STAR TREK or star wars

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Pick'em folks; STAR TREK or star wars

  • STAR TREK

  • star wars


Results are only viewable after voting.

ColumbiaNX01

Red blooded white American male
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
1,755
Reaction score
21
Location
Somewhere
Folks pick'em STAR TREK or star wars?

I personally take STAR TREK 100% all the time. Here me out. I am nerd at heart. For me STAR TREK is more then sci-fi. In my opinion it is 100% possible reality. Yes, most of the technologies in STAR TREK dont actually exist yet! But there are lots of theories that have scientific backing that one day will be a reality. That is what drew me to STAR TREK. Like Gene Roddenberry said "A wagon train to the stars." As the world goes to hell and a hand bag right now the universe of STAR TREK looks even more awesome. Gene Roddenberry's vision was that STAR TREK was out future. Humanity would one day grow up and out grow its infancy. I believe what Roddenberry believed. Perhaps one day. "In the 24th century there will be no hunger, there will be no greed, and all the children will no how to read."

"Someone once told me that time is the predator that stalks us all out live, but I rather believe time is the companion that goes with us on the journey to remind us that it will never come again."

star wars is just a sci-fi series, no reality. Just a lot of smoke and mirrors.
 
For me it comes down to the fact light sabers are cooler than anything in Trek.

My big problem with Trek is the science is crap. I prefer Original Trek when they didn't try to scientifically justify anything. My suspension of disbelief is in place and I go along for the ride. Once a show or film (not just Trek) attempts to justify with science, my brain kicks in and says, no that won't work for these 15 reasons. Now my suspension of disbelief has been ruined.

EDIT: That said, Lucas' midichlorians and Anikan's immaculate conception are horrendous too. Which is why it comes down to light sabers.
 
Last edited:
Why not both?

Seriously, though, I'm too cynical to buy in to Roddenberry's vision of a happy-happy joy-joy future where everyone just gets along. As a species, I think we're just too selfish.

From a story standpoint, yeah, Trek is better; Star Wars is a classic Western. Lucas' revisionism is ... extremely frustrating.
 
So weird you mentioned this. I just had the same discussion with another recently. I like both. As far as Star Trek goes, I am a fan of the original and JJ Abrams reboot. I also like Enterprise from the 2000's. I think the new star wars has a chance of being vindicating because Abrams is doing it. I do remember a phyicist that offered his take on the whole Star Wars/Star Trek thing--I think it was Frank Wilczek. He said that Star Trek folks are the math camp types, while Star Wars folks are more monster truck rally types. Thought it was funny, but don't agree with it completely.
 
I personally enjoy both - I see Star Trek as pure science fiction whereas Star Wars leans more toward fantasy and mythology. Each has it's own vibe - Star Wars is a throwback to early cliffhanger and pulp offerings, and Trek falls in line with later hard SF.
 
I am K'Tesh! Son of K'Raig! I was the host of K'Tesh's Klingon Recipe Pages until the destruction of the Geocities homeworld.

Long Live the Klingon Empire!
Qapla!
 
For me, it depends on which Star Trek we're talking about. I like TNG above everything else, but Star Wars better than all the other Trek series.
 
They are both great, so I picked STAR TREK because of the all caps.

Star Wars is kind of a retelling of classic epic myths in a sci-fi setting. You've got archetype characters that appear in similar stories throughout history and in lots of different cultures.

Star Trek is more about dealing with issues that affect our current culture and current times, but doing it in a sci-fi setting. Things like race relations, the cold war, terrorism, concerns about technological change, the environment, etc.

They are trying to do different things and tell different kinds of stories for different reasons, and they are both great. I don't think either one of them is even remotely realistic, but that doesn't hurt a good story.
 
Had to pick Trek, just because it has been around longer and came to my attention earlier. As a kid I absolutely loved Star Wars, but as an adult I am ambivalent. Actually, that is true for Trek, too. But all in, I find Star Trek a little more accessible. Went to lots of conventions, met some great stars, and they were all nice people. I even got to hang out at a party with Jimmy Doohan. So Trek it is.
 
In life people try to assoaciate themselves with people of similar interests and situations. I look at STAR TREK as something as they take real life sitauations that occur in our life and apply it to the STAR TREK UNIVERSE. In doing so, it allows people of today to relate themselve to STAR TREK. The more they can see themselve in STAR TREK the more they can relate.

I have always looked at it in this way: STAR TREK is White collar and star wars is blue collar. I think it takes a different kind of mind to understand STAR TREK. You simply cannot be flipping through the channels and see STAR TREK on and just start watching it and call yourself a fan. It is different with star wars any 5 year old kid can watch it and be in aw of it. Just like a 30 year old can to with star wars. Its a novelty in my opinion.

To some STAR TREK can seem dry and boring to certain people. But there is always a deeper meaning to STAR TREK. I am a huge The Next Generation fan. It affects me in a very deep way. I cannot say that about the other STAR TREK shows, but they all do have a deeper meaning then any of other show in history I beleive.

P.S: I liked the new J.J Abrams reboot, but compared to all other STAR TREK its at the bottom. I love the philosophy, culture, diplomacy, the whole idea of TREK. The reboot had nothing of that, it was like a gang bang shootout that is just not true STAR TREK.
 
Both...and neither...and what about Lost in Space? BOTH: To me, the original Star Trek (sans digital remastering) and the first three Star Wars movies (ep. IV-VI) in their original theatrical release versions are absolute theatrical perfection. NEITHER: Everything released afterward is less than so. Picard quoted Marx & Engels in First Contact, which was it for me. Don't get me started about latter Lucas and Jar Jar Abrams. Same goes for Lost in Space. The first season (black & white) actually had some surprisingly well-written epsiodes, though the third season had the better, french horn-heavy theme song. Vegetable Rebellion? Ouch.
 
Last edited:
Both. grew up more trekkie than jedi, I guess. But both.

I'm also a browncoat wearing whovian who always knows where his towel is, (I keep it in my delorean right next to the flux-capacitor) but that's another story.

So say we all.

(I could keep going, but I pretty much enjoy just about any sci-fi)
 
The new JJ Abrams Star Wars movie involves an alternative universe trick, much like his Star Trek movie, which will allow the two universes to merge into a new, rebooted, single Trek Wars franchise. May the Force live long and prosper.
 
The new JJ Abrams Star Wars movie involves an alternative universe trick, much like his Star Trek movie, which will allow the two universes to merge into a new, rebooted, single Trek Wars franchise. May the Force live long and prosper.

Are you trying to start a frelling flame war? :p
 
Back
Top