I dislike both.
Neither has any real sort of connection to the audience, no diversity in its characters, no real exploration of the (far too massive to be any use) universe in which they're set. Not radical new ideas which are required to make science fiction worth paying attention to.
The main problem I find is that in a really big universe like the one which both rely on, the characters (how ever simple they may be) become comparatively minuscule and less carefully characterised. In the case of Star Wars, this makes the plot have to fall back on bigger things (War!) - trivializing the the characters further. In Star Trek it simply makes things uninteresting, because without the budget or technology to do things like massive space fights it is forced to struggle onwards anyway.
Thus, I take the simple option. I set aside fifteen hours to watch Firefly. QUICK_EDIT
I dislike both.
Neither has any real sort of connection to the audience, no diversity in its characters, no real exploration of the (far too massive to be any use) universe in which they're set.
..... how much Star Trek have you actually watched?
First of all, Star Wars is a series of movies, two not-really-radically-different trilogies (apart from shooting dates perhaps ), whereas Star Trek is a selection of tv series. From captain Kirk to captain Archer, they're all different. Star Wars has about two hours per movie to show off stuff, Star Trek has more on the order of 45 or something.
Star Trek is soft science fiction. The technobabble makes no sense even to a layman and to anyone who remembers at least something from highschool physics it's laughable. Aside from that, the series is mostly about social stuff, the relations between the characters. Most of it is shallow, but there is also some pretty intricate stuff. If you want a more solid story without all the black plot holes stuffed with inarticulate technobabblish inverse psionic resonance harmonics powered by borg matrices that were augmented through nanoprobe positronic photon torpedo exoskeletons then you may want to try Deep Space 9, along with TNG I've found it to be the best story-wise. Enterprise is just modern sfx retro (the new Enterprise) and Voyager is for when you suspend disbelief completely and just go with the flow.
Star Wars is an epic themed movie built around three clichès:
1. The rise of evil (evil grows and takes over)
2. The fight between good and evil
3. Superpowered beings
Not necessarily bad. Star Wars IS indeed a big thing with a lot of character. The plot, however, is just a lengthy version of the good versus evil thing, which dominates throughout. By assigning a 'Light' and 'Dark' side, things literally become black and white because someone can only be alligned to one side as the pull to the dark side always corrupts. I find this to be agonizingly simple sometimes and intricately intruiging and clear at others... The rest is just sci-fi coating with big machines, explosions, wars, funky laser sounds and secondary plots about struggle, hate, love and deception. What Star Wars doesn't try, however, is attempting to explain the mechanics of its universe through meaningless sentences aimed at befuddling the viewers.
I have no real conclusion here, I like both Star Trek and Star Wars, but for different reasons. Star Wars is more of an epic story that's really easy to follow and Star Trek is mellow shallow at times and dead serious at others, something you have to get used to somewhat. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Location: Less than 10 minutes from the internet
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:24 am Post subject:
Too true.
I can't ever pick just one, because I can spout technobable, and random facts from both. But I can say something that applies to both: The older renditions of both were better. More specifically, Star Wars IV-VI were the best (Han shot first), and Star Trek TOS/TNG & TOS era movies were the best. The newer stuff is just failure by comparison!
Don't get me wrong, the newer stuff from both is entertaining, but life would be better without it.
I seem to be the only person on the face or the earth who didn't like the latest Star Trek film. _________________
..... how much Star Trek have you actually watched?
And what version?
Controlled amounts of the original series and deep space 9 . (I have no idea about The Next Generation, and I stayed away from the films. Although I'm kind of sad that I've never seen any of the Borg - there is potential in the concept)
To elaborate on my hasty post previously, I really can't stand
A)The total suspension of disbelief
B)The lack of deeply character driven plots.
With A, it is to some extent planned escapism. Suspension of disbelief is the point. But while I can forgive the gfx budget and the somewhat haphazard stories, B worries me.
It is the same problem as appears in many of today's films. Characters who can be simplified down to one or two common stereotypes makes the story being told so much less immersive. I like it when characters have coherent hopes, dreams, and pasts.
It means that I can escape reality into the lives of unusual characters in terrifying situations, and actually be concerned about the outcome.
It gives script writers more to work with, because the characters you have can basically be left to their own fictional devices and simply spin a story from their conflicts.
When the characters aren't so coherent - Obviously the head character naturally gets a more fleshed-out backstory - they don't have the same immersion. In Science Fiction it is a necessity that the audience is immersed, because if they are, then the fridge logic is less noticeable and you can get down to enjoying it.
What I'm trying to say is that I am a major proponent of well scripted, well cast, character driven fiction.
What is missing from Star Wars and Star Trek, apart from Summer Glau, Nathan Fillion, and co, is really deeply interesting characters (based on my impression of the 6-8 eps of each of the two versions I mentioned).
That said, very few TV series, films, comics, or games have that level detail in the characters - and the problem that there are only so many types of character which can really work in an ensemble.
But I also like science in my science fiction. Things which people wish they had today, and imagine in the future, are fun things to see brought to life on screen (Paper-thin display screens is a good example). This sort of detail is something missing in Star Trek, to my knowledge. And in Star Wars.. it is nice to see for the first few minutes, but after that I find that the sheer weight of minor things is both a blessing and a curse - more so in 1,2 and 3. The holograms are nice, but after they get used in every second scene it gets bland.
The problem there is that Star Trek didn't have the budget to do that kind of detail, and focused on the necessities. Star Wars had too much money and thus squashed some of the story telling while adding a lot of eye candy.
And remember kids, don't combine Alprazaline vasoconstrictor with droxine. It'll kill your out-patients, and make Simon Tam all mad at you. QUICK_EDIT
The problem with Star trek was the lack of creativity in the alien species, in almost every version with a few exceptions.. most of the aliens too closely resembled humans.
I can only think of three things that were not human like and they were all from the original series:
#1 lizard man.. whatever it was called.
#2 An oil slick thing, that talked and consumed people much like the blob ( I could be referring to a past nightmare or something completely unrelated to the shows.. if so ignore this one. )
#3 a giant bugle ( like the tornado shaped snack ) that consumes everything in its path..
I'm Not going too much into Star Wars, it was fun to watch, some of the games based around it are good.. QUICK_EDIT
first i'll agree with Titan in that it's kinda hard to compare the two when one was, for the most part, a set of several TV series, Original Star Trek, Deep space 9, Next Generation, Voyager, and whatever the newer one is that was suppose to be a giant prequel to all the others, while Star Wars was a high budget movie. However, Star Trek DID have it's own movies here and there, including the new one of course.
Anyways, I personally prefer Star Trek because a good portion of it is more about discovering weird anomalies or weird circumstances and what not and trying to find the answer to such things, and in some cases failing, rather than being a story completely developed in a war against an Empire and how that Empire came to be. Of course I do agree about the whole Alien bit in Star Trek being many/most things they encounter of which are humanoid and you never really see anything that is just different like a big fat giant slug that can 'talk' and do stuffs among the many other minor alien things in Star Wars.
However, I personally don't like either all that much to be honest although I have seen all the Star Wars movies and a good portion of The Next Generation, Voyager series of Star Trek, along with bits of parts of the other series and most if not all of the Star Trek movies.
and to end my little bit that I had no real focus on imma play you guys a song...well i'll let youtube handle that...
It's by a fairly Gothic style dude who calls himself Voltaire and it's about Star Trek stuffs...it's good for a laugh. (Also suggest listening to the other ones, aka Worf's Revenge, and The Sexy Data Tango.)
and yes...this is the real reason i even posted in this thread. _________________ Kalistia Crestland (2)
In Soviet Russia, grass grows on tiberium! QUICK_EDIT
Orac, if you are looking for something like that, than I suggest you watch TNG's 'Darmok' or DS9's 'The Visitor'.
TNG also has about as much diversity in the characters as you reasonably desire.
TOS is more of a joke. Not that it's bad, it's just too silly to take seriously.
DS9 has some really good episodes if you look for them. The Visitor is a good example.
ENT is megacrap. Stay far away.
VOY doesn't have much character diversity, really. It only has a hand-full of good episodes as well. _________________
The canon explanation for nearly all aliens looking humanoid in Star Trek is that the galaxy was 'seeded' with genetic material by an ancient humanoid species that would lead all to evolve into humanoids.
I think are that they simply wanted to lay bare human social stuff, projected onto slightly different people. You can't have much communication or chemistry with a sentient blob of slime,. Nobody would've watched TOS if Kirk would hop in bed with a winged insect with poisonous mandibles. For the viewers they wanted the best of both worlds: a dose of alien content covered in a thick sauce of humanity (multilayered pun intended). Only very rarely does Star Trek stray from this path: TNG's 'Darmok', Voyager's Species 8472 and a whole batch of TNG and DS9 episodes. It looks a bit fluffy and phoney at times, but the ideas are there.
I prefer Star Wars because it's actually not all that bad. Technically it's not even science fiction, it's just a "space opera."
That said, I cannot stand Star Trek at all. The entire thing is bland, dull and boring. It has the ability to be super epic but it fails... HARD. QUICK_EDIT
As it happens i have been watching several Star Trek episodes on YT of late (mostly TNG, VOY and ENT.), feeling a bit nostalgic i guess.
Not to say i like ST better then SW, watched all SW movies a while back. won't be long before i'll be watching all ST movies again.
Star Trek always felt like it wanted to be a TV version of Star Wars but without cool weapons or a fairly well-developed backstory. George Lucas has scientific explanations behind most of the technology and some of it's quite feasible in the next 30-50 years as opposed to anything I've seen in Star Trek.
And, I've seen the latest movie. And still not impressed. QUICK_EDIT
Which version of the series have you seen, because they are all different.
It was a newer one. The acting was so bad and so forced. It was so terrible that I wasn't able to watch more than three minutes. Never again. Never again will I even try to watch Star Trek. QUICK_EDIT
Star Trek always felt like it wanted to be a TV version of Star Wars but without cool weapons or a fairly well-developed backstory.
Star Trek: 1966
Star Wars: 1977
...
Dark Templar X wrote:
It was a newer one. The acting was so bad and so forced. It was so terrible that I wasn't able to watch more than three minutes. Never again. Never again will I even try to watch Star Trek.
You probably watched an episode of Enterprise or something from the first season TNG, which the same as saying:
"I watched a highlight of Jar Jar Binks scenes on YouTube, and I hated it. Star Wars sucks."
You really should watch some later TNG (specifically, the mid-3rd to 6th seasons). After you get acquainted with that, move on to DS9 _________________
Didn't watch both of them. Watching them makes me feel like a nerd.
You're posting on a modding forum for old games, how are you not a geek already (note that geek != nerd)?
Also, there are huge differences between individual Star Trek episodes and Star Wars movies. But especially between different Star Trek Series there are enormous differences in atmosphere and the general style of writing. Although they share the same canon, they're widely different like TD - > TS - > FS - > C&C3 - > C&C4 are. Plus the script writers swapped around, unlike the continuity you had with George Lucas' SW canon. QUICK_EDIT
I dunno. Star Wars didn't so much have continuity as have plenty of unrelated pieces of background story which could be pulled out of Lucas' ass whenever something needed explaining.
(Another thing which sort of ... annoyed ... me about Star Wars - the fact that for all the 'continuity' there was very little which really gave the viewer an impression of "This is us, in the future. Our problems are the same, there are just more of us spread over more worlds". I couldn't quite actually empathising with characters).
But it is true, keeping continuity is more difficult when each script writer has a slightly different view on the characters' individual personalities.
Even if you go the Straczynski route and have the same writer breaking basically every story. Last edited by Orac on Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:19 am; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
(Another thing which sort of ... annoyed ... me about Star Wars - the fact that for all the 'continuity' there was very little which really gave the viewer an impression of "This is us, in the future. Our problems are the same, there are just more of us spread over more worlds. I couldn't quite actually empathising with characters).
This is most likely contributed to by the fact that none of the characters have any hobbies or interests.
They all live an inhuman, spartan lifestyle, only concentrated on their tasks and jobs. _________________
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Location: Tiberium Research Center N27
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:10 pm Post subject:
Eh, I don't really like either, but Star Wars > Star Trek for me. Because at the end of the day, SW can just pull out a huge "Pew Pew droids and lasers" battle and keep me mildly entertained. ST is rather limited in its possibilities. _________________ DUNK! QUICK_EDIT
both crap
if you have problems with that just say it _________________
Askhati wrote:
The Flying Circus carryall! See many vehicles crammed into one! See bewildered AA units go crazy! See the most expensive crash in the history of TS when the Flying Circus is shot down!
The thing that bothers me very much about Star Wars are the the abundant plot-holes that are intervened between the two trilogies. Obi-Wan Kenobi (and everyone else) really suffer(s) from Alzheimer's in the second trilogy. The transition from trilogy one was FEEBLE and faulty. They are better understood seperately.
I can't really speak up that much about Star-Trek, since, I really haven't watched it adequately to make up my mind about it.
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Location: Tiberium Research Center N27
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:31 pm Post subject:
Crash wrote:
The thing that bothers me very much about Star Wars are the the abundant plot-holes that are intervened between the two trilogies. Obi-Wan Kenobi (and everyone else) really suffer(s) from Alzheimer's in the second trilogy. The transition from trilogy one was FEEBLE and faulty. They are better understood seperately.
Well, it has been around 30 freaking years. So, yeah. _________________ DUNK! QUICK_EDIT
I liked Dune. I thought it was all right. I wish they would have made more movies about it. The only way to satisfy your craving for it is to read those bible sized books. _________________ You come for the modding but you stay for the Crap Forum. QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum