Quoting:
Star Wars is just your basic fairy tale-good vs evil type thing. That type of story no matter what genre (in this case sci-fi) will never go out of style. Star Trek on the other hand, is more in-depth as to how life may be like centuries from now. I think that Star Trek is more believable in terms of "what if". I just love listening to Gordi's techno-babble. It sounds like he is making perfect sense but hell if I know what he is saying. lol

Live Long and Prosper and May the Force be with You.  ;D

Cat
End Quote

Interestingly, the plots and stories of Trek are timeless.

You could recast these stories in the present, the stone-age, or (as Trek has) the future, and the stories and their moral would still hold up.  :P

Quoting:
Star Trek is nerdier because it's so much harder to get into it.  And this has nothing at all do with content.  Star Wars is just easier to digest, and you know why?  Because there's so much less of it.  Being a Trekkie takes EFFORT.  You have to watch every single friggin' movie (well, maybe not the fifth one).  You have to watch as many Star Trek episodes as possible, that's what, every season of all five series, I don't even want to count that high.

And that's true back in 1977 when Star Wars debuted, because that's still one two-hour movie compared with four syndicated seasons of Star Trek.End Quote

 

5 TV shows
10 movies
1 animated series
countless novels and comic books
600+ episodes and counting.....

That's like a LIFETIME of Star Trek, compared with the 5 soon to be 6 Star Wars movies.

Quoting:
And besides, Star Wars is just more FUN than Star Trek, AND it's easier to take seriously.  I mean, one starred Harrison Ford and the other starred William Shatner.  No matter how good the writing is, one starred Harrison Ford and the other one starred William Shatner and there's no getting around that.
End Quote

Historically this is proven true with children. Little kids are definately more drawn to Star Wars as being more fun then Star Trek.  They think it would be cool to be a Jedi.  Only nerdy people like that jury duty lady from some years ago think it's cool to be a Starfleet officer.  Little kids flaunt their Star Wars stuff just like kids did 20+ years ago.  But I don't think any elementary school aged child out there would feel safe walking around wearing a Mr. Spock t-shirt, or carrying a Captain Jean-Luc Picard lunch box to class.  You are right, guys like Harrison Ford and Ewan McGregor are infintely more cooler then some like William Shatner.  

Quoting:
Star Wars is for kids who like gratuitous computerized special effects and so on.

Star Trek (original cast) is for grownups who like the moral of the story.  It is the thinking person's franchise.  In my opinion, Trek is way cooler than Star Wars.
End Quote

                                                                                                                                                                         I couldn't agree with you more! "Star Trek" in my opinion is an adult product,the "thinking mans" type of sci-fi, while "Star Wars" is more kiddie oriented fantasy. I like them both, but would have to admit I have a preference for "Star Trek" since I became a Trekkie at least 1-2 years BEFORE the original "Star Wars" movie came out in 1977. However,it was my interest in "Trek" that motivated me to see the first "Star Wars" movie.  I wonder if the original "Star Trek" series had NOT been made,would the original "Stars Wars" movie have not been made, as well?  I saw Lucas interviewed once, and he claims the old "Flash Gordon" and "Buck Rogers" serials of the 30's and 40's influenced him to make the first "Star Wars" picture. I always wondered what he thought of the original "Trek"? I know for a fact that "Space 1999", a mid 70's British tv series was blown out of the water, because not enough people watched the show for it to get decent enough ratings, and stay on the air. Those who did tune in had bad things to say about it. Most of them complained that it was a "Trek" rip-off. I also remember people criticizing "Battlestar Galactica", and saying it was a rip off of "Star Wars". If I am not mistaken,didn't Lucas sue Universal,the company that produced "Galactica" for supposedly ripping off some of his ideas? Isn't it fascinating how art influences other works of art?  Thanks for the memories! Sincerely,Steve.  
 Logged



Pages: 1   Reply | Notify of replies | Send the

Quoting:
I just love listening to Gordi's techno-babble. It sounds like he is making perfect sense but hell if I know what he is saying. lol
End Quote

The actor, LeVar Burton, said in an interview that sometimes HE had trouble working out and remembering what he was saying! Those were, apparently, the hardest bits to memorize. Geordi is so cool though... I named my cat after him. Shortly after we got Geordi, I learned to speak Klingon. (The later version, Thlingan Hol'. It's not much like Klingonaase. The way to tell is that Thlingan Hol' is the one that the bumpy-headed ones speak. ;))

LOL, got me talking about Star Trek... This is going to be one looooooooooooong post...

BTW, did anyone else know about how, in The Next Generation, they filmed a scene with a guest actor who hadn't learnt his lines?
They actually got rid of him altogether and shot the scene he was in (in the Observation Lounge) over the character's shoulder. Since the chairs have such high backs, they (get this) stuck a black wig on top of the chair and there was a guy lying underneath it reading the lines and shaking the chair gently whenever he spoke!

The original series was still definitely the best though. Watch the fourth film (The Voyage Home) and you'll see what I mean; that one was, in my opinion, by far the best.

That is not to say that I don't like Star Wars, despite my terrible Star Trek addiction... After they brought out the films again, I wore a rat-tail for about three weeks, just like some of the Jedis do. ;D
And unlike most Star Wars fans, I absolutely LOVE JarJar Binks. I have a stuffed toy JarJar that I give lots of hugs and cuddles to. ;D 'Course, I'd still prefer to give lots of hugs and cuddles to Obi-Wan in the prequels; Rrrr-RRR-rrr. :-*

I think the thing about Star Wars and Star Trek is that they've managed to create interesting space stories without making them unbelievable, too technical, too unimaginative or too silly. After all, hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy. ;)

Quoting:
Personally, I think TNG is FAR better then the orginal in terms of script, acting, special effect, etc. William Shatner is just too nausiating. But I would watch it if it was on just for a good laugh because you ALWAYS knew the guy with the red shirt was going to get it before the first commercial.
Cat
End Quote

George Lucas needed to complete the Star Wars series by 1990.  He let too much time elapse.  Between 1983 and 1999, too much changed, from cultural values to cinematic special effects.  All three sequels had an exciting, cutting edge, special quality about them.  The prequels seemed tired, cliched, and mediocre.

Someone described the original Star Trek formula as "a cowboy soap opera in outer space."  That is, the series employed elements of Westerns, soaps, and science fiction to make the combination of action, drama, and futuristic imagery that Trekkies came to love so well.
I used to love the original Star Trek when I was a kid.  I wanted to enjoy TNG, but it just fell flat for me.  The overall quality of TNG was better than the original, but I fell out of love with outer space adventures by age 16.

Quoting:

I mean, one starred Harrison Ford and the other starred William Shatner.  No matter how good the writing is, one starred Harrison Ford and the other one starred William Shatner and there's no getting around that.
End Quote

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  When I saw the title of this thread those words were EXACTLY what came to the tip of my tongue.  So I am reading each post - prefecting what I am going to type - I get to yours - and in the words of Meat Loaf - Ya took the words right outa my mouth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats the first time I have actually gaffawed out loud reading a post in so long - thanks Kenny - you made a personally lousy day rather brighter !!!

Personally - I always liked Star Wars because it was basically Cowboys and Indians in Space.  And the Cowboy always got the girl (even while frozen in carbonite !).

I have done my best to get into Star Trek - especially since most of my friends are proper Trekkies (bi-annual conventions etc etc) but it just doesnt do anything for me.  It doesnt "grab" me.

Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars will always be my faves.  But on both counts I am a traditionalist.  I dont like "new and improved models".
I dont "approve" of what George did with the new Star Wars.  Its similar to why I am not a fan of the current Bond movies (despite desperately wanting Pierce to become Bond since the early 80's).  Both genre's seem to have sacrificed the clever writing and humour for CGI and special effects.

I realise George wanted to perfect his work and reveal to us what he wanted to show us in the 70's but couldnt because he was way ahead of technology - but ya know - it doesnt bother me if special effects aren't perfect.  
I dont care that I can see the wires holding Lambert in Highlander, I dont care that every battle scene in BSG is the same footage cos they couldnt afford to film more, I dont care that the flames were not real in Towering Inferno, I dont care that the shark look seriously fake in Jaws.  

Its the actors... the storyline... the music and more that keep me in my seat.

And when I went to see the first "new" Star Wars - the only thing keeping me in my seat was the chewing gum stuck to my butt.  Not even the delicious Ewan and Liam were helping.  The special effects annoyed and distracted me so much that I no longer cared about the storyline.

Quoting:
Star Trek deals more with the political.

Star Wars deals more with the spiritual.

End Quote

That is a very interesting point. Never thought about it in those terms but you are right.




Cat

Quoting:
I like both, but loyalty wise I will always be a Trekkie :)

I think Star Trek is just a bit more involved and more cerebral than Star Wars...it's more pure science fiction than fantasy, and I think the fantasy aspect of Star Wars is what wins over most fans.

I hope Star Trek perseveres though, you have no idea how many nerds were influenced by Trek to produce stuff like automatic sliding doors, cell phones and figuring out the stuff to make warp drive possible :)
End Quote

I'm with you on that one. Star Wars I'm sorry to say bored me to death. The only thing I liked about it was R2D2. A beeping garbage can on wheels, now that's entertainment!

Quoting:
I hope Star Trek perseveres though, you have no idea how many nerds were influenced by Trek to produce stuff like automatic sliding doors, cell phones
End Quote

I thought that cell phones were inspired by Maxwell Smart's "Shoe Phone"?   :P

Quoting:
As far as "Star Trek", my simple mind never got into it.  It was too corny and cheesy.  It always reminded me of the British series "Dr Who".  Lame plot-lines, even lamer special effects.
End Quote

Yea, but remember, we are talking about TV in the 1960's.  Star Trek was really a first in many ways, including being one of the first color TV shows.  The things they did with light and color was unheard of in TV before that.

Quoting:
Someone described the original Star Trek formula as "a cowboy soap opera in outer space."  That is, the series employed elements of Westerns, soaps, and science fiction to make the combination of action, drama, and futuristic imagery that Trekkies came to love so well.
End Quote

That's exactly what it was.  Gene Roddenberry pitched Star Trek to Desilu and NBC as a "Wagontrain To The Stars".  And in making the series, they took stories from everywhere.  "The Ballance Of Terror" (where we first saw a Romulan) was just a remake of a classic WWII submarine movie called "The Enemy Below".  And they hit everything from politics (Communists and "Yankees"), race (this show had the first inter-racial kiss on prime-time TV, plus the first multi-ethnic crew), comedy (tribbles!), tragedy (Joan Collins having to die to keep Germany from winning WWII), even hippies.  It was very contemporary for it's time, and very adult.  Star Wars had as it's main influence the "serial" shows of the 1930's.  This is why it starts with "Episode 4".

Quoting:
I also remember people criticizing "Battlestar Galactica", and saying it was a rip off of "Star Wars". If I am not mistaken,didn't Lucas sue Universal,the company that produced "Galactica" for supposedly ripping off some of his ideas?
End Quote

Close.  It was 20th Century Fox that sued, not Lucas.  It was obvious when looking at a lot of facts (for example, Larson's first screenplay predated the one by Lucas) that it was not a copy, other then they were both set in space.  In fact, a lot of things had been changed, just to make them as different as possible.  Apollo was originally named "Skyler" and the "Cylons" were originally insects with battle armor, not robots.  Those were all changed, in an attempt to prevent any such lawsuit.

Quoting:
This is a little off-thread, but since a Trekkie is one who likes Star Trek, is a Trekker one who likes Star Trek and Star Wars?
End Quote

A "Trekkie" is somebody that does not have a life, so tries to make one through Star Trek.  A "Trekker" is somebody that has a life, but appreciates the show.  A Trekkie tries to learn to speak Klingon, and can tell you the smallest detail about any show in a moment's notice.  A Trekker may read the books, and even go to an occasional convention, but does not make Star Trek the major factor in their life.

Trekkers (like me) are much more likely to accept other Sci-fi shows and movies (like Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, even Quark!).  A Trekkie on the other hand, things Gene Roddenberry is God, and everything written in Trek will come to happen, eventually.

Quoting:
A Trekkie on the other hand, things Gene Roddenberry is God, and everything written in Trek will come to happen, eventually.
End Quote

It will.... won't it? :'( ???

Quoting:
It will.... won't it? :'( ???
End Quote

Hahaha, I don't think so.

For one, I believe in the Einstein-Hawkins Universe, and nothing will be able to pass the speed of light.  Because of this, even the closest star is over 4 years travel.  I doubt that we will ever have anything other then "colonies" in space, even in the farthest possible future.

In addition, many things were just shortcuts taken for budget reasons.  Transporters are a big example of this.  It was much cheaper to use this, then the original concept of having to film shuttles taking off and landing on planets.  Simply use glitter spinning in water, combine with special effects, and save a ton of money per episode.

And if we do meet other life, it is doubtful they will be humanoid like we are I think.  Considering how long dinosaurs ruled the Earth, they are more possible.  Or even trilobites, or insects.  I find just the thought that the most advanced forms of life in "Star Trek" are all hominids to be disturbing.  But putting an actor in makeup is a lot cheaper then trying to make a totally artificial life form.

Do I believe in life "out there"?  Yes, I do.  Do I believe in intelligent life?  There probably is self-aware life somwhere else in the universe.  But do I think we will ever meet it?  Probably not.  The distances are just to vast.  England lost control over America largely because of the time lag in communication.  Imagine that multiplied by decades, and try to negotiate something as simple as a trade agreement.

Quoting:
I freaked out when I saw the title of this thread, my initial reaction was :

Says who, exactly ?  :(

I am glad I read the entire thread first and found out the answer was "Not too many, apparently"  :D

And with due respect to Hairspray, because I already knew his/her take on the subject, but I gotta side with Kenny and BMG....William Shatner =  ::)

You can't just cruise round the universe copulating with beautiful alien women, and beating the crap outta every male alien you see (whilst as a standard, getting your shirt ripped!).  Surely that was against the prime directive ?  :o

It is for the reasons of Shatner alone that I much prefer the greater realism of TNG and it's followers.

Having said that, one can't deny the show that gave the whole thing it's start though  :)
End Quote

I do agree about William Shatner. I had the (cough, cough) privilige of meeting him in person. He was just as nausiating in person as he is on the small screen.



Cat

Quoting:And with due respect to Hairspray, because I already knew his/her take on the subject...
End Quote

It's all good, Fuss. We've indeed done this song and dance about the Star Trek captains before. 8)

Quoting:


It's all good, Fuss. We've indeed done this song and dance about the Star Trek captains before. 8)
End Quote

Yeah, I know  :)  Disagreeing is fun when it's done with a smile  :)

Quoting:
Sisko was the best captain.  I remember when Q was on the episode and Sisko decked him, then when Q said, "Hey, Picard never hit me!" Sisko replied, "I'm not Picard."

;D
End Quote

But-why-did-he-ru-in-it-all-by-split-ting-ev-er-y-thing-he-said-in-to-sep-ar-ate
-syll-a-bles   :( ::)

Quoting:
William Shatner today....well, he's like the music of Elton John.  Once was cool but not anymore!
End Quote

How about Shatner's music?

Lucy In The Sky, With Diamonds!

Check this out, for a music video of that great hit of his!  :P
http://www.sleeplessknights.com/entertainment.html

Quoting:


How about Shatner's music?

Lucy In The Sky, With Diamonds!

Check this out, for a music video of that great hit of his!  :P
http://www.sleeplessknights.com/entertainment.html
End Quote

Oh Pleeeeese! I have heard his butchering of Lucy. http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/wuerg/vomit-smiley-015.gif



Cat

Quoting:As far as I’m concerned the original Star Trek has much more to do with the interaction of the writers and actors with its audience than any Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Space 1999 etc...
Star Trek is a better experience for me because you have to involve yourself in it, use part of your brain, your imagination to complete the experience.
I got into Star Trek in my early teens; it was the late 70’s, but before Star Wars. I could only watch and enjoy Star Trek by using my imagination and some suspension of belief for it to work. Yes, the set design, special effects and so forth of the original ST was dated, even in its time; Kubrik's 2001 in ’69 blew the set and look of all sci-fi shows or movies of the era out of the water. But I enjoyed the characters and the back drop of their situation due to the writing and understanding the time and place in the ‘60s when the show was produced.  
Sure Shatner was/is a ham but he was only portraying a likeness reflecting the persona of bravura/machismo that was around him and prevalent at the time in men & on TV…he had flaws & it made him more human for acting on them. I think the overacting and over simplification of characters ethnicity (Sulu, Chekov, Scotty, etc) was almost needed in contrast to the hockey set designs and SFX for the show to work. There was a need to have a strong human element (even it was over-exaggerated) for the show to have “worked”.

Compared to modern day sci–fi shows/movies, it was colorful, funky and unusual looking; it even had a good sense of humor & cute (if not so subtle) parodies of itself and characters. Due to this, Star Trek looks more “alive” then, in the ‘60’s, than its counterparts of today.  So I can say I actually CARED what happened to the crew on Star Trek.

By contrast I could never get into TNG; sure it was acted better, had better SFX, was more realistic, but always came off as cold, sterile, antiseptic and devoid of any “soul” to the show. I could have cared less about TNG crew or their situations they were in.
Whereas the original Star Trek was sort of cheesy, but I had to fill in the blanks (like reading a potboiler book or pulp fiction novel) to enter their world. TNG gave us all the proper and scientifically theoretically possible SFX, gadgets, set design, and situations. It looked and was produced exactly as you might expect the world, space or spaceship to look like in the future, slick, soulless, & boring. But there really wasn’t any science FICTION here; it was all science soon to be, or far to be in the future, no wonderment or excitement in that for me.

Star Wars was pretty much a tried & true cowboys vs. the Indians story accelerated into the future with great special effects, and I loved the first movie for that, again for what it was, when it was.
But I put Star Wars, and especially the new prequels, in the same category as TNG, DS9 and their ilk, all show, no substance. Like TNG, couldn’t give a rat’s *ss about the characters or situations in these shows. The only way to watch them is to wait for the next SFX or gadget to move the story along, which if their was any decent science-fiction writing in any of them to begin with, would not need SFX as a crutch or substitute for poor writing, character development or production.

The Star Wars trilogy or franchise is now just a money making venture, and IMHO you can get more bang for your SFX buck by popping a disc into your CPU or PS2 and play one of the latest games on the market.

End Quote

I agree. :)

Quoting:


I agree. :)
End Quote

Muwahaha !  With what bit  ;D