Star Trek vs Star Wars

[Prometheus]

Which is the better franchise? And why.

I know it's not quite comparing like for like, one's sci fi and mainly a series the other is space opera and mainly films, but still, just for fun.

I've not watched the newest Star Trek offerings, or seen the Star Wars series but here's some of my thoughts.

 

 

For Star Trek

Star Trek actually explores alien cultures, Star Wars just shows them.

Its aspiration for humanity clear and well communicated.

Solves many (perhaps too many) problems by using 'science'.- you know, realigning the warp core manifolds to increase the power output of the deflector dish. Really celebrates science.

Spock. Data. Picard. Some great characters.

Star Trek leads rather than follows social change (female first officer in the pilot - too progressive for the studio so was scrapped. One of the first screen kisses between people of different ethnicity. A decade later Star Wars still had Leia in slave bikini dress). 

Midichlorians and the utter contempt they signify for the original Star Wars trilogy.

Slightly more believable combat.

 

For Star Wars

Light Sabers and X-wing fighters - and all the great special effects and fight scenes.

The force.

One of the most iconic baddies ever in Darth Vader.

Star Trek never learned how to make films (I don't count the reboot - it's not Star Trek but rather an OK generic sci-fi film).

In Star Trek DS9 the characters  Sisko and Odo (i just hate them - no real reason).

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Prometheus

[iNow]

Better? Could you please choose a more ambiguous word? That one’s way too precise. Lol. 

Likewise with franchise. It suggests I should comment on which has done better with revenue and putting people to work, not which is a better reflection of culture, ideals, and well executed storytelling.

They're both so good for so many different reasons. I’ll just choose the one I’m most sentimental about. 

[Prometheus]

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

Better? Could you please choose a more ambiguous word? That one’s way too precise. Lol. 

Likewise with franchise. It suggests I should comment on which has done better with revenue and putting people to work, not which is a better reflection of culture, ideals, and well executed storytelling.

They're both so good for so many different reasons. I’ll just choose the one I’m most sentimental about. 

Fair point. But let's leave it ambiguous: trying to define the criteria for a more 'objective' measurement is just not as fun. Anyway we all know which is better, we just don't all agree on it.

 

Regarding the franchise: actually my earliest memories of Star Wars were the toys. They were awesome - second only to Lego as my favourite. Star Wars really know how to merchandise: even now people will see the films even if they think they are going to be awful. Not sure that's a good or a bad thing.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Prometheus

[DrP]

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

Better?

They're both so good for so many different reasons. I’ll just choose the one I’m most sentimental about. 

 

I agree - I couldn't choose and 'better' is debatable.

Better?.. is probably Trek....  more enjoyable action?..  probably Wars.   I just cannot click one or the other  -  I might later when I have had time to think -- I am pretty sure my opinion on the matter will change with my mood.

 

43 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Star Trek leads rather than follows social change (female first officer in the pilot - too progressive for the studio so was scrapped. One of the first screen kisses between people of different ethnicity. A decade later Star Wars still had Leia in slave bikini dress). 

 Being fair to the producers/writers of Star Wars here she was in a slave out fit when captured by the Hut that one time only - she looked disgusted the whole time and fought back and killed her oppressor with her bare hands   (and a chain).  This is often put forward to say that they were not progressive enough and I do not agree.  Leia was a very strong female character...  so much for the princess in distress that needs rescuing - she was sassy, forward and just as brave and heroic as her rescuers in the first film (IV) and smarter. She was a breakthrough as a popular heroin who was strong, independent, intelligent and a leader. Far from being a helpless slave girl - I think the whole point of that seen was to paint Jabba as a womanising slob as Leia as a Hut slave girl is so far from her character.  Star Wars is full of integration between species (which is just taken for granted), equality between the sexes (Unless you are captured by a crime boss slug who sexes up your outfit and makes you lick him clean for daily personal hygiene).

The worst of both worlds comes from the lame story lines in season 1 of Voyager imo...   the one where the space whale gets horny and tries to bang Voyager....  for safety sake Janeway decides to roll Voyager over and think of England until the male has had it's happy with the ship and flies off....  is just so rubbish imo, lol.   I watched it back a few years ago and it wasn't as bad or unwatchable as I remembered it   -  the whale part was bad writing, but some of the rest of the episode was just run of the mill Voyager for season1, so meh. 

 

.

59 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

In Star Trek DS9 the characters  Sisko and Odo (i just hate them - no real reason).

DS9 is actually some of my favourite Star Trek. I really loved Sisko and Odo, lol.   I liked the relationship they built up between Bashir and O'Brien. Kira was cool too.  Some of the cardasians were pretty good characters  - Garrack and D'Cot to note.    Darn - I was going to click Star Wars...  but DS9 keeps me hanging...  Sorry - Can't choose.. Better? Trek...  Most enjoyable films when I was younger?  Wars.

[Prometheus]

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

 Being fair to the producers/writers of Star Wars here she was in a slave out fit when captured by the Hut that one time only - she looked disgusted the whole time and fought back and killed her oppressor with her bare hands   (and a chain).  This is often put forward to say that they were not progressive enough and I do not agree.  Leia was a very strong female character...  so much for the princess in distress that needs rescuing - she was sassy, forward and just as brave and heroic as her rescuers in the first film (IV) and smarter. She was a breakthrough as a popular heroin who was strong, independent, intelligent and a leader. Far from being a helpless slave girl - I think the whole point of that seen was to paint Jabba as a womanising slob as Leia as a Hut slave girl is so far from her character.  Star Wars is full of integration between species (which is just taken for granted), equality between the sexes (Unless you are captured by a crime boss slug who sexes up your outfit and makes you lick him clean for daily personal hygiene).

Maybe, but ask people what they remember of Leia i think most will be seeing the bikini. But you're right, i had forgotten that Leia was a badass character, a strong female lead - maybe i too got distracted by the bikini. But it's nothing on Star Trek - the very first episode has the Captain (Pike) going MIA, and a female commander takes charge of the Enterprise, no eyebrows raised.

What about Seven of Nine though? Most blatant attempt to use the female body to boost ratings? She was a good character though - involved in some interesting stories.

 

9 minutes ago, DrP said:

The worst of both worlds comes from the lame story lines in season 1 of Voyager imo...   the one where the space whale gets horny and tries to bang Voyager....  for safety sake Janeway decides to roll Voyager over and think of England until the male has had it's happy with the ship and flies off....  is just so rubbish imo, lol.   I watched it back a few years ago and it wasn't as bad or unwatchable as I remembered it   -  the whale part was bad writing, but some of the rest of the episode was just run of the mill Voyager for season1, so meh. 

Oh yeah, i remember that episode. Nearly as bad as the time Janeway and Paris regressed into reptiles and mated. But Voyager had a few excellent episodes too. 

 

 

[MigL]

Star Wars is 'dumbed down' for the masses.
As such it enjoys a much wider audience, and each movie makes a truck-load of money.
Is it any wonder there are 2-3 spin-offs a year now ?

I liked Star Trek TOS and TNG. I thought Enterprise had potential, but was proved wrong.
While the rebooted movies started off good, the third was real crap.

Edited June 6, 2018 by MigL

[DrP]

10 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

 But Voyager had a few excellent episodes too. 

   That it did.

[Ten oz]

Star Trek is better. 

Star Wars from a story telling stand point is very inconsistent and as a result fails to build a world for its characters to exist in. From the rules which govern "the Force" to light speed, light sabers, and space itself Star Wars is all over the place. The only rule appears to be that there aren't any rule. Things just happen for the sake of plot advancement and the audience is expected to just accept it. Even worse still is the seemingly pointless motivations of the antagonists. The Republic-Empire-First Order want to take of the whole universe (?) to what end? What will be gained victory? Monetary motivations have never been introduced and the antagonists appear to have endless resources anyway. So I guess they are just evil for the sake of evil. It makes no sense. 

 

[YaDinghus]

2 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Anyway we all know which is better, we just don't all agree on it.

Patrick Stewart makes the difference. If Star Wars had Patrick Stewart instead of Star Trek, Star Wars would have won

Also: most annoying characters. Jar-Jar-Binx vs Wesley Crusher

Edited June 6, 2018 by YaDinghus

[Prometheus]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Star Wars is 'dumbed down' for the masses.

It would certainly win the popular vote, and is maybe more embedded in popular culture.

But though I've come across a few scientists who say they were inspired by Star Trek as kids, i've never heard anyone inspired by Star Wars to do anything except some half-hearted fencing.

 

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

So I guess they are just evil for the sake of evil.

Baddies vs goodies doesn't have to make sense. We might have less wars if it did.

 

5 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

Patrick Stewart makes the difference. If Star Wars had Patrick Stewart instead of Star Trek, Star Wars would have won

But what role would you cast him in? I can only imagine him as the Emperor or Obi Wan. I'm not sure he'd get enough screen time in a film to develop a character beyond a trope though.

[YaDinghus]

3 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

But what role would you cast him in? I can only imagine him as the Emperor or Obi Wan. I'm not sure he'd get enough screen time in a film to develop a character beyond a trope though.

True. He would take up the whole film. That's just how good he is ;-)

[dimreepr]

20 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Star Trek is better. 

Star Wars from a story telling stand point is very inconsistent and as a result fails to build a world for its characters to exist in. From the rules which govern "the Force" to light speed, light sabers, and space itself Star Wars is all over the place. The only rule appears to be that there aren't any rule. Things just happen for the sake of plot advancement and the audience is expected to just accept it. Even worse still is the seemingly pointless motivations of the antagonists. The Republic-Empire-First Order want to take of the whole universe (?) to what end? What will be gained victory? Monetary motivations have never been introduced and the antagonists appear to have endless resources anyway. So I guess they are just evil for the sake of evil. It makes no sense. 

6

That is rather more philosophical than I think Prometheus intended for this thread since it's in the lounge. Start a new thread and I'd be more than happy to have a debate.

I voted for Star Wars because when I was ten it made more sense than Kirk shagging a green alien.

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Baddies vs goodies doesn't have to make sense. We might have less wars if it did.

Characters need motives in my opinion.

[swansont]

It's tough to compare a TV series with movie spinoffs with a movie-only franchise. TV offers much more chance for character and plot development just from the sheer number of episodes being broadcast, and the Star Trek movies would pale into insignificance if you didn't have the TV backstory. The lack of depth of Star Wars isn't a fair criticism IMO.

 

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That is rather more philosophical than I think Prometheus intended for this thread since it's in the lounge. Start a new thread and I'd be more than happy to have a debate.

I voted for Star Wars because when I was ten it made more sense than Kirk shagging a green alien.

No need to debate. If you like Stars Wars than you like Star Wars. No big deal for me. My post was just an explanation of why I think Star Trek is better. I don't think either are great with "The Wrath of Khan", "Voyage Home", and "First Contact" being the Star Trek standouts. 

Star Wars Episode One did try to correct many of the story problems I see within the franchise. It did attempt to create structured rules for Jedi and provided Palpatine a motive. Unfortunately those story notes fail to carry through the rest of the films in the now 10-11 film universe. 

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

But though I've come across a few scientists who say they were inspired by Star Trek as kids, i've never heard anyone inspired by Star Wars to do anything except some half-hearted fencing.

It doesn't seem a fair comparison, 1 to 2 hours with a single narrative verse's several hours with many different narratives. Perhaps a better question is Dr. Who v Star Trek.

Edit, Cross-posted with swansont.

15 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No need to debate. If you like Stars Wars than you like Star Wars. No big deal for me. My post was just an explanation of why I think Star Trek is better. I don't think either are great with "The Wrath of Khan", "Voyage Home", and "First Contact" being the Star Trek standouts. 

Star Wars Episode One did try to correct many of the story problems I see within the franchise. It did attempt to create structured rules for Jedi and provided Palpatine a motive. Unfortunately those story notes fail to carry through the rest of the films in the now 10-11 film universe. 

TBH I enjoy most of both and for the same reason, I didn't really think, I enjoyed.

Edited June 6, 2018 by dimreepr

[Prometheus]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's tough to compare a TV series with movie spinoffs with a movie-only franchise. TV offers much more chance for character and plot development just from the sheer number of episodes being broadcast, and the Star Trek movies would pale into insignificance if you didn't have the TV backstory. The lack of depth of Star Wars isn't a fair criticism IMO.

 

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It doesn't seem a fair comparison, 1 to 2 hours with a single narrative verse's several hours with many different narratives. Perhaps a better question is Dr. Who v Star Trek.

This is why i said franchise (though i didn't intend the financial implications of that word): Star Wars isn't just a movie. It has comics, books, computer and board games, collectables, several spin-off series (7 apparently), toys and deals with lego... So much so i think it occupies a space greater than Star Trek in the popular conscious. Both Star Wars and Trek have very large extended universes: it's the comparison that comes naturally.

We could compare Star Trek to Babylon 5: they are direct competitors, but i don't think enough people will have heard of the latter, even though it's much better in every way except Patrick Stewart.

A comparison i'm surprised to find myself make sometimes is Harry Potter with Star Wars: i think the former does a much better job developing its characters and actually exploring the lure of the dark side (and even the lure of the light side from Snape's POV). It's everything i wanted from the Star Wars prequels. Comparable number of films, one is just done better. 

 

But it doesn't matter: whatever criteria you want to judge 'better' on.  I think Star Trek explores the human condition much better than Star Wars so that's where my vote goes. 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

But it doesn't matter: whatever criteria you want to judge 'better' on.  I think Star Trek explores the human condition much better than Star Wars so that's where my vote goes. 

In this context, surely "better" equals excitement/enjoyment?

[Ten oz]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's tough to compare a TV series with movie spinoffs with a movie-only franchise. TV offers much more chance for character and plot development just from the sheer number of episodes being broadcast, and the Star Trek movies would pale into insignificance if you didn't have the TV backstory. The lack of depth of Star Wars isn't a fair criticism IMO.

 

There has been 10 films and 2 others are already in production. Additionally there was an animated TV series that ran for 6yrs and there is a very robust Comic and fan Fiction industry that has spun off. Many film franchises are just trilogies (3 films) and flush out full detailed stories. Star Wars has had enough time to develop motives and arks for their characters in my opinion. 

To be clear I do not hate Stars Wars. I have seen the original 2 trilogies and "The Force Awakens". There are lots of things the films do well. Star Wars films have some of the greatest thematic scores in film history. Cinematography wise they generally always have well done landscape shots and good light/dark contrast.  

[Prometheus]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

In this context, surely "better" equals excitement/enjoyment?

You could use that as one criterion among many, or as the only criteria: whatever you prefer. I get more enjoyment from watching an exploration of the human condition. I find Macbeth, for instance, terribly exciting - more than a space battle. That's why i'd rather leave it at 'best' and not get into a twist about what that means (though it's not a trivial question, but we're talking philosophy of art then).

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

You could use that as one criterion among many, or as the only criteria: whatever you prefer. I get more enjoyment from watching an exploration of the human condition. I find Macbeth, for instance, terribly exciting - more than a space battle. That's why i'd rather leave it at 'best' and not get into a twist about what that means (though it's not a trivial question, but we're talking philosophy of art then).

Whereas I find "The Importance of Being Ernest" far more revealing, but sometimes I just want to, not think.

[Prometheus]

1 hour ago, YaDinghus said:

Also: most annoying characters. Jar-Jar-Binx vs Wesley Crusher

Interesting. At least in Trek Picard hated Crusher too (or so i like to believe). Shut up Wesley.

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

but sometimes I just want to, not think.

But not in this thread apparently. You've gone with what floats your boat and that's cool.

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There has been 10 films and 2 others are already in production. Additionally there was an animated TV series that ran for 6yrs and there is a very robust Comic and fan Fiction industry that has spun off. Many film franchises are just trilogies (3 films) and flush out full detailed stories. Star Wars has had enough time to develop motives and arks for their characters in my opinion.

Star Trek has 14 films (though some of them were reboots). TOS had 79 episodes plus 2 pilots. TNG, DSN and Voyager all ran >170 episodes. An animated season, Enterprise and Discovery add more than 120 more TV hours. About 380 TV hours, so multiply by 0.75 to remove commercials and we end up with 285. A film is ~3 hours. Star Trek TV is equivalent to 95 movies.

 

[Prometheus]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Star Trek has 14 films (though some of them were reboots). TOS had 79 episodes plus 2 pilots. TNG, DSN and Voyager all ran >170 episodes. An animated season, Enterprise and Discovery add more than 120 more TV hours. About 380 TV hours, so multiply by 0.75 to remove commercials and we end up with 285. A film is ~3 hours. Star Trek TV is equivalent to 95 movies

There are 285 episodes of various Star Wars series: far from a movie only franchise. I've not seen any so can't comment on how well they explore the characters. 

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

There are 285 episodes of various Star Wars series: far from a movie only franchise. I've not seen any so can't comment on how well they explore the characters. 

Are they considered canon? I've never watched any of the episodes myself.