Star Trek VS Star Wars

[Lancis]

I noticed that it seems like we have many more Star Wars fans then Star Trek fans... so lets see who rules and who drolls here :)

[Hunter]

Red Dwarf!

[Lancis]

i see Hunter has good taste *chuckles* I love Dwarf (wouldnt be in the list otherwise.) :)

[Humble Scribe]

Both Star Wars and Star Trek are pretty stupid, in different ways.
Some of it comes down to ridiculous technology invented (by writers) for plot purposes which no-one had bothered to think through the implications of. Take transporters - invented because the original series was so cheap they couldn't afford to build a shuttlecraft model, so it allowed people to just 'teleport' from one studio set to another. But then they had to spend most of the rest of the series inventing reasons why the transporters weren't working, because they made escapes from danger too easy and convenient for the characters. By Next Generation they had realised it meant your entire society would be different and they made a nod towards that with 'replicators' and 'holodecks', but they still never really got to grips with it. Surely it means you can just duplicate people at will? Oh, they tried some bullshit explanation about souls, but it doesn't wash. And even if you can't duplicate people, you could still have the entire Federation Navy staffed by replicas of Lt Cdr Data. Oh dear. Don't even get me started on the Prime Directive, or why Federation military forces are so rubbish.

Star Wars is quite visually impressive, but complete nonsense if you stop to think about any of it for more than a few seconds. Look at the 'Senate' of the Republic - it's hard enough trying to have a debate in a legislature of several hundred people. In one of several thousands or tens of thousands it would just be impossible. No wonder the Republic collapsed! Or how about tanks that WALK very slowly towards the enemy (when everything else in the universe flies), or fighters that have to fly along a long trench in the Death Star as if they were on a planet (when the Death Star is a spaceship and only needs to gently burn its own thrusters for the Empire to be scraping Luke and his friends off the walls). Of course, that last bit is because Lucas stole the ending of Star Wars frame by frame from '633 Squadron', just like he stole most of the plot from Kurosawa's 'Hidden Fortress'.

Then there are the plot holes. So Obiwan Kenobi decided to hide Anakin's son on Anakin's own homeworld, living with his own stepbrother??? Great hiding place! No wonder it took Darth Vader years to find him. And how come R2D2 and C3P0 don't remember Tattooine or Kenobi in Star Wars (IV) if they've been there before?
At least B5 was much more coherent - because it was the vision of a single writer throughout and was written with a beginning, middle and end in mind from the very start. Mind you, Star Wars has the same writer throughout and it still doesn't hang together coherently...

Red Dwarf is absolute top entertainment, of course, and often makes a lot more sense than any 'serious' SF series.

[Vandren]

Hmm . . . tough choice.  I was raised on Star Wars and Star Trek, love 'em both.  But B5 was an excellent show (much better than Voyager and it caused DS9 to get better).  And Dwarf can't really be beat for comedic SF.  :)  Hmm.  This won't help here, but I'd rate them all equally for different reasons - without Star Wars and Star Trek, we wouldn't have B5, Stargate, Andromeda, or the vast majority of the SF shows on TV or film since 1980; nothing to date's compared to B5 except Stargate and Farscape; there's no better comedic SF than Dwarf.  :)

Of course, that last bit is because Lucas stole the ending of Star Wars frame by frame from '633 Squadron', just like he stole most of the plot from Kurosawa's 'Hidden Fortress'.

Why bitch about this?  He's never denied either and has been admitting it for decades.  Sorry for the reaction, but it gets kinda old, since everyone with a beef against Lucas brings this up like it's something new and horrific.

Every TV series and novel out there "steals" from its predecessors.  How original the basic plot is doesn't really matter, what the author does with it is what makes the difference - reference Chaucer and Shakespeare who "stole" all their plots and stories from other authors and B5 which "stole" most of it's plot and setting elements from Tolkien.

And how come R2D2 and C3P0 don't remember Tattooine or Kenobi in Star Wars (IV) if they've been there before?

Have you seen Episode III?  If not, the explanation's there.  :)

[Humble Scribe]

Why bitch about this?  He's never denied either and has been admitting it for decades.  Sorry for the reaction, but it gets kinda old, since everyone with a beef against Lucas brings this up like it's something new and horrific.

'Stole' was too emotive a word, I admit. And I'm playing Devil's Advocate to an extent, since I did enjoy Trek (apart from Voyager) and the first 3 Star Wars films (the new triilogy didn't cut it for me. Jar Jar Binks - say no more). On the originality front, I have no 'beef' with Lucas and it really doesn't bother me that he reused the ending of 633 Squadron with X-Wings instead of Mosquitos EXCEPT that it meant he therefore decided to stage a WWII air battle in space, which looks cool but doesn't really make sense in the setting he has decided to give it. It's like so many things in the Star Wars films (such as having vast internal gulfs inside the Death Star, or putting something routine like the tractor beam control in an incredibly dangerous and inaccessible location, or having a robot army that can be totally deactivated from a single switch) - they're all done purely for visual effect on the screen and actually make no sense even within the 'fantasy logic' of their own setting.

Does it matter? Of course not. It's just a movie, after all. It's the editor in me coming out again. I'm afraid I really do sit there going: "why would they do that? That's ridiculous." Yes, I'm a sad nitpicker. But I also referee a lot of roleplaying games, and the thing is - if you ever try to set a game in these universes, where players do expect some degree of consistency from the referee, you start to realise just how many holes there are. You start designing Imperial assault squadrons and thinking: 'no, Walkers are just stupid. If I were Imperial Navy Procurement, I'd tender for a flying troop carrier right now'. It's the difference between gamers and moviegoers, i think. After all, it took the board game Star Fleet Battles to invent the Transporter Bomb.
;)

[Vandren]

he therefore decided to stage a WWII air battle in space, which looks cool but doesn't really make sense in the setting he has decided to give it.

Never watch the movie version of Wing Commander.  :)  Friend of mine dragged me to it when it came out . . . 18th century naval tactics in space with starfighters blatently shaped like WWII era prop fighters.  And that's just the beginning of how horrible the movie was (bad acting, bad special effects, etc.)

It's the difference between gamers and moviegoers, i think.

Hmm.  Never had an issue on that front.  Played WEG's Star Wars for a while too.  :)  Then again, I typically go for "original" setting games and avoid the ones that've been movies or TV - the exceptions being that one stint with WEG, the B5 freeform game I'd like to start, and the Hogwarts game here - even though those tend to have less consistancy.  'Course I've ticked off some of my fellow academics by being able to turn off "analytical academic mode" while in theaters and simply enjoy what's on the screen without overanalyzing it.  ;)

I guess, for me, there comes that suspension of disbelief stage, where what's good for the story or scene outweighs what's technically or otherwise "real."  For instance, personally, I see no point to mechs/Gundams/giant walking robots - unstable, not cost effective, etc. etc..  But, I've been a Voltron fan for, well, since the show came out and catch the occasional giant robot anime episode on TV.  :)

[Hunter]

Never watch the movie version of Wing Commander.  :)  Friend of mine dragged me to it when it came out . . . 18th century naval tactics in space with starfighters blatently shaped like WWII era prop fighters.  And that's just the beginning of how horrible the movie was (bad acting, bad special effects, etc.)

I guess, for me, there comes that suspension of disbelief stage, where what's good for the story or scene outweighs what's technically or otherwise "real."  For instance, personally, I see no point to mechs/Gundams/giant walking robots - unstable, not cost effective, etc. etc..  But, I've been a Voltron fan for, well, since the show came out and catch the occasional giant robot anime episode on TV.  :)

Wing Commander: the books use rather blantant WWII carrier tactics.  But the movie was even worse, I agree.

Point to mechs/Gundams/giant walking robots?  Intimidation value.

[Natalie C. Barney]

I kind of liked Wing Commander and Starship Troopers- if cheesy just because a movie is bad does not mean its "Bad". A TV show I really liked was Firefly has sort of a Wild West feel, no aliens and ray guns and high class space hookers, whats not to like.

Anyone see War of the Worlds? I loved it was a fine adaption of H.G.Wells novel with modern touches and humans didn't beat the aliens, the planet did.

[Natalie C. Barney]

Wing Commander: the books use rather blantant WWII carrier tactics.  But the movie was even worse, I agree.

Point to mechs/Gundams/giant walking robots?  Intimidation value.

Well lets see the main attack units of the Earth are carriers, so I think carrier tactics make sense.  ???

[Brandon]

Theres a simple truth to both series...

Star wars would have nothing without its Jedi's

Star Trek would have nothing without its Federation

If you remove either of these elements the shows would become boring and probably pointless. They both seem to rely to heavily on their star element which makes the rest of the universe almost non-existant. Due to this I cant really vote for either of them, but if I had to pick 1 over the other Ild go star wars because it is just a cooler show.

Ive not watched much Red Dwarf but I watched a hell of a lot of B5 and Ild say B5 gets my vote because it has a lot of elements that make the story really awesome.

[Humble Scribe]

Never watch the movie version of Wing Commander.  :)  Friend of mine dragged me to it when it came out . . . 18th century naval tactics in space with starfighters blatently shaped like WWII era prop fighters.  And that's just the beginning of how horrible the movie was (bad acting, bad special effects, etc.)

Hmm.  Never had an issue on that front.  Played WEG's Star Wars for a while too.  :)  Then again, I typically go for "original" setting games and avoid the ones that've been movies or TV - the exceptions being that one stint with WEG, the B5 freeform game I'd like to start, and the Hogwarts game here - even though those tend to have less consistancy.  'Course I've ticked off some of my fellow academics by being able to turn off "analytical academic mode" while in theaters and simply enjoy what's on the screen without overanalyzing it.  ;)

I guess, for me, there comes that suspension of disbelief stage, where what's good for the story or scene outweighs what's technically or otherwise "real."  For instance, personally, I see no point to mechs/Gundams/giant walking robots - unstable, not cost effective, etc. etc..  But, I've been a Voltron fan for, well, since the show came out and catch the occasional giant robot anime episode on TV.  :)

Well, Star Trek is WWII naval combat in space. I mean the original series very explicitly based itself around the US Navy. from ranks to procedures (except that the Yeomen had very short skirts !!). Even the internal comms made the same 'boo-eeee-ooo' noise to alert people to a message that (1960s) US ships internal comms did. Klingons = Soviets. Cloaking device =  Submarines. Photon torpedoes = er...  torpedoes. And I think that the Cold War Pax Americana underlies a lot of the assumptions about the Federation and its ideals (although I can't imagine Bush, or indeed Nixon, ever subscribing to a Prime Directive!)
I suppose all SF inevitably tells you more about the time it was written in than any real idea of the future. Look at all of the 1950s US films about alien (communist) invasion, especially Invasion of the Body Snatchers. True McCarthy 'Red Menace' paranoia. The original War of the Worlds shared a lot of similarities with the whole genre of pre-WWI 'England invaded by Dastardly Huns' novels from the end of the 19th and early 20th century, like 'The Battle of Dorking', 'The 39 Steps' etc. Interesting to see that Spielberg has updated it for the Al Qaeda generation, with the aliens starting amongst us, rather than coming from outside.
'Starship Troopers' is pretty explicitly about Vietnam (where Robert Heinlein served), as highly technological troopers fight a low-tech alien menace that burrows underground. The V.C. point of view was put in Ursula Le Guin's 'The Word for World is Forest'.
Cyberpunk was a product of Reaganomics (or Thatcherism as we called it over here) and the increasing polarisation of western society from rich corporates vs poor drug- and crime-ridden underclass.
Giant humanoid robots are a very Japanese thing, and I have no idea where that particular obsession came from. But Japanese SF has its own pet obsessions (schoolgirls and nuclear war, mostly...). You can see the Japanese obsession with nuclear war (and after all, they're the only country so far to be on the receiving end) in Gojira/Godzilla, Akira and a whole lot of Manga.
And Michael Crichton has made an entire career out of tapping into the dominant technofear of the time, whether it's germ warfare (The Andromeda Strain), computers (Westworld), or genetic engineering (Jurassic Park).

[MadPanda]

The thing about being a gamer is that sooner or later you have to learn actual tactics.  Things that look cool but get your entire command scorched are Bad Moves.  (This applies more to wargamers than role-players, but everybody figures out how to deal with pesky wizards sooner or later!)  Learning what 'should' happen sometimes gets in the way of suspension of disbelief in much the same way that being a real black belt may impede your enjoyment of, say, any given martial arts movie...or knowing real swordplay ruins all those Errol Flynn movies  ;)

The movie and TV guys can usually get away with stuff that looks cool, regardless of whether or not it works.  And since the list of movies that depend on stupid things that look cool happening on cue is as long as your arm, they do!

Anyway, my money's on (the first five seasons of) Red Dwarf, 'cause it doesn't take itself seriously enough to lose the 'fun' factor.  ;D

[Lancis]

much to my surprise Red Dwarf is actually nipping at the Heels of Star Wars! :)

I threw Dwarf in the list as a laugh but its competing and thats cool!

Red Dwarf was great fun and I miss it on TV, but that is what DVDs are for  :D  ;D

[Natalie C. Barney]

The thing about being a gamer is that sooner or later you have to learn actual tactics.  Things that look cool but get your entire command scorched are Bad Moves.  (This applies more to wargamers than role-players, but everybody figures out how to deal with pesky wizards sooner or later!)  Learning what 'should' happen sometimes gets in the way of suspension of disbelief in much the same way that being a real black belt may impede your enjoyment of, say, any given martial arts movie...or knowing real swordplay ruins all those Errol Flynn movies  ;)

The movie and TV guys can usually get away with stuff that looks cool, regardless of whether or not it works.  And since the list of movies that depend on stupid things that look cool happening on cue is as long as your arm, they do!

Anyway, my money's on (the first five seasons of) Red Dwarf, 'cause it doesn't take itself seriously enough to lose the 'fun' factor.  ;D

And STAR WARS used non-standard WWII tactics? Let see big ships broadsiding each other, fighters and mass fleet engagements. And you pick on WING COMMANDER the movie at least required they deal with a superior force with a carrier!

[MadPanda]

Ascertain your gawddamm target, friend citizen.

Which is to say, please quote the person who made the comment to which you are reacting and not just the most recent post on the matter.  Some of us aren't picking on anything, let alone movies we've not seen.

Thank you.

[Lancis]

I just wanted to add as it seems the discussion and battle for the moment is over... *chuckles* That tho Star Wars wins by a vote right now...

MY surprise is Red Dwarf! with 3 votes it handily takes a strong second and i inserted it as a joke mostly lol!


Shows that people do have good taste though! :)

Maybe with the refresh Dwarf can get some more and take Star Wars down! ;)

[Vice]

Both Star Wars and Star Trek are pretty stupid, in different ways.
Some of it comes down to ridiculous technology invented (by writers) for plot purposes which no-one had bothered to think through the implications of. Take transporters - invented because the original series was so cheap they couldn't afford to build a shuttlecraft model, so it allowed people to just 'teleport' from one studio set to another. But then they had to spend most of the rest of the series inventing reasons why the transporters weren't working, because they made escapes from danger too easy and convenient for the characters. By Next Generation they had realised it meant your entire society would be different and they made a nod towards that with 'replicators' and 'holodecks', but they still never really got to grips with it. Surely it means you can just duplicate people at will? Oh, they tried some bullshit explanation about souls, but it doesn't wash. And even if you can't duplicate people, you could still have the entire Federation Navy staffed by replicas of Lt Cdr Data. Oh dear. Don't even get me started on the Prime Directive, or why Federation military forces are so rubbish.

Star Wars is quite visually impressive, but complete nonsense if you stop to think about any of it for more than a few seconds. Look at the 'Senate' of the Republic - it's hard enough trying to have a debate in a legislature of several hundred people. In one of several thousands or tens of thousands it would just be impossible. No wonder the Republic collapsed! Or how about tanks that WALK very slowly towards the enemy (when everything else in the universe flies), or fighters that have to fly along a long trench in the Death Star as if they were on a planet (when the Death Star is a spaceship and only needs to gently burn its own thrusters for the Empire to be scraping Luke and his friends off the walls). Of course, that last bit is because Lucas stole the ending of Star Wars frame by frame from '633 Squadron', just like he stole most of the plot from Kurosawa's 'Hidden Fortress'.

Then there are the plot holes. So Obiwan Kenobi decided to hide Anakin's son on Anakin's own homeworld, living with his own stepbrother??? Great hiding place! No wonder it took Darth Vader years to find him. And how come R2D2 and C3P0 don't remember Tattooine or Kenobi in Star Wars (IV) if they've been there before?
At least B5 was much more coherent - because it was the vision of a single writer throughout and was written with a beginning, middle and end in mind from the very start. Mind you, Star Wars has the same writer throughout and it still doesn't hang together coherently...

Red Dwarf is absolute top entertainment, of course, and often makes a lot more sense than any 'serious' SF series.

At the end of Episode III, they erased C-3PO's memory, but left R2-D2s. And of course, R2D2 isn't talking. ;)

Also, I suppose given the circumstances, Tatooine might be the last place Darth Vader would want to visit again.