Star Trek > Star Wars

Yeah I wondered why they had the same people in...I got confused easily as a child.

Quote from: Nomad on May 27, 2007, 06:02:31 PM

Someone tell me what good Star Wars had on society, besides giving a bunch of acne ridden douchebags something to obsess over?

Leia's Metal Bikini.  That is an addition worth noting.

Either way, the new Battlestar Galactica pwns them all.

Battlestar Galactica is soap opera in space.  It's awful.  I thought Skeptical Scientist already told you Galactica fags off?

Stargate SG-1 ftw.

QFT.  I love SG1.  Though I haven't cared much for it since Richard Dean Anderson left.  It's definitely an incredibly creative show.

SG-1 is still good fore the ship and gate stuff.

Uh...Whatever. Everyone knows that Firefly is the best sci-fi/fantasy series (and later, movie) ever made, so this silly argument is pretty much just going to waste.


But really. Firefly's the best. Also, I like Star Trek and Star Wars both as well. I must say, I honestly like Star Wars better because Star Trek is actually a bit out of my generation. There is something to be said about the Star Wars universe, however. Really, it's just amazing, and the canon is so interesting that it's led to hundreds upon hundreds of third-party books and games completely unrelated to the movie plot. It's just such an incredibly rich environment, and everything's taken with such care.

~D-Draw

Someone tell me what good Star Wars had on society, besides giving a bunch of acne ridden douchebags something to obsess over?

Star Trek had so much influence on society.  It was the first realistic foray into visualizing the future.  Because of that television show back in the late 60s, so many advancements in technologies were made merely by people who were inspired by what they saw in the show.  The first personal computer (the Altair 8800) was named after a solar system mentioned in the original series.  Cordless and mobile phones were inspired by the show.  Same goes for hand held devices like PDAs.

The Next Generation came along and a new generation of people were inspired in all sorts of fields like astrophysics, theoretical physics, medicine, and I could go on.

While the shows may not have been the best examples of "theatre" there ever was (in fact, I'm definitely the first Trek fan to admit that the original show had some of the worst acting I've ever seen), but the impact that it, and The Next Generation had on the world is undeniable.  If Star Wars can say the same thing, please someone enlighten me.  The only thing I can think of is Lucas' legacy in special effects, and that's hardly the most important thing in the world.

All that may be true, but you didn't make it clear that you were talking in terms of effect on society in the OP. The fact remains that Star Wars is much superior as cinema, and BSG (first two seasons, it has kinda gone downhill though the season premieres and finales are always good enough to keep me watching) and Firefly/Serenity as well.

WHAT THE H*LL kind of ordering is IV V VI I II III?

Seriously, I wanna know. Was it just because they couldn't be assed to do the special effects?

I think it was more along the lines of

"OMFG We can get more cash if we can make more films, so let's go back and make some prequels!"

Ok... 'Cause from what I heard, they wrote the scripts in sequence, and then decided that they couldn't do the first three ones because of a massive need for special effects which, at the time, were non-existant.

Ok... 'Cause from what I heard, they wrote the scripts in sequence, and then decided that they couldn't do the first three ones because of a massive need for special effects which, at the time, were non-existant.

Maybe. I don't pay attention to those kinds of things.

Though I have to say that the special effects were all that the third film had going for it. The story was crap, the acting was crap (Padme, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!). It shouldn't even be considered a film in it's own right, but a bridge from the prequels to the main films. You knew what was going to happen, the producers knew what was going to happen, and the rest of the plot elements were just twisted to fit. Rawful.

Star Wars III was awful.  The whole movie felt rush, as if the producers were like,"Ok, lets finish this,".

The first one was fine because it wasn't predictable. You knew where the films were eventually headed, but you had no idea what was going to happen between then and now, so you sat back and watched the damn movie. Even the second one was alright, because the writers still had some wiggle room outside the main plot line. The third one was crap.

Ok... 'Cause from what I heard, they wrote the scripts in sequence, and then decided that they couldn't do the first three ones because of a massive need for special effects which, at the time, were non-existant.

He wrote all three before New Hope ever was filmed. Historical fact.

He wrote the outline to it, yes, but not the actual script. There's a difference between knowing the plot and writing the whole script.

As for the Star Trek vs. SW, well, we have to be fair. Star Trek didn't inspire mobile phones, they must have already been in someone's mind to use them. And what person back then didn't think 'wow, I hope someone makes a phone without a cord one day'. I think it would be illogical to put it solely because of one show.

I disliked the SW morality. Too black and white. Good and evil are a lot more complex than that for a start.

He wrote the outline to it, yes, but not the actual script.

The he's lying in about 40 interviews and 12 books.

I disliked the SW morality. Too black and white. Good and evil are a lot more complex than that for a start.

It's supposed to be like that, though. Most Sith are too corrupted to see their own faults. Also why Anakin comes back to his senses in the last episode as he's dying, and looking back on what he's done. He didn't even realize how awful he'd been because he was seduced by the power it granted him.

It's also not dissimilar from our world. Look at Hitler (I know, I know--Godwin's Law). We look at him and obviously he is evil. And we are good because we fought against him. And people who like Hitler are bad. And people who dislike Hitler are good. And yet Hitler still ruled with power and Charisma and commanded the respect of legions of soldiers. How is it any different than in Star Wars? Darth Sidious was seduced by the apparent power that the dark side granted him, and decided that with it, he could do lots of things. Like conquer the universe. With clones. And droids. And stuff. Does he call himself evil? Probably not. Is he evil? Most definitely.

There are black and whites in our world, too, it's just that everyone's black and white doesn't always coincide, making it a lovely shade of grey.

~D-Draw

Quote from: Ashantai on May 31, 2007, 09:51:44 PM

I disliked the SW morality. Too black and white. Good and evil are a lot more complex than that for a start.

It's supposed to be like that, though. Most Sith are too corrupted to see their own faults. Also why Anakin comes back to his senses in the last episode as he's dying, and looking back on what he's done. He didn't even realize how awful he'd been because he was seduced by the power it granted him.

It's also not dissimilar from our world. Look at Hitler (I know, I know--Godwin's Law). We look at him and obviously he is evil. And we are good because we fought against him. And people who like Hitler are bad. And people who dislike Hitler are good. And yet Hitler still ruled with power and Charisma and commanded the respect of legions of soldiers. How is it any different than in Star Wars? Darth Sidious was seduced by the apparent power that the dark side granted him, and decided that with it, he could do lots of things. Like conquer the universe. With clones. And droids. And stuff. Does he call himself evil? Probably not. Is he evil? Most definitely.

There are black and whites in our world, too, it's just that everyone's black and white doesn't always coincide, making it a lovely shade of grey.

~D-Draw

I own a book put out by the Smithsonian titled 'The Magic of Myth".  In this book, it explains SW from the ground up in terms of mythology, and the science behind it, and the politics of it, right down to the model of the storm troopers after the SS of Nazi Germany, the Deathstar as the 'corporate machine of apathy and dead feeling" and the Western movies as far as Han Solo and his leanings go. Among other things.

If you look at our current political behavior of the people in charge, you see Palpatine, right before Mace melted his face off and pissed him off.

Laugh at the cheesy acting, make fun of the fact "there is no sound in space, idiots!", but do not be foolish enough to assume the political message laced into the films, especially Ep III, are meant as plot points to sell tickets. The message is, your enemy is not outside your house.

The message is, your enemy is not outside your house.

Fucking QFT.

He wrote the outline to it, yes, but not the actual script. There's a difference between knowing the plot and writing the whole script.

As for the Star Trek vs. SW, well, we have to be fair. Star Trek didn't inspire mobile phones, they must have already been in someone's mind to use them. And what person back then didn't think 'wow, I hope someone makes a phone without a cord one day'. I think it would be illogical to put it solely because of one show.

I disliked the SW morality. Too black and white. Good and evil are a lot more complex than that for a start.

I watched something on the history channel about the influence of Star Trek on everyday life.  The inventor of the mobile phone, Martin Cooper, got his inspiration from Star Trek.

Star Trek also inspired stuff like QuickTime and the Radiation Gun to fight against tumors.

That's why I posted this thread, Trekky.  I saw that too. 

Quote from: Ashantai on May 31, 2007, 09:51:44 PM

He wrote the outline to it, yes, but not the actual script. There's a difference between knowing the plot and writing the whole script.

As for the Star Trek vs. SW, well, we have to be fair. Star Trek didn't inspire mobile phones, they must have already been in someone's mind to use them. And what person back then didn't think 'wow, I hope someone makes a phone without a cord one day'. I think it would be illogical to put it solely because of one show.

I disliked the SW morality. Too black and white. Good and evil are a lot more complex than that for a start.

I watched something on the history channel about the influence of Star Trek on everyday life.  The inventor of the mobile phone, Martin Cooper, got his inspiration from Star Trek.

Star Trek also inspired stuff like QuickTime and the Radiation Gun to fight against tumors.

I saw that show, I agree with that assessment.

What I like about Star Trek:

It shows a certain nobility of the human condition. It presents us, as how we could be, unified, if unsullied by current social idealism that keeps us, as a race, divided, and shows how we could go on to "see the stars". It gives me a science fix, a socio-political fix, and basically keeps me looking to the future. Can't go wrong with that.

I also like about Star Trek, that there is always a REASON. Sometimes in Star Wars, unless you read EVERY scrap of lore and back-story, you are left basically scratching your head and lost. Star Trek is accessible from any random point. Pick up a book, or a comic, or a game, and you can jump right in. SW is more "but what about...?" and that puts off many people.

The main thing about Trek for me, is I love the races. Each race is given seemingly equal treatment, with history, lore, and all that. It fascinates me...

What I like about Star Wars:

It shows a hefty amount of escapism. Everyone likes a good adventure, and the old radio programs ('War of the Worlds', for example), always let us...escape the daily drudgery of being "alive", and let us think outside the normal. I like how in Star Wars, as opposed to Trek, they fly in and kick ass. In Star Trek, it's "What is the chemical makeup of the air, the ground, and can we breathe there?" kinda crap, and it makes for more intense but less BAMMO for me. I wanna kick ass, not form a committee on it. But that's just me.

I also like the undercurrent of political themes in Star Wars, and how those mirror real life. Whatever can be said bad about the horrid acting of SW (i won't dispute it, there is some truly horrible acting in those films) the main political meat of the whole mess is truly horrific in scope, and is ingeniously laced with real world mirrors of how our own lives are, in a word, shelved against our conscious will. It says a lot about the complex and visionary mind of George Lucas, and how he can relate our times to something so outlandish as to be frightening. Palpatine represents the heart of every human being drunk on ambition, and his opressive regime mirrors so many of our real world leaders as to be caricature. We don't blow up planets, but we destroy entire cultures for land and title. I think that is a universal paradigm shift that we can relate to, fan or not.

One thing about SW that I find is often underrated or overlooked, is the actual SCIENCE behind much of the tech used in the various franchise releases. For one thing, anyone who has read the novels (yes I own them all in hardback and paperback and I am a dork), can see there is more going on beneath the pomp and circumstance of the movies. Gravity wells, lightspeed, these things are oft-explained in exacting and believable detail in the lore canon, and open up all kinds of possibilities for tomorrow in our real world. The holo-net alone is a mind-fuck for me; the very idea of it obsesses me, and makes me actually envision a day when that will become reality. The holo-net is, in small circles, already there, as is the case in Austrailian labs where they have created hard disk drives that store data in 'holographic images held on a crystal' (google is your friend!).

The main thing, for me, about SW, is the lore. I honestly despise the movies. All of them. I have seen the original films so many times, I simply CANNOT, and WILL NOT, sit through them now, and the newer one's, meh, I have to be bored. But the books, the comics and the novels, offer SO much fucking backstory and nuances, it sucks me in like nothing else. Literally 50k years of history in a fake reality. That's a legacy, hated or loved...

The only thing Star Wars has on Star Trek, as far as I'm concerned, is that the SW games are usually pretty good, and I've yet to see a good ST game. 

Speaking of games, anyone know where I can get a hold of Pod Racer?  My dad had it, but lost it quite a while ago.  It was pretty fun, and I want to play it again.

lol


I personally dislike both...but if I were forced to watch one of them: Star Trek
if I had to play: Starwars...can't really see how ST would make a good game.

Why even pit the two against eachother?

Who said I wanted a torrent?

Get a bowl cut and build your own pod-racer.

Quote from: Ashantai on May 31, 2007, 09:51:44 PM

He wrote the outline to it, yes, but not the actual script. There's a difference between knowing the plot and writing the whole script.

As for the Star Trek vs. SW, well, we have to be fair. Star Trek didn't inspire mobile phones, they must have already been in someone's mind to use them. And what person back then didn't think 'wow, I hope someone makes a phone without a cord one day'. I think it would be illogical to put it solely because of one show.

I disliked the SW morality. Too black and white. Good and evil are a lot more complex than that for a start.

I watched something on the history channel about the influence of Star Trek on everyday life.  The inventor of the mobile phone, Martin Cooper, got his inspiration from Star Trek.

Star Trek also inspired stuff like QuickTime and the Radiation Gun to fight against tumors.

This is of course, the same History Channel which is soooo historically accurate about all things it shows. 

This is of course, the same History Channel which is soooo historically accurate about all things it shows. 

When is the history channel inaccurate about things? If anything, it gives me interesting things to go and further investigate online and I hardly ever find inaccuracies in what they say--bias, perhaps, not-entirely-complete analysis every now and then--but it's not like they're going to go and blatantly lie about things. Honestly.

~D-Draw

No, to be fair, they make mistakes I am sure they think people won't notice, or ones that are things only history nerds (like me) would notice.