Star Wars vs Star Trek - Can't we all just get along?

Apr 6, 2018 10:22 AM

AUGEN2

Views

106058

Likes

1340

Dislikes

97

I've never quite understood the discussion about what's better - Star Wars or Star Trek.
Yeah, they both take place in space, but that's pretty much where the similarities end. Comparing the two is like comparing "The Life of Pi" with "Titanic" because they both happen to be centered around a boat.

And then there is the idea, that you - for whatever reason - can only be a fan of one of them. But why?
I love Star Wars for the fun time and the great adventure that every movie delivers.
And I like Star Trek for the optimism and the ethical questions that most episodes bring up.

So yeah, I'm a fan of both. And I guess the universe hasn't imploded yet because of that.

What about you? Star Trek or Star Wars or both?

Both. Well said about the Star Trek optimism. It is what I have chosen to believe and hope about our future. It is striveable.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I freakin love Babylon Galactica

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

In a Galaxy far far away, I shall boldly go.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

It's because star trek is about deep philosophical narratives in space about human nature and scientific advance and star wars is 4 autists

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Those titties are out

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

Sadly, both franchises have been reduced to action schlock.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

I agree. Why can't we all agree Babylon 5 was the best?

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Indeed O'neill

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It's tribalism. That's all it is. We don't raid and pillage villages anymore, we have primate pissing games over preferred narratives.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Nerd pecking order

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Oh I didn't see there were words here. Both are good but Star Trek > Star Wars for sure.

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 8

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Both although both properties have been mismanaged recently in different ways!

8 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 1

Abraaaams! *shakes fist*

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I disagree. I think they're getting better.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Yes, I tend to agree. :)

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I expected way more of ST:Disco

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Give it time, I think it'll be good. The first three seasons of TNG were pretty meh, IMO. DIS is already more watchable than that.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Both. SW for epic sci-fi action, mysticism, and laser swords . ST for more relaxed storytelling and study of humanity in extreme situations.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Because one is subjectively better than the other and when 2 parties of either side get together; they will try to prove it to each other

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Star trek just doesn't appeal to me for some reason. Trek fans are ok. And I'm ok. And that's ok.

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

I like the movies, not so much the shows.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Of course it's okay not to like them. But I find this "You can't like this, if you like that."-argument a little strange.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Star Trek looks forward to a utopia future and the struggles of living in it. Star wars is just a space fantasy opera. Barely even sci fi.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

What about stargate ? :(

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 2

I thought the same but it's small beans compared to these giants. I'm looking forward to the next series though.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

They've dropped in ratings unfortunately :( It would seems as they've stretch 1 episode over 10 for the season. :(

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Thats a TV show based on Roland Emmerichs movie featuring MacGyver. ;)

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Pretty much, lol ! But IMO it's the best developpement about the earth. started as a millitary facility finish with ships and teleporters.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Next convention I'm going in my ST:TNG uniform, but carrying a lightsaber.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I didn't know there was a big divide tbh. They're both great in their own ways.

8 years ago | Likes 46 Dislikes 1

Kinda like Hitler is great for being on the forefront of solving overpopulation, these are great for entertaining many people.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

There's not as big of one now, but there used to be a huge divide between the two.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

There isn't really. Most people like both, but disagree on which one is better.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Oh dear god there used to be a huge divide. It was heretical to like both at once

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Lord of the Rings

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 4

I've got Gandalf on there. Oh no.. wait.. that's Luke. ;)

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Gandalf has quite a magnetic personality.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Star Wars and LOTR are strikingly similar and employ the same archetypes. Surprised people don’t compare them both more.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Both

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Star Trek no question.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We actually do get along. At the moment, we all agree that the new Star Wars movie sucked. Making changes or trying new ideas != good movie

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 131 Dislikes 1

Kaylee in a red TOS uniform... I didn't know I needed that til now.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 0

I aim to steal this meme

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Oh my gosh my nose started bleeding. I was wondering why I recognized these people but not the series... but I knew the series; but I didn’t

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Space western.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Wash should have a red shirt

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

It's not red shirt exclusive

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Too soon

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

As a fan of both Trek and Wars, JJ Abrams can go fuck himself.

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 5

Fuck him for what he did to Trek. But he's doing an awesome job with SW.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

wow, in that I agree, fuck JJ abrams, he sucks really hard, i hate that he is back for ep9.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

As a fan of neither, ditto.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Abrams makes everything better and I'll stand by that statement in the face of death.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 6

JJ abrams, compulsory creating mysteries in stuff that doesnt need it, and not even caring to ever unravel those. Hell no, JJ abrams is bad.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

How in any way was the new Trek better than old except in quality of actors and special effects? Story and direction were ok but worse.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

These are all opinions obviously. We just have different opinions.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

At no point did the new Trek lecture us on politics or the importance of whales.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I'm a fan of both but for me, I enjoy Star Trek far more.

8 years ago | Likes 54 Dislikes 3

well your wrong!

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

I enjoy starwars a tiny bit more bit still a fan of startrek. My day job is making a startrek game after all :P

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Love jedi and the design of the star wars ships while star trek seems to have better story

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oh yeah?? Well my favorite STs are Enterprise and Voyager! Call me a heathen, I am used to it!

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Not at all, love both a lot.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Those 2 are my favorite too, voyager got me into st while the story of enterprise was probably the best jean luc Picard was awesome

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Like both, and bab 5, bsg, andromeda, lexx, red dwarf, firefly, cleopatra2525. So much so do goodness

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Scifi goodness fuck you autocorrect

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

ST, SW, B5, BSG (old & new), red dwarf, firefly. Also sort of liked Dark Matter (but it's over now). Space A&B was okay too.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

My gor forgot about above and beyond...

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Star Wars is Science Fantasy and Star Trek is Science Fiction. That's the difference and that why most people pick one or the other. (1)

8 years ago | Likes 417 Dislikes 7

Not really. Star Trek is still science fantasy. It's just more "technical".

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

They are both, however, "space operas" in the modern, non-derrogatory terminology.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

Ah contrere mon capitan!

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I agree, but I still like both because it's all about being entertained in different ways.

8 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 1

I don't know few things are as fictitious as a futuristic socialism.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I find StarTrek's utopian world to be more rooted in fiction than StarWars is.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

I agree and that’s why I like both - they hit different sweet spots in terms of entertainment for me

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Why do have to label everything?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

Because things naturally group together with similar characteristics.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Wah wah wah. Space ships. Laser weapons. I dont care if someone tells me it's a documentary. It's frikkin space ships and frikkin lasers.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Well both are fiction so this is stupid.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 4

Of course they're both fiction. But the term "science fiction" has a definition. It's not a catch-all just because it contains 'fiction'.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Yes, but that definition is appropriate for both. In fact, if one googled science fiction they would be given both of these as examples.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

*space fantasy. There's absolutely nothing scientific about SW. I've no opinion on star trek, it's unwatchable.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 8

Not even science-fantasy. Just fantasy.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

I think Star trek WAS science fiction. The new ones have become fantasy

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Star Trek has always been fantasy because of the mind melding.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

And the Q

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I'm iffy on calling Star Wars "science-fantasy" but if it is, then so is Star Trek.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 7

Another way of looking at is it's a space opera...bt it is essential the standard hero story in space.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Space fantasy describes it much better. It's fantasy. It's set in space. Science plays no part. Space. Fantasy.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

It's a classic swords-and-sorcery high fantasy adventure...set in space.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

StarTrek is Science Fantasy. Science Fiction doesn't have magical solutions to problems that involve yelling some techno-babble, and it 1/

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 10

being solved because the plot needed it - it has rule sets that are rigidly stuck to. 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 8

Whether or not deus ex machina is used is not a determinant of its genre.

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Most SciFi authors disagree with you (though I'll acknowledge some agree with you). Arthur C Clarke for example firmly puts StarTrek in 1/

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

the fantasy bucket - "Science fiction is something that could happen - but you usually wouldn't want it to. Fantasy is something that 2/

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

They are both very much fictional and thus science fiction. One is a space opera, the other is an adventure serial.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

Star Wars isn't science fiction. At all. It has nothing to do with it. It's just fantasy set in space. Calling it sci-fi is blasphemy.

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 6

[deleted]

[deleted]

8 years ago (deleted Apr 6, 2018 5:35 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

No such thing as sci-fan. It's space fantasy or fantasy fiction. Not talking too much about Trek, because I haven't watched much of it.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

That's utter nonsense, there is scientific fiction abound in star wars. They have all types of unattainable technology not reliant on magic.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

What does Star Wars have that's more fantastic than Star Trek? The Force isn't any different from the psychic stuff that's common in ST.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm not gonna argue which turd is smellier. My contention is that Star Wars cannot be called sci-fi.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

... not to imply that Star Trek can. I just haven't watched enough Star Trek to judge.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Faster-than-light travel, controlled light beams, practically-sentient robot AI ... even midichlorians (albeit retconned) are sci-fi.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

You need that in space just like you need transportation in other works of fiction. Sci-fi is especially reliant on science. Star Wars >>

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

>> could just as well take place in ancient Rome or in the 1940's. The story doesn't hinge on science.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

BS as a old school fan of SW I call BS, there's working basis for most tech in SW ST magics it up with fancy sci-fi words

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 16

Like what??

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Please tell me more about this working basis for force and all that other bullshit in Star Wars. Sci-fi my fat ass. It's space fantasy and >

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

> nothing more.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Right - StarWars is actually arguably *more* science fiction than StarTrek - which uses techno babble to deus-ex-mechana out of situations1/

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 10

pretty much at will, rather than ever having a rule set that's stuck to. 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 9

Techno babble is probably more sci-fi than "because the force"

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's like arguing over which turd is the smelliest of the lot. I would still say Star Wars is less sci-fi, mainly because of the magic.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Are you saying StarTrek doesn't have magic? It doesn't become less magic just because you said "realign the deflector shield" instead of 1/

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

"abracadabra". 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Honestly, I have never watched much Trek, but even technobabble is better scifi than "the force", which is just magic.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

SciFan doesnt try to use science to describe the situation or the tech while Sci-fi is loosely based on scientific principles. (2)

8 years ago | Likes 159 Dislikes 4

that is why so many hate the prequals midiclorans

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Also Star Trek is largely about discovering cool new shit and finding diplomatic solutions to AVOID fighting. Star Wars is plucky rag-tag...

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

...bands of misfits taking on the galaxy. There's plenty to enjoy in both universes.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Star wars is more adventure/space opera.. star trek is like macgyver in space

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

MacGyver in space?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

While you're not wrong every time I hear this I can't help but point out the Q and basically say, 'WHAT Fiction did you say?'

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

More to the point of the rivalry, Star Wars is all about fighting while Star Trek (at least some versions) is about the future we could make

8 years ago | Likes 66 Dislikes 1

In other words, Star Wars is about stuff worth fighting against, and Star Trek is about stuff worth fighting for.

8 years ago | Likes 59 Dislikes 2

Well played

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This. Exactly this.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

It's sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo bad!

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And then furthest away from SciFan you have Hard Scifi which tries to remain as much true to science as possible. Doesn't age well.

8 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 3

Can't it just be FanFi instead, since it has nothing to do with science?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

Used to be an "Issac asimov's fantasy & science fiction" magazine - with stories about witches next to stories about robot detectives.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Isaac Asimov's FANTASY & Science Fiction Magazine? I'm just highlighting the part of the title that might explain that.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Given that fantasy and scifi is always fiction and fantasy carries the implication of magic and medieval europe that would be a poor name.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

But there's plenty of magic in Star Wars. Fantasy is all about magic and the supernatural. There's no science in it. Space fantasy is good.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

* laughs in 2001: A Space Odyssey *

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

You mean the soviets, luxury space travel, mono program displays, punch cards, lack of mobile computers, hibernaculum pods, videophones 1/?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I can't hear you over the vacuum of space. here, let me turn on my pew pew and soundtrack.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yes very very accurate. Now I give you 2001 is an outlier but most hard scifi aged poorly. 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Alien is another hard-sci-fi movie that comes to mind. I'd also make the case that Bladerunner belongs in the category.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Where does The Expanse fit into this cause the zero g and society/resource management stuff feels pretty realistic

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

There are a few gaping holes (magic engines, mysterious lack of water), but otherwise solid for the first TV series. Not sure about books.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They explained the lack of water as mining for Mars and Earth and the Canterbury is a ship from those days repurposed for the Belt

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Haven't actually gotten around to see that. On my list. heard it's on the harder side but still a TV show. 'Real' hard scifi has no FTL :P

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I don't think The Expanse has FTL tbh, they're talking about burning across the solar system in three days and that's like 8 light minutes

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I'm also hard pressed to think of any weapons they used that employed magic technology, the only hand-waving is rocket efficiency

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I beg to differ. The Martian is one of the most scientifically accurate Sci-fi Stories out there and its not going away anytime soon.

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 3

Except for that minor water being scarce part that isn't true.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It has hardly aged now has it? I'm sure in a decade of 4 it will have missed a critical part of technical development.

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

Still, its not like the author KNEW what was going to happen. Its like any historical work, you have to try to read it from the perspective

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

But when it crosses into science fact, is it still science fiction? Would a movie about a Apollo flight to the moon be Sci-Fi?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Robinson's Mars trilogy is hard scifi. Fiction just means made up. Any story that has FTL travel, hibernation, portable laser or particle1/2

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

More like a dramatization, possibly historical fiction if the plot diverges.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

weapons, energy shields or telepathic aliens all can't really be considered hard scifi. If it conflicts with known science it can't be 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1