun. Although I would like to see the Enterprise and Klingons suddenly zapped into the battle of Yavin. While we're at it, bring in the Cylons and Galactica!

    December 29, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
  57. KL

    1 Corinthians 13:11: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

    -sums up my switch from Star Wars to Star Trek as an adult

    December 29, 2011 at 8:20 pm |
  58. botwt

    I love them both...

    December 29, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
  59. bob

    Star Trek the original series did set a lot of precidences for its time like;
    – the first woman in a command position and a woman of color at that (Uhura),
    – the first on tv interracial kiss (Kirk and Uhura),
    – an alien who is second in command (read that non-white male)
    – Nichelle Nichols (Uhura) recruited astronauts including Sally Ride the first American woman in space
    – the first space shuttle, Enterprise, was named for the star ship in Star Trek

    December 29, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
    • Chartreuxe


      December 29, 2011 at 10:04 pm |
  60. SW4EVER

    Are there any Star Trek fans still alive?

    December 29, 2011 at 8:07 pm |
    • Dude

      Yeah, now get off my lawn you darn punk kids!

      December 29, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
    • Dreamer

      yes young-en and we even know how to use computer ..love them both always have and always will

      December 29, 2011 at 8:44 pm |
    • Nate

      I'm in my 20's..imagine I'll be here for a while longer.

      December 29, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
    • Chartreuxe

      We're working on the third gen of people now. Never give up, never surrender! ;-p

      December 29, 2011 at 10:05 pm |
  61. ohsnap

    When you take a look back at Star Trek TOS you can see that, scientifically, they were ahead of their time. Desktop computers (when a computer at the time filled a room), hand-held communicators (cell phones anyone?), visually display monitors, even their multicoloured display boards (take a look at McDonalds registers).. On TNG, taping info into hand held devices (IPads anyone?). Star Trek was and is waaaay more intellectual and scientific than Star Wars...always was. I remember reading articles about the people at NASA watching and studying the series. NASA kept a link to the people involved in Star Trek. Can Star Wars say the same? Nope. don't get me wrong...I loved the first 2 Star Wars episodes but they are strictly fantasy. 'Peace and Long Life' to all.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:07 pm |
  62. JMM

    "Resistance is Futile"

    Star Trek for this nerd. Although, I am enjoying the new Star Wars MMO quite a bit...hehe.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
    • dk

      I wish I was a nerd, but sadly i'm not. Most people who tell me that i'm a nerd are very simple minded people who don't like to think. Star Trek are for nerds as well as well-rounded audiences who appreciate a series that portrays the possibilities of mankind. Star Wars is a little bit deeper than the movie Transformers, but Star Wars in general is no different than watching a movie about cops and robbers.

      December 29, 2011 at 9:20 pm |
  63. jimzcarz

    They both put the space movie genre into existence.And were each great in their own right. one being time edited for TV the other with longer unfolding plot lines.They advanced every aspect of movie making and special effects became more of a forefront in the experience. So comparing their differences doesn't do them justice since they've both brought so much entertainment to us.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
  64. Tony

    Girls, girls, please play nice. Both Trek and Wars stand out each in their own way. Although I am a hugh Star Wars fan, I must admit that Star Trek grab me from the beinging. I will be one of the first to say that you do not need to be a geek to enjoy both. I guess I'm with Emilio, may the force be with you and enjoy.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
  65. kathic

    Star Wars < Star Trek < the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
  66. jeodo

    takei is the winner, hands down.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:04 pm |
    • ohsnap

      Give me Spock any day.

      December 29, 2011 at 8:08 pm |
  67. Donald Stanwood

    Throwing "Twilight" into the debate seems like a non-starter. The franchise is basically powered by runaway female hormones. Fascination with vampires and studmuffin werewolves just seems to be one of those Chick Fixations. (Nothing wrong with that, of course.) The same fans were probably in a swoon over horses before puberty struck. Does anyone really believe that the movies would have gone anywhere if Taylor Lautner had kept on his shirt?

    December 29, 2011 at 8:03 pm |
    • dk

      Star Wars fans are no different from Twilight fans, probably the same type of people who watch those movies.

      December 29, 2011 at 9:21 pm |
  68. poopmeister

    Funny, I thought Star Wars already won.....like 32 years ago! If you are talking pure entertainment, then Star Wars won. If you are talking a reoccuring sitcom that changes characters every decade (much similar to Saved by the Bell), then I guess Star Trek gets it. The only basis for trekkies to have an argument is because they have years and years of 1/2 hour shows to stand behind. Even though, in my opinion, Star Wars lost it's luster after episode 5 and 6, it still blows away years of crappy story and production value of Star Trek. Also, what's with the military argument? Star Trek is so military derived; uniforms, ranks, foreign enemies to battle every second, justifying intervention for the sake of peace......sounds like our foreign policy, crappy. I got a great new trekkie show for you guys. It involves a crew that sets out in their ship, patrols the ghetto area of the galaxy, beams down to a planet every week and stun guns some perps....sounds good right?

    December 29, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
    • dk

      Here is a good example of a simple minded person who doesn't appreciate Star Trek for what it is. I'm not a Star Trek fan nor a Star Wars fan, but how many kids do you see these days who are into Star Trek? They are too young and immature to understand the complexity of Star Trek unlike Star Wars where good beats evil, obvious story. Star Trek is based on the characters of the series who are on a voyage to explore the final frontier. Star Wars is just a soap opera in space.

      December 29, 2011 at 9:27 pm |
      • poopmeister

        Simple minded, dk? Your reply sounds like a commercial for Star Trek....ooohh people exploring the final frontier. Your posts all sound the same, try having some original thoughts if you are going to repost a hundred times. I'm not saying that Star Trek does not have some redeeming qualities. I never got into it but I watched enough episodes and all of the movies to get the general concept. I'm unfortunately not very impressed. Even though Star Trek was around longer, Star Wars was credited for elevating sci-fi to a whole other level. The character development is what, even screen writers of current, drool over. The stories have everything, including what Star Trek seems to lack, character independence. Star Trek characters get along too well for my tastes, I want to see conflict amongst the good guys....it makes for good depth.

        December 30, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • Chartreuxe

      You do realise STAR WARS will never get finished, right?

      December 29, 2011 at 10:07 pm |
      • poopmeister

        It's realize, Chartreuxe but I won't fault you for spelling. Star Wars will eventually get finished. Most likely by a different director and/or writer. Star Wars will turn into a franchise much like Batman. It will be revamped and luckily it will take place after the original movies, so it could be wide open for story lines. It deserves a good go at it, especially by a fan not the creator. That is the only thing I liked about Star Trek, the revamping by JJ Abrams. I think if they continued with the revamping and made more up to date Star Trek flicks, then I might become a fan.

        December 30, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
  69. bbk713

    Silly squabble. Farscape puts both franchises to shame.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
    • FifthApe

      Far – what.......

      December 29, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
  70. RZ70

    Apples and oranges. With the exception of reliance of science fiction for convenient plot device (not that there's anything wrong with that, it's certainly one of my favorites), there are no worthwhile similarities to compare the two on. Following a very small group (ok, two very small groups with some overlap) over a lifetime or two (Star Wars), vs. following dozens of characters across 100+ years (Star Trek) is like trying to compare Sherlock Holmes to Law & Order; the only commonality there being solving crimes. Enjoy each for what they are.

    December 29, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
  71. michaelpippa

    The definitive answer to this argument is found at the blog posting below:
    You're welcome.

    December 29, 2011 at 7:58 pm |
  72. Nate

    I like them both, but I personally think Trek is better. Sci Fi wouldn't be the same without either of them, but I think Trek's vision of the future is more powerful and inspiring.

    December 29, 2011 at 7:57 pm |
  73. Weeeeeeee


    December 29, 2011 at 7:57 pm |
  74. Hobbit

    The real question...JarJar or Wesley Crusher....who's more annoying?

    December 29, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
    • bpenning

      Ooooo... that's a good one! 🙂

      December 29, 2011 at 7:59 pm |
    • Anita Bleaujob

      Will Riker. THE most annoying character on television.

      December 29, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
    • Tyler Durden

      JarJar and Wesley Crusher in a cage match... to the death. I'm shocked I had never thought of this before.

      December 29, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
    • dk

      Both series have annoying characters like Jar Jar. When I watched the prequel with Jar Jar, I was so disappointed that Lucas was a total sell out. Well Star Wars prequel which had CGI characters were a total fail. Another total failure of Star Wars are the prequels to Star Wars. After watching the original trilogy many times, the prequels pretty much killed my appreciation for Star Wars. Using tons of CGI is pure evil vs original trilogy. The prequel trilogy seem like an after-thought to the original trilogy.

      Anyways, Riker, Will, and that droid were very annoying after awhile. Picard was ok, Dr Crusher and the mind reader chick, not Whoopie G. was hot.

      December 29, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
  75. 0311

    ""Star Wars" and "Star Trek" portray two separate futures. " "From Strickland unleashes her Vulcan death grip...

    Star Wars takes place in the past....hence the famous lines...

    December 29, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
  76. 6starwars

    Why is Twilight even in this discussion? I'm a die-hard Star Wars fan, but even I'll admit that the Star Trek series dusts off Twilight.

    December 29, 2011 at 7:54 pm |
  77. Dave Nettles

    Star Wars and Star Trek are both first class and always will be. "Twilight" will be long forgotten in a very short time trash is only short lived. 50 years from now we will still be watching Star Trek and Star Wars at least 4,5 and 6 1, 2, and three are in a much lower class but still higher than "Twilight."

    December 29, 2011 at 7:52 pm |
  78. Jesse

    Hey you Ultra Geeks, comparing these two icons of science fiction entertainment is like the proverbial comparison of apples and oranges; although they are both fruits, you can't compare which tastes better. Different strokes, you zealots; just enjoy them... either, both, or neither.

    December 29, 2011 at 7:50 pm |
  79. Me

    Give me the "idealistic fantasy" of Star Trek over the "gritty realism" of Star Wars anytime.

    December 29, 2011 at 7:49 pm |
  80. Alucard Hellsing

    Why are we even debating over a something that we've been battling about for decades. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We have a common theme in both Trek and SW. The enemy we share is Twilight. So how about we stop fighting each other and take down that common enemy? I'm both a Trek and a Star Wars fan but I'm a second generation Trekkie who grew up watching TNG, DS9, Voyager with both my mother and uncle, who are first generation Trekkies that grew up with the original Trek Series. All in all we're all scifi fans that just like differen't themes. That's all

    December 29, 2011 at 7:48 pm |
  81. MightyMoo

    "George Takei, meanwhile, urged peace between the "Star-people," since they have a common enemy: "Twilight.""

    This man speaks the truth! We must combine forces and wipe out the abomination that is Twilight!

    December 29, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
  82. OrangeW3dge

    "Blade Runner" and "Minority Report" from the visions of Phillip K. Dick may be a more accurate projection of the future. Both "Trek" and "Wars" capture opened our eyes to the future, as well as or current state of affairs. In the tradition of H.G. Wells and George Orwell, the social commentary swirling about the human condition in Science Fiction is as telling about why we create the technology that we do.

    December 29, 2011 at 7:44 pm |
    • bpenning

      Philip K Dick is the greatest SciFi writer of all time behind Frank Herbert. Though "Dune" is by far my favorite book and series of all time, Dick wins by volume and originality... Plus he reminds me of "Kilgore Trout" from Kurt Vonnegut's books.

      December 29, 2011 at 7:48 pm |
      • Ryan

        I agree. I love Dune, except Chapter House. The movie was excellent (yes, even with the changes they made.) Sci-Fi channel screwed it up by trying to remake the original and then making Children of Dune. The prequel books were okay, sort of like the new Star Wars movies. Give you a background of the original but not quite as good

        December 29, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
  83. Chris



    December 29, 2011 at 7:44 pm |
    • dk

      shut it and go watch your mind numbing Transformer movies.

      December 29, 2011 at 9:40 pm |
  84. 6starwars

    Since 1977 nothing has even come close to Star Wars. Never has, never will.

    December 29, 2011 at 7:44 pm |
  85. Project out of bounds

    Excellent Robot Video

    December 29, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
  86. Donald Stanwood

    "Star Wars" is not set in the future, but in a stylized elsewhen. "A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away". Remember? Nor did George Lucas rely upon "Star Trek" as a primary source of inspiration. Asimov's Foundation series is a more obvious model, including some outright steals. (Asimov's Imperial capital Trantor became Lucas' Coruscant.) As for movies, I think both Lucas and Roddenberry owe a big debt to "Forbidden Planet". It was the first big production to address the technological hurdles of interstellar travel in a realistic fashion. And don't forget the Fate of the Krell! Monsters from the Id! In other words, be careful what you wish for.

    December 29, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
  87. Richard

    Who cares? In the words of William Shatner on SNL..."GET A LIFE!!!".

    December 29, 2011 at 7:39 pm |
    • bpenning

      you obviously cared enough to tell us to not care... so for your selfless act, I applaud you

      December 29, 2011 at 7:44 pm |
      • Richard

        It's ok if you just enjoy the entertainment value of 'just watching' either franchise. But, when I see people analyzing...ANALYZING(!!!) both in a compare and contrast and discuss characters IN DEPTH(!!!), I have to step in and say 'GET A LIFE!!!'. Nothing wrong with watching either for entertainment, but, when it begins consuming your life, it might be time for an intervention!!!

        December 29, 2011 at 8:04 pm |
    • Jesse

      And how's that life of yours going while you sit here reading and commenting about something that you then curiously dismiss. It's okay to be a fan, Richy, just embrace your inner geek.

      December 29, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
      • Richard

        Welp, you caught me. I did, in fact, grow up watching re-runs of 'Star Trek TOS'. Hell, I still do. I grew up when the 'original' Star Wars movies came out(New Hope, Empire, and Jedi). Couldn't give a rat's ass about any of the newer stuff for either franchise. Only watched out of entertainment, not to be consumed in the hoopla surrounding both. That, my friend, is why I say 'WHO CARES???'.

        December 29, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
  88. Rod Munch


    I mean.... SHATNER!!!!

    Bill, you are your own worst enemy!!! every time you don your toupee, sing acapella, or act like Denny Crane, YOU DIMINISH THE TREK FRANCHISE!!!

    Accept Chris Pine as Capt. Kirk, and move on!!! there's a reason Nimoy was in the REBOOT and you were not!!!!

    December 29, 2011 at 7:38 pm |
    • dk

      I've read Nimoy don't want to be back for the next installment, but there are plans for Shatner.

      December 29, 2011 at 9:44 pm |
    • Whatever

      Bcause he was already dead, Jim!

      January 1, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
  89. veritya

    Live long and prosper vs. may the force be with you....

    Star Trek hands down

    December 29, 2011 at 7:36 pm |
  90. mickey1313

    Startrek is lame, the shat is an awful actor. Starwars, all 6, (soon 9) are far far better, even ep#1 was better then startreks best moment.

    December 29, 2011 at 7:33 pm |
  91. darkguardian1314

    The remastering and writing has really dimmed my view for both franchises. I loved Star Trek since the 60s as well and the STTNG. The new version I couldn't get into and I hate the new Enterprise. Star Wars first 3 movies were fantastic but the prequels were besides the special effects was just cold with numerous plot holes. I love both but forgive me if I don't come running to be first in line at the next Star Wars or Star Trek movie that comes out.

    December 29, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
  92. Jonathan

    Star Wars is not a view of the future, it is a tale of the past: "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...". COME ON PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    December 29, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
  93. j0eschm0e

    star trek all the way !! star wars and the force is fiction, star wars was good, but star trek is more realistic

    December 29, 2011 at 7:30 pm |
    • RC

      I completely agree. Star Wars is more of fantasy where there are so many things in Star Trek that are based on reality. Everything from Warp speed to the transporter that beams people up could actually come true one day. In August 2008, physicist Michio Kaku predicted in Discovery Channel Magazine that a teleportation device similar to those in Star Trek would be invented within 100 years. It appears that the stories are meant to mimic real life and real problems. I enjoy that. I'm not bashing Star Wars or other fantasy type shows like Harry Potter, but that is the big difference, one is fantasy and the other is not. I'll take the one that is not fantasy.

      December 29, 2011 at 8:25 pm |
    • dk

      I really enjoyed watching the original Star Wars trilogy until the prequel trilogy came out. It seems as if Lucas needed more money and just slap some things together. Tons of CGI effects and making the prequel so hi-tech vs the original made the transition look pretty bad. It's like return to the stone ages. The space ships from the prequel were far advanced than the original trilogy, I just couldn't believe the digression of civilization and technology throughout the movie. The prequel trilogy was heavily marketed to kids who like Jar Jar and Twilight like drama between the teeny Vader and what's her face. It's like a movie made for kids and teenagers, while the original trilogy were made in a point of view of an adult like Star Trek.

      December 29, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
  94. Robin Bray

    Red Dwarf beats them all hands down. Sloppy bums will inherit the world of space travel.

    December 29, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
    • bpenning

      Toodle Pipski!!!!

      December 29, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • Dude

      What? You monkeys eat off the floor? Don't you have any style or sophistication?

      December 29, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
      • bpenning

        I'm gonna eat you little fishy! Im gonna eat you little fishy! –

        December 30, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
  95. GeorgeGray

    I think a Star Trek episode itself answered the controversy. In "Who mourns for Adonis" the Enterprise and crew encountered Apollo, a God of Earth's past. The episode pitted magic against technology. If you accept that Star Wars can be used as a proxy for magic, and Star Trek a proxy for technology, then you have to conclude that since the crew prevailed in the conflict with Apollo, Star Trek's theme is the superior theme. Technology trumps magic.

    December 29, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
    • GeorgeGray

      Btw it's "... Adonais" 🙂

      December 29, 2011 at 7:30 pm |
      • dk

        like mayonnaise? LMAO

        December 29, 2011 at 9:51 pm |
  96. bpenning

    Trek wins. Not only is Star Wars a direct ripoff of Akira Kurosawa's movie, "The Hidden Fortress" but it is very dichromatic and shallow in it's treatment of the human condition. Plus, Anakin was a whiny brat

    December 29, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
    • dk

      Anakin and Jar Jar were totally annoying. I only enjoyed the prequel trilogy because of Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor, both great actors.

      December 29, 2011 at 9:55 pm |
      • bpenning

        I totally agree. Only redeemable part of the film

        December 30, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
  97. tannim

    I call it a draw. Both series have a rich backstory and universe of places and characters to draw upon. Both series have different morals, conflicts, and stories attached to them, and different purposes: Trek is about exploration (and some conflict that comes with it) while Wars is more about conflcit and self-discovery along the way.

    Frankly, in terms of tech, while Trek foresaw tablet computers and cell phones, if a starship appeared over Earth, I'll take Executor over Enterprise, and an X-wing T-65 over a Type II Shuttle any day. Not to mention a lightsaber over a phaser...

    December 29, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
  98. Ashleigh Kirk

    You've got to be kidding! Trekkers are true devotees..My puppy is called Trek, not wars! Who invented the pc, the mobile phone, the phaser, the transporter, and inter-racial normality? First inter-racial kiss etc. What's this show stars wars anyway? It's not even a cult classic like Lost in Space. It"s whole premise is war and aliens are evil and violent and the good guys are always on the defense. What sort of role model for civilization is that??????????????? If they're not like you, war is the only solution. How depraved is that. follow my tweet on AshleighCKirk

    December 29, 2011 at 7:21 pm |
    • roblusk71

      You are obviously not from Earth. War is the answer to everything here. Look at the history of mankind. The good guys are always on the defense. It's only when our back is against the wall that we can achieve true greatness.

      December 29, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
    • Chartreuxe

      Mine was called Tribble, but she was round and furry.

      December 29, 2011 at 10:09 pm |
  99. Emilio Largo

    Winner: Both. Quit with the "Who's greater" fight already. Each has it's strengths that the other will never overcome. It's irresistable force vs. immovable object time. Star Trek has deeper storylines and more developed characters. Star Wars is unequalled for sheer escapist joy. I'm a fan of both. You can be too, I swear.

    December 29, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
    • Donald Stanwood

      Naming yourself as the villian in "Thunderball"? Cute!

      December 29, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
  100. roblusk71

    I agree, Twilight is the real enemy! Takei had it right Twilight is really, really bad!

    December 29, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
    • Matt

      Exactly. Fairly unoriginal plot (Lost Boys was better), horrible acting, and the pace of the movies was atrocious – an hour of boredom followed by 20 minutes of action.

      December 29, 2011 at 8:26 pm |
1 2 3 4 5