Which is better, Star TREK or Star WARS?

[Stegoceras]

I have to go for Star Wars, though I must admit I haven't watched much Star Trek. There is only one big argument I could throw at you why Star Wars is better than Star Trek and that's by just looking at the guns, The resemblance of Hairdryers and Glue guns is just too big in Star Trek not to make me laugh and spent all my time figuring out what other items resemble. But then I haven't watched that much of Star Trek so I'm a bit one-sided in this vote.

[Gryphon Ink]

Sure, the ships in Star Wars are completely independent of the laws of physics, but on the other hand, they're heavily weathered and have rough edges. On the other hand, every Enterprise I've seen in Trek looks chrome-plated and polished as if it was some rich guy's car.

You have a good point there, and the Falcon *is* one of my all-time favorite SF ships. But you do need to keep in mind that Trek ships, for the most part, belong to the government/military, and in the military you just don't let your ship/tank/weapon get all weathered and beaten up. As a former tank driver I spent hundreds of hours cleaning, tidying and repairing my tank after every maneuver. We had inspections ALL THE TIME, and we'd get punished for a single bolt that wasn't tightened or grease nipple that hadn't been greased. Loose equipment? Dusty ammunition? Scorch marks on your paint job? Not on your life. Look how clean and sleek the Empire's ships are. Not every ship in SW looks like the Falcon. And doesn't every character who sees the Falcon in the movies comment on what a piece of junk it seems to be?

Regarding the design itself, this again goes back to military design philosophy. You don't leave cables and fuel lines exposed on a warship. You put them behind some armor, and you make that armor as sleek as possible.

[Sam Vimes]

Okay, I honestly don't know which Enterprise this is (B? C? J?) but that's beside the point.

And that is the Enterprise D, by the way, the one they used in Star Trek The Next Generation, and Star Trek Generations.

I am a fan of both shows, and I also like Firefly which doesn't count but still.

[lightningtiger]

How did someone wake this topic up after over THREE years ?

Ah, well.....the answer is STAR WARS....but some merit to Star Trek - now Stargate....meh !

Keep on.....digging up old topics !

Edited February 1, 2011 by lightningtiger

[Rufus]

How did someone wake this topic up after over THREE years ?

Well, this is an argument that'll run and run, so perhaps it's better to keep it open. Otherwise it's only a matter of time before someone starts a new one. Someone else might come along and think otherwise, though.

Sure, the ships in Star Wars are completely independent of the laws of physics, but on the other hand, they're heavily weathered and have rough edges. On the other hand, every Enterprise I've seen in Trek looks chrome-plated and polished as if it was some rich guy's car.

I have to agree with Gryphon here. Your point is well made, fallenangel, but if you compare the model space vessels of the original Star Wars Trilogy to the model starships of the 80s Star Trek, there isn't much between them; plus both have their share of poor acting and dubious plot points.

And when you bring the SW Prequel Trilogy into the frame, you have to enter shiny silver CG Naboo starships into the equation.

The ST model starships certainly get their fair share of battering, which stands out all the more against the otherwise pristine exterior.

As to which is better, that's a bit like asking 'which are better - boys or girls? Cats or dogs?' It's a discussion with no answer, but I'm sure everyone will have fun putting their side forward.

[BasOne]

I like all Sci-Fi.

From Star Trek, Star Wars, Firefly, V, BSG, Caprica, Andromeda, LEXX heck there are so many

But choosing between Wars and Trek there is one main difference between the 2 that attract me more to Wars then Trek.

In Wars everybody can buy a ship and fly to another planet, and i do mean everybody, run down beat up 2-4 person spaceships can be bought from any 8th hand spaceship dealer.

In Trek all spaceflight is tightly controlled, either by the Federation or other species respective planets, you want to go to another planet, you have to book passage, you can't buy a ship.

Ofcourse there a couple of exceptions, there allways are, but too few to mention.

To me this gives the Star Wars Universe just that much more freedom we'd all like to explore the galaxy.

The busy spacelanes we would see around a major starport in Wars, you wouldn't see in Trek, even DS9 was relativly quite.

[prateek]

Alrighty, since this is back in full swing, I'll cast my vote. I'm going to go with Star Wars. Don't hate me, but Star Trek has never appealed to me.

Edited February 1, 2011 by prateek

[CommanderFox]

Alrighty, since this is back in full swing, I'll cast my vote. I'm going to go with Star Wars. Don't hate me, but Star Trek has never appealed to me.

Im in the same boat with you, Star Trek just isn't on the same standard as Star Wars.

CF

[The Legonater]

This is hard. I like both SW and ST. And, seeing as it's in there, I like Stargate to (although SGU has yet to apeal to me). All three have different aspects that I love, and aspects I hate.

[Brickdoctor]

Alrighty, since this is back in full swing, I'll cast my vote. I'm going to go with Star Wars. Don't hate me, but Star Trek has never appealed to me.

Im in the same boat with you, Star Trek just isn't on the same standard as Star Wars.

Put me down as one of those.

[Dunjohn]

How did someone wake this topic up after over THREE years ?

It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.

[Gryphon Ink]

How did someone wake this topic up after over THREE years ?

This topic is the original Holy War of sci-fi fandom. I've seen it come up at every convention, in every Web community, in bars and on playgrounds. It's NEVER over.

And the answer is, obviously, Trek.

(Actually, it's B5, but out of the choices offered it's Trek.)

[Fallenangel]

You have a good point there, and the Falcon *is* one of my all-time favorite SF ships. But you do need to keep in mind that Trek ships, for the most part, belong to the government/military, and in the military you just don't let your ship/tank/weapon get all weathered and beaten up. As a former tank driver I spent hundreds of hours cleaning, tidying and repairing my tank after every maneuver. We had inspections ALL THE TIME, and we'd get punished for a single bolt that wasn't tightened or grease nipple that hadn't been greased. Loose equipment? Dusty ammunition? Scorch marks on your paint job? Not on your life. Look how clean and sleek the Empire's ships are. Not every ship in SW looks like the Falcon. And doesn't every character who sees the Falcon in the movies comment on what a piece of junk it seems to be?

Regarding the design itself, this again goes back to military design philosophy. You don't leave cables and fuel lines exposed on a warship. You put them behind some armor, and you make that armor as sleek as possible.

I appreciate your friendly tone, especially since Trekkies and Jedi are old rivals.

While I would agree with the application of military design philosophy, I can think of several counterexamples to military vessels being clean and pristine, at least in the Star Wars universe.

You can see that the Imperial AT-AT is fairly well weathered:

And a quick look at the Avenger shows that the Empire has no problems with exposed wiring. This makes sense, since the warships of the Galatic Empire are generally designed for the purposes of intimidation rather than military efficiency (why else would you build a laser the size of a small moon?).

The space vessels of the Alliance are even less so. The EF76 Nebulon-B Escort Frigate Redemption certainly deviates from such design standards:

As does the Tantive IV:

It's space opera. I'm not sure it's supposed to conform to military standards. I've heard of/seen space opera vessels next to which the second Death Star would be dwarfed.

And when you bring the SW Prequel Trilogy into the frame, you have to enter shiny silver CG Naboo starships into the equation.

What's funny is that both the J-type 327 Nubian and the N-1 were actually studio miniatures in at least one scene. Still, the Naboo ships are so far removed from anything else in Star Wars in terms of appearance that you could almost repudiate them.

It is true that the sleeker ships of the Grand Army of the Republic follow the military design philosophy more closely, but they still have their share of weathering. The AT-TE, while generally cleaner than its four-legged successor, is still pretty grimy.

[Clone OPatra]

I do not think that the shininess of the Enterprises necessarily makes Star Trek lamer than Star Wars. Even in-universe, it makes sense that the Starfleet ships should be shiny and clean; their purpose is not combat, it's exploring the galaxy. Sure, in countless of the Trek films and episodes they end up coming into space combat with some baddies, for which they have weapons and shields, but the purpose is still to just fly around and explore.

Not all Star Trek ships are so sleek either; the Klingon ships for example are dark little things, and tend to have very dingy interiors. Not to mention Borg craft, or Romulan, etc.

Nearly all of the craft in Star Wars are not designed only to explore, but to serve some sort of purpose that would usually involve it becoming quite weathered. It makes perfect sense that plenty of the craft in the PT would be nice and shiny; how often do you think the Naboo fight space battles or do anything at all with their fighters? And much of the Republic's vehicle are relatively clean because they are new, after a few months of seeing battle they aren't so clean any more.

The overall effect of the weathered Star Wars ships is a much grittier series than Star Trek, but that is already evident in the plot lines anyway. Though I like Star Wars more myself, I also enjoy the more laid-back and exploring vibe of Star Trek, as it's something done much less often in Sci-Fi.

To me, Star Wars feels like normal Earth stuff but expanded to an entire galaxy where each planet is basically a Country, while Star Trek is much more 'realistic' in that the reaches of space are still often unknown territories.

I must also say that the new Star Trek film (and hopefully series) introduced a significantly different tone to all former Star Trek installments, and I thoroughly loved it. It felt like a Star Trek film with a Star Wars pace and intrigue, and I hope that Abrams and the rest of the team can continue that feeling for at least a couple more films.

[BasOne]

The whole shiney vs. not-so-shiny isn't that important to me.

Federation: Shiny beacon of enlightenment.

Empire: Harbingers of doom.

The 'used' feel of Wars vehicles does ad a sense of realism though.

But that can be put down to production costs.

It's cheaper to use a CGI pristine looking Enterprise in a 1000 different shots over a whole series.

Voyager did take a beating in the far off Delta quadrant it did look more and more weathered as the series progressed (not by much but still).

The budget for a movie is many, many times larger and you can pay more attention to detail you wouldn't bother with in a series.

The new (now on hold) Star Wars series suffers from being a bit too expensive at the moment, i think in part because of the high CGI costs.

[Ceroknight]

I didn't know about this topic till a few minutes ago, well starwars has twice as many points as the rest together

thought you guys might want to know

[5150 Lego]

First off I'd like to start by answering the OP question. Well, at least attempting to answer it.

For me, I'd have to I prefer Star Trek. I don't believe one can really say that one is better than the other due to the fact that both have ran for 30+ yrs (and are still going), and have fan bases in the millions. Though i do understand that this will be one of those arguments that will outlast many of us, i also believe that neither one is going to go away any time soon.

Anyways i prefer Star Trek over Star wars because of the following....

- Characters- This is just personal preference of course, but I've always enjoyed the characters in Star Trek much more over Star Wars. more personality, character and diversity. The acting was also by far better than SW.

- Ship Design. The Enterprise in itself is just a clean classic design. it takes whats familiar (such as the saucer section) and adds to it.

Also every ship seems to fit the race/planet its from perfectly. The federation star ships are clean and sleek. Klingon ships are all business and scream "battle" with there forward torpedo bays, and wing mounted cannon's (well, on the Bird of Prey at least)

- Science- ST has always been believable and much of it was based on real science. That was its whole premise. And bits that weren't real were made to be as real as possible. I remember getting a book on the Enterprise D with the full schematic layout. Including all the major mechanical features such as replicators, warp engine design, torpedo designs and launchers, touch pad operation etc. Speaking of touch pad operation, you know the first flip phone was inspired by the ST tricorder? Also think of the current smart phones with touch screens and such. What is considered relatively new technology now (well at least with the last 4 yrs) was being shown in ST-The Next Generation series in the 80's.

I do not think that the shininess of the Enterprises necessarily makes Star Trek lamer than Star Wars. Even in-universe, it makes sense that the Starfleet ships should be shiny and clean; their purpose is not combat, it's exploring the galaxy. Sure, in countless of the Trek films and episodes they end up coming into space combat with some baddies, for which they have weapons and shields, but the purpose is still to just fly around and explore.

Not all Star Trek ships are so sleek either; the Klingon ships for example are dark little things, and tend to have very dingy interiors. Not to mention Borg craft, or Romulan, etc.

Good points. I think its also important to point out that many of the ships in the SW universe were in addition to traveling through space, were also made to land on planet surfaces as the ships in ST were not. With the heat coming in and out of a planets atmosphere, there naturally going to appear more "weathered' than those that don't.

I must also say that the new Star Trek film (and hopefully series) introduced a significantly different tone to all former Star Trek installments, and I thoroughly loved it. It felt like a Star Trek film with a Star Wars pace and intrigue, and I hope that Abrams and the rest of the team can continue that feeling for at least a couple more films.

Agreed. I think this was the first time someone who was not a fan of ST could come in and watch the movie and not get lost in the science "lingo' talk so to speak. The last appealed more to a mass audience than other ST movies have in the past.

The whole shiney vs. not-so-shiny isn't that important to me.

Federation: Shiny beacon of enlightenment.

Empire: Harbingers of doom.

The 'used' feel of Wars vehicles does ad a sense of realism though.

But that can be put down to production costs.

It's cheaper to use a CGI pristine looking Enterprise in a 1000 different shots over a whole series.

Voyager did take a beating in the far off Delta quadrant it did look more and more weathered as the series progressed (not by much but still).

The budget for a movie is many, many times larger and you can pay more attention to detail you wouldn't bother with in a series.

The new (now on hold) Star Wars series suffers from being a bit too expensive at the moment, i think in part because of the high CGI costs.

Actually, most of the ST movies and series up until Deep Space Nine were all models. Just like the original 3 SW movies. For me, CGI add-ins that came later in the DVD specials took away from what made SW so visually enjoyable. Those movies were ahead of their time in terms of model animation, and filming. The CGI add In's, as well as the full CGI ships, wars and storm trooper clones were a step back for the SW franchise.

[Brickdoctor]

b]-[/b] Science- ST has always been believable and much of it was based on real science. That was its whole premise. And bits that weren't real were made to be as real as possible. I remember getting a book on the Enterprise D with the full schematic layout. Including all the major mechanical features such as replicators, warp engine design, torpedo designs and launchers, touch pad operation etc. Speaking of touch pad operation, you know the first flip phone was inspired by the ST tricorder? Also think of the current smart phones with touch screens and such. What is considered relatively new technology now (well at least with the last 4 yrs) was being shown in ST-The Next Generation series in the 80's.

Time travel by warping around the sun, anyone?

And before you riposte with 'The Force, anyone?', I'm just kidding yah. I agree that Star Trek is more scientifically realistic than Star Wars, but remember that Star Trek is based around Earth. Star Wars has virtually nothing to do with us, our planet, or our galaxy or universe, other than the use of humans. It even has it's own laws of physics. (all right, so Lucas-physics are excuses for ridiculous scenes)

[The Legonater]

I agree that Star Trek is more scientifically realistic than Star Wars, but remember that Star Trek is based around Earth. Star Wars has virtually nothing to do with us, our planet, or our galaxy or universe, other than the use of humans. It even has it's own laws of physics. (all right, so Lucas-physics are excuses for ridiculous scenes)

That is, minus a certain non-canon comic where the Falcon crashes on Earth and Solo is mistaken for Indiana Jones...

[BasOne]

Good points. I think its also important to point out that many of the ships in the SW universe were in addition to traveling through space, were also made to land on planet surfaces as the ships in ST were not. With the heat coming in and out of a planets atmosphere, there naturally going to appear more "weathered' than those that don't.

True, except for Voyager, that did do landings.

But there are other factors to weathering then just atmosphere, like micro meteorites, debris, nebula's and corrosive gasses, and Starfleet ships certanly did go through a lot of that.

Actually, most of the ST movies and series up until Deep Space Nine were all models. Just like the original 3 SW movies. For me, CGI add-ins that came later in the DVD specials took away from what made SW so visually enjoyable. Those movies were ahead of their time in terms of model animation, and filming. The CGI add In's, as well as the full CGI ships, wars and storm trooper clones were a step back for the SW franchise.

True true, but that just makes my point.

The budget for a movie is a lot higher, if you buy 1 Enterprise model for $10.000, you're not going to mess it up.

George Lucas blew up several X-wing and TIE models for the trench run.

Where the budget really is showing is with the Aliens, Trek: Humans with make-up, Wars: Animatronics, Muppets, Humans with more expensive make-up.

Just saying that you have to look past the outward apearances of Trek and Wars

For me Wars is better as it has a lot deeper and richer story that goes further then just the movies.

Reading a trek book i'm reading a new episode of a series, reading Wars books i'm reading another trilogy of movies and more.

[dragunov]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ajHs8tCWew&feature=related

That'll answer your question...

[Capn Frank]

Switched my vote from none of the above to Star Trek.

As more SW movies are made the less I like it.

I used to be an avid SW fan too.

I really like the latest Star Trek film and watch most series when I see them on TV.

[Zeya]

I ran across this image and just had to share it here.

[j30spiff]

Star Wars hands down. I've occasionally watched the Star Trek tv show back when I was a kid and there was nothing else to watch on the 5-7 channels I had to choose from and I've seen most of the movies. You know what though, I've never felt the need to or had the desire to re-watch any of them. I don't know what it is, just not into it.

Star Wars on the other hand, I can watch and re-watch everything Star Wars. OT, PT, TCW, anything and everything. I'll watch the re-releases at the theater starting next year. I just can't imagine my life without Star Wars.

[Tyrant]

I'm going to throw my vote to Star Wars. Mainly because I find it overall more entertaining when everything is included (like the books and video games). The other reason is because I just don't see us ever becoming like the Federation. I think it's too idealistic. Having said that, there are some parts of Trek that are on par with (or better than) the best of Wars, namely large chunks of Deep Space Nine. This is where Trek showed that it could be more than just an adventure of the week show by fixing the characters in one place so they actually had to deal with the reprecussions of their actions. The Next Generation is an entertaining show and a gigantic leap forward from the original series, but it suffers from the Status Quo is God syndrome a lot more often than not. DS9, on the other hand, had ongoing plots. Once the Dominion War starts it dominates the rest of the series (a few seasons). It also features characters who aren't squeaky clean. There is a moral gray area (though it is Trek, so their moral gray is still pretty close to black and white by any other standard) and Sisko makes choices that Picard never would. DS9 does have one off episodes and the occasional bit of silliness, but overall it was good. I like TNG for what it is, but I think DS9 was the better show.

Don't get me wrong, I find Star Trek entertaining. I'm relatively certain that I have seen every TNG and DS9 episode as well as the bulk of the Original Series and Voyager. I had issues with the premise of Enterprise so I have only watched a few episodes (though the Mirror Universe episodes were pretty good). The movies are hit or miss for me. For instance, I think I, V, and Insurrection are firmly in the "miss" column. II, VI, and the new Trek are firmly in the "hit" column. The rest are fairly entertaining to me. Even though I overall prefer the OT to the PT, I wouldn't put any of the SW movies into the "miss" column. I would put RotS, ESB, and RotJ into the "hit" column though.

Overall I do think they are different enough that a comparison is difficult. I think Trek might be better compared to Stargate with it's more episodic nature. Star Wars might be better compared to Babylon 5 with it's complete plot structure (beginning, middle, and end) and less episodic nature. At it's core, most of Trek is "adventure of the week". Even the movies to an extent. Star Wars is one story broken up into a few parts (the movies are anyway).