Jump to content

Re: Star Trek VS. star wars


Recommended Posts

It is here!  The age old argument!  Which is better?!  Star Trek or star wars?

Here's a video from you tube that shall settle this argument once and for all.



Official verdict: They are both equal. (As unlikely as that sounds)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My fave quote from Star Trek. This happens when people on earth are protesting against aliens on earth. Some other humanoid species demands the human president-in-charge for a heads-up.


"What is the meaning of this? They are using words which are not found in the basic langauge vocabulary!"


Go figure.


At any rate however, Star Wars is alot easier to follow, since all of it are movies, and most of the not-so-important ones after/before the movies are in books and stuff.


Star Trek however... How many TV episodes? How many TV series? Its almost like watching Babylon all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many TV episodes?    Hundreds.

How many TV series?        Five

It's nowhere neqr as bad as Babylon though


btw, ST has got ten films with an eleventh in the works...set in the universe of the original series; who is to play the part of Capt. James Tiberius Kirk?    Mat Damon.  I'm sure every trekkie who has seen Team America: World Police will join me in saying "nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Picard I reckon is still the etter captain though


SW may have many era's Wind; but its dead ended...you go back 4000 years into its past and their technology has changed bugga all- probably an early warning sign that that universe is about to destroy itself.  Cultures need to expand, even ones in galaxies far far away; they expand or they die, and the lack of significant change marks stagnation.  This probably ties in part with the taking over of the senate;  there had to be change or destruction.

Yes im rambling and making this up as i go, but if you think about it a little, it should make sence...in theory anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually no, you go back 4000 years and the tech is actually different.


Coruscant in the movies is a technological wonderland, back 4000 years its basically Tatooine just covering the entire planet


Also lightsabers change from being charged from packs (ghost buster style) to hand held.


Many differences my friend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burn in hell.


Star Trek is more realistic, something that MIGHT happen in the future. An altenate universe.


Star Wars is another world altogether. Thats all there is to it.


Star Trek is for realism. Star Wars will be for fantasies.


Although people might beg to differ, my opinion stands that the statement above would be generally what both worlds are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I think both have their realistic points.


Star Wars illustrates in my opinion a far more realistic approach to human-kind's future, inter-mingling with other species to create a society. Any peace talks are done through ships or large signs of power whereas in Star Trek it's a little bit suss with just one ship running rampant (though I haven't watched or read Star Trek much to know about it)


Though both sides DO have their downsides to the realism effect, eg: Star Wars has the Force, which is by far not realistic lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...