• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Star Trek or Star Wars?

Star Trek or Star Wars?

  • Total voters
    75
FluffyNinja said:
Sadly, I must agree with you here. Jar Jar just needed to die....................... in a light sabre duel...... by accident or something.
jarjarnotjedi.jpg
Click to expand...

I reported your post for posting offensive images.:2razz:
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Which do YOU enjoy more?
Kirk, Spock, Picard, Janeway or Anikin, Darth, C3PO, Luke, Leia?
Click to expand...

If I may out-nerd you all, I'd like to say that Star Trek and Star Wars aren't even in the same genre.

Star Trek is science fiction. On the Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness, Star Trek leans more towards the "hard" side. It focuses on physics (even if it's in-universe physics and not real world physics), does not use mystical elements, and generally tries to find scientific explanations for occurrences. In these cases, it much more typifies science fiction.

Star Wars, on the other hand, is an example of space opera. On the Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness, Star Wars leans much, much towards the "soft" side. While it is set in space, and it does apply in-universe physics, it is not beholden to them, and even use element more often used in fantasy works. This is why we can have the Jedi and Sith using the ever-present energy field known as the Force, the use of which is based upon or even determines your morality. This genre of stories relies less on "factual sciences" and more on "rule of cool."

So, to me, I don't even see them as comparable. In many ways, comparing Star Trek with Star Wars is like comparing The Wild Wild West with Lord of the Rings.
 
winston53660 said:
Pffft SG-1 can do with a few people what it takes armies/flotillas of ships to do in either Star Trek or Star Wars.
Click to expand...

I think the Stargate franchise has been very underrated but time will show us that it is a very great sci-fi franchise. While it is not by far a favorite of mine, I do enjoy it for it's consistency and staying power, which says a lot about those who produce for that franchise.
 
samsmart said:
If I may out-nerd you all, I'd like to say that Star Trek and Star Wars aren't even in the same genre.

Star Trek is science fiction. On the Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness, Star Trek leans more towards the "hard" side. It focuses on physics (even if it's in-universe physics and not real world physics), does not use mystical elements, and generally tries to find scientific explanations for occurrences. In these cases, it much more typifies science fiction.

Star Wars, on the other hand, is an example of space opera. On the Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness, Star Wars leans much, much towards the "soft" side. While it is set in space, and it does apply in-universe physics, it is not beholden to them, and even use element more often used in fantasy works. This is why we can have the Jedi and Sith using the ever-present energy field known as the Force, the use of which is based upon or even determines your morality. This genre of stories relies less on "factual sciences" and more on "rule of cool."

So, to me, I don't even see them as comparable. In many ways, comparing Star Trek with Star Wars is like comparing The Wild Wild West with Lord of the Rings.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I hadn't thought of it in that way.

Where would SG-1 and offshoots fall?

It seems there is to an extent, a combo of both involved, if my memory of the episodes I watched is accurate.
 
Star Trek has so much more to offer. Star Wars was great until the idiot prequals that ruined it. Of course Babylon 5 has no equal either way, and it was just a TV show.

So....

Babylon 5
Star Trek
4-6 Star Wars

End of story.
 
Blackdog said:
Star Trek has so much more to offer. Star Wars was great until the idiot prequals that ruined it. Of course Babylon 5 has no equal either way, and it was just a TV show.

So....

Babylon 5
Star Trek
4-6 Star Wars

End of story.
Click to expand...

Yeah, with characters like this it's hard to argue:laughat:
dfada.jpg
 
I must admit Star Trek IS great for making demotivational posters though :laughat:
khan.jpeg
 
The Mark said:
Hmm, I hadn't thought of it in that way.

Where would SG-1 and offshoots fall?

It seems there is to an extent, a combo of both involved, if my memory of the episodes I watched is accurate.
Click to expand...

Personally, I would set SG-1 in the genre of military science fiction. There's quite a number of books in that genre, but either 1) they're not that well known or 2) they're not considered primarily military sci-fi.

And I wouldn't put Star Trek in with MS-F because while they do have military tropes, they have more tropes concerned with exploration and social issues, which makes it much broader in scope.

SG-1, on the other hand, focuses much more on the military aspects of science fiction in any number of ways. After all, the Stargate Program is military in nature, and so civilian use of sci-fi aspects (such as the Stargate or meeting with aliens) is generally averted. So that's how I would categorize that franchise if I had to.
 
I have met very few people in Africa or Asia who knew what Star Trek was. Even a drunk Australian can recognize Darth Vader.
 
There are no prequels in Star Trek. Nuff said. Well there's Star Trek: Enterprise but I'm not going to count it because as a Trekker I'm biased.

Either way DS9, especially after season 4 is nothing but win.
 
Star wars 3,4,5,6. are better than star trek. One and two are just bad. All star trek exept for that one that came out recently is bad. So i vote Star Wars.
 
Teh Internets said:
Star wars 3,4,5,6. are better than star trek. One and two are just bad. All star trek except for that one that came out recently is bad. So i vote Star Wars.
Click to expand...
Ok, tangent time.

Here we are, on teh internets, happily posting inane comments on various matters.

And Teh Internets posts a response...

My head hurts :mrgreen:
 
Wiseone said:
There are no prequels in Star Trek. Nuff said. Well there's Star Trek: Enterprise but I'm not going to count it because as a Trekker I'm biased.

Either way DS9, especially after season 4 is nothing but win.
Click to expand...

DS9 is by far my most favorite ST series. VOY is by far my least favorite. I didn't mind ENT at all - really got into it during the reruns. I liked how "playful" it was, although that may be what doomed it for other viewers.
 
I enjoyed both a great deal, accepting them for what they are.

As Sam said, Star Trek was more Science Fiction, whereas Star Wars was space opera or Science Fantasy.


Babylon 5 was better than both put together. It had real depth... well except for that last season and some of the post-production movies were a bit iffy.


But, I gotta say...


Firefly for the win!


firefly_2002_1844_medium.jpg





 
Goshin said:
I enjoyed both a great deal, accepting them for what they are.

As Sam said, Star Trek was more Science Fiction, whereas Star Wars was space opera or Science Fantasy.


Babylon 5 was better than both put together. It had real depth... well except for that last season and some of the post-production movies were a bit iffy.


But, I gotta say...


Firefly for the win!
Click to expand...

Babylon 5 was great, but I think it's better on DVD. Then again, JMS wrote that show to be limited to 5 seasons and more like a novel, so it makes sense.

Firefly... I dunno. I enjoy the show and the series. However, I think the fact that it was short-lived may have propelled it's mythic status a bit higher than it might have been if it wasn't cancelled. After all, the criticism that FOX got for cancelling Firefly was, I think, the reason why FOX gave Dollhouse a second season, which I don't think it deserved.

Who knows? Maybe Firefly would be better as a series of movies than as a tv show? With it's success, I'm kinda wondering why a sequel isn't being planned already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom