STAR WARS vs STAR TREK

[RockHarbor]

I've collected all the Star Wars movies except the latest "The Last Jedi." I have seen it, though. I have to say, I'm not disappointed in the least bit with the latest two movies. Dare I say they are my favorite ones? However, traditionally, "Return of the Jedi" is my favorite Star Wars movie, although the very first one is a classic. Then, there's that "other space saga": Star Trek. I like several of the Star Trek movies (like "The Wrath of Kahn" and "The Voyage Home"), but I just have never warmed up to Star Trek, for some reason. The characters seem duller to me, the story & saga less rich, the sets & props more cardboard-y. But, that's just me. I know of plenty of people that are more into Star Trek than Star Wars -- dubbed "Trekies." I'm not an obsessive Stars Wars fan, or anything. I wouldn't win at Star Wars trivia, or anything. But, I've always liked the Star Wars characters, story, the empire aspect, ships, music... It's creative brilliance, imo. It just works -- and holds up with time. I love the Death Star sphere dangling from the ceiling in the lobby of the Alamo Theater, and other Star Wars props. (Ironically, I know somebody who's family was involved with making some of the storm troopers, I think.) Are you more a Star Wars or Star Trek fan?

[Coyote]

I've never been a Lincoln Stars fan with the Lancers in town.

[RockHarbor]

I've never been a Lincoln Stars fan with the Lancers in town.

Wha? Coyote, you be nice!

[Coyote]

I've never been a Lincoln Stars fan with the Lancers in town.

Wha? Coyote, you be nice!

That is a huge rivalry. So watch out for the Borg. Resistance is futile.

[Coyote]

Also I went to Grad school in Minnesota. So when the North Stars went to Dallas I have put the Stars on my |expletive| list.

[Coyote]

But I prefer the NHL All Stars game the best.

[RockHarbor]

Gotcha. I know what you're doing here... lol. I get your point. Lol. By the way, other people are just as responsible as me for steering threads off subject. I usually start with a comment/reply on-subject. Somebody often argues or picks at something I say, leading to me defending my point, and then them continually battling my points further, then me responding back to them in interest and respect, creating a "rabbit trail." But, everybody loves blaming me, and only me, at the end of it -- it seems. (It's always been that way with me. I'm very used to it. Similarly, growing up, I often would be blamed for fights between siblings & I when they truly started it first.) So, if somebody unpurposefully creates a "rabbit trail" on my thread, steering everything off subject, I don't care. That's the fun of it. That's life. It's unpredictable. Live and let live... I'm not standing here wanting to be in-control, ready with a rod to strike anybody getting off the trail. At least people are conversing, and threads are buzzing, and we are all learning something -- is my viewpoint on the matter. (Also, thankfully, threads allow for several different convos to go on at once -- I dont view threads as a classroom or town meeting where we are allowed to speak one at a time, after raising our hand.) Anyways, back to my question. I really want to know what people see in Star Trek (especially over Star Wars). Maybe I'm missing something? I'm also so excited over these last two satisfyingly good Star Wars movies.

[Stargazer]

I prefer science fiction over science fantasy.

[jessep28]

I grew up watching the Kirk Star Trek movies, and The Next Generation, so I guess I'm more of a Star Trek person. Both are respectable franchises.

[bigredmed1]

Both have had their moments and have come to failure in separate ways.
Going to say that Star Trek has had the better run, but Star Wars will always be the Riefenstahl winner for paradigm shifting movies.

[RockHarbor]

Both have had their moments and have come to failure in separate ways.
Going to say that Star Trek has had the better run, but Star Wars will always be the Riefenstahl winner for paradigm shifting movies.

That last line you said intrigues me. I don't know what a "Riefenstahl winner" is. That's interesting that you say Star Trek has had the "better run." Yes, now that you point that out, it has had more consistency of creative production released under the "Star Trek umbrella" through the years, where Star Wars has had more gaps of activity. I wonder if the fact that Star Trek was on TV as a series, and Star Wars wasnt, helps cause a different fan base. With the sitcom format, a conflict is often presented, and solved & wrapped-up by the end of the show. Star Trek's conflicts it constantly encountered in the galaxy were solved by the end of each short show -- where Star Wars is a big, sweeping story (divided into long movies) from start to finish, with conflicts happening here & there, all leading to a final end. I'm wondering if Star Wars & Star Trek, both which seem alike at first glance, really appeal to different type thinkers, ultimately? Don't get me wrong, I like the classic Spock & Kirk, and the Star Trek ship and all, but something about it doesn't overall appeal to me "at the end of the day", personally. I can't imagine ever setting foot in a Star Trek convention, where a Star Wars one, I just might be interested.

[RockHarbor]

I grew up watching the Kirk Star Trek movies, and The Next Generation, so I guess I'm more of a Star Trek person. Both are respectable franchises.

So did certain people in my family! I'm a different thinker than them, the two I can think of that did reallly like Star Trek. I'm wondering if Star Wars & Star Trek appeal to different type thinkers, ultimately. Thank for your remark.

[RockHarbor]

I prefer science fiction over science fantasy.

See, I'm more a science fiction lover, too. When I pass Science Fantasy books in a bookstore, vs Science Fiction, I'd much rather pick up the later. There is a difference between the two. But, Star Wars is definitely more colorful "Science Fantasy" that appeals to me. Thanks for pointing that difference out. I like westerns, and maybe Star Wars is more like a "Cowboys & Indians western movie in space" -- where the Star Trek evening show was more a "Brady Bunch in space." (???) Just a thought to ponder... (However, I have two family members who loved Star Trek, and one loved westerns, and the other one did not. Furthermore, I like family sitcoms, like the Brady Bunch, where they work together to solve conflict after conflict. So, I'm not sure all that means anything. And, western movies never appealed to me growing up, while Star Wars did. But, western movies now do, with my love of rugged, western scenery, and a growing interest in history, including Native Americans, and the Manifest Destiny era. What appeals to each of us is probably very complex, and funny how we change with time...)

[RockHarbor]

After my "Cowboys & Indians western movie in space" comment I made about Star Wars, I was later thinking about the fact that sometimes in a Star Wars movie, they can walk into a rugged, outpost type "saloon" or "bar" full of strange characters & creatures. So, it can feel a little western movie-ish at times. In fact, I'm now wondering if that impression helped inspire & spawn these movies that strangely blend western cowboy & science fiction alien themes. I'm sure it was because of Star Wars. Who knows.... (Star Trek doesn't really have that aspect, as far as I can think of.)

[bigredmed1]

Both have had their moments and have come to failure in separate ways.
Going to say that Star Trek has had the better run, but Star Wars will always be the Riefenstahl winner for paradigm shifting movies.

That last line you said intrigues me. I don't know what a "Riefenstahl winner" is. That's interesting that you say Star Trek has had the "better run." Yes, now that you point that out, it has had more consistency of creative production released under the "Star Trek umbrella" through the years, where Star Wars has had more gaps of activity. I wonder if the fact that Star Trek was on TV as a series, and Star Wars wasnt, helps cause a different fan base. With the sitcom format, a conflict is often presented, and solved & wrapped-up by the end of the show. Star Trek's conflicts it constantly encountered in the galaxy were solved by the end of each short show -- where Star Wars is a big, sweeping story (divided into long movies) from start to finish, with conflicts happening here & there, all leading to a final end. I'm wondering if Star Wars & Star Trek, both which seem alike at first glance, really appeal to different type thinkers, ultimately? Don't get me wrong, I like the classic Spock & Kirk, and the Star Trek ship and all, but something about it doesn't overall appeal to me "at the end of the day", personally. I can't imagine ever setting foot in a Star Trek convention, where a Star Wars one, I just might be interested.

Leni Riefenstahl was a German filmmaker. Infamous for the masterpiece of friend propaganda "Triumph of the Will". She changed the photography of sports forever with her paradigm shifting movie "Olympia". Basically every time you watch ESPN or the Olympics, you are watching her camera angles. So when I see a movie that similarly changes the entire genre in a similar manner, I give it a Riefenstahl.

[Silverspoon]

I always wanted to be a Trekkie but I cant get into it. Trek is way better than Wars anyway.

[bigredmed1]

This site's filter changed National Socialism to 'friend". Maybe that needs adjusting?

[RockHarbor]

Both have had their moments and have come to failure in separate ways.
Going to say that Star Trek has had the better run, but Star Wars will always be the Riefenstahl winner for paradigm shifting movies.

That last line you said intrigues me. I don't know what a "Riefenstahl winner" is. That's interesting that you say Star Trek has had the "better run." Yes, now that you point that out, it has had more consistency of creative production released under the "Star Trek umbrella" through the years, where Star Wars has had more gaps of activity. I wonder if the fact that Star Trek was on TV as a series, and Star Wars wasnt, helps cause a different fan base. With the sitcom format, a conflict is often presented, and solved & wrapped-up by the end of the show. Star Trek's conflicts it constantly encountered in the galaxy were solved by the end of each short show -- where Star Wars is a big, sweeping story (divided into long movies) from start to finish, with conflicts happening here & there, all leading to a final end. I'm wondering if Star Wars & Star Trek, both which seem alike at first glance, really appeal to different type thinkers, ultimately? Don't get me wrong, I like the classic Spock & Kirk, and the Star Trek ship and all, but something about it doesn't overall appeal to me "at the end of the day", personally. I can't imagine ever setting foot in a Star Trek convention, where a Star Wars one, I just might be interested.

Leni Riefenstahl was a German filmmaker. Infamous for the masterpiece of friend propaganda "Triumph of the Will". She changed the photography of sports forever with her paradigm shifting movie "Olympia". Basically every time you watch ESPN or the Olympics, you are watching her camera angles. So when I see a movie that similarly changes the entire genre in a similar manner, I give it a Riefenstahl.

Oh. Interesting. I'll have to look into that Riefenstahl. I have to say, these last 2 movies have such striking, artful scenes that, I feel, are very thoughtful -- including camera angles, ECT. (By the way, I don't understand the "socialism/friend" comment, so can't respond to that one.) Silverspoon: Oh, it's "Trekkie." Now, I'm curious why you feel Star Trek is so much better than Star Wars? I just don't get what is more appealing about it to some, although I get why it is likeable.

[bigredmed1]

The original Star Wars movie's opening sequence showed the two space ships flying past you was the moment when all the previous sci-fi movies and TV shows were passe'.

[Garrett]

I was definitely raised as a big old Trekkie, with Voyager being my first series. Star Trek is far better at exploring the human condition and contemporary issues, and has way more character development that Star Wars can often lack. However, in the movie department alone Star Wars obviously is much better.

[Bob from Omaha]

It's no secret that I'm one of the oldest here. A few thoughts...

One, if you haven't seen 2001:A Space Odyssey, see it. While you watch the space scenes remember that this movie was released in 1968, BEFORE we landed on the moon (if you believe in that sort of thing). Yes, it's corny in places. However, the scenes are amazing. It was sort of a cult movie and people weren't ready for scenes like that. Also, remember that the movie was shot well before todays special effects.

Two, I was in college at UNL when both Star Trek the Motion Picture(1979) and Star Wars(1977) were released. Both were amazing in terms of special effects. When Star Wars was released the lines at the theater in downtown Lincoln were around the block. People cheered, screamed, gasped, etc. Nobody had seen special effects like that. People saw it dozens of times, if not hundreds.

As for Star Trek, it was a different feeling for me. Given the silly nature of the tv series and the rubber rocks on the planets it was a beautiful movie. Smooth, colorful, cool shots in space, all of it.

I'm not a Trekker, a Trekkie, or anything like that. I don't engage in arguments about either franchise. Simple to say that both Star Wars and Star Trek were ground breaking and at the time in my life when I could appreciate both productions.

Anyway, see 2001 if you haven't already. Maybe Plan 9 from Outer Space too.

[RockHarbor]

The original Star Wars movie's opening sequence showed the two space ships flying past you was the moment when all the previous sci-fi movies and TV shows were passe'.

Because I don't recall any space movies I've really watched that were released in years before the late 70's Star Wars, I guess I didn't realize what an absolute "benchmark" that movie was in that special effects department, until your comment, and Bob from Omaha's. The original movie still holds up well. So, that makes sense.

[RockHarbor]

I was definitely raised as a big old Trekkie, with Voyager being my first series. Star Trek is far better at exploring the human condition and contemporary issues, and has way more character development that Star Wars can often lack. However, in the movie department alone Star Wars obviously is much better.

Interesting. I googled imaged "Star Wars scenes" and then "Star Trek scenes", and the page of Star Trek's pictures gave me so much more of a basic, plain & simple impression. Star War's search was filled with more intense, light & dark, colorful scenes w/ battle sequences involving the neony light sabor, and really neat, different-looking characters. They are both equally art, and are both artful, but Star Trek vs Star Wars's art & creativity looks the difference to me between a store of basic, plain, clean-lined merchandise, and one of colorful, artsy, eclectic, and eccentric merchandise. Star Wars is more dreamy "Avatar" like (the movie) to me. I still don't get how Star Trek has better character development overall, but I find your viewpoint interesting and eye-opening to maybe something I'm just not seeing.

[RockHarbor]

It's no secret that I'm one of the oldest here. A few thoughts...

One, if you haven't seen 2001:A Space Odyssey, see it. While you watch the space scenes remember that this movie was released in 1968, BEFORE we landed on the moon (if you believe in that sort of thing). Yes, it's corny in places. However, the scenes are amazing. It was sort of a cult movie and people weren't ready for scenes like that. Also, remember that the movie was shot well before todays special effects.

Two, I was in college at UNL when both Star Trek the Motion Picture(1979) and Star Wars(1977) were released. Both were amazing in terms of special effects. When Star Wars was released the lines at the theater in downtown Lincoln were around the block. People cheered, screamed, gasped, etc. Nobody had seen special effects like that. People saw it dozens of times, if not hundreds.

As for Star Trek, it was a different feeling for me. Given the silly nature of the tv series and the rubber rocks on the planets it was a beautiful movie. Smooth, colorful, cool shots in space, all of it.

I'm not a Trekker, a Trekkie, or anything like that. I don't engage in arguments about either franchise. Simple to say that both Star Wars and Star Trek were ground breaking and at the time in my life when I could appreciate both productions.

Anyway, see 2001 if you haven't already. Maybe Plan 9 from Outer Space too.

Yes, that 2001 movie felt so ahead of its time. It's surreal & otherworldly & "weird in a good way", imo. It still confuses me and confounds me both. Another movie you may like is called "Life." It's really weird-cool & it passes thru great realms of time showing dinos and other lifeforms and people. (Not to be confused with that Sci-Fi movie called "Life" with Ryan Reynolds. What an alarming, aggressive alien life form. My goodness...) I'm both chuckling & sad when I hear about people's over-the-top reactions to Star Wars back in the late 70's. I miss those days when movies were a big friggin deal. I remember E.T. being a big deal. Now, they don't seem to be, and part of the fun of the theater & popcorn is taken away... I also laugh at your "rubber rocks" comment. That is the perfect way to describe Star Trek sets. (I said "cardboardy" myself.) Star Wars often uses earthbound scenery (like our mountains, deserts & forests), but puts a big moon in the sky, or the Death Star, or planet. So, they don't often have the outdoors represented with sets, I dont think -- so it's more realistic. Thanks for your reply.

[jag42]

If you haven't seen "Time Runner" starring Mark Hamill, you must. This 1993 masterpiece blatantly rips off Star Wars dialogue and special effects...check out the trailer:

[edsas]

I'm a Star Wars fan. Star Trek doesn't do anything for me.

I was born in 1973. The original Star Wars was the very first movie I can remember seeing. A lot of other f/x movies at the time just stunk by comparison. It took the rest of the Hollywood film industry about 15 years to catch up to George Lucas. Now there are so many high quality f/x production houses, it's nearly impossible for one special f/x laden movie to stand out from another any more.

The first Star Wars trilogy was amazing in that it had relatively no f/x competitors for years after their release. Movies like Alien and Aliens, the Terminator, Robocop, Back to the Future and Predator gave us a taste of high quality sci-fi special f/x back then, but none of those movies created an all-encompassing completely alien setting like the Star Wars franchise. It's stunning to watch that trailer for "Time Runner," knowing that it came out 10 years after Return of the Jedi and seeing how awful the f/x were by comparison, yet they were par-for-the-course for straight-to-video sci-fi back in the early 1990s. You still had to go to the theater if you wanted to be blown away. You had to shell out the bucks if you wanted Batman and Total Recall.

1993 was a watershed year for f/x movies. Jurassic Park came out that year and was instantly the harbinger of the f/x world to come. George Lucas predicted the advent of digital f/x way back in 1981 as Lucasfilm was gearing up to shoot Return of the Jedi. And when his buddy, Steven Spielberg, made Jurassic Park, Spielberg famously said that the filmmakers of the future will only be limited by their imaginations as to what they will be able to bring to the screen. Boy, was he right.

For me, Star Wars deserves its place among the giants of film. There is a distinct before and after of Hollywood that pinwheels around the original trilogy.

[Greg S]

Definitely Star Wars for me. For the Star Wars movies, I think Empire Strikes Back is hands down the best.

Greg

[edsas]

Definitely Star Wars for me. For the Star Wars movies, I think Empire Strikes Back is hands down the best.

Greg

Empire will never be topped, in my opinion.

Of the non-original trilogy movies, I think Rogue 1 is the best. The sequels (episodes seven and eight) I liked when I initially saw them, but I'm less fond of them as time goes on. Abrams got the look down great with The Force Awakens, but I feel he copied too much of A New Hope's story line for it to feel completely fresh. And then Rian Johnson had some great ideas in The Last Jedi (such as the throne room fight and Skywalker's last stand), but also some horrible ideas, like killing Admiral Akbar offscreen, the whole casino sequence and under-utilizing established characters in favor of new ones we don't care about (such as Laura Dern and the Korean girl).

As for the prequels, I know most people hate them. I really don't get that. Yeah, Phantom Menace was a true clunker of a movie (although it still had some cool things about it like Darth Maul and Qui-gon Jinn). But I thought Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith especially were darn fine movies. Story-wise the prequels beat the pants off of the sequels. It's easy for me to overlook Jar Jar Binks, the midiclorians and Hayden Christianson's wooden acting when ultimately Lucas pulls off a pretty original yarn.

[RockHarbor]

Thanks for your remarks & thoughts here... I'm glad you guys have mentioned feeling that Empire Strikes Back is the best film, because regarding the original triology, that was always my least favorite film as a kid (and it could have been because of something silly, like the fact it was more cold & wintry in that movie). I need to really sit down and give it another chance. I watched it again when I bought it as an adult, and I remember thinking "This is much better than I thought...", but I was still half-focused on it. (If Im not in a theater, it almost difficult for me to sit down and entirely focus on a movie at home. Im often half-watching as I work on other things that I need to get done.) I always loved the Ewoks and the Redwood Forest-like setting in "Return of the Jedi." That Phantom Menace: That was the hardest one for me to get my hands on, strangely enough. It does seem like the dumbest film, yet that phantom character is very interesting & striking in looks, imo. These films sure have a unique cast of characters, imo. (The movies involving Natalie Portman & Haden Christensen & Whats-his-face are my least favorite SW films, simply because the original characters were not present. Why did they do that? Why didnt they just use Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, ect., in all of them? A mistake, imo.) I agree: That fight scene in the latest movie, in that red room, with the red guards, was awesome. That evil leader just had an alienish, gnarled, decrepit, mean, mean face look. Lol. Also, through this thread I learned how much the Star Wars films really "raised the bar" on special effects. I never realized that before, as I didnt watch many space films before Star Wars. That first film still looks great, imo.

[RockHarbor]

If you haven't seen "Time Runner" starring Mark Hamill, you must. This 1993 masterpiece blatantly rips off Star Wars dialogue and special effects...check out the trailer:

Jag: Im sorry. I was on my other "Midwest Skyline" thread, and I kept having a feeling I hadnt responded to somebody, and I kept brainstorming what that was all about. I figured out it was you. I meant to respond directly to you about this soon afterwards, but I got carried away by my other response that particular day. I appreciate all people/comments when I start a thread. That Time Runner sounds awesome. I want to see that and check it out. Thanks for bringing that to the table here. Ive never heard of that movie until now. Cant wait to hopefully see it. Thanks again.

[ricko]

I remember watching Star Trek from the beginning in the mid-60's, and saw the first Star Wars movie when it came out (77?) Visually, both were considered jaw-droppers for their times----Hollywood at its best. I do think they were directed at different audiences, though. Star Trek tackled many of the controversial social issues of the day using science fiction and aliens as a cover, and was directed at the young adult crowd. Star Wars was targeted at 13 year old boys (and all of our inner-13 year olds), using more cartoon-like characters to get a simple, but universal message of good vs. evil across.

[RockHarbor]

I remember watching Star Trek from the beginning in the mid-60's, and saw the first Star Wars movie when it came out (77?) Visually, both were considered jaw-droppers for their times----Hollywood at its best. I do think they were directed at different audiences, though. Star Trek tackled many of the controversial social issues of the day using science fiction and aliens as a cover, and was directed at the young adult crowd. Star Wars was targeted at 13 year old boys (and all of our inner-13 year olds), using more cartoon-like characters to get a simple, but universal message of good vs. evil across.

That viewpoint is interesting and seems like it has some validity to me. To me, Star Trek is just "dull & grey" compared to the rich vibrancy of Star Wars. Thats just my view. Anyways, Star Wars is on the backburner now for me. I just saw the new Jurrasic Park (my fav franchise). It was excellent, imo. That new dino is so smart & fierce & aggressive its astonishing! Just love that new dino.

[gisbuxfan]

An interesting addition to this conversation might be found in the toy world. If you haven't watched The Toys that Made Us on Netflix, check it out. Season 1 has the story of Star Wars toys and Season 2 has the story of Star Trek toys.

[RockHarbor]

An interesting addition to this conversation might be found in the toy world. If you haven't watched The Toys that Made Us on Netflix, check it out. Season 1 has the story of Star Wars toys and Season 2 has the story of Star Trek toys.

Thanks for the info!!!!!