William Shatner On Star Trek Vs. Star Wars

Star Trek by black3d · 2011-09-19 01:35 · Score: 2

Has always seemed much more nerd accessible - like being a nerd is almost a pre-requisite to enjoying it. Star Wars is too.. main-stream action. >

--
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk

Re:Star Trek by mcgrew · 2011-09-19 01:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

You'd be surprised how many non-nerds are Star Trek fans. However, you won't find them at the conventions or in Star Trek costumes. You'll find them at your corner bar or any construction site.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Star Trek by Trent+Hawkins · 2011-09-19 01:42 · Score: 1

well, not any more.
Now you have to be a nerd to enjoy the star wars prequels, or buy the re-re-re-re-re-mastered editions with the extra NOOOOOOOOOO!
While Star trek is a blockbuster action flick.
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:21 · Score: 1

Truer than you think. Several studies have show Star Trek is enjoyed by most anyone who is the least bit disenfranchised by modern society. This can range from race to gender or simply oppression from one's social standing. Star Trek is widely accessible by large swaths of society. While Star Trek has a large swing in quality of the years, at its heart, it is true science fiction; especially where Roddenberry was involved.
Star Wars, on the other hand, is an action/adventure story set in a futuristic fantasy world. Its not really science fiction at all. Star Wars is by far fantasy, not science fiction. Hell, the story lines, when there are story lines, are literally ripped right from classic fantasy.
Honestly, Shatner is spot on in his analysis. They are two entirely different shows with two entirely different genres, with two entirely different stories and themes to tell.
Re:Star Trek by AshtangiMan · 2011-09-19 02:26 · Score: 1

I would say that Star Trek is classic science fiction, while star wars is a space western . . . the action flick rather than an examination of the human condition.
Re:Star Trek by Moridineas · 2011-09-19 02:53 · Score: 1

I was at an amusement park years ago standing in line for a roller coaster. In front of me was a dad and a teenage son that appeared to be more or less your typical rednecks. Nascar shirts, kid had a rat tail, heavily accented, etc. They were having one hell of a nerdy conversation about a recent episode of TNG. Can't judge a book by its cover (ok, sometimes you can)...
Re:Star Trek by PoopMonkey · 2011-09-19 03:00 · Score: 1

A midget covered with lard.
Re:Star Trek by anagama · 2011-09-19 03:21 · Score: 1

I used to say that about Star Wars and then along came Firefly and "space western" stopped being some kind of derogatory remark. I like how others are using "action adventure" to denigrate Star Wars now.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 03:25 · Score: 0

TradeWars helper http://www.swath.net/
Re:Star Trek by AshtangiMan · 2011-09-19 03:45 · Score: 1

I don't think space western or even action adventure is denigrating unless you believe that Lucas believes he was doing hard sf or something. But I see your point ... I enjoy star wars though.
Re:Star Trek by Gilmoure · 2011-09-19 03:53 · Score: 2

Star Wars posits a world of lower class people ruled (however lightly) by a cadre of elites with no upward mobility path. You're either born with the magic dingus in your system or you're not.
Star Trek is based on competency, where anyone may apply to Star Fleet and prove your worth. Is much more egalitarian.

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:Star Trek by Hatta · 2011-09-19 03:57 · Score: 1

I've met Star Trek fans at corner bars and construction sites. Every one of them was a nerd though.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Star Trek by ArhcAngel · 2011-09-19 04:13 · Score: 1

I love the fact that at its core Star Wars is a religious struggle between two extremists factions (Instead of dark and light let's call them far left and far right) in space but because these religions have cool tangible powers masses of intellectuals, agnostics and atheists brush off the religious and political overtones to cheer on their side. I remember reading an article a few years after Episode V was released talking about how George Lucas patterned the Jedi religion after Druidism. I don't know if he actually did or not but you can't deny there are heavy doses of religion throughout the series.

BTW
In Episode I what did Qui-Gon Jinn think would happen?

"He is the chosen one. He will bring balance. Train him."

The Jedi had been in power for generations and the Sith had been thought wiped out for centuries. Vader brought "balance" all right.

--
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:16 · Score: 0

So if you're American, a complete fantasy.
Re:Star Trek by toriver · 2011-09-19 04:27 · Score: 1

I consider Star Trek to be sci-fi western, where they explore e frontier and fight natives. Whereas Lucas has admitted the influence from Japanese samurai flicks in partiulsr Hidden Fortress, and the influences from WW2 movies are also apparent.
Re:Star Trek by jedidiah · 2011-09-19 04:35 · Score: 1

So that's why Wesley Crusher was unable to get into the Academy on his first attempt.
Meanwhile, some medicore kid from the sticks (Biggs Darklighter) had absolutely no problem getting in.
Let's not forget the Bashir family.
Latter Trek really wasn't the nirvana it was cracked up to be.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:36 · Score: 0

Here, let me Google that for your lazy ass.
Re:Star Trek by jedidiah · 2011-09-19 04:39 · Score: 1

Star Wars is Star Trek without most of the pretense.
From the very beginning, you were perfectly aware of what the "DERIVATIVE" influences were and they weren't Star Trek.
Not surprisingly Shatner is just full of himself again.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:43 · Score: 0

you guys voting Insightful, do you actually know if he's right, or are you just +1'ing because you like the idea of hunky males on construction sites with commbadges?
Re:Star Trek by jellomizer · 2011-09-19 04:43 · Score: 1

I think it is case that later Treks needed to be a bit darker. Because we have found that technology doesn't solve all of life's problems.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Star Trek by jellomizer · 2011-09-19 04:50 · Score: 1

That is what actually came to my mind when they said. He will bring balance to the force.
When he came in there were Thousands of Jedi and 2 Siths.
He kill all the Jedi but two and took his roll as the second Sith.
Luke got trained as a replacement. ObiWan got killed.
Yoda dies. So does the Emperor.
Luke wasn't really Jedi enough he had some dark in him. Vader kicks the bucket.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Star Trek by davester666 · 2011-09-19 05:26 · Score: 1

I call dibs on the red shirt uniform!

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Star Trek by gv250 · 2011-09-19 05:27 · Score: 2

I would say that Star Trek is classic science fiction, while star wars is a space western . . . the action flick rather than an examination of the human condition.
Wow. Star Trek was designed, pitched, and produced as a space western. IIRC, Roddenberry called it "Wagon Train to the stars."
I'd have to exactly and precisely disagree with you -- Star Trek is a space western, Star Wars is classic science fiction.
Re:Star Trek by scot4875 · 2011-09-19 05:41 · Score: 1

I love the fact that at its core Star Wars is a religious struggle between two extremists factions (Instead of dark and light let's call them far left and far right) in space but because these religions have cool tangible powers masses of intellectuals, agnostics and atheists brush off the religious and political overtones to cheer on their side.
It's easier to have fun and cheer on a side when *everyone* knows it's all just make-believe.
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:Star Trek by 517714 · 2011-09-19 05:44 · Score: 2

I call dibs on the red shirt uniform!
Last Post!

--
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Re:Star Trek by Ihmhi · 2011-09-19 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah, the Star Trek universe just solved hunger, most major diseases, poverty, and practically every form of discrimination. They've got it so hard!
When your biggest worry is about finding a fulfilling career (or the occasional Borg attack), I'd say you have it a fair bit easier than the majority of the world today.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Star Trek by AshtangiMan · 2011-09-19 06:18 · Score: 1

I'm interested in how exactly Star Wars has any science fiction element in it. The only philosophical element to it is the good vs. evil (a later poster identifies it as arthorian which is pretty good) in the Joseph Campbell reluctant hero style, which does not preclude science fiction but also does not imply it. Simply having some futuristic technology also does not make it SF, but perhaps could qualify it for the broader fantasy label. Star Wars is only science fiction if you think that space ships and lasers == science fiction. Regardless of how Roddenberry sold Star Trek to the studios and public, it is at it's core a SF premise (which is regardless of the fact that it happens in the future, in space, and with lasers . . . er, phasers) in that it examines the human condition at it's core. Look at the exploration of racism for instance in the half black/ half white episode, or the tretise on war when Kirk decides to exactly match the level of help from the Klingons to ensure that the two sides would have to deal with each other in some other way. Gene Roddenberry is a SF author as much as LeGuin and Heinlein are, but he understood that holywood did not understand SF, and that the TV audience at large would not have bought that either. Lucas, not so much . . .
Re:Star Trek by kylemonger · 2011-09-19 06:42 · Score: 1

If NBC thought they were getting Wagon Train to the Stars, then they were hoodwinked. The first Battlestar Galactica was the real Wagon Train to the Stars. Star Trek was more like Have Gun, Will Travel or Bat Masterson.
Re:Star Trek by nedwidek · 2011-09-19 06:43 · Score: 1

And as any student of history and the world today can tell you, Star Trek is complete fantasy. Star Wars by comparison is a documentary.

--
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 07:52 · Score: 0

I liked the part in Star Wars where I flew along your mom's trench and launched my load up her exhaust pipe.
Re:Star Trek by Homr+Zodyssey · 2011-09-19 08:18 · Score: 1

I heartily disagree. Its mostly the nerds who hate the prequels. Normal folks liked them okay enough.
Re:Star Trek by shadowfaxcrx · 2011-09-19 08:18 · Score: 1

It was pitched as a space western because Roddenberry wanted to get a TV show on the air. It was not designed as a space western.
Star Trek launched when westerns were the big show, in the era of Gunsmoke and Bonanza. If Roddenberry had said "We're going to fly around in space and explore not only the galaxy, but the human condition through subtle, and not-so-subtle, plots that serve as vehicles for comparison to controversial social issues of today," he'd have been sent right back to the police department where he came from. Much easier to get a pilot looked at if you tell people "Yeah, all those westerns that are so popular? This is a new spin on that - a western in space!"
As for Star Wars being classic science fiction, no. SciFi requires plausibility. Parasites giving you the ability to hurl objects with your mind and ships making "point 5 past light speed" getting. . Anywhere. . in a matter of minutes, is not science fiction, it's fantasy. Good fantasy - the original versions anyway - but fantasy all the same.

--
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
Re:Star Trek by mattack2 · 2011-09-19 08:33 · Score: 2

You're either born with the magic dingus in your system or you're not.
It would have been less objectionable if it had been called "magic dingus" instead of "mitochlorians".
Re:Star Trek by Gilmoure · 2011-09-19 08:47 · Score: 1

Exactly!
You know, for kids!

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:Star Trek by ArhcAngel · 2011-09-19 09:00 · Score: 1

It's easier to have fun and cheer on a side when *everyone* knows it's all just make-believe.
--Jeremy
Because we all know everyone who is a Star Wars fan knows it's all make-believe.

--
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 09:16 · Score: 0

A word that can be found in a dictionary, though I suppose "dictionary" is also a word you are ignorant of.
Re:Star Trek by Trent+Hawkins · 2011-09-19 09:21 · Score: 1

riiiiight. Theaters packed with guys dressed as darth maul are "Normal People"
Re:Star Trek by black3d · 2011-09-19 10:15 · Score: 1

Neither of these locations prevents them from being nerds. I'd wager, most likely, they self-identify as such.

--
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 10:15 · Score: 0

Cool. So the answer is:
1. A row or line of grass, grain, or other crop as it lies when mown or reaped.
2. A strip left clear by the passage of a mowing machine or scythe.
So the original sentence is
"Star Trek is widely accessible by rows or lines of grass, grain, or other crop as it lies when mown or reaped, of society."
or
"Star Trek is widely accessible by large strips left clear by the passage of a mowing machine or scythe, of society."
Much clearer now. Thanks.
[I'm being facetious, the definition of which I'm sure can also be found on Google.]
Re:Star Trek by node+3 · 2011-09-19 10:41 · Score: 0

Metaphors, how do they work?
Re:Star Trek by node+3 · 2011-09-19 10:50 · Score: 1

Exceptions do not disprove generalities. Only a Sith deals in absolutes...
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 11:53 · Score: 0

Right, because that is so true throughout the world, except the US. That is why we have the migration problem, everyone is just leaving here because it is better elsewhere.
Re:Star Trek by jellomizer · 2011-09-19 12:35 · Score: 1

Well if some 150 years ago looks at the USA today.
Most major plagues are cured. Poverty now means food clean water and shelter and only 1 tv. A black president of the united states. Things look rosy.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Star Trek by Vastad · 2011-09-19 18:41 · Score: 1

Parasites giving you the ability to hurl objects with your mind
The Force was never really specified and was kept mysterious which I thought was the point, the beauty of Marcia Lucas' woefully unsung influence. It wasn't attached to anything physical, anything ethnic (as in one species better than another) and for me at least tapped into a lot of that Bruce Lee/Alan Watts kung-fu mysticism zeitgeist floating around at the time.
Turning the Force into Pan-Species-AIDS-with-magickal-powers-LOLZ was for me, the worst thing to ever be done to the canon in Phantom Menace. It hamstrung the entire mystic element for the entire series and reduced it to some bland, soulless CDC bollox. For me, there is no stronger evidence that George Lucas did not actually understand what he was "fixing". This was a beautifully done storyteller's gift of defining a critical spiritual story concept just enough so that each audience member could fill in their own blanks. It is quite literally, George using bright red crayon and yellow Stabilo highlighter on the Mona Lisa to "fix" it.
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 22:05 · Score: 0

You should visit outside the US to see how bad the US has become. It's shocking really. In Europe (land of commies, socialists and monarchies), you have a much better chance of improving in class than in the US. Look it up.
Re:Star Trek by mcvos · 2011-09-19 23:56 · Score: 1

Shatner is definitely making little sense.
Star Trek and Star Wars are completely different, and not merely derivative of each other (except maybe the ice planet in ST6; my favourite ST film and it has a lot of SW elements).
ST is basically military SF: command structure, officers, etc. SW has very little of that.
SW is space fantasy, rather than science fiction; it's LotR in space. It deals with the big Good vs Evil struggle of epic fantasy.
ST is a utopian view of how technology will bring about a better society. Any big Evils there have to be outsiders, rather than the establishment. SW is practically the exact opposite.
Re:Star Trek by Progman3K · 2011-09-20 00:10 · Score: 1

I used the term Sword & Sorcery for Star Wars.
Princesses, Sith-Lords (wizards), monsters (the Saarlac) and all the rest.
Star Wars has more in common with tales about Merlin than any science-fiction, just because it is set in space does not make it science-fiction.

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:Star Trek by macshome · 2011-09-20 02:50 · Score: 1

Star Wars, on the other hand, is an action/adventure story set in a futuristic fantasy world.
Actually it takes place in the ancient past. That opening title card of "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" is one of the more inspired bits of filmmaking I know of. It's the beginning of a campfire story, it brings you in and starts the suspension of belief right away.
Of course Lucas pisses all over this in Empire when it's pointed out that the characters are humans. At least he waited until the second film.
Re:Star Trek by AmiMoJo · 2011-09-20 03:16 · Score: 1

Star Trek is based on competency, where anyone may apply to Star Fleet and prove your worth. Is much more egalitarian.
This raises an interesting question about education. In the EU education is a basic human right, but quality does vary. There are two competing views on education: some people are just not good at certain things but will have other valuable skills, or everyone is capable of reaching a certain level of ability in every subject if they try hard enough.
DS9 covered people genetically modifying their children to be more intelligent, but not in enough detail IMHO. Why is it cheating to select the best genes, or to graft better ones in, if simply paying someone to tutor the child beyond what everyone else gets isn't?

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Star Trek by mcgrew · 2011-09-20 04:10 · Score: 1

Sometimes a suspension of disbelief needs a good imagination. In this case you have to remember that nobody in Star Wars is human! They live in a distant galaxy in a distant time. They could be (could have been, could have will be) in a part of the universe with completely different laws of physics (like that pesky lightspeed barrier).
They have mitochlorians, we have mitochondria. You just don't live in a galaxy where mitochlorians exist.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Star Trek by mcgrew · 2011-09-20 04:16 · Score: 1

Oh! That explains why they all talk English! "
Human" is whatever word in their language that connotes their species is translated to English from. One Native American tribe's name (Soux maybe?) means "human" in their language.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Star Trek by shadowfaxcrx · 2011-09-20 05:00 · Score: 1

I completely agree. I can't remember where I saw this (might have been the Red Letter Media reviews, which are awesome), but someone theorized that when the originals were made, Lucas wasn't the God he's seen as now, and so he had to accept creative input from other people - and it was those people who made Star Wars what it was. Once he got 100% control of his work, it all went to crap.
It wouldn't be unprecedented. The same thing happened to Tom Clancy.

--
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 05:02 · Score: 0

I am a Star Trek fan and worked construction, enjoyed plenty (PLENT!) of bar time, AND gone to conventions. It's all good.
Re:Star Trek by Vastad · 2011-09-20 05:33 · Score: 1

Red Letter Media definitely mentioned this in that brilliant cathartic hour of critique. It is the finest motion picture and character evisceration I have ever been privileged to enjoy.
Would you mind expanding on the Tom Clancy reference? Are you saying Tom Clancy's early works were some sort of group effort or had a strong editor to guide him? But when he got famous and got more clout, he started to ignore good advice?
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 06:27 · Score: 0

I see it simply as:
Star Trek = Sci-Fi
Star Wars = Fantasy
Re:Star Trek by shadowfaxcrx · 2011-09-20 07:33 · Score: 1

That's exactly what I'm saying. If you read Hunt for Red October, and then read Teeth of the Tiger (which follows Ryan's kid and was written some 2 decades later) the difference in writing styles is astonishing. Whereas October was one hell of a good story, and well-written, Tiger was a farcical cross between a Clancy novel and Austin Powers. The dialogue was asinine, as was the entire premise of the book - a super-secret agency set up by Ryan as he was leaving the presidency that sends Ryan's kid around the world undercover - but in exotic cars and 5 star hotels living the life of the ostentatiously rich - assassinating various people because they're "bad" while uttering wisecracks that make the new Duke Nukem game sound like classic literature.
You started to really see the degradation in writing ability in Executive Orders, which is where I figure Clancy was starting to turn Lucas in believing that no one could offer him any useful advice as to how to make his work better.

--
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
Re:Star Trek by Vastad · 2011-09-20 08:36 · Score: 1

That's a shame. Must have been a chore to force yourself to finish it.
Re:Star Trek by shadowfaxcrx · 2011-09-20 11:50 · Score: 1

Who said I finished it? ;)

--
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-21 05:24 · Score: 0

Oh! That explains why they all talk English! "
That is BASIC which is easier to learn than C or C++.
Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-21 05:53 · Score: 0

And as any student of history and the world today can tell you, Star Trek is complete fantasy. Star Wars by comparison is a documentary.
Where Republics are ruled by Queens. Wouldn't a Kerr Pink make a better choice?
(Whoosh! for submitbot;0)

Not an issue. by Tsingi · 2011-09-19 01:36 · Score: 1

Jim would beat the fsck out of Solo with both hands tied behind his back.

No comparison.

Re:Not an issue. by mcgrew · 2011-09-19 01:47 · Score: 1

Yeah, but what if Solo didn't have both hands tied behind his back? Of course, it would be a boring fight, those guys are REALLY old.
A wookie would tear a Klingon's arms off if the wookie lost a chess game to him. That is, if you could find a chess-playing Klingon (Worf, maybe, but I doubt even Worf would have the patience for chess).
Spock vs Obi Wan would be an interesting matchup.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Not an issue. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 01:48 · Score: 0

Jim would beat the fsck out of Solo with both hands tied behind his back.
No comparison.
Damn, Star Wars versus Star Trek. How quaint.
Now put in Babylon 5 and you've got some real *beep* going on.
Kirk ? A captain with no brains at all.
Solo ? A space pirate that fires second ? Not worth a dime.
Mr Garibaldi and Bester ? These two can kick the crap out of Kirk and Solo every day of the week.
No comparison whatsoever indeed.
Re:Not an issue. by Tridus · 2011-09-19 01:53 · Score: 5, Funny

Jim would win because the newly edited Solo would wait for him to shoot first. :P
Fuck you, George Lucas.

--
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Re:Not an issue. by mla_anderson · 2011-09-19 01:57 · Score: 1

I'd be more scared of Ivanova.
B5 wins hands down. It's one of the few sci-fi shows that I don't cringe or yell at the screen about. Being an engineer seems to ruin a lot of the sci-fi genre for me.

--
Sig is on vacation
Re:Not an issue. by X0563511 · 2011-09-19 02:04 · Score: 2

Spock vs Obi Wan would be an interesting matchup.
Getting those two to hostilities would involve some serious mental gymnastics...

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Not an issue. by gilleain · 2011-09-19 02:08 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Now put in Babylon 5 and you've got some real *beep* going on.
"*beep*"?
Seriously, "*beep*"? You couldn't say "sh*t" or "s__t" or even "stuff", or just "shit"? The average reader here is probably 30, I'm pretty sure we can handle the occasional in-context swear word.
Just be grateful it wasn't "frack" or "frell" or similar...
Re:Not an issue. by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-09-19 02:08 · Score: 1

Well it's not like Solo would shoot him.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not an issue. by 0100010001010011 · 2011-09-19 02:08 · Score: 2

Sisko: Better than all of the above.
Star Wars seemed more about the story. Rebels fighting to live free.
Star Trek to me was interesting because it was more technology based. Yes they had excellent story lines (DS9 in particular) but what got me hooked as a young engineer was "the future." PADDs, Warp Drive, etc.
Re:Not an issue. by Denogh · 2011-09-19 02:09 · Score: 1

Kirk wouldn't have a chance to beat the fsck out of Solo, because Han would shoot first.

At least he would have before the special edition...
Re:Not an issue. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:11 · Score: 0

Worf killed a number of Jem'Hadar with his bare hands. It's likely that he could do even better against some walking carpets.
Re:Not an issue. by Digital+Vomit · 2011-09-19 02:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Now put in Babylon 5 and you've got some real *beep* going on. "*beep*"? Seriously, "*beep*"? You couldn't say "sh*t" or "s__t" or even "stuff", or just "*beep*"? The average reader here is probably 30, I'm pretty sure we can handle the occasional in-context swear word.
He can't help it, When he types "shit", it automatically appears as "*beep*" on your screen.

/hunter2

--
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Re:Not an issue. by lerxstz · 2011-09-19 02:13 · Score: 1

...or "feldercarb"

--
I chose to end my comments, not with a rim shot, but a long decaying F#7sus4
Re:Not an issue. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:14 · Score: 1

Kirk? No brains? This is the man who beat the Kobayashi Maru by having the brains to cheat.
Re:Not an issue. by Rogerborg · 2011-09-19 02:26 · Score: 2

Spock vs Obi Wan would be an interesting matchup. Getting those two to hostilities would involve some serious mental gymnastics...
Get Obi Wan to try and convince Spock that midichlorians exist. It'll end in bloodshed, red or green.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Not an issue. by X0563511 · 2011-09-19 02:34 · Score: 1

I'd bet Spock would be more receptive than you think. After all, all Obi Wan has to do is prove it by levitating something.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Not an issue. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:39 · Score: 0

Gene Roddenberry had more vision in his little finger than Lucas has in his entire genetic lineage.
Re:Not an issue. by ByOhTek · 2011-09-19 02:49 · Score: 1

I'd say:
Solo would kill Kirk
I disagree, a Klingon would probably beat a wookie, albeit barely.
Obi Wan would only be defeated by Spock if caught by surprise, so it'd either be quick and uninteresting (Spock Wins), or quick and interesting (for those who like "interesting" deaths).

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Re:Not an issue. by ByOhTek · 2011-09-19 02:50 · Score: 1

Bester would be better against a Jedi, and therein, would be an interesting competition

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Re:Not an issue. by ByOhTek · 2011-09-19 02:51 · Score: 1

Seriously? Adding Ivonova to the fight? That's just unfair, un-called for, and cruel as hell.

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Re:Not an issue. by ByOhTek · 2011-09-19 02:54 · Score: 1

Star Trek had more tech focus, but it also tended to have a decent bit of social commentary merged in. IIRC, Gene Roddenberry saw it more as a vehicle for social commentary than anything else. The "sci-fi" stuff was more of a prop to make it more enjoyable to watch.
That being said, I like Star Trek, Star Wars, Firefly, Babylon 5, Dr. Who, Blake 7...
They all are different shows with different goals, and even if plot lines overlap, they are done with different angles and perspectives.

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Re:Not an issue. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:54 · Score: 0

Well, he didn't _mean_ "shit". He meant "motherfucking assrape", and "*beep*" is much less typing.
Re:Not an issue. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:57 · Score: 1

Fascinating.
Re:Not an issue. by Phreakiture · 2011-09-19 03:20 · Score: 1

Solo can't kill Kirk . . . Kirk doesn't wear a red shirt. (No, the red tunics from the movies do not count!)

--
www.wavefront-av.com
Re:Not an issue. by Vectormatic · 2011-09-19 03:24 · Score: 1

Spock vs Obi Wan would be an interesting matchup.
Vulcan nerve pinch Vs force powers + lightsaber? You can guess where my money is.

--
People, what a bunch of bastards
Re:Not an issue. by anagama · 2011-09-19 03:25 · Score: 1

Jim would beat the fsck out of Solo with both hands tied behind his back. No comparison.
Isn't this sort of bringing the level Star Trek down by replacing thoughtful philosophical with nothing but a bar fight?

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Not an issue. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 03:31 · Score: 0

But Sisko is so easy to provoke...
Re:Not an issue. by Tsingi · 2011-09-19 03:34 · Score: 1

Jim would beat the fsck out of Solo with both hands tied behind his back. No comparison.
Isn't this sort of bringing the level Star Trek down by replacing thoughtful philosophical with nothing but a bar fight?
Have you watched much of the original series? Others may, but I can't think of an episode without one or more good fights. It doesn't seem to get in the way of philosophy much. That's why we have Spock. He kicks ass with the end of his finger, following up immediately by questioning the morality of whatever it was that caused him to exert himself in such a base manner.
Re:Not an issue. by 2names · 2011-09-19 03:41 · Score: 3, Informative

I'd say: Solo would kill Kirk

Only because HAN SHOT FIRST.

--
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Re:Not an issue. by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2011-09-19 03:43 · Score: 1

But which Solo?
The Han that shoots first?
Or
The Han that shoots second?

--
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Re:Not an issue. by Gilmoure · 2011-09-19 03:58 · Score: 1

Ivanova vs. Zoe on Firefly?

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:Not an issue. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:02 · Score: 0

...or Smeg!
Re:Not an issue. by iggymanz · 2011-09-19 04:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

of course, he'd then whip out his tricorder and tell you *how* Obi was levitating something, that The Force was merely a religious construct explainable totally by physics and in fact related to the mechanisms of the Vulcan Mind Meld. Soon Spock would be levitating things too.
Re:Not an issue. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:08 · Score: 0

Jim would beat the fsck out of Luke with both hands tied behind his back.
-- Fixed that for you. Nobody messes with Indy...
Re:Not an issue. by ElectricTurtle · 2011-09-19 04:14 · Score: 1

Not to mention he has managed to paradox freeze every dangerous AI he's ever dealt with and outwitted several god-like beings.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Re:Not an issue. by spire3661 · 2011-09-19 04:17 · Score: 1

Its going to be hard to get people to side with the Klingons, everyone loves Chewie. I agree though, a Klingon would be a formidable opponent against ANY humanoid

--
Good-bye
Re:Not an issue. by __aancvu2993 · 2011-09-19 04:25 · Score: 0

Star Wars is an steaming pile of crummy stereotypes, awful storytelling, horrible character development and who knows what else if I cared to pay any more attention. The three movies feel like Lucas was kicking a rotten dog around pretending it was alive and moving by itself; the characters do what's dramatically needed for each moment with flamboyant disregard to the slightest consistency. I liked it when I was a young girl. Leia is cool and outspoken. Vader and his cocoon and his evil deeds are... or were... interesting. R2 is always conveniently rolling on a patch of flat ground, never mind that everyone else is climbing a sand dune or negotiating rocks... come on. Some bits of cool dialogue here and there but it's mainly nonsense. I can't bear to watch them anymore. Why is it that they have strong AI in the form of C3PO and the rebels have to pilot the X-wings themselves? Guided bombs anyone? Spaceballs is actually better than Star Wars.
If anyone wants it (I don't see it torrented anymore, I might be wrong), I have the pre-special edition laserdisc rips of the first three movies, in all their fuzzy glory, where Han shoots first and Vader doesn't yell 'Nooooo' when he trows the emperor down, etc. I keep them to mortify the spirit of GL forever.
Re:Not an issue. by X3J11 · 2011-09-19 04:28 · Score: 1

Sisko: Better than all of the above.
For whatever reason, I couldn't stand Brooks' delivery. He may be a terrific actor, but I hated the Sisko character because of the way he delivered his lines.
Kirk all the way.
Re:Not an issue. by Belial6 · 2011-09-19 04:36 · Score: 1

I'm just wondering how the battle between Bester and Chekov would turn out. If Bester won, would he cease to exist?
Re:Not an issue. by bryan1945 · 2011-09-19 05:14 · Score: 1

Ivanova

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:Not an issue. by bryan1945 · 2011-09-19 05:15 · Score: 1

Goram

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:Not an issue. by pjabardo · 2011-09-19 05:21 · Score: 1

Luke??? Any one on slashdot would beat the fsck out of him.
Re:Not an issue. by thePuck77 · 2011-09-19 05:25 · Score: 1

Yup. A few TOS episodes (Charlie X, The Empath, etc) had people with mental abilities, and once Spock and Kirk replicated the conditions, they gained the abilities (Plato's Stepchildren). They would have looked down on the idea that people used these abilities and a religion surrounding them to essentially create a theocracy. Even in the Old Republic and Clone War eras, if you're a Jedi you're automatically a general...wtf? A padawan is a general? She's like 15!

--
"We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be." - Joss Whedon via Angel
Re:Not an issue. by tnk1 · 2011-09-19 06:38 · Score: 1

Even in the Old Republic and Clone War eras, if you're a Jedi you're automatically a general...wtf? A padawan is a general? She's like 15!
Even though having a 15 year old as a general makes little sense, it should be pointed out that the Republic seemed like it had almost zero deployable military forces of its own, at least in the era just before the Empire. That's why they needed a Clone army. And if there is a very small army, there's few trained Republic officers either, except for the Jedi, who had basically been fulfilling the role of a sort of police force for them. I just assumed that the Jedi were installed as generals because the Republic didn't want the Clones to run the war themselves, even though they were probably quite capable of it.
What makes even less sense than a 15 year old general, is a galaxy-spanning Republic with no serious military forces of its own. You'd think that rebellions over that amount of space would be pretty much a daily occurrence.
Re:Not an issue. by CrispyZorro · 2011-09-19 07:17 · Score: 1

Jim would beat the fsck out of Solo with both hands tied behind his back.
That would depend on the director. If Abrams directs, Jim would easily kill Solo. Same goes for Solo in a Lucas film. However, Lucas would release an updated version years later where Greedo blasts Kirk from somewhere else in the bar.
Re:Not an issue. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 08:02 · Score: 0

"Did you just call Han Solo a bitch?" - Fanboys
Re:Not an issue. by thePuck77 · 2011-09-19 08:27 · Score: 1

No serious military forces, no manageable infrastructure, a single banking cartel, a single trade cartel, etc. It's even less reasonable than Herbert's galaxy-spanning feudalism; in that case, at least, nodes of infrastructure surrounding a noble family basically dealt with their own affairs. It's reasonable to manage one planet, so long as you have the right technology and people. But a republic (or an empire) with a single governmental structure spanning an entire galaxy with almost no real infrastructure? Not possible.

--
"We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be." - Joss Whedon via Angel
Re:Not an issue. by Homr+Zodyssey · 2011-09-19 08:35 · Score: 1

Ok, I recognize frak, frell (should be "drin") and smeg...but wtf is feldercarb?
Re:Not an issue. by Homr+Zodyssey · 2011-09-19 08:37 · Score: 1

Captain Mal could kick all of their butts.
Re:Not an issue. by lennier · 2011-09-19 16:33 · Score: 1

Get Obi Wan to try and convince Spock that midichlorians exist. It'll end in bloodshed, red or green.
(pulls out tricorder, raises eyebrow)
"Fascinating. This lifeform appears to possess a symbiotic micichloronic parasite in its circulatory system which acts as a naturally evolved psionic amplifier. I speculate that this is the cause of its paranormal martial prowess. Perhaps if we were to obtain a sample of the creature's blood we could reverse the polarity of the neutron flux by rerouting the shield projection dish through a trilithium carbonite matrix- "
"Reverse my polarity you would, hmm? Reverse the shiny end of my lightsaber your red-shirted ensign up you shall! Yes!"

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Not an issue. by admiralZ · 2011-09-19 22:42 · Score: 1

Felgercarb from the original Battlestar: Galactica television series, was used as a censor-approved substitute for "bullsh!t". For your perusal: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Felgercarb#Language
Re:Not an issue. by startslow · 2011-09-20 04:19 · Score: 1

can't stop laughing
Re:Not an issue. by varience · 2011-09-20 06:33 · Score: 1

kirk would have his "always pressed suit" handed to him in under two seconds if he went up against Yoda. Face facts even with his Phazer Yoda would simply block the attack and toss him across the room with a force push. DON'T MESS WITH THE GREEN MAN

Denny Crane says by said213 · 2011-09-19 01:37 · Score: 2

Phaser control is for communists.

--
help me fix this "Terrible" karma, please!

Re:Denny Crane says by 517714 · 2011-09-19 05:58 · Score: 1

Phaser control is how you hit your target, while phaser settings are like those on the microwave oven - set to maximum and wish that there was more power.

--
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Re:Denny Crane says by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 11:41 · Score: 0

Remember that Phaser Control means using two hands

No big surprise by dkleinsc · 2011-09-19 01:39 · Score: 1

William Shatner thinks the work he's done far outweighs the work of, say, Harrison Ford.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Re:No big surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 01:46 · Score: 0

Captain Kirk vs. Han Solo
TJ Hooker vs. Indiana Jones
Denny Crane vs. Jack Ryan
I think Harrison has the edge with Indiana but Shatner did win an Emmy for Crane. Looks pretty even to me.
Re:No big surprise by ChinggisK · 2011-09-19 01:50 · Score: 2

As of July 2008, the United States domestic box office grosses of Ford's films total almost US$3.4 billion, with worldwide grosses surpassing $6 billion, making Ford the third highest grossing U.S. domestic box-office star.
-Wikipedia
Re:No big surprise by elrous0 · 2011-09-19 01:54 · Score: 1

Shatner was always a much bigger star in the universe he lives in, versus the universe the rest of us live in.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:No big surprise by Hognoxious · 2011-09-19 01:59 · Score: 1

Third after Shatner and Chuck Norris. Am I right, sir?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:No big surprise by MightyMartian · 2011-09-19 02:06 · Score: 1

Shatner wins hands down. No one else has ever so effectively announced themselves as Denny Crane. "Denny Crane!"
Besides, as much as Harrison Ford really has become something of a cultural icon through Solo and Indiana Jones, let's face it, the Shat was Captain Kirk. I mean, really, think about it, he was Captain Fucking Kirk. Maybe for the newer generation that don't mean much, but for a kid who watched Star Trek reruns every Sunday afternoon with his brother and his old man, and pretty much every other male member of the family who happened to be around, well, Captain Kirk loomed large on the horizon.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:No big surprise by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-09-19 02:11 · Score: 1

He's right.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No big surprise by Dunbal · 2011-09-19 02:30 · Score: 1

William Shatner certainly outweighs Harrison Ford. By about 80 lbs, I'd guess.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:No big surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:34 · Score: 0

I'm guessing you don't use linux.
Re:No big surprise by Zcar · 2011-09-19 02:40 · Score: 1

You mean in the universe where he, in his red Ford Explorer, almost ran my girlfriend and me down in the parking lot of a local shopping center? I think the universes almost crossed that day.
Re:No big surprise by slapout · 2011-09-19 02:57 · Score: 1

Esp when you add in the weight of all those hair pieces...

--
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Re:No big surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 03:06 · Score: 0

And most people think Star Trek is the only thing Shatner was on. Let me tell you about a little show called The Twilight Zone, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Howdy Doody, Gun Smoke, Mission Impossible, Kung Fu, The Six Million Dollar man.... this list could go on and on and on. and thats just the stuff BEFORE Star Trek.
Re:No big surprise by SvnLyrBrto · 2011-09-19 03:08 · Score: 1

Yes. But Shatner doesn't have the handicap of a Zombie Gene Roddenberry shuffling around doing his best to ruin Shatner's past roles. That counts for a lot when Lucas is doing think like make Han Solo into a little bitch by having Greedo shoot first, and Indiana Jones into a... well... a part of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
(Honestly... Shia Labouf? Really? That no-talent sack of crap doesn't deserve to be allowed to enter within a 100 mile radius of Harrison Ford, much less accompany him on screen. Couldn't they have just hunted down that kid who played Short Round?)

--
Imagine all the people...
Re:No big surprise by drinkypoo · 2011-09-19 03:28 · Score: 1

William Shatner thinks the work he's done far outweighs the work of, say, Harrison Ford.
Aren't they basically both the same guy? Except, Harry Ford was less paunchy for most of his life. Neither one is really an actor, they're both fantastic emoters who are fun to watch on screen. Harrison Ford IS Harrison Ford IN Another action movie. William Shatner IS William Shatner IN Another... William... Shatner... Movie.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:No big surprise by Vectormatic · 2011-09-19 03:28 · Score: 1

i've seen my share of TOS, but shatner completely lost any respect i had for him with all the shitty sit-coms he's doing. I wasnt a fan of him in third rock from the sun, but i watched him in "shit my dad says" last week, and the guy just cant act...

--
People, what a bunch of bastards
Re:No big surprise by vranash · 2011-09-19 03:47 · Score: 1

Honestly that's probably the best question I've heard in regards to Indiana Jones in a good decade. Bravo Sir! Anybody imdb him?
Re:No big surprise by CapuchinSeven · 2011-09-19 04:31 · Score: 1

Well, get the fuck out of the mans way then.
Re:No big surprise by said213 · 2011-09-19 04:32 · Score: 1

Just a minor point of order here:
The Six Million Dollar Man and Kung Fu both occurred after the original Star Trek series had concluded.

--
help me fix this "Terrible" karma, please!
Re:No big surprise by MightyMartian · 2011-09-19 04:33 · Score: 1

Not to mention that he was a trained Shakespearean actor. Roddenberry, though he had his problems with Bill Shatner (and visa versa) was still willing to admit in later years that getting him for Star Trek was quite a coupe. The fact was that Shatner has got some of his bad name from the fact that he acted in a helluva lot of crap, but like any actor who isn't in the stratosphere, he had to work for a bloody living, and it meant he couldn't be too picky about the scripts he auditioned for. He had a family to feed.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:No big surprise by gknoy · 2011-09-19 04:34 · Score: 1

Jonathan Ke Quan
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0702841/
"(2002) He is now a martial artist and working as a stunt coordinator, recently worked with Jet Li on 'The One'"
That's pretty cool.
Re:No big surprise by MightyMartian · 2011-09-19 04:34 · Score: 1

Labouf was fucking awful, and I think he, more than anyone else, dragged down Crystal Skull. This is a guy who should stick to doing Transformers movies, it matches his (lack of) range perfectly.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:No big surprise by gknoy · 2011-09-19 04:35 · Score: 1

In short, it's possible to see him as absolutely iconic in the role of Kirk, an awesome character that we love, while still feeling that he doesn't act well. (I don't think he acts poorly, but he seems to have a reputation or a stereotype. Otherwise, Galaxy Quest wouldn't have been so funny.)
Re:No big surprise by jedidiah · 2011-09-19 04:42 · Score: 1

Were they piddly little guest staring roles?
If so then WHO CARES really. Tons of people have a lot of guest starring roles. This includes most of the "little people" that were on Trek. Although a few went onto bigger and better things.
20 years of bit parts in TV shows is nothing to brag about.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:No big surprise by said213 · 2011-09-19 05:07 · Score: 1

Specifically, as this is a discussion involving Shatner... I would wager a guess that Shatner fans care.
I know it's Monday and people tend to not like them very much, but there's no call for being salty about trivia.
It's okay to move along. =)

--
help me fix this "Terrible" karma, please!
Re:No big surprise by Vectormatic · 2011-09-19 05:10 · Score: 1

oh true, i can appreciate him as Kirk, but i cant for the life of me understand why we should care what he has to say about ST vs SW

--
People, what a bunch of bastards
Re:No big surprise by ananamouse · 2011-09-19 05:48 · Score: 1

I saw Shatner live, solo, in a very small venue in the mid 70's. The man can perform. He defined performance that night. Do not forget, "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet," or his performance in the Hallmark version of "The Glass Menangerie." Shatner is an elemental.
Re:No big surprise by elrous0 · 2011-09-19 05:52 · Score: 3, Funny

Well, that's what you and your girlfriend get for wearing red shirts that day.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:No big surprise by Homr+Zodyssey · 2011-09-19 08:45 · Score: 1

I think you bring up a good point.
James T. Kirk vs. Han Solo => Chuck Norris wins.
Spock vs. Obiwan => Chuck Norris wins.
Worf vs. Chewacca => Chuck Norris wins.
Q vs. Chuck Norris => Chuck Norris wins.
Re:No big surprise by Homr+Zodyssey · 2011-09-19 08:48 · Score: 1

No, I think the writers (George Lucas et al) did way more damage than Labouf.
Re:No big surprise by Homr+Zodyssey · 2011-09-19 08:49 · Score: 1

I think he did an excellent job as Denny Crane. I think its the only thing he ever did an excellent job at...
Re:No big surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 09:00 · Score: 0

"The Shat"
That term made me laugh, mostly because I'm used to "shat" being used as a past tense form of "shit", as in "I shat my pants".
Re:No big surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 10:56 · Score: 0

William Shatner thinks the work he's done far outweighs the work of, say, Harrison Ford.
William Shatner thinks, the work he's done far, outweighs, the work of, Shakespeare.
Re:No big surprise by vranash · 2011-09-19 13:45 · Score: 1

Yeah real bummer imdb doesn't have more on what he's been doing. Makes him sound even more perfect for a new Indiana Jones though. All grown up with martial arts skills and as we saw in ToD: more sense than Indy to begin with! :)
Re:No big surprise by mcvos · 2011-09-20 00:05 · Score: 1

What? Harrison Ford was the only real actor that Star Wars had! Well, and Sir Alec Guinness of course, but he died.
I'm firmly convinced that Harrison Ford saved Star Wars. Look at the movies that don't have him in them. Look at the scenes that don't have him in them.
Re:No big surprise by Hognoxious · 2011-09-21 09:31 · Score: 1

Anyone vs WOPR, double lose: the only winning move is not to play.
Chuck Norris wins again!

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

kids these days by rwa2 · 2011-09-19 01:39 · Score: 1

I'm deeply saddened that I can't get my kids to watch either.

Well, they like the Clone Wars CGI/cartoon, but I don't think that counts.

Where have I gone wrong?!

(OTOH, the son developed an early interest in astronomy from watching the Titanic II get sucked into a black hole in Futurama, but had to cut him off of that because of most of the other age-inappropriate content :-/ )

Re:kids these days by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 01:48 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Congratulations, your kids will get laid.
Re:kids these days by elrous0 · 2011-09-19 01:56 · Score: 1

Your dad was probably equally sad he couldn't get you to watch Gunsmoke or Big Valley. Welcome to the generational divide.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:kids these days by MightyMartian · 2011-09-19 02:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Okay, I can see your point on Star Trek and Star Wars, but Hitchcock? Anyone who watches Rear Window or Vertigo and doesn't get a sense of the brilliance of Hitchcock has got serious issues. Yes, there were throwaways like The Birds (although the scene where the hero tries to get into that upstairs bedroom still gives me the heebeejeebies), but the great Hitchcock films, well they really are spectacles. I mean, come on, Hitchcock is the guy that managed to turn Jimmy Stewart from his various shades of nice guy into one of the great psychologically damaged anti-heroes in the history of film. Wake me up when someone can do the same for, say, Tom Hanks.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:kids these days by gilleain · 2011-09-19 02:11 · Score: 1

Uh, where do you think his kids came from?
Transporter accident?
Re:kids these days by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-09-19 02:13 · Score: 1

2009 isn't recent enough?

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:kids these days by Digital+Vomit · 2011-09-19 02:14 · Score: 1

Transporter accident?

--
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Re:kids these days by somersault · 2011-09-19 02:21 · Score: 4, Informative

The reason they're special is because they were very original for their time, and if it weren't for them then the subsequent copiers wouldn't even exist. I've never seen any Hitchcock, but I still love a bit of Star Trek. Stargate SG-1 and Firefly are about the only sci-fi series I'd consider better than any of the Star Treks (pre Enterprise anyway, I didn't see that).
There have been some good sci-fi movies in the last 20 years, but the original Star Wars trilogy definitely are still awesome. They have lightsabers and speeder bikes. Enough said.
Plus, I didn't even ever listen to the Beatles until Beatles Rock Band came out, but now that I've heard more of their music I have to say they're pretty damn good. Definitely a lot better than most other music from that era, and still a lot better than most music today.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:kids these days by LoP_XTC · 2011-09-19 02:34 · Score: 1

Uh, where do you think his kids came from?
Found under a pool table in box marked "Our Rob or Ross" ...

--
"Curiouser and Curiouser...." -Alice
Re:kids these days by mikael_j · 2011-09-19 02:42 · Score: 1

So they have no personal hygiene, listen to rastabilly skank and are their own parents?

--
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Re:kids these days by Evtim · 2011-09-19 02:43 · Score: 1

Really? Say that for Chaplin and Kurosawa since you are at it....
Agreed, some of the clasics are not that great but 7 samurai is THE action movie of all time and the Great Dictator is THE movie of all time. The rest of their works is also briliant (Rashomon and Modern Times spring immediately in mind...)
Re:kids these days by moozey · 2011-09-19 02:58 · Score: 1

Oh come on, The Beatles aren't anything special? That's the biggest joke I've heard in a long, long time. They're not the most influential band of all time simply because they were around when rock and roll was (arguably) at its prime. They were innovators. I'd be willing to bet they've done more for the music world than Lucas and Hitchcock have done for film. If they were around today, sure, maybe they wouldn't garner the exact mainstream success that they had (not because of the quality of their music, but more so due to the state of current mainstream music scene), but they'd still be critically acclaimed to no end. Not to mention generation after generation are discovering their music and finding an appreciation for it- something I guarantee will keep on happening for years to come.
As for Alfred Hitchcock, Dial M For Murder is a sweet film.
Re:kids these days by DinDaddy · 2011-09-19 03:05 · Score: 2

Yeah, all those things suck compared to my favorite story, The Troll Who Hated Everything.
Re:kids these days by fermion · 2011-09-19 03:11 · Score: 1

I watched The Bicycle Thieves the other day on the big screen. Beautiful movie. And not just becuase it is often cited as the best movie ever made. The story, the photography, the acting, it really good. The guy who plays Bruno is just excellent. Saw Lion King 3d as well. It was a gimmick, most shots were only gratuitous 3D, did not make it a better movie.
Both of these are movies reflecting a time. Thieves has an artistic quality for those who want and appreciate that in a movie. Lion Kind can only really be appreciated by those who were kids or had kids at the time of the release. It is not really the example of any particular genre, or the last of a genre.
Star Trek and Star Wars are both primary examples or two ways of doing sci fi in video. Star Trek is the Odyssey while Star Wars is more generic greek tragedy. One is about exploration of the world, something we do as geeks, the other exploration and justification of the self, something that is done by humanities people. They were both examples of classical forms suited for a particular time. I don't sit down and repeatedly watch either as I would Casablanca, or Go, or Blade Runner.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:kids these days by Vectormatic · 2011-09-19 03:30 · Score: 1

Stargate SG-1 and Firefly are about the only sci-fi series I'd consider better than any of the Star Treks (pre Enterprise anyway, I didn't see that).
Forget about enterprise, and watch battlestar galatica, for FSMs sake!

--
People, what a bunch of bastards
Re:kids these days by anagama · 2011-09-19 03:32 · Score: 0

While the Beatles may have been influential or whatever, none of that lessens the fact that they are the most overplayed band in the history of the known universe.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:kids these days by MarkvW · 2011-09-19 03:43 · Score: 1

Mighty Martian: I think World War II changed Jimmy Stewart from his various shades of nice guy into "great psychologically damaged anti heroes in the history of film" more than Hitchcock did. He flew combat bombing missions. That would tend to change a man.
There is an even better counterpoint. I would argue that the Anthony Mann westerns, more than the Hitchcock films, exposed Stewart's diversity before the Hitchcock films. Look at films like Winchester '73, for example.
I would argue that Hitchcock was at his best when he worked with a star whom he couldn't totally control. Hitchcock films were not as good when Hitchcock was a puppetmaster--and he was a puppetmaster way too much. Compare him to Billy Wilder, who was also really tight on the written word but who was much more of a collaborative artist.
But as to your main point: Comparing Lucas with Hitchcock? The two are not even in the same league. I totally agree with you.
Re:kids these days by goose-incarnated · 2011-09-19 03:47 · Score: 1

Sometimes talent shines through, regardless of the technological hurdles. See "12 Angry Men" and, if you're up to an emotionally ragged piece of work, "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf". No movie I've seen in the last 5 years has come anywhere close to "12 Angry Men".

--
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Re:kids these days by Hatta · 2011-09-19 04:02 · Score: 2

There's age-inappropriate content in Futurama? Where?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:kids these days by MightyMartian · 2011-09-19 04:05 · Score: 2

Still, to my mind, Rear Window and Vertigo stand at the very summit of Hitchcock's work. Rear Window because I don't think any film before or since has so successfully embedded the viewer into the story, we are literally invited to share the binoculars with Jimmy Stewart, and become just as impotent as he is. And Vertigo because, well, as far as psychological thrillers go, it's one of the greats. It was certainly one of Stewart's great performances (and this was a man who had no lack of great performances under his belt).
Even some of the earlier material, like Rope and Dial M For Murder are extremely effective thrillers. Dial M For Murder has had its imitators, but none have really come close.
The Hitchcock films I've tired of, to be honest with you, are the quickies like the Birds, and probably Psycho as well, mainly because it's become a cliche (not its fault of course).
As to Wilder, well, he's pretty much my favorite Hollywood director. I hadn't watched Some Like It Hot for the first time in about fifteen years a few months ago, and what a wicked wicked comedy it is. And of course, one of my all-time favorite films is Double Indemnity.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:kids these days by ElectricTurtle · 2011-09-19 04:31 · Score: 1

Seven Samurai the best action movie? Really? Seven Samurai is an excellent film, but less so for its action and far more so for its frank portrayal of peasant life in pre-industrial Japan and the development of the various characters so deeply and completely that one feels one knows them as actual human beings (which is Kurosawa's strength in most of his films and why his legacy is so significant).

If action is the primary dimension under which the film is judged I think it falls far short of many films. I think of it more as an excellent period drama that happens to conclude with a big battle.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Re:kids these days by ElectricTurtle · 2011-09-19 04:40 · Score: 1

Agreed, 12 Angry Men is no less than character acting as art in itself, and its laser focus makes every tiny thing outside of the actors themselves have an impact... the claustrophobic space, the perception of heat, etc.

It makes me sick to see how many movies have thrown out any regard for acting talent and thoughtful cinematography in favor of naught more than some shiny polygons that don't even impress anybody anymore because people just think 'oh more CGI ho hum'.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Re:kids these days by MarkvW · 2011-09-19 04:41 · Score: 1

I think Vertigo is, and always will be, a perfect movie.
George Lucas has a way to go before he gets there!
Re:kids these days by Belial6 · 2011-09-19 04:48 · Score: 1

Enterprise was WAY better than BSG. BSG was cool in the same way that Marlyn Manson was cool. As in a couple of people sat at a table with a pad and paper and wrote down everything they thought would be "edgy". Then they tried to mash it into a show. Here is a rule of thumb. When you steal characters from Voyager, your writers suck.
Re:kids these days by Bucky24 · 2011-09-19 05:06 · Score: 1

they are the most overplayed band in the history of the known universe.
That really doesn't make them less awesome. Just overplayed (and I do agree they are overplayed).

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:kids these days by somersault · 2011-09-19 05:35 · Score: 1

Damn, forgot about BSG. Definitely should be in that list :p When I said sci-fi I guess I did really mean "sci-fi in space" - there have been some other entertaining non-space sci-fi shows over the years.. The Sarah Connor Chronicles deserves a mention!

--
which is totally what she said
Re:kids these days by LoP_XTC · 2011-09-19 05:56 · Score: 1

So they have no personal hygiene, listen to rastabilly skank and are their own parents?
Sounds like family planning for young /.'ers ....

--
"Curiouser and Curiouser...." -Alice
Re:kids these days by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-09-19 06:25 · Score: 1

Just try again when they are older. My dad tried to get me to watch American Graffiti and Cool Hand Luke and I hated them when I was younger. I still don't like American Graffiti but am able to respect it for what it is. I do like Cool Hand Luke but my wife just hates it because as she puts it "It is just a story and there isn't any point".

--
Time to offend someone
Re:kids these days by moozey · 2011-09-19 19:34 · Score: 1

Agreed. How often they're played is not an indication of poor song writing... quite the opposite.

Fanboy rage! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 01:40 · Score: 0

Where's that Ars Technica article that explains fanboi-ism? Because it's very appropriate right here.

Seriously, who gives a shit. I like both on a good day ( Star Trek 2/4/6 and Episode 4-6) and hate both on a bad one (Voyager and Episode 1)

Re:Fanboy rage! by Tridus · 2011-09-19 01:52 · Score: 2

Over here. And you're right, it is highly relevant.
We also need a link telling us what Shatner thinks about his interview being slashdotted.

--
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates

This was posted everywhere else last week? by DJRikki · 2011-09-19 01:41 · Score: 0

Stories taking a bit longer to appear on the old /. these days

Re:This was posted everywhere else last week? by ChinggisK · 2011-09-19 01:46 · Score: 0

Stories taking a bit longer to appear on the old /. these days
You must be new here.
Re:This was posted everywhere else last week? by said213 · 2011-09-19 01:52 · Score: 0

They make up for it with unlimited free duplicate articles!

--
help me fix this "Terrible" karma, please!

c'mon by fredmunge · 2011-09-19 01:43 · Score: 0

...get a life! W. Shattner

Trek fans are like WW2 vets... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 01:44 · Score: 0

....they are slowly dying away...." - George Lucas.

it's simple by burris · 2011-09-19 01:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Outsiders don't care about the differences in the movie/show, they just see that the fans are all the same. Just like people who aren't hippies don't see any difference between the Grateful Dead and Phish, or people that aren't Christians don't care too much about the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism, or Shiites vs. Sunnis, or Republicans vs. Democrats, or furries vs. panty sniffers (oh crap did I go too far?)

Re:it's simple by Trepidity · 2011-09-19 01:50 · Score: 1

Also, the names are sort of similar, so it's easy to get confused between the "Star something thing" if you don't pay much attention to these things.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re:it's simple by elrous0 · 2011-09-19 01:58 · Score: 1

Star...something...something...dark side...something...something...complete.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:it's simple by Jonner · 2011-09-19 07:25 · Score: 1

Outsiders don't care about the differences in the movie/show, they just see that the fans are all the same. Just like people who aren't hippies don't see any difference between the Grateful Dead and Phish, or people that aren't Christians don't care too much about the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism, or Shiites vs. Sunnis, or Republicans vs. Democrats, or furries vs. panty sniffers (oh crap did I go too far?)
That explanation would be appropriate when comparing Star Trek and Babylon 5. It's not appropriate when comparing Star Trek and Star Wars because they're so different. Star Wars is not Science Fiction. It's Fantasy that happens to have space ships. Star Wars is derivative; not of Star Trek, but of 1930s adventure serials and prototypical myths from many cultures. Star Wars intentionally draws on universal themes to appeal to everyone and I have no problem with that. Star Trek often has themes that appeal to a smaller audience which I also appreciate. I agree with the author of TFA that it doesn't make much sense to compare them head to head.
Re:it's simple by Chelloveck · 2011-09-19 07:51 · Score: 2

Remember, furries exist to give trekkies someone to look down on.

--
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Re:it's simple by tmarsh86 · 2011-09-19 08:36 · Score: 1

That explanation would be appropriate when comparing Star Trek and Babylon 5. It's not appropriate when comparing Star Trek and Star Wars because they're so different. Star Wars is not Science Fiction. It's Fantasy that happens to have space ships. Star Wars is derivative; not of Star Trek, but of 1930s adventure serials and prototypical myths from many cultures. Star Wars intentionally draws on universal themes to appeal to everyone and I have no problem with that. Star Trek often has themes that appeal to a smaller audience which I also appreciate. I agree with the author of TFA that it doesn't make much sense to compare them head to head.
Star Trek is fantasy, as well. It cloaks itself in pseudo-science pretty well to cover that, but it's just as true.
Re:it's simple by burris · 2011-09-19 08:51 · Score: 1

Star Track and Star Wars are exactly the same thing: badly acted sci-fi with nerdy fans that like to dress up.

God Main-stream Action Sucks by eldavojohn · 2011-09-19 01:48 · Score: 3

Star Wars is too.. main-stream action.

Yeah. But then this happened.

--
My work here is dung.

Re:God Main-stream Action Sucks by shawn(at)fsu · 2011-09-19 03:59 · Score: 1

Best fight scene ever put down on film!
Oh and at least Star Trek doesn't go back and edit Kirk so that He takes the girl out to dinner, walks her to her house, leaves her at her door and promises to call her later.

--
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Re:God Main-stream Action Sucks by Belial6 · 2011-09-19 04:22 · Score: 1

I just finished re-watching the entire Star Trek series on Netflix Streaming. Yes. They did go back and edit them. I don't think they changed the content, but the crappy CGI that put in all over the place is painful to watch.
Re:God Main-stream Action Sucks by PCM2 · 2011-09-19 07:10 · Score: 1

I actually disagree on this score. I thought the CG was pretty tastefully done. Where it was weak was in that it was occasionally inconsistent (they changed some of their models halfway through the project). A little nostalgia value was lost, but having watched video releases of Star Trek for a while now, a lot of the original masters were in pretty bad shape. Particularly on FX shots such as shots of the Enterprise, colors were faded out and the tapes were showing their age. The CG wasn't designed to change the look of the original show but to restore it. That said, the important part is that you can still get the original versions if you prefer (unlike Star Wars).

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:God Main-stream Action Sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-21 00:09 · Score: 0

Speaking of CGI sucking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJI7xEK2aXM

Why do we need some sort of competition? by 91degrees · 2011-09-19 01:52 · Score: 2

One of them is a series of sci-fi films (with a few TV series, book and comic spin-offs), the other is a TV series (with a few TV series, book, comic and film spin-offs). Both enjoyable to fans of the science fiction genre. Both significantly different from each other as to make them worthy in their own rights.

I like roast chicken and prawn curry. I don't feel the need to establish one as superior.

Re:Why do we need some sort of competition? by Rogerborg · 2011-09-19 02:24 · Score: 1

I don't feel the need to establish one as superior.
That's just the sort of peacenik pinko-drivel I'd expect to hear from a Bablyon 5 fan. J'accuse.
Correction: one of them is a series of SF films, the other is a documentary.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Why do we need some sort of competition? by Jmc23 · 2011-09-19 02:56 · Score: 1

Does your bad use of french have some slang meaning? Because it doesn' make any sense in french.

--
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Re:Why do we need some sort of competition? by Mindcontrolled · 2011-09-19 03:49 · Score: 1

Here, get some education thrown in for free.
J'accuse

--
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Re:Why do we need some sort of competition? by Jmc23 · 2011-09-19 03:59 · Score: 1

Wow, you can look things up on wiki. How does this make any sense in the context of what he said? I speak french fluently which is why I asked if there was a slang meaning because US'ians frequently use french words to mean different things, usually with horrible spelling and pronounciation.

--
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Re:Why do we need some sort of competition? by ElectricTurtle · 2011-09-19 04:52 · Score: 1

You see when William the Bastard took over England with a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys (who only won because Harold Godwinson had just finished spanking a sizable Viking incursion) and made the English speak French, they set the stage for the complete destruction of the French language by English-speakers over time. There are many borrowed words and phrases which have evolved different meanings and pronunciations in English from their French roots.

Giving the historical background it is wholly laughable that you are trying to stick Americans with the guilt for something that happened before transatlantic voyages were even possible.

Though this criticism is primary directed at your general point of "because US'ians frequently use french words to mean different things, usually with horrible spelling and pronounciation." J'accuse specifically does not have a history tied to linguistic intermingling following the Norman Conquest, per se.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Re:Why do we need some sort of competition? by gv250 · 2011-09-19 05:35 · Score: 1

I like roast chicken and prawn curry. I don't feel the need to establish one as superior.
Philistine. It's so clear which one is better, I can't imagine why you refuse to name it. Perhaps you secretly dislike both.
Re:Why do we need some sort of competition? by Shadowmist · 2011-09-22 12:11 · Score: 1

It's the nature of internet fandom in an era where talk is effortless, cheap, and without any form of consequence. It's the inherent need to feel superior by bashing someone else, or at least the choices they made.
Re:Why do we need some sort of competition? by 91degrees · 2011-09-22 19:39 · Score: 1

Interesting idea.

I've had the impression that this comes more from outside - a media obsessed with conflict - or just from a small minority of fans.

In real life, I know few who love one and hate the other. Thing is, anything with spaceships and ray guns will be given a shot by most fans.

Bill Shatner by Ahab's+compliments · 2011-09-19 01:53 · Score: 0

is fat.

Re:Bill Shatner by iggymanz · 2011-09-19 04:11 · Score: 1

So what? He's 80 years old for pete's sake, and doing great. Working hard on his horse farm in Kentucky probably is good for health.

slashdotted by objekt · 2011-09-19 01:54 · Score: 1

but here's the youtube link to the actual interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BYNdTHjstI

--
-- Boycott Shell

Evolve vs. Devolve by koelpien · 2011-09-19 01:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

Star Wars devolves, Star Trek evolves. Look at that stupid "Clone Wars." My nine-year-old couldn't care less. Sad.

Re:Evolve vs. Devolve by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-09-19 02:21 · Score: 1

I tried to watch that one as I quite enjoyed the 2D animated shorts by Genndy Tartakovsky, but I found the character designs were incredibly off putting.
Re:Evolve vs. Devolve by heironymous · 2011-09-19 02:26 · Score: 1

I'm surprised by your comment. I actually find some of the stories from the Star Wars tv series to be better written, and far more poignant, than the movies
Re:Evolve vs. Devolve by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:34 · Score: 0

Just 'cause Spock nearly volcanized Uhura does not meat it "evolves"...
Re:Evolve vs. Devolve by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:49 · Score: 0

Counterpoint: Nemesis.
Re:Evolve vs. Devolve by MonsterTrimble · 2011-09-19 03:36 · Score: 1

Actually, I find Clone Wars some of the best Star Wars work ever done.

--
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
Re:Evolve vs. Devolve by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:31 · Score: 0

Surely you don't mean the Genndy Tartakovsky Clone Wars.
Re:Evolve vs. Devolve by gknoy · 2011-09-19 04:42 · Score: 1

Do you mean the Clone Wars film (2008), the Clone Wars TV show from 2008 (CGI), or the Clone Wars series from 2003? The 2003 series I liked a great bit, what little of it I got to see, but what reviews I read of the 2008 incarnations seemed to indicate a much lesser degree of quality.
Re:Evolve vs. Devolve by MonsterTrimble · 2011-09-19 05:02 · Score: 1

I was refering to the cartoon show (2008), although I actually enjoyed Episodes II and III. Episode I sucked terribly though.

--
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
Re:Evolve vs. Devolve by Xphile101361 · 2011-09-19 05:06 · Score: 1

I find a lot of them are better, though even better is the extras in which the production crew tells stories how Lucas is off the walls crazy. Of course he gets his way though.
Re:Evolve vs. Devolve by TheSpoom · 2011-09-19 06:08 · Score: 1

Enterprise. I'm a Star Trek fan, but I think that disproves your point.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:Evolve vs. Devolve by discord5 · 2011-09-19 06:50 · Score: 1

Star Wars devolves, Star Trek evolves
Trek evolved alright, but in a good way? I don't know.
I used to (and for a large part still do) love Star Trek. Some of the TNG episodes, and especially DS9 were damn fine storytelling. They had a couple of writers that didn't focus so much on "particle of the week" and those are the episodes of Star Trek I fondly remember. Take "In the Pale Moonlight" from DS9 for instance. It was probably the episode of DS9 that made me love the series so much.
Then came Voyager. You know, the premise had a lot of potential. There was so much opportunity for doing something with the whole Maquis vs Federation thing, but after a couple of episodes (and a few occasional hints) all of a sudden they were one big happy family. "Oh, looks like someone blew up another shuttle. It's okay, we'll just create a new one from thin air." And of course, the ultimate letdown was the ending where the Borg was utterly defeated by giving the ship futuristic plot armor (if I remember correctly, I couldn't bring myself to watch it again honestly).
Lastly, Enterprise... I gave up on that show pretty early on. It's a personal opinion, but after Voyager I felt like the cow had been milked dry, was sent to the butcher, and yet someone was trying to milk the steak now. I guess you could say I felt like it was time for Star Trek to take a long nap.
The film by JJ Abrams, was an okay film, but ... It's a whole different premise than the original Star Trek. It's like someone took the Star Trek universe, characters and all, mashed it down a blender and added Action Sauce and a pinch of Lensflare Powder. There's constantly people running, shouting, personal conflicts, ... And sure, TOS TNG and DS9 had that too, but it was either much more subtle or it had more of dramatic flair. I'm not saying it's bad (because all things considering, it wasn't a bad movie), just that it's a different atmosphere from what you've come to expect from Star Trek. Hell, if you would have never seen Star Trek, I'm pretty sure that you would go out of the theater finding it to be an awesome movie.
But if you take Wrath of Khan or First Contact (despite all their flaws), those movies feel a lot more like Trek than Abrams' movie did. Or maybe I'm just getting older and more critical, and fondly look back while wearing my nostalgia goggles. I still feel like Star Trek needs far far more rest than it was given.
Star Wars on the other hand... Yeah... Those took a turn for the worse. I doubt you'll find many people defending Lucas on that one.
Re:Evolve vs. Devolve by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 08:46 · Score: 0

My whole family sits enthralled by episode after episode of Star Trek. My wife, an extremely non-technical non-prhilosphical person, myself a very technical, business minded, and philosphical person, my daughter three years old (She-Ra fan), and my son who is eight years old, into video games, legos, and playing outside. We all love Star Trek, there is something for everyone. the characters are well developed and rich. Everything that is great about Star Trek has already been mentioned. Star Wars on the other hand is never played in my home. It simply is not at all interesting to us. I have never in my life made it through an entire Star Wars movies, I always get bored and go do somthing else.
Re:Evolve vs. Devolve by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 22:01 · Score: 0

But my 3yo thinks it's fricken awesome
Re:Evolve vs. Devolve by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 06:07 · Score: 0

Lucas's story telling abilities have devolved. Some of the books set after ROTJ actually have really interesting and compelling storylines. Lucas. rather than growing the universe as Star Trek has, is obsessed with making the originals better and is failing miserably at that task. The Trawn trilogy would make for an excellent movie/series. The "bad guy" isn't as stereotypical as in the movies. The new Star Trek film was a great and interesting retelling of the backstory that worked. It's time for Lucas to hand over the reigns to someone else. He has lost his magical touch.

Of course there's a difference by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 01:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Star Trek was science fiction. Star wars was science fantasy. If you don't know the difference you have to pay more attention.

Re:Of course there's a difference by heironymous · 2011-09-19 02:13 · Score: 2

I wouldn't even call Star Wars science fantasy, it's fantasy. Scotty on the other hand didn't become chief engineer because he was the son of the king of engineers.
Re:Of course there's a difference by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-09-19 02:17 · Score: 1

Star Trek was science fiction. Star wars was science fantasy. If you don't know the difference you have to pay more attention.
No, they are both science fantasy.
Re:Of course there's a difference by AshtangiMan · 2011-09-19 03:04 · Score: 1

Star Trek had some episodes that could easily be called SF (the half black half white one comes to mind for example), as well as some that were simply fantasy stories. But, SF could easily be viewed as a subset of fantasy . . . authors like Ursula K. LeGuin write both and they intermingle so much it is debatable exactly how to separate them. Usually it is some kind of technology metric that is the key, but in my opinion the technology is simply a device, and good SF can find other devices that will stage the examination just as effectively. Calling Star Wars anything close to the SF/Fantasy genre is misguided. It is simply a mediocre rehash of Joseph Campbells reluctant hero story line that has been done to death. It is more like Dances with Wolves than any good SF/Fantasy story. The fact that it is set in space in the future is what makes the drooling mouth breathers consider it to be science fiction of some kind. I would have compared it to Harry Potter except for those same people will likely call that fantasy . . . how long before we get some interview with JK Rowling about how her writing is comparable to Tolkein (arguably one of the best reluctant hero stories)?
Re:Of course there's a difference by DinDaddy · 2011-09-19 03:07 · Score: 1

Are you sure? I don't know Scotty's back story.
Re:Of course there's a difference by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 03:26 · Score: 0

No, they are both science fiction. And like the parent poster, I won't add anything at all to justify my statement.
Re:Of course there's a difference by Vectormatic · 2011-09-19 03:35 · Score: 1

well he got stranded on some icey outpost because he was only the stepchield of the deputy of the temporary night shift engineer of the local shuttle service shop, but then he beamed himself into the primary coolant loop of a starship travelling at warp speed, after some vulcan from the future give him the magic instructions, which is how he got the job.

--
People, what a bunch of bastards
Re:Of course there's a difference by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 03:35 · Score: 0

FYI, SF can stand for both Science Fiction and Science Fantasy.
Re:Of course there's a difference by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 03:35 · Score: 0

Star Trek was science fiction. Star wars was science fantasy. If you don't know the difference you have to pay more attention.
No, they are both science fantasy.
IMHO, fantasy involves anything with a "magic-y" component, which the Force originally was. Nothing in Star Trek is/was "magic-y": things may have seemed like it (i.e. Clarke's Third Law), but the underlying assumption was that things were technologically done.
Star Wars certainly had a lot of advanced technology (AI, FTL drives), but with the use of the Force in the original trilogy, you entered fantasy. The second trilogy introduce some kind of science-based explanation for the Force, but it was extremely lame, and basically an after thought IMHO.
Re:Of course there's a difference by Shadowmist · 2011-09-19 03:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Star Trek was science fiction. Star wars was science fantasy. If you don't know the difference you have to pay more attention.
Actually with all the wish fulfillment tech in Star Trek and things that simply just don't make sense, it's just as much science fantasy.... it just doesn't own up to it.
Re:Of course there's a difference by spire3661 · 2011-09-19 05:07 · Score: 1

God I was so pissed off at the 'water tube' scene in 'engineering'. Kirk glancing up at a turbine Scotty was headed for was jsut the worst.

--
Good-bye
Re:Of course there's a difference by spire3661 · 2011-09-19 05:08 · Score: 1

Heisenberg Compensators do not make it fantasy.

--
Good-bye
Re:Of course there's a difference by Bucky24 · 2011-09-19 05:10 · Score: 1

That was in the newer movie, which, as any good star trek fan will tell you, was an alternate universe (due to the time travelling thing). Not to say that his backstory in the original universe wasn't similar, but there's no way to be sure.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:Of course there's a difference by quacking+duck · 2011-09-19 05:16 · Score: 1

That's a retcon (or alt-con to be accurate).
A lot of character backstory in the recent "Star Trek" movie made no sense at all. My mom, who never really followed the original or any Trek series, saw the first scene with McCoy and Kirk together in the shuttle and remarked, Isn't the doctor supposed to be much older?
Re:Of course there's a difference by Darinbob · 2011-09-19 06:27 · Score: 1

I agree. Star Wars (the original before it became a franchise) was a space opera. It wasn't intended to be deep, it was an homage to those old style scifi movies and serials in some ways. There were some interesting cinematic stuff in Star Wars and groundbreaking in a lot of ways, but fundamentally it was a simple story done up in a more complex movie. Star Trek had a purpose behind it even from the start, to tell stories about people and what humanity may be like in the future. So Star Trek had more complex stories but done in a simple TV show.
Re:Of course there's a difference by MightyMartian · 2011-09-19 06:52 · Score: 1

A lot of the Vulcan voodoo stuff comes across as fantasy, although Star Trek's writers were neither the first SciFi writers to invoke telepathy. Asimov is generally considered to be on the hard SF side of things, and what is the Mule but a Jedi sans all the nifty martial arts moves? Heck, Herbert's Paul Atreides has mental powers far beyond even what Lucas inserted for the Jedi, and yet I don't think you'll see too many people calling Dune a fantasy book.
To some extent, even hard SciFi is going to go beyond the realms of what we know to be possible. Even tech like generation ships, if an SF author doesn't want to invoke magic FTL travel, are sufficiently beyond our technology to be considered almost magical.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Of course there's a difference by tnk1 · 2011-09-19 06:53 · Score: 1

I think there was dialogue that did at least indirectly allude to the fact that McCoy in the new movie is still older than Kirk, he just didn't look significantly older. The fact that they are on the same training ship is more like what you would get if an older man with specialized skills (a doctor) joined up later in life and ended up with the college kids on the cadet ship. It's not incredibly uncommon for older people to join up, even today, especially trained medical personnel.
Re:Of course there's a difference by tnk1 · 2011-09-19 07:12 · Score: 1

Trek is definitely a soft brand of science fiction, but it's not fantasy. Its technologies can be wildly speculative, even sound like gibberish, but it is rooted in science and scientific explanation. It is also handicapped a little by the fact that its speculation about technological progress is circa 1970 and so the shows tend to be caught in a little bit of a time warp when it comes to purporting to show a believable future for people who live 40 years later.
Star Wars is purely space fantasy, there's never even been an attempt to make it conform to actual science except the most familiar of requirements like food, water, gravity and oxygen for the humans. It's pretty easy to see this when you sense the discordant note that the whole "midicholorian" retcon introduced into the series. No one was clamoring for some sort of scientific explanation for The Force. It was even sort of a letdown for many fans. No one really wanted science to be involved in the magic powers of the Jedi at all.
Re:Of course there's a difference by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-09-19 07:51 · Score: 1

Hence the term "science fantasy" and not just "fantasy".
Re:Of course there's a difference by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-09-19 07:56 · Score: 1

Didn't think I really needed to with this audience. OK. Mind melds. Hand weapons with unrealizable energy densities. Same goes for warp drives that can fling a ship across interstellar distances. Humanoid aliens. Q. Mystical particle of the week. Shall I go on?
Re:Of course there's a difference by quacking+duck · 2011-09-19 08:23 · Score: 1

Yes, the dialogue that he'd just divorced hinted that he was a bit older than Kirk.
What's harder to reconcile is stuff like Chekov already an ensign, while Uhuru is still a cadet (in the original series she was already a lieutenant). And then of course an inexperienced (though gifted) cadet Kirk jumping several grades straight to captain.
Re:Of course there's a difference by lennier · 2011-09-19 16:48 · Score: 1

beamed himself into the primary coolant loop of a starship
Which, as is standard for all Federation starships, was filled entirely with freshly-brewed beer.
This is because the future is awesome.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Of course there's a difference by Vectormatic · 2011-09-19 17:47 · Score: 1

That's what i get for trying to be slightly funny in a trekkie thread, not a single +1 funny, but several people tripping over themselves to bitch about how the trek-reboot isnt canon and has all sorts of minor inconsistencies with TOS

--
People, what a bunch of bastards
Re:Of course there's a difference by mcvos · 2011-09-20 00:23 · Score: 1

I'd say Star Trek is far more science fiction than Star Wars, though that's mostly because of the style. Star Wars is the classic Good vs Evil epic, like Lord of the Rings. Star Trek is much more an extrapolation of our technology. But technologically, they don't differ all that much. Both have FTL travel, both have some supernatural powers (in Star Wars they take a more central role, though). Star Trek's biggest failing in this regard are the transporters; if you can disassemble something here and magically reassemble it there, then you should be able to create an entire army our of thin air, shouldn't you? Despite all the technobabble lending superficial credibility to it, Star Trek's tech isn't in any way more plausible than Star Wars' tech, and possibly even less so.
The big difference is mainly that Star Trek presents a reasonable though utopian extrapolation of our society, whereas Star Wars presents a completely invented galaxy of adventure.
Re:Of course there's a difference by mcvos · 2011-09-20 00:28 · Score: 1

Trek is definitely a soft brand of science fiction, but it's not fantasy. Its technologies can be wildly speculative, even sound like gibberish, but it is rooted in science and scientific explanation.
No, it's not. Its technology is rooted in a need to tell a story on a limited budget. Technologically, Star Trek is probably softer than Star Wars. It just pretends that it's not, because it gives the technology a more central role in the story. Star Wars' technology is for the most part probably harder than Star Trek's, but it receives less attention, because The Force takes central stage.
Re:Of course there's a difference by genner · 2011-09-20 00:34 · Score: 1

Are you sure? I don't know Scotty's back story.
Scotty was the chosen one foretold in prophesy.

Star Trek would win by chebucto · 2011-09-19 01:59 · Score: 2

The Imperial ships are much larger, but they have no shields. After a couple of dozen quantum torpedoes, they'd be burning wreckage. Heck, a runabout could just transport a torpedo into the bridge of a star destroyer and it'd be toast.

Their laser cannons might pack a punch, too, but all the federation ships would have to do is remodulate the shield frequencies, and they'd be useless.

--
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.

Re:Star Trek would win by nonsensical · 2011-09-19 02:07 · Score: 1

It takes about a month to cross the galaxy in an imperial star destroyer. There are 10,000+ imperial star destroyers. 3 can turn a standard earth sized planet into nothing but molten mayhem in about 12 hours. Conclusion, any of the normal Star Trek races loses any war very quickly.
Re:Star Trek would win by SocietyoftheFist · 2011-09-19 02:19 · Score: 1

I'm gonna pop some popcorn while you two work this one out.
Re:Star Trek would win by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:26 · Score: 0

Their shields are insignificant compared to the power of the force.
Re:Star Trek would win by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:27 · Score: 0

Star Trek ships are capable of time travel. Since it was never shown how many or how fast ships from either Star Trek or Star Wars could destroy a planet (comics or books for that Star Wars extended universe crap don't count, only the films and shows are canon), it's unknown which would be more effective.
Picard once said that lasers couldn't even penetrate the Enterprise's navigational shields. A Star Destroyer would be no match for any of the ships from Star Trek unless they were running away and even then a Star Trek ship could merely travel back in time and kill whoever they wanted before they were even born..
Re:Star Trek would win by Talderas · 2011-09-19 02:29 · Score: 2

Did you completely forget the scene in Episode VI where the snubfighters blow up the shield generator on the Executor after which an A-Wing plows through the bridge causing it to crash into the Death Star? Those spheres on all star destroyers are their shield generators.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Star Trek would win by Dachannien · 2011-09-19 02:32 · Score: 2

Imperial ships do have shields. From the script of Return of the Jedi, the following occurs just after Rebel fighters destroy the geodesic sphere-looking things atop the Executor's bridge:

128 INT VADER'S STAR DESTROYER - BRIDGE
Admiral Piett and a commander stand at the window, looking out to the battle. They look concerned.
CONTROLLER
Sir, we've lost our bridge deflector shield.
PIETT
Intensify the forward batteries. I don't want anything to get through.
The commander is looking out of the window where a damaged Rebel fighter is out of control and heading directly toward the bridge.
PIETT
Intensify forward firepower!
COMMANDER
It's too late!
The Rebel pilot screams as his ship hits the Star Destroyer, causing a huge explosion. The giant battle ship loses control, crashes into the Death Star, and explodes.

The big difference between the two is that Star Trek has very little in the way of fighter craft. There isn't much in the way of Star Trek canon to establish whether ships in that universe would have difficulty going up against a squadron of fighters, but Voyager got the crap kicked out of it by a few dozen supposedly obsolete fighters in one episode because the fighters were moving too fast to get a reliable shot on them.
Re:Star Trek would win by LWATCDR · 2011-09-19 02:52 · Score: 4, Funny

The federation used fighters in DS9 when they attacked Cardasia during the Dominon war. The big question I see is numbers. The Federation is pretty small when compared with the Empire. As to Voyager well it was way past refit and had not had any yard service re resupply for years. It was running on rubber bands and paper clips by that time.
And I can not believe that we are having this conversation.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Star Trek would win by ideonexus · 2011-09-19 02:56 · Score: 2

Reminds me of this classic ST VS SW mashup Enterprise VS Star Destroyer. : )

--
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
Re:Star Trek would win by LordSkippy · 2011-09-19 03:02 · Score: 1

Take a look at http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html and you'll realize that Slave-1, a bounty hunter's ship, could have made short work of the Enterprise-D. There really is no comparison between the two universes when it comes to ship to ship combat. The Federation wouldn't stand a chance against the Empire.
Comparing quality of writing and story telling, however, is a different argument. There's a lot more good Trek than there is good Star Wars.

--
My karma is in a nose dive
Re:Star Trek would win by DinDaddy · 2011-09-19 03:09 · Score: 1

No shields? Even the Millennium Falcon had shields. Of course the big imperial ships had shields.
They did not seem to be very good though.
Re:Star Trek would win by colinrichardday · 2011-09-19 03:21 · Score: 1

What about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNxhrPaaCA4
Re:Star Trek would win by drinkypoo · 2011-09-19 03:22 · Score: 1

Pretty sure this has been discussed to death before. Haven't made-up specs for all this stuff been published? Can't you just make a comparison of shield strength (p.s. All Star Wars ships except for basic TIE fighters have shields) and weapon output and then figure out whose shields would overload first in a typical battle? You'd need to compare fleet complements also; are we talking about the heyday of the empire, or after they've lost a death star?
It seems especially un-nerdly to not cite any specifications when making such a bold claim.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Star Trek would win by colinrichardday · 2011-09-19 03:23 · Score: 1

Star Trek ships are capable of time travel. Since it was never shown how many or how fast ships from either Star Trek or Star Wars could destroy a planet
Alderaan didn't last too long against the Death Star in Episode IV.
Re:Star Trek would win by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 03:25 · Score: 0

Star Wars uses lasers whereas Star Trek uses phasers, basically phased energy to pack more of a punch. In one episode of TNG {Outrageous Okana, I think} as ship was going to attack the Enterprise with lasers & Riker commented that it would do no damage to the Enterprise.
Re:Star Trek would win by mikael_j · 2011-09-19 03:35 · Score: 1

That site is all about "proving" how awesome Star Wars is. However, look at the numbers used to SW tech, it looks an awful lot like George Lucas smoked some crack and pulled a bunch of numbers out of his ass...
And why is that? Well, because Star Wars is fantasy/space opera. I'm not saying Star Trek is anywhere near perfect when it comes to tech specs and such but compared to the Star Wars world it appears someone at least put in some token effort.

--
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Re:Star Trek would win by fostware · 2011-09-19 03:35 · Score: 1

And I can not believe that we are having this conversation.
Oh for some mod points :)

--
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
Re:Star Trek would win by LWATCDR · 2011-09-19 04:10 · Score: 1

Hey there is so much valid discussion one could do about Star Trek as far as their culture.
Take for instance, "The Prime Directive". What a load of manure that is.
It is better to let a culture die, suffer, and struggle than to help them because it might go bad?
Really?
What really cowardly attitude to have. So if they showed up to day they wouldn't give us Fusion technology, or cure Cancer, AIDs, Malaria, or any number of other problems we have? Because we could do what destroy ourselves? What a classic "White Man's burden" attitude.
The you have the idea of claiming interstellar space? The Federation has boundaries what about the worlds that are inside those boundaries that do not want to join the Federation? Sure I can see claiming star systems and if unpopulated colonizing them but shouldn't the space in between the stars be like the open seas of earth. Why shouldn't a Romulan ship have the right to go to any none Federation world even if they are in the Federation boundaries.
If you are a world in Federation space you are cut off from help and left to struggle on your own until the Federation decides that you are ready for contact. It looks like your choice is then to become a member of the federation or be walled in by them. You do not seem to have the option to make an alliance with other advanced races. Maybe you like the idea being part of the Romulan Empire or becoming Borg. Those options are not open to you if you happen to be one of the lesser breeds. Heck even after you join they do not give you all the technology because they feel you are not ready for it.
I mean when you actually look at the Federation it is kind of creepy.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Star Trek would win by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:24 · Score: 0

The big difference between the two is that Star Trek has very little in the way of fighter craft. There isn't much in the way of Star Trek canon to establish whether ships in that universe would have difficulty going up against a squadron of fighters, but Voyager got the crap kicked out of it by a few dozen supposedly obsolete fighters in one episode because the fighters were moving too fast to get a reliable shot on them.
Most Trek ships have a primary role of research with a military application that comes secondary. Voyager also kind of got stuck out in the middle of nowhere without an expectation of conflict and wasn't outfitted for such the last time it left a Federation starport. Federation does have fighters, but usually they're rare and tend to go unseen in the series. They seem to be used more as a defensive weapon such as when the Borg were coming at Earth, rather than deployed with something like a carrier in deep space. As for a ship in the Federation that would be properly outfitted for a fight and considered up to what Starfleet has to offer in regards to military spec., I'd suggest taking a look at DS9's Defiant. In regards to firepower per unit size, that one would give Republic or Rebel craft more than a run for the money.
Re:Star Trek would win by wed128 · 2011-09-19 04:45 · Score: 1

This is slashdot. I believe it.
Re:Star Trek would win by ElectricTurtle · 2011-09-19 05:09 · Score: 1

In TOS at the very least there were exceptions to the Prime Directive for exactly that sort of thing. Kirk decided in 'The Apple' that the culture on Trianguli VI was stagnant to their detriment and blew up the god-like machine that kept them in line. Very similarly did the same to Landru in 'Return of the Archons'.

Doing nothing is a superior moral position than doing harm, even if the harm is not intended. If you watch the Federation's interaction with less advanced cultures (which really only happens in TOS), it doesn't just ignore them, it helps them with resources that don't threaten their social equilibrium. Food and medical supplies etc. are not withheld but phasers are. Considering that meddling beyond that level resulted in genocide in cases like 'Patterns of Force'.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Re:Star Trek would win by quacking+duck · 2011-09-19 05:26 · Score: 1

A Deep Space Nine episode dealt with the "Federation is kind of creepy" sentiment directly. A former Starfleet security officer, turned renegade Maquis, said this to Captain Sisko:

Why is the Federation so obsessed about the Maquis? We've never harmed you. And yet we're constantly arrested and charged with terrorism... Starships chase us through the Badlands... and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why?
Because we've left the Federation, and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves paradise. Everyone should want to be in the Federation.
Hell, you even want the Cardassians to join. You're only sending them replicators so that one day they can take their "rightful place" on the Federation
Council.
You know, in some ways you're worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious... you assimilate people and they don't even know it.
Re:Star Trek would win by quacking+duck · 2011-09-19 05:37 · Score: 1

The big difference between the two is that Star Trek has very little in the way of fighter craft. There isn't much in the way of Star Trek canon to establish whether ships in that universe would have difficulty going up against a squadron of fighters, but Voyager got the crap kicked out of it by a few dozen supposedly obsolete fighters in one episode because the fighters were moving too fast to get a reliable shot on them.
That's because Voyager writers were lazy and unimaginative, or they hobbled technology only to suit a plot.
Warships *today* can target and fire on multiple airborne targets. A 24th-century starship, with faster-than-light computer systems and phaser banks that can be aimed almost instantaneously, should have no problem tracking and firing on any number of small sub-light craft, no matter how manoeuvrable they are.
A single ship can of course still be overwhelmed by sheer numbers, but unless Voyager was damaged at that point (I don't know the episode you're referring to), "moving too fast to get a reliable shot" is a pathetic cop-out.
Re:Star Trek would win by Fned · 2011-09-19 05:38 · Score: 1

Anyone pretending to know what they're talking about in a "empire versus federation" argument owes it to themselves to take a look at the very thorough technical analyses from the Tubolaser Commentaries, if for no other reason than to get a handle on the completely absurd amount of firepower shown to be produced by Star Destroyers in the films.
Re:Star Trek would win by LordSkippy · 2011-09-19 05:40 · Score: 2

That site is all about "proving" how awesome Star Wars is.
I can see how it would appear that way, given how lopsided the official numbers (from both sides) are.

However, look at the numbers used to SW tech, it looks an awful lot like George Lucas smoked some crack and pulled a bunch of numbers out of his ass...
Can't argue against that, George Lucas changes things around quite a bit. However, when you consider the age of the SW Universe (within the universe, not how long it's been around), the numbers do make a bit more sense. The Jedi were the guardians of the republic for either a thousand years or a thousand generations (George not keeping his units straight), and the galactic society being older than that. Contrast that with Trek, and you have a Federation that was in it's infancy in TOS and not much older by TNG, and no active space faring civilizations having more than a few hundred years in space. But all of that really isn't the point, because...

Well, because Star Wars is fantasy/space opera.
Almost. SW is the young hero's journey fable turned into a melodramatic redemption of a fallen hero, while ST is a mix of actual science fiction and social commentary. Both are wrapped up in science fiction setting, but that's really the only commonality. Comparing SW to ST in term of which ship can beat up which ship misses the deeper meaning of both (not that there's much deeper meaning in the prequels). Thus, the meaning of my last sentence in my original comment; it's better to compare the two on writing and story telling.

--
My karma is in a nose dive
Re:Star Trek would win by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-09-19 06:04 · Score: 1

There are 10,000+ imperial star destroyers. 3 can turn a standard earth sized planet into nothing but molten mayhem in about 12 hours.
Where do you get that from?

The entire starfleet couldn't destroy the whole planet. It'd take a thousand ships with more fire power than I've...
By contrast, in Trek, a small fleet can destroy a planet.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Star Trek would win by jafac · 2011-09-19 06:56 · Score: 1

made up specs? Star Fleet Battles, my good sir!
And pretty much, Star Trek would pwn.
Star Wars (for all their insane, bizarre deus ex machina plot devides) has no Transporters. Therefore, Star Trek -> Transport anti-matter bomb onto the bridge of enemy ship. . . : game over, Mr. Lucas.
Borg vs. Jedi? Please.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:Star Trek would win by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 07:02 · Score: 0

A Glorious Heritage-class heavy cruiser from the Andromeda universe, however, can depopulate a planet in a couple minutes, and it's not even the biggest ship around. So who cares which of Star Trek or Star Wars would lose harder? They both lose.
(Now Honor Harrington vs. Dylan Hunt, that could be worth discussing...)
Re:Star Trek would win by drinkypoo · 2011-09-19 07:05 · Score: 1

Star Wars (for all their insane, bizarre deus ex machina plot devides) has no Transporters. Therefore, Star Trek -> Transport anti-matter bomb onto the bridge of enemy ship. . . : game over, Mr. Lucas.
But they do have shields, and the federation has never seemed to get the hang of transporting stuff through shields (although everyone and their mom appears to be able to do it to the feds.)

Borg vs. Jedi? Please.
While we're speculating about shit that doesn't exist, maybe the process of becoming a borg destroys your access to the force (the nanobots kill your midichlorians or something) and therefore render the borg as easy to manipulate with the force as inert objects.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Star Trek would win by yomammamia · 2011-09-19 07:23 · Score: 1

From what I understand of the fighters in Star Wars they make little sense in there own setting. It is claimed that they are solar powered but solar power provides such little energy that it is useless as a main source of power. If it were their primary source of power they would be competing with destroyers that have such a high energy output they rival a small star. The power such a fighter could muster would be a pico-fraction at best. A Dyson Sphere can barely compete with an imperial Star Destroyer so how can a TIE fighter be a threat to anything if it uses solar power? There are very few science fiction series where vessel capabilities are at all consistent or balanced to be honest. Star Trek wins outright irrespective of technology because its superbeings are far more powerful. In Star Wars the force is about as good as it gets. I am quite sure that the Q crap all over that.
Re:Star Trek would win by Jonner · 2011-09-19 07:29 · Score: 1

The Imperial ships are much larger, but they have no shields. After a couple of dozen quantum torpedoes, they'd be burning wreckage. Heck, a runabout could just transport a torpedo into the bridge of a star destroyer and it'd be toast.
Their laser cannons might pack a punch, too, but all the federation ships would have to do is remodulate the shield frequencies, and they'd be useless.
Imperial ships certainly do have shields. For example, in the battle of the second Death Star, one Imperial commander mentions something about the shields being down so they need to concentrate all fire on an incoming A-Wing.
Re:Star Trek would win by sorak · 2011-09-19 07:59 · Score: 1

Of course being able to strangle someone over a view screen from 500,000 miles away is a nice weapon, too. It won't win the war, but it sure makes peace negotiations more fun.
Re:Star Trek would win by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 10:37 · Score: 0

Just as Vulcan didn't last very long against the Narada. Also, the Death Star wasn't a ship, it was a space station.
Re:Star Trek would win by MightyMartian · 2011-09-19 11:04 · Score: 1

Well, more to the point, Kirk was quite happy to toss out the Prime Directive whenever it came into collision with his own personal ethical bias. Kirk was the perfect example of Asimov's axiom "Never let your sense of morality interfere with what you know is right..." He'd only get pissed off about Prime Directive violations when somebody else did it (ie. Patterns of Force).

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Star Trek would win by MightyMartian · 2011-09-19 11:09 · Score: 2

Well, we know it wasn't a moon....
At any rate, I found the Death Star somewhat more believable than "red matter", which, in Star Trek's long history of really bad invented physics, takes the cake as the worst. Why bother rebooting Star Trek if you're simply going to adopt all its worst aspects all over again? That Romulan mining ship had to have been bigger than the fucking Death Star, so it should have been able to phase modulate a neutron beam capable of roasting Vulcan via reworking the nacelles to produce tachyon bursts at a higher frequency, and didn't need something as fucking retarded sounding as "red matter" injected into the core.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Star Trek would win by bckrispi · 2011-09-19 11:17 · Score: 1

The Jedi were the guardians of the republic for either a thousand years or a thousand generations (George not keeping his units straight), and the galactic society being older than that.
It was both. :) The Jedi joined the Old Republic about 24,000 years (a thousand generations) before the Battle of Yavin. The Republic crumbled about 1100 years BBY and entered a hundred year Dark Age, which ended with the presumed "extinction" of the Sith and the rebuilding of the Republic. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_galactic_history

--
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Re:Star Trek would win by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 12:51 · Score: 0

forget quantum torpedos - a romulan war bird (the old style from the original series) would turn an entire death star into wreckage with just a single plasma torpedo.
Re:Star Trek would win by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 13:03 · Score: 0

i can. this analysis has been done by the star fleet battles people "http://www.starfleetgames.com/" (insert screams and/or comments here).
the consensus seems to be that, in the star trek universe, small single or two man fighters can neither outgun or outrun big starships like the Enterprise or, say, a klingon battlecruiser. in the context of star trek, fighter combat is less like aircraft carrier operations where individual fighters are faster than the big ships and can, individually, do considerable damage, and more like a helicarrier where the fighters are only marginally faster, fight alongside a big starship. and provide close in support while the big starship provides the heavy long range firepower.
Re:Star Trek would win by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 13:25 · Score: 0

Did you completely forget the scene in Episode VI where the snubfighters blow up the shield generator on the Executor after which an A-Wing plows through the bridge causing it to crash into the Death Star? Those spheres on all star destroyers are their shield generators.
No they aren't. Those are sensor domes. Do some reading.
Re:Star Trek would win by lennier · 2011-09-19 16:58 · Score: 1

There are 10,000+ imperial star destroyers. 3 can turn a standard earth sized planet into nothing but molten mayhem in about 12 hours.

The entire Starfleet couldn't destroy the whole planet! It'd take 1,000 ships with more firepower than I've -
Isn't that a ship coming in?

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Star Trek would win by lennier · 2011-09-19 17:04 · Score: 1

Intensify the forward batteries. I don't want anything to get through!
But sir, the triple-As are drained! We're cross-circuiting the D-cells with a nine-volt power converter right now but the thing which makes the swirly lights is going slow and Speak & Spell is showing random letters! If we don't find that wall socket right now -

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Star Trek would win by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 22:34 · Score: 0

Ahh, yet another Star Wars retcon.
Re:Star Trek would win by camazotz · 2011-09-20 04:04 · Score: 1

So what I'm reading here is, "Star Wars actually has more realistic tech, and Star Trek is built on more fantasy epeen tech." Star Wars blast shields are actually able to dissipate phaser energy; the star destroyers would eat the Enterprise up, as blast cannons can punch right through even the best variable modulation energy shields with ease, since that's a technology that was developed and discarded 25,000 years ago in the era of the Old Republic, most likely. Prove me wrong..... (Lesson here: this is how Cowboys and Indians work: "Bang, I shot you!" "No I shot you first! bang!")
Re:Star Trek would win by colinrichardday · 2011-09-20 13:16 · Score: 1

First, red matter didn't belong to the Federation, and second, red matter isn't a ship. I consider the Death Star to be a ship because it can move under its own power. Also, Vulcan and Spock's mom were in TOS. Won't anyone think of the canon?
Re:Star Trek would win by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 15:34 · Score: 0

Red matter was created by the Vulcans, who were founding members of the Federation. Deep Space Nine could also move under its own power, guess it's a starship too then.
TOS and Star Trek 2009 are both canon, happening in parallel timelines. Red matter exists in both continuity, being created by the Vulcans in the prime timeline, then being taken to the alternate timeline by the Romulans.
Re:Star Trek would win by colinrichardday · 2011-09-20 15:58 · Score: 1

Am I the only one who has trouble with alternate timelines?

not that difficult by tverbeek · 2011-09-19 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

"I just don't understand where people get that Star Trek and Star Wars are similar in any way."

They are both Hollywood entertainment franchises that became very popular in the 1970s*, featuring space ships and other advanced technology, settings in space and on other planets, and titles that fit the pattern "Star ????" If you can't see how they're similar, you're trying too hard not to.

*Yes, I know when Star Trek debuted; read that sentence more carefully.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/

Re:not that difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 03:48 · Score: 0

You DO know that there was absolutely no Star Trek related stuff produced in the 1970s, don't you?
Re:not that difficult by tverbeek · 2011-09-19 04:03 · Score: 1

I know that:
1) You're stupid. The phrase "became very popular" does not mean that new material had to be produced during that time. But even so....
2) You're ignorant. The Star Trek animated series and the first movie were both produced and released in the 1970s (to say nothing of numerous books).

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:not that difficult by iggymanz · 2011-09-19 04:15 · Score: 1

yes there was, called "re-runs". that's when it became hug. That's when I first watched it (yes I was around for most of the 60s, but kids under ten often find star trek too scary)
Re:not that difficult by jedidiah · 2011-09-19 04:45 · Score: 1

> You DO know that there was absolutely no Star Trek related stuff produced in the 1970s, don't you?
No I don't. I was alive in the 70s and I know better.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:not that difficult by MightyMartian · 2011-09-19 10:59 · Score: 1

Um, the Animated Series came out in the 1970s (even if it was more like a weird hybrid between Larry Niven's Known Space universe and Star Trek), not to mention the Phase 2 project which ultimately morphed into Star Trek: The Motion Picture. That's not even counting the stories by James Blish and the novelization of The Motion Picture by Alan Dean Foster.
Or could I have just shortened the above by saying "You're a fucking ignorant moron"? I'll let the moderators decide.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:not that difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 06:13 · Score: 0

Yes, and baseball and football are similar, because they have been around for decades, and both take place on a field, feature grown men in uniforms playing a game for points and both fit the pattern ????ball. If that is all you base your similarities on, your logic is specious.
Re:not that difficult by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-21 08:46 · Score: 0

You left out "they're both fucking boring to watch if you aren't drunk or retarded".
Obviously they are not identical. Duh. But you'd have to be an absolute idiot or have an ax to grind to argue that they have nothing in common, which is what the fucktard above said.

Obvious : they both start with "STAR" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:01 · Score: 0

Simple'n'easy.

On others' laurels by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:01 · Score: 0

"Star Trek had relationships and conflict among the relationships, and stories that involved humanity and philosophical questions..."

Yes, yes it did.

Just not the one he starred in...

Difference in fans by doconnor · 2011-09-19 02:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

One thing I've noticed is that most big Star Trek fan also enjoy Star Wars, while big Star Wars fans often strongly dislike and berate Star Trek. I guess the different philosophies attracts different types of fans.

An example can be seen in Fanboys where the Star Wars fan beat up some Star Trek fans for no reason.

Re:Difference in fans by rgviza · 2011-09-19 02:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

yea but fanboys is a movie. fictional examples don't count.

--
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
Re:Difference in fans by doconnor · 2011-09-19 02:26 · Score: 1

Fanboys is a movie, but presumably it was written by and for Star Wars fans in order to reflect, if only as a parody, their actual attitudes. Although I understand movie had a very troubled history.
I know of other nonfictional examples, like one of the people who I went to high school with.
Re:Difference in fans by N0Man74 · 2011-09-19 02:55 · Score: 2

One thing I've noticed is that most big Star Trek fan also enjoy Star Wars, while big Star Wars fans often strongly dislike and berate Star Trek. I guess the different philosophies attracts different types of fans.
An example can be seen in Fanboys where the Star Wars fan beat up some Star Trek fans for no reason.
I grew up as more of a Star Wars fan. Star Wars was the first movie I remember seeing as a child. Years later, Return of the Jedi was the very first movie that my parents allowed me to see by myself. However, I also watched reruns of Star Trek: ToS as a kid.
I have never understood why people had to pick between which show was better, or even which Star Trek captain was best. I enjoyed them all.
I guess I'm Bi-Starrial.
Re:Difference in fans by sootman · 2011-09-19 03:15 · Score: 2

> One thing I've noticed is that most big Star Trek
> fan also enjoy Star Wars, while big Star Wars
> fans often strongly dislike and berate Star Trek.
> I guess the different philosophies attracts
> different types of fans.
And I've always found that Trek fans think their series is better (more serious sci-fi, deeper social issues, etc.) and look down their noses at Star Wars which is "just" space opera.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Re:Difference in fans by drinkypoo · 2011-09-19 03:26 · Score: 2

And I've always found that Trek fans think their series is better (more serious sci-fi, deeper social issues, etc.) and look down their noses at Star Wars which is "just" space opera.
Well, they're right about more serious sci-fi (for what little it is worth) but I don't know about deeper social issues. I guess if you're comparing against the full body of work including the cartoons and the ewok christmas special, then it's certainly all true. On the other hand, the Star Wars trilogy deals with the eternal struggle between chaos and order, which is the underlying driver behind nearly all social issues.
Star Wars may be a space opera, but Star Trek is a space soap opera, interspersed with science fiction. This was also true of Babylon 5, or Stargate, but I would argue, not Firefly. Which may in fact be why we loved it so. If we want to see that overburdered emotional interpersonal shit we can watch soaps.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Difference in fans by Pionar · 2011-09-19 04:48 · Score: 2

No reason? Nobody calls Han Solo a bitch.
Re:Difference in fans by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 05:47 · Score: 0

Bi-Stellar.
Re:Difference in fans by hey! · 2011-09-19 05:54 · Score: 2

What you haven't ever seen sibling rivalry before?
You've got older brother Trek who's actually had a rather checkered career but everyone thinks is brilliant. Then young Wars comes along and despite making tons more money doesn't get any respect. Trek shows up for the family reunion and everybody oohs and aahs over his Prius. Then Wars drives up in his Lamborghini and everyone immediately thinks, "loser".
No matter how badly Trek screws up, people still respect him and want to do graduate school theses on his past accomplishments. No matter how much money Wars makes, everyone considers him a lightweight. Frustrated, Wars goes back to his old pieces and tries to spiff them up, but does that earn him what he craves? Of course not. People are more than happy to hand Wars their money but they will never give him their respect. So far as they're concerned, Wars literally can do no right.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Difference in fans by sorak · 2011-09-19 08:11 · Score: 2

Since both of them take radically different views of advanced technologies, people might argue over which is more realistic. I have seen people who take it far beyond that, but my big fanboy moment came from "Farscape", when they reveal that first contact had pretty much made earth more violent. Countries saw technologies that could destroy entire continents and began to fight over who could, and (considering the post 9/11 world) who could not have access to those technologies. Compare this to the star trek view, in which we see Vulcans and say "Holy crap, we gotta create a utopia, and fast!". I think it is fun to argue over which series has a more accurate portrayal of how events would turn out.
Ultimately, some of the most trivial debates are about human nature.
Re:Difference in fans by Jesus_666 · 2011-09-19 08:14 · Score: 1

From the prespective of someone who only became aware of Trek when TNG rolled around, things are a bit different.

Wars is the serious, mature one. It's about a war, with all that entails, which Trek only got close to during DS9 (which has a rather mixed reputation due to its darker tone). Trek has always been a wacky trip through the galaxy and when something nasty shows up it's usually resolved or postponed at the end of the episode.

Plus, Wars is the ultra-successful money-making machine while Trek is more of a reliable investment - Trek will have its series, which will always run seven seasons (excluding TOS*, TAS** and ENT***), and will also have a movie every now and then. Wars, meanwhile, has its movies, which are guaranteed to make tons of money, plus a bunch of other fluff.

Star Wars was even "around" before Trek. Star Wars came out in 1977 while the earliest bit of Trek us youngsters are usually exposed to is Star Trek: The Motion Picture from 1979. Yes, there was TOS, but most people only know it as meta-lore. In fact, what got most people my age (20-30) hooked on Trek wasn't the movies but TNG, which only appeared in 1987, well after the original Wars trilogy was done.

Plus, it's not like TOS was that successful. Granted, it lasted for three seasons but it was never a reliable ratings generator like TNG, DS9 and VOY.

* Like Firefly it generated most of its fame after its death.
** It's a Filmation spinoff series. 'nuff said.
*** That's when Trek actually crashed and they wisely decided to give everyone some time without a Trek series.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:Difference in fans by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 10:22 · Score: 0

Star Trek has a hierarchal, collectivistic, ordered universe whereas Star Wars has a more chaotic, individualistic, multifaceted universe. The kind of personality types who gravitate to Star Wars find the Star Trek serve-the-nation-state mindset suffocating and thus berate it whereas Star Trek fans still find the Federation in the Rebels/Jedi.
Re:Difference in fans by Kaenneth · 2011-09-19 10:34 · Score: 1

So you are saying Star Trek fars = Christians, and Star Wars fans = Islamics?
Re:Difference in fans by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 10:38 · Score: 0

Wars is the serious, mature one. It's about a war, with all that entails, which Trek only got close to during DS9 (which has a rather mixed reputation due to its darker tone).
Meessahh Jarr Jarr Beeenks hears yousa says waarhhhhhhhh?? Me Gungan gonna fightsa waaahhhhhhrrss fer yousa!!
Re:Difference in fans by Boronx · 2011-09-19 16:41 · Score: 1

I like the analogy, but where does Empire Strikes Back fit into it?

--
Play Command HQ online
Re:Difference in fans by Jesus_666 · 2011-09-19 16:50 · Score: 1

Admittedly, the prequel trilogy did a lot to point out that George Lucas can be silly, too. I was thinking back to the Nineties when Star Wars was still respected and George Lucas was seen as a decent filmmaker.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:Difference in fans by mcvos · 2011-09-20 00:43 · Score: 1

One thing I've noticed is that most big Star Trek fan also enjoy Star Wars, while big Star Wars fans often strongly dislike and berate Star Trek.
Even Star Trek fans berate Star Trek, so that doesn't mean much.
Re:Difference in fans by N0Man74 · 2011-09-20 01:34 · Score: 1

Sure they are different, but Star Wars isn't about the technology anyway. It's space fantasy. It's just an entertaining story that happens to be set in a more technologically advanced setting, but could have been told without the advanced technology. It doesn't really ask particularly interesting questions about how technology and contact with other civilizations will change cultures.
But that's ok! I can still enjoy it!
In the same way, Doctor Who often gives a pretty unrealistic view of science, but yet it deal with not only characters, but human nature. But it still can be interesting and fun.
And Eureeka is closer to a caricature of sci-fi, but it still is amusing.
I also love old episodes of The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, Farscape, Battlestar Galactica, and more. It's ok not to pick sides and just appreciate shows for what they are, rather than deriding them for what they aren't.
Re:Difference in fans by hawk · 2011-09-20 14:32 · Score: 1

>Star Wars may be a space opera, but Star Trek is a
>space soap opera, interspersed with science fiction.
That was the various Star Trek:TLA.
Star Trek itself lacked the basic continuity to have such a problem . . .
It was about the story, rather than wasting large portions on the "relationships" between the characters. Besides, none of them could act well enough to pull off such episodes :)
For that matter, I'm not sure that Star Trek would have worked at all if they could act; the wooden and cliched overacting left the story in control . . .

Willam Shatner once gave sage advice... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:03 · Score: 0

... to fans at a Star Trek convention. He was right.

Shatner is Trolling by nonsensical · 2011-09-19 02:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

It comes across as Shatner trolling the audience, which for those who recognize it for that, is hilarious.

Re:Shatner is Trolling by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2011-09-19 02:17 · Score: 0, Troll

It comes across as Shatner trolling the audience, which for those who recognize it for that, is hilarious.
Shatner? Trolling? If he was, he left out one key fact that made ST better - SW ignored basic physics. Whenever a space craft passed the Death Star, it cast a shadow. In a vacuum. Shadows in a vacuum. Come on, at least get some of the science right.
PS: Enterprise was the best ST of the bunch.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Re:Shatner is Trolling by Jmc23 · 2011-09-19 03:06 · Score: 1

Can you please explain? I've never heard of this being impossible, isn't that eclipses are? Dark side of the moon? Moon landing pictures?

--
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Re:Shatner is Trolling by AshtangiMan · 2011-09-19 03:07 · Score: 1

There's nothing about a vacuum that precludes shadows . . . or are you trolling? If the earth did not have an atmosphere would the moon not eclipse the sun?
Re:Shatner is Trolling by icebraining · 2011-09-19 03:15 · Score: 1

"Shadows in a Vacuum" seems like a name of some pretentious 'indie' band.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Shatner is Trolling by colinrichardday · 2011-09-19 03:29 · Score: 1

The earth casts a shadow on the moon in a vacuum. The problem isn't vacuum, it's optics. If the Death Star is close to a star (say within an AU), the craft is too small to cause an eclipse. If the Death Star is too far awat, then there is not single source of light strong enough such that blocking it causes a shadow.
Re:Shatner is Trolling by MonsterTrimble · 2011-09-19 03:39 · Score: 1

I wish I had mod points. Now insightful, informative or funny - I'll let you decide!

--
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
Re:Shatner is Trolling by colinrichardday · 2011-09-19 04:11 · Score: 1

Oops, the craft could cast a shadow without causing an eclipse.
Re:Shatner is Trolling by Z1NG · 2011-09-19 05:01 · Score: 1

I think he is just trolling - I mean he did say that Enterprise was the best of the ST bunch.
Re:Shatner is Trolling by Bucky24 · 2011-09-19 05:29 · Score: 1

Shadows have to do with light, not vacuum.... There are several examples in ST where a craft passing over another craft would cast a shadow.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:Shatner is Trolling by drevange · 2011-09-19 07:48 · Score: 1

Too true. Very funny and he is doing a good job, just barely, of keeping a straight face. Good appearance at Dragon*Con too.
Re:Shatner is Trolling by Kaenneth · 2011-09-19 10:38 · Score: 1

Someone please mod parent up.
Anyway...
the usual complaint is about the sound they make... easy enough to justify, the "sound" is electromagnetic interferance produced by the high energy engines and weapons being picked up by the headsets.

Why is this even news. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:05 · Score: 0

Do we really care what Shatner thinks on ANYTHING! Everyone seems to forget he did not create Star Trek. He's just a bad actor that can't let go.

Re:Why is this even news. by MightyMartian · 2011-09-19 02:15 · Score: 2

He let go years ago. For a bad actor, he's had a rather successful career post-Trek. TJ Hooker may be laughable now, but it was no worse than most cop procedurals, and no matter how hamfisted you may have thought his acting in Star Trek, the man basically reinvented his entire career with Denny Crane, and in his twilight years no less. Is he the greatest actor around? No, obviously not, but he isn't that bad, and even in the Star Trek days there were episodes where you got the sense that he did have some chops, when the material was at its best.
I actually kind of like what the guy has done. I enjoy Raw Nerve, he's a way better interviewer than most, and certainly seems willing to take things to the edge, and you know, he's done damned well for himself in a business that chews up people and spits them out.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Why is this even news. by Dunbal · 2011-09-19 02:34 · Score: 2

No, but he created Tek War. OK, it sucked, but what have you created?

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Why is this even news. by Boronx · 2011-09-19 16:45 · Score: 1

He was pretty good in that one twilight zone where he falls under the thrall of a fortune telling machine.

--
Play Command HQ online

The Nice Thing About Both Cosmologies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:10 · Score: 0

When you get away from their core stories they get much more interesting.

He wants to bang Carrie Fisher? by SocietyoftheFist · 2011-09-19 02:14 · Score: 3, Funny

That is what I took away from it.

Re:He wants to bang Carrie Fisher? by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2011-09-19 04:07 · Score: 1

He wants to bang Carrie Fisher?
Doesn't everybody?

--
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Re:He wants to bang Carrie Fisher? by jjk3 · 2011-09-19 06:31 · Score: 1

Yes
Re:He wants to bang Carrie Fisher? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 09:03 · Score: 0

Have you seen her in recent years? *shudder*
Re:He wants to bang Carrie Fisher? by SocietyoftheFist · 2011-09-19 16:04 · Score: 1

Well duh, that's a given, so I wondered why it was newsworthy.
Re:He wants to bang Carrie Fisher? by RivenAleem · 2011-09-19 23:27 · Score: 1

Have you seen her recently? She's 180 pounds...

Re:Chewbacca by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-09-19 02:16 · Score: 1

Spelling Nazis. I hate these guys.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

Slashdotted by dintech · 2011-09-19 02:16 · Score: 1

Server... can't... handle... the load!

wut? by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-09-19 02:16 · Score: 2

I just don't understand where people get that Star Trek and Star Wars are similar in any way.

I just don't understand why anyone cares anymore. The first two SW films were good, but from ROTJ onward, who cares? ST began to lose steam during DS9's run. Maybe the rebooted ST movie series will pan out, and maybe the Old Republic MMO will make SW interesting again. Who knows? I just never got the *obsession* with either franchise. I liked them, still watch an episode of TOS or TNG now and then, but to go on and on about it, debating one made up science over another made up science, I just don't even.

It's really quite simple by Rambo+Tribble · 2011-09-19 02:17 · Score: 1

Star Wars was a swashbuckler in the tradition of Errol Flynn movies; Star Trek was a soap opera.

Re:It's really quite simple by LumpyCartman · 2011-09-19 03:25 · Score: 1

And TOS was sometimes like a western, with the occasional fist fight.
Re:It's really quite simple by Rambo+Tribble · 2011-09-19 04:09 · Score: 1

Quite so, but then another name for a Western is "horse opera". Gunsmoke certainly had its soap-operatic element.
Re:It's really quite simple by jedidiah · 2011-09-19 04:48 · Score: 1

"Wagon Train to the Stars"

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authurian. by Zombie+Ryushu · 2011-09-19 02:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Arthurian Legend. Star Trek is about a possible future of our world/universe and the progress of secular Humanity, and the triumph of reason and science.

Star Wars is like a King Aurthur's knights of the round table, or spiritualist story about good vs. evil, just set in space. It discusses a quasi-religious struggle between right and wrong, and the struggle of rightful Camelot style kings vs. vicious tyrants. It is a fairy tale, or fable.

Re:Chewbacca by Chrisq · 2011-09-19 02:18 · Score: 1

They spelled Chewbacca wrong. Great.. now I'm a Star Wars geek *and* a spelling Nazi...

May the Forse be with yew

Interesting by Bob-taro · 2011-09-19 02:26 · Score: 2

FTA:

The perfect union between Star Trek and Star Wars would be if Captain Kirk and Princess Leia were to ran off together pursued by Chewbakka.

So in conclusion ... Bill Shatner was high?

--
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.

Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:18 · Score: 0

Sounds like clear-headed reasoning to me
(assuming he's not talking about her now) ... :)
Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:57 · Score: 0

I simply can't believe it, am I the only want wanting so see little dark skinned Spocks in the next Star Trek reboot movie? That would make interracial a meaningful word.
Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 02:02 · Score: 0

FTA:

The perfect union between Star Trek and Star Wars would be if Captain Kirk and Princess Leia were to ran off together pursued by Chewbakka.
So in conclusion ... Bill Shatner was high?
Looks more like half drunk to me
Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 02:47 · Score: 0

the whole thing was Shatner's way of saying, "Whatever". Quite hilarious actually.

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:30 · Score: 1

Star Trek is about a possible future of our world/universe

lol @ "possible".

For staters. . . by mosb1000 · 2011-09-19 02:31 · Score: 1

Star Trek and Star Wars start with "Star".

Re:For staters. . . by hantarto · 2011-09-19 02:45 · Score: 1

And yet, second word of your subject line does not. Haha.
You need learn more enlish my fiend, haha.

BORG by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:31 · Score: 0

Star Trek specifically says in one episode of TNG (they meet some lower tech planets and there's a Romeo and Juliet type thing going on) that the other ships have lasers and that they would not even hurt their MANEUVERING shields. Also know as the 'keep the space dust off my ship shields'. So Trek has phasers and Wars lasers...

Also... BORG. 1 Jedi gets assimilated and thus goes the universe.

Here, let me simplify this argument for you. by Vrtigo1 · 2011-09-19 02:31 · Score: 1

The Borg vs anything Star Wars has got. Game over. If you don't believe me, then substitute Q for the Borg...game's over before it begins.

Re:Here, let me simplify this argument for you. by Bucky24 · 2011-09-19 05:33 · Score: 1

I would love to see Q in the star wars universe... He wouldn't destroy it all.. at first. He'd just mindfuck the emperor and Vader. I wonder how a Sith would handle an omnipotent being?

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:Here, let me simplify this argument for you. by Vrtigo1 · 2011-09-20 03:04 · Score: 1

I agree, would love to see a showdown between Q and the Star Wars baddies. They've got the force, but he's got unlimited control of space, matter and time.

The Netflix / Qwikster article is working fine... by LowG1974 · 2011-09-19 02:33 · Score: 1

but post about Star Trek vs. Star Wars and you've slashdotted a site. LMAO.

--
there is no spoon. or fork. there is a butter knife, and it's dull.

Sliding scale of hope vs realism by Sasayaki · 2011-09-19 02:35 · Score: 2

Honestly, I think the biggest difference between the two universes was that Star Trek, DS9 excluded and not in a bad way, was generally about hope. That's really the central, core tenant of the show.

In the future, all these worries and burdens and injustices we have now will be behind us. For example, it said (in the 60's) that if you're a woman, there's a place for you on the bridge, just like everyone else. If you're black, eventually nobody will care. If you're blind, you can still be chief engineer of a Starship.

I think this is why Trek appeals so much to the GLBT crowd. The idea -- the hope -- that in the future, life will be governed by tolerance and reason. That there's a place for everyone and replicated food means nobody goes hungry.

Star Wars represents, I think, a more grim picture of the future (again, not in a bad way). There's injustice and authoritarianism everywhere. People will kill you for old debts, for being a member of an almost extinct religion, or for opposing the state. There are wars spanning across solar systems. There is money, corruption, politics, and weapons of mass destruction.

For people who prefer this world, I can imagine why it's appealing. It's adventurous, engaging and realistic; as we can see in the modern day Republican party people don't abandon their preconceptions and hatreds just because technology marches on. In Trek there's no money, but honestly people want to make a buck; the basic idea of currency has been with us for so long we rightly can't imagine a world without it.

So what do I prefer?

I love them both, because I agree with William. They are different, and they give a totally separate picture of the future.

I'm currently writing a sci-fi book myself (shameless self promotion herethe prologue and whole first act is CC-BY-NC-SA so feel free to read it, remix it, share it around if you want) and these are the issues I think about. For example, one of the long-running issues I've had with Trek is... If everything's so egalitarian and racism is a thing of the past, then where are all the Chinese people (1\4 of the world's population)? Instead of the 'token asian', shouldn't each ship have a token white guy?

Accordingly, the majority of the crew of the ships in Lacuna are Chinese. Unlike Trek, people didn't give up their nationalities in this future; and nationalities tend to clump together when all mixed up, like oil and water. Old terrestrial grudges show up occasionally too, something that Trek was only able to explore in allegory.

Sci-fi is such a fun and vibrant setting to write in, in particular because of this tradeoff of hope vs realism. The reimagined BSG, for example, took that far to the extreme of realism and was brilliant; Trek took it the other way. Star Wars is somewhere in the middle.

--
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8

Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by LWATCDR · 2011-09-19 03:07 · Score: 0

Really? Yea I guess you are right because if you where LBGT in the Star Trek universe they would just fix you. They would see that you where going to have these problems latter in life with a scan and then would treat you so you where not different. Crimes are insanity and are treated like a desease. If you are unhappy in their prefect world then you must also be insane. At least in the first series and the early parts of TNG. Of if they federation thought that being gay was okay then they would allow it but then maybe their are no gay humans in the Federation. They have all been fixed.
Sorry but DS9 became my favorite Trek because it showed that while a really good place to live the members of the federation where to use our term, human. They where not perfect little robots.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by DinDaddy · 2011-09-19 03:12 · Score: 1

Star Wars represents, I think, a more grim picture of the future.
A really old future from a long time ago?
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:56 · Score: 0

This may be pedantic, but I am so tired of seeing 'tenant' when people mean 'tenet' that I have to take this opportunity to educate one of you such people who do not understand the difference:
tenant [ten-uhnt]
noun
1.
a person or group that rents and occupies land, a house, an office, or the like, from another for a period of time; lessee.
2.
Law . a person who holds or possesses for a time lands, tenements, or personalty of another, usually for rent.
3.
an occupant or inhabitant of any place.
verb (used with object)
4.
to hold or occupy as a tenant; dwell in; inhabit.
verb (used without object)
5.
to dwell or live (usually followed by in ).
tenet [ten-it; Brit. also tee-nit]
noun
any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., especially one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 05:02 · Score: 0

They are different, and they give a totally separate picture of the future.
Err, nope, Start Trek is about an utopian earth-human future. Star wars is something that happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 05:23 · Score: 0

For example, it said (in the 60's) that if you're a woman, there's a place for you on the bridge, just like everyone else. If you're black, eventually nobody will care.
Sure, Uhura had a place on the bridge. She was the receptionist: she answered the white man's phone calls while wearing a short skirt. And the other women? Sure, there was Yeoman Rand, whose only purpose in life was to fetch the Captain a drink and receive his Captain's Log, and Nurse Chapel, obedient subordinate to the healing man. Sure, there were the red-bloused ensigns in the hallways too, but one thing bound them all: they all had nice legs and showed as much of them as you could on 60's TV. That was the great feminist message of Star Trek in the 60's.

If you're blind, you can still be chief engineer of a Starship.
Only LaForge wasn't blind. His blindness was corrected by his visor, and later with implants. The show made it clear that he could see perfectly well and more than perfectly well: he was in no way disabled. The Federation corrects, or even overcorrects, disabilities.

For example, one of the long-running issues I've had with Trek is... If everything's so egalitarian and racism is a thing of the past, then where are all the Chinese people (1\4 of the world's population)?
The Trek timeline includes nuclear wars at some point in the 21st or 22nd century, eugenics wars, conventional wars... it's possible that many of the Chinese did not survive those wars.
Starfleet is an authoritarian military structure, and we see very little civilian life on Star Trek, especially on the 60's version. When we do see civilians, like colonists and merchants, they're usually horribly wrong about something and have to be set straight by Starfleet personnel: Kirk or Picard, the military men with authority, the Captains, have to fix things and sort out the civilians' problems. When Janeway came along in Voyager, she might have opened up the gender of authority a bit, but she quite rigidly confirmed the militaristic and authoritarian nature of the show. It's the same logic as in Dragnet: civilians cause problems and cannot help themselves, so the police, the only ones capable of finding and understanding the truth, have to sort them out.
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by Bucky24 · 2011-09-19 05:35 · Score: 1

That was the main reason DS9 and Voyager are my favs. The characters feel real.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by RJBeery · 2011-09-19 05:51 · Score: 1

Hmm, you seem to have a preconception of Republicans there, and an imbecilic one at that.
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 05:56 · Score: 0

That's really the central, core tenant of the show.
I think you mean it was the core tenet of the show, meaning ideal or belief. Unless you're suggesting that hope was renting a room on DS9 or something.
*\ The More You Know /*
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 05:58 · Score: 0

Here's my take: Star Trek is more about the engineering. There's a lot of mechanics involved in going into space, and Star Trek makes light of these challenges in a few ways. The aliens are rather uninspired in my view, the biggest thing that makes aliens different is that they have something glued to their face. The humans are almost alien themselves because there is no greed, no dirt, no sleaze. These are part of human nature, so the humans seem more alien when they've been surgically removed in this way.
Star Wars doesn't muddle you down with the engineering. There are lasers and they go pew pew pew. Any ship can get anywhere in the galaxy with little explanation as to how. The aliens are a bit more diverse. The presumptive humans in Star Wars are more relatable because they seem to more closely follow human nature.
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by jafac · 2011-09-19 07:00 · Score: 1

You're writing Traveler 2100? kewl.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by yomammamia · 2011-09-19 07:41 · Score: 1

It isn't entirely unreasonably to posit that many of the Chinese, Indians and Africans were wiped out during the third world war (nuclear) and eugenics wars. On the other hand, it could have more to do with the series being filmed in a place where acquiring so many Asian actors wasn't practical.
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by Bucc5062 · 2011-09-19 08:13 · Score: 1

OT (but I'll burn the karma)...I hate waiting, will this be out full length in some format? The prologue was pretty good, kept my interest. I just don't like long interludes between readings which is why I wait till a trilogy is complete before buying. fyi, for me, the Chinese lettering is distracting partially because I have to trust the writer the "interpretation" is true. Nit pick.
On topic, I agree with your views of the Star * worlds. I feel that we live today in a more Star Wars type world, that it will take a collapse and rebuilding to achieve a Star Trek type world. The current path seems to not lead towards enlightenment. The question would be whether mankind would survive a collapse these days or just annihilate ourselves completely.

--
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by R3d+M3rcury · 2011-09-19 08:39 · Score: 1

If everything's so egalitarian and racism is a thing of the past, then where are all the Chinese people (1\4 of the world's population)?
Blown up during World War III, obviously.
Actually, as I understand it, you don't see any Chinese people in Star Trek: TOS because, according to David Gerrold, NBC had a policy against hiring Chinese actors.
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by Sasayaki · 2011-09-19 11:33 · Score: 1

Yes, it will. It's currently about 40k words in and when it's done (this year hopefully!) it'll be available on Kindle, Nook. B&N, a few other places. And as non-DRM'd PDF if people want it, and possibly even 100% plain text version if people really want to go that far.

--
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by qc_dk · 2011-09-19 21:00 · Score: 1

..., was generally about hope. That's really the central, core tenant of the show.
Who was Hope? Another one of Kirk's conquests? And, they rented out the Enterprise? :)
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 02:14 · Score: 0

I think this is why Trek appeals so much to the GLBT crowd.
Wait, Did you just call Trekkies Gay? =)
Re:Sliding scale of hope vs realism by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 05:56 · Score: 0

I had such high hopes for Caprica after BSG. I cant figure out some of the stuff that is still on syfy and why Caparica was canned

Only the Tie has no shields by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:36 · Score: 0

The imperial destroyers had those bulbous things beside the bridge that they called "shield generators" which I assume means that they had shields.

The problem is that the lasers in Star Wars were stupendously powerful (except the hand lasers which were just stupid) and so the shields weren't much use against their lasers.

When you can have one station blow apart a complete planet in about three seconds, you have some serious firepower.

Re:Only the Tie has no shields by 0123456 · 2011-09-19 03:29 · Score: 1

When you can have one station blow apart a complete planet in about three seconds, you have some serious firepower.
Yeah, right. The Federation can wipe out all life on a planet with a 'Genesis Missile' which could be carried on a small fighter, whereas the Empire needs a battlestation the size of a moon. Lamers.

I base my opinion on most annoying actor by Quila · 2011-09-19 02:37 · Score: 1

Who's worse, William Shatner or Mark Hamill?

IMHO, Hamill, no contest. Shatner is at least fun-bad. Hamill is like "Who let this no-talent hack in front of a camera?"

Okay, Hamill got better in the later years with pretty good voice acting, but back then he just sucked.

Re:I base my opinion on most annoying actor by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:07 · Score: 0

Yeah, Mark Hamil was boring. He should have taken some pointers from the guy doing Fluke Starbucker character!
Re:I base my opinion on most annoying actor by matthewv789 · 2011-09-19 05:01 · Score: 1

Mark Hamill was pretty good in the original. Then he had an awful car accident, which lead to some physical scars (explained by the Wampa attack), but I also think his acting was never as good after that. Though I also think he didn't grow well with the role, not knowing quite what to do beyond the naive farm boy.
Re:I base my opinion on most annoying actor by MightyMartian · 2011-09-19 10:54 · Score: 1

Hamill was still miles better than Hayden Christensen. Hamill could at least do a few different moods, whereas Christensen can only do "angry stare".

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Slashdotted tekgoblin? by metlin · 2011-09-19 02:38 · Score: 2

"It's dead, Jim".

Re:Slashdotted tekgoblin? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 06:38 · Score: 0

Will it be boldly Treked to death or did it die in a War a long time back?
Re:Slashdotted tekgoblin? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 06:49 · Score: 0

shatner is jealous. he wishes he had as successful career as harrison ford. harrison ford is the man.

Timing by Mondrames · 2011-09-19 02:41 · Score: 1

Isn't the key difference that Star Wars happened a "long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" and Star Trek happens several centuries into the future and mostly in our galaxy?

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:42 · Score: 0

Meanwhile, Star Trek is a commentary on current events and attitudes set against the backdrop of space.

It's not a fairy tale or fable, it's allegory.

Well... apparently teh site hosting this crashed. by Karmashock · 2011-09-19 02:45 · Score: 1

How funny is it that right after he says "I know there is a lot of controversy on this issue" the site melts down.

Anyway, starwars has a lot of good points. It has much better music and the first three movies are better then all the other trek movies combined. I mean you can watch that with the whole family. But trek is science fiction even though they get a little deus ex machina sometimes with the technology. What is relevant is that the technology itself is relevant. The story wouldn't make sense if it weren't in space. Starwars could be be easily rewritten to be a real fantasy story. So make darth vader an evil black knight, the falcon can be a sailing ship or just done away with... The story and everything that happens in it doesn't need to be in space or the future. It's really a fantasy story imposed on a science fiction theme.

There isn't anything wrong with that... it's just clearly not the same thing.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by ideonexus · 2011-09-19 02:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Star Wars has only seemed moderately science fiction to me. It's more like Dungeons & Dragons with technology filling in for the magic since the technology is never given scientific explanation. The heroes of Star Wars are all archetypal fantasy characters: knights, princesses, rogues, mercenaries, and the obligatory "chosen one." The whole thing romanticizes the Royalty America and France had revolutions to overcome, with its cynical portrayal of the Republic and idealization of the princess. Star Wars' overall take on humanity is cynical, where, despite living in galaxy filled with technology resembling magic, people are just as unenlightened and motivated by baser desires as they are today.

Good science fiction asks questions that pertain to the human condition and every single episode of Star Trek sets out to tackle the hard philosophical questions. Star Trek takes a positive perspective of humanity's future, with upstanding characters who seek intelligent solutions to social and technological dilemmas presented to them. The humans in Star Trek are the role-models for other species. Earth is the center of the Federation of Planets, the center of a working democratic United Nations on a galactic scale, complete with a Prime Directive to prevent a repeat of Earth's colonialist mistakes. Star Trek gets accused of being "Philosopher Kings in Space" or of presenting an idealistic vision of Communism, but these can also be seen as criticisms of the character's intellectualism and their personal virtue of serving the greater good, as academia is called elitist and humanism accused of socialism in today's society. The fact that we can even have such a debate about the sociopolitical dimensions of Star Trek make it a million-bazillion-times more nerdy than Star Wars' blaster and saber show.

Star Wars is fantasy, Star Trek is SF, and I can rant on and on and on about the differences between the two and why SF is vastly superior in every dimension, with the exception of fantasy making better escapist fare for when you want to turn off your brain for a few hours.

--
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation

Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by Gilmoure · 2011-09-19 03:55 · Score: 1

...for when you want to turn off your brain for a few hours.
Yeah, but now days, I'll just use beer and porn. Easier on the system then fantasy.

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 05:36 · Score: 0

Yes, Star Wars is the typical hero's quest, while Star Trek is morality tales in a Cold War setting.
Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 06:37 · Score: 0

"Star Wars is fantasy, Star Trek is SF" I don't mean to troll but I find star trek to be too fantastic. What with the Ancient Roman planet, Hippie planet and the time travel with Godzilla. Kind of ridiculous at times
Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 07:17 · Score: 0

I can rant on and on and on about the differences between the two and why SF is vastly superior in every dimension
And you will always be wrong, because genre does not imply any particular level of quality.
Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 07:32 · Score: 0

Those bikes in Star Wars ll or lll, I forget.. flying through the woods were extremely cool. I wish I had two. They transcend fantasy and science fiction. They would come in handy in an afterlife. Like in a, 'lets get the hell out of here kind of way.'
Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by macbeth66 · 2011-09-19 08:21 · Score: 1

Except in this case.
Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 08:22 · Score: 0

every single episode of Star Trek sets out to tackle the hard philosophical questions
I agree with the gist of your post, but really... "Spock's Brain". "The Trouble with Tribbles".

TOS had its fluff episodes (and so did all the spinoffs).
Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by djconsultingmeister · 2011-09-19 08:47 · Score: 1

Good reply, thanks for typing out what I was thinking! CrazyOldMan

--
CrazyOldMan
Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by bckrispi · 2011-09-19 10:38 · Score: 1

Herbert! Herbert! HERBERT!!!!

--
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 11:04 · Score: 0

except for the fact that starwars doesn't try to romanticizes Royalty. if you paid attention you would see that it is showing what can happen to a republic if they are not diligent and throw away a little liberty for what they view as security. i agree that star wars and star trek are different and that star trek tries to present ethical dilemmas but to state that star trek is some how intellectual where as star wars is just for resting your brain shows that you have no idea what lucas was trying to describe in the saga. the portrayal of Good vs. Evil. in the struggle of sith vs jedi. the complex narrative that shows senator palpatine as he rises to the throne much as hitler did in germany. and the many ethical choices made though out the film. I am a fan of both.they are very different but both are complex.
Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by camazotz · 2011-09-20 03:59 · Score: 1

Star Trek is about as "SF" as Star Wars, I hate to say it. They're both Space Opera. Star Trek just does a better job at making its technobabble sound vaguely relevant and scientific, while Star Wars technology is primarily fueled by Rule of Cool. Hyperspace or Subspace....Heisenberg Compensators or Hyperdrive Motivators....blasters or phasers....."Same difference, different Fantasy Space."
Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 06:03 · Score: 0

Star Trek often relates stories of capitalism, companies mining or establishing farms, communities. trade ships freighters, trade. Deep space nine. people developing new products and terminologies. Evan the developer of earths WARP drive he wanted to be rich and successful.
Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by EdIII · 2011-09-20 06:56 · Score: 1

with the exception of fantasy making better escapist fare for when you want to turn off your brain for a few hours.
Well..... I read the article. I know, I did not mean to do so. However, Shatner did not disappoint me.
His idea to merge the universes was him running of with Princess Leia (shirtless of course with her in the bikini) being pursued by a raging Chewy.
I could think of worse ways to merge the two universes. I think we should let Shatner star and direct on this one. It would be a train wreck and disaster, but is that not the entire basis for watching NASCAR anyways?
Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-21 08:32 · Score: 0

Dear ideonexus....
Your post has to be the most intelligent, direct and spot on explanation of why Star Trek endures. The stories of the Dominion war in the DS9 format may have been exciting to some veiwers...but I found them depressing to a degree. Especially when Sisko stooped to a false flag operation. The Dominion WAS the Star Trek version of an "Empire". It kept ratings going for a while until the "exit" strategy...which was to have Sisko take the bad guys down to the infernal light. I would say "time to move forward" and do a new show....Perhaps follow the USS Titan and Riker's adventures. Anyway, great post and keep those coming.
Re:Star Wars VS Star Trek ='s Fantasy VS SF by Thing+1 · 2011-09-23 06:47 · Score: 1

Yeah, but now days, I'll just use beer and porn. Easier on the system then fantasy.
Spend some time with a heart rate monitor, and you'll only need beer.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:47 · Score: 0

So you're saying ST is a fairy-tale for Democrats, and SW is a fairy-tale for Republicans?

No wonder non-nerds are always confusing the two...

Link is down by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 02:49 · Score: 0

Another site DDOSed by untold billions of slashdotters

Let's see... by MikeUW · 2011-09-19 02:58 · Score: 1

I haven't read Shatner's comments yet, but there is one main difference that comes to mind immediately to me: Star Wars happened in a 'Long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...' and at best could be taken to be our ancestors, while Star Trek happens several centuries in the future in /our/ galaxy, and is explicitly based on events that involve our descendants. So...not only are they entirely different fictional universes, the stories themselves actually happen in times and places that are temporally and spatially dispersed from each other in the universe (i.e., there is no overlap, barring a reliance on travel across great distances of space and time).

That is enough for me not to bother thinking about it much more, but there are obviously all the other intricacies of the two stories that differentiate them significantly.

Re:Let's see... by spire3661 · 2011-09-19 05:29 · Score: 1

This is such a childish view. The Long Long Ago trope is merely stage setting. The adults here are talking about the fundamental humanist differences, not where it was SET.

--
Good-bye
Re:Let's see... by MikeUW · 2011-09-19 06:07 · Score: 1

After watching the video of Shatner's interview, I don't see that what he discussed was any more or less 'childish' than my own thoughts...I recognize what he says, but that wasn't the intent of my comment, and there are plenty of facets to discuss. What I stated above was simply the main reason I had for never really drawing parallels between the two storylines. Just because they are perhaps the two most popular/well-known of a given genre doesn't seem like reason enough to equate the two...or is this just more like a boxing match where we're trying to determine which is better overall? If that's the case, the fact that it's the 'humanist' aspect being discussed is somewhat arbitrary; pitting one against the other might be considered a bit of 'childish' act in itself.
Overall, I'd say there's much more depth to Star Trek, but perhaps we should consider the number of hours that Star Trek had to go into the story and character development in that series vs. the Star Wars movies. Without the deep background of Star Trek, the latest Star Trek movie by J.J. Abrams wouldn't have been as great as it was. So again, we're comparing apples and oranges.
Is this adult enough for you? I just feel like this was all far too obvious to warrant all the fuss...and I got that same sense from Shatner (through the video more so than the transcribed text).
Re:Let's see... by Rob+Kaper · 2011-09-19 08:30 · Score: 1

This is such a childish view. The Long Long Ago trope is merely stage setting. The adults here are talking about the fundamental humanist differences, not where it was SET.
I don't think it's childish at all. Star Trek wasn't just coincidentally dealing with us, humans. While it included a great deal of generic humanist issues, most of them purposefully reflected on actual human social issues. Quite often it explicitely explored the differences or lack thereof between humanoids in general and homo sapiens sapiens specifically. Maybe the background of Star Wars was merely stage setting, but in Star Trek it was a deliberate choice. If that allows a greater or different audience to relate to the stories and reflect on them, or the same more intimately, then the setting is all but irrelevant.

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by LWATCDR · 2011-09-19 03:00 · Score: 1

The society shown in ST, and early STNG is as much a fantasy as anything in the universe. The truth is that society would fall apart. Everybody would be locked in their Holodecks living in their personal dream world and eating replicated cup cakes until they died. I will not go into what those ideal worlds would be like but my guess for a lot of people Ms Portman would be in a lot of them.

Notice that in later episodes, DS9, and Voyager Things like money, wealth, corruption, cruelty, poverty, and even civil unrest showed back up in the oh so perfect Federation.
I am a Star Trek fan but the society that Rodenberry showed was down right oppressive in so many ways. You conformed or they fixed you to conform.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

pfff, geeks! by luis_a_espinal · 2011-09-19 03:03 · Score: 1

Spock vs Obi Wan would be an interesting matchup.

Padme Amidala going at with Seven of Nine and Uhura (the Zoe Saldana one) in a Bacta tank filled up to the reams with jell-o shots. That will be teh match to watch.

Re:pfff, geeks! by X3J11 · 2011-09-19 04:32 · Score: 1

Padme Amidala going at with Seven of Nine and Uhura (the Zoe Saldana one) in a Bacta tank filled up to the reams with jell-o shots. That will be teh match to watch.
Hell, even Nichelle Nichols' Uhura, in her prime.
Re:pfff, geeks! by Homr+Zodyssey · 2011-09-19 08:32 · Score: 1

Padme Amidala going at with Seven of Nine and Uhura (the Zoe Saldana one) in a Bacta tank filled up to the reams with jell-o shots. That will be teh match to watch.
And they're all wearing Leah's slave-girl outfit...

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by dhammond · 2011-09-19 03:03 · Score: 1

To expand on that, it's Arthurian in that it is a classic hero tale, a retelling of the archtypal hero tale that is seen in virtually all human cultures. Pick up a copy of Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces for more details.

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 03:04 · Score: 1

Star Trek is about a possible future of our world/universe and the progress of secular Humanity, and the triumph of reason and science and magic mind-powers.

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 03:23 · Score: 0

I am a Star Trek fan but the society that Rodenberry showed was down right oppressive in so many ways. You conformed or they fixed you to conform.

So, they didn't let people be assholes, big whoop.

Its simple by Lindan9 · 2011-09-19 03:23 · Score: 1

Star Trek is science fiction Star Wars is Science Fantasy

Star Trek vs. Star Wars? BSG Wins by coolmoose25 · 2011-09-19 03:31 · Score: 1

I am a hard core ST fan. Have been my whole life. But BSG beats it because ST dealt with a Utopian future, where as BSG acknowledges - revels in - human dysfunction. Star Wars skims the surface of that, and makes for great action-adventure SciFi... But in the battle between the franchises - BSG wins hands down - best Sci Fi ever done on television. Bar none.

--
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!

Two things by whereiswaldo · 2011-09-19 03:34 · Score: 1

1. I want to see a completed Death Star roam into the Borg home world (as seen on Voyager's "I, Borg") and fight it out

2. http://spacebattles.com/

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by LWATCDR · 2011-09-19 03:35 · Score: 1

One man's asshole is another man's protester, activist, original thinker, and or progressive. Sucks when you are not the man that chooses. I guess you would be happy to be fixed so as to not respond with profanity on message boards. After all no one on STOS would every lower themselves to use such language their society has evolved past the need to use crass language.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

The force is a religion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 03:46 · Score: 0

No point in arguing with those fanatics.

s/SG/5/g by Toze · 2011-09-19 03:48 · Score: 2

s/SG/5/g
FTFY.

--
No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256

Re:s/SG/5/g by martas · 2011-09-19 05:06 · Score: 1

Nice... And true. Of all the fiction I've read/watched, nothing gave me as strong a sense of despair as B5 regarding "people's" ability to overcome petty self-interest. That is, until the next scene where it suddenly managed to resurrect the hope that somehow, eventually, we'd move forward, even if only a little bit.

--
weinersmith

If we want to compare comedy standup routines... by Shadowmist · 2011-09-19 03:49 · Score: 1

...Carrie Fisher's standup routine is a lot funnier, and more insightful than William Shatner's any day of the week. Mark Hamill has a far greater voice range and has a great track record as the voice of a couple classic animation villains, The Joker, and Fire-Lord Ozai of "Avatar the Last Airbender". Shatner seems to be redeeming himself as an actor in Boston Legal, but I can't keep a straight face in those rare times I'm exposed to an episode of "T.J. Hooker." So there.

Simple answer by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 03:49 · Score: 0

Star Wars takes place in the past and Star Trek in the future

Re:Star Trek vs. Star Wars? BSG Wins by anagama · 2011-09-19 03:51 · Score: 1

BSG really overdid the whole religion thing. It was more a look back than a look forward.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good

But still by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 03:54 · Score: 0

The Enterprise would whup on any star destroyer, but Yoda would kick Kirk's ass.

Just sayin.

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by Shadowmist · 2011-09-19 04:00 · Score: 1

Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Arthurian Legend. Star Trek is about a possible future of our world/universe and the progress of secular Humanity, and the triumph of reason and science

Actually Star Trek looked backwards more than forward. Roddenberry piched it as "Wagon Train to the Stars" and based it's main character on Horatio Hornblower, an 18th century sailing captain. The worldviews expressed were firmly locked in '50's paternalism and the show was generally more of an Establishment reaction against the progressive movements than for it. Finally if you think that Star Trek was that grounded in science find a physicsist that won't break out in laughter everytime someone mentions a "Heisenberg Compensator". Pretty much, classic Star Trek was a reflection of the manifest destiny of a strictly American frame of reference than that of Humanity as a whole. Star Wars never claimed to be science fiction. it was a simple park your brain outside the door and enjoy the classic space opera of boy rescues princess. (and if only one movie had been made, that's how we would have remained seeing it.) Both Star Wars and Star Trek were uneven, the sequel movies suffered from the fact that Lucas can't write dialogue to save his life, but the Expanded Universe novels are generally very good works. Star Trek, particularly the original series, had a wide range of episodes that ranged form truly insightful to simplly awful. It benefited from having more development time, (several series of a few years length each) but to argue about which one was better is a complete waste of time. Besides being under the increasingly meaningless descriptor of science fiction, they're essentially two different things that aim at different areas. If you look at the expanded works however, you'll find them roughly equal in their own way.

Re:swear by TaoPhoenix · 2011-09-19 04:12 · Score: 1

Or Krakatoa.

(Arthur C. Clarke.)

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Next on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:13 · Score: 0

Coming up - why apples are better than orages.

David Brin talked about this years ago by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:13 · Score: 0

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main

Star Wars feudalism versus Star Trek democracy.

Though I probably wasn't paying attention to how Lucas tried to explain the voting for Queens. You don't vote for Kings

I like the Darth and Droids trick of transfusing blood to create a Jedi http://darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0086.html

Re:David Brin talked about this years ago by bckrispi · 2011-09-19 11:48 · Score: 1

Though I probably wasn't paying attention to how Lucas tried to explain the voting for Queens.
Pretty simple. A state gives up a Monarchy to become a Republic, but keeps the trappings of royalty (dress, titles, customs) for its elected head-of-state. This implies not only cultural pride, but likely a very peaceful transition between the two forms of government.

--
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno

Re:Well... apparently teh site hosting this crashe by aevan · 2011-09-19 04:13 · Score: 1

Change 'wave tech' at it' to 'wave magic wand at it' and Star Trek easily ports to being a story of a galleon sailing an archipelago, solving incidents and disputes on the various islands. Deal with hostile villages and rival empires/trade groups. Captain has a woman in every port...

Both Star Trek vs Star Wars reflect their origins by voss · 2011-09-19 04:19 · Score: 1

The ancestor of star wars was the saturday matinee serials of the 1930s and 40s.

While the origins of Star Trek reflect both westerns and Navy movies of the WWII era and the 1950s, many of the actors in TOS had also done westerns,
even the expression "The Final Frontier" was chosen to reflect the similarity between space and the wild west.

Such is the common theme between Star Trek and navy films that some fans say that the best Star Trek film ever made
was "Master and Commander the far side of the world." a film set during the Napoleonic Wars.

Re:If we want to compare comedy standup routines.. by MightyMartian · 2011-09-19 04:19 · Score: 1

With a few exceptions (Magnum PI), most of the detective/cop procedurals from the 1980s suck ass. I can't blame Shatner for that one.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Not much to compare by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:24 · Score: 0

Star Trek is about science, Star Wars is about the antagonist. The only comparison is that they are both situated in a technologically advanced universe with Star Trek a few centuries ahead and Star Wars an unknown number of centuries in the past. Moreover Star Wars can be real in a Star Trek universe where it would just be a series of movies from the past whereas Star Trek would not be real in a Star Wars universe. Pun intended ;)

Star Trek vs Star Wars enhanced editions by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:24 · Score: 0

The enhanced edition of the original series of Star Trek showed how to refresh old sci-fi without destroying its soul. The Blu-Ray release even lets you switch between the original and enhanced version as the episode is playing. The contrast with Lucas' fiddling with the original Star Wars movies couldn't be more stark.

Star Wars was created to be a mechandise empire by Shivetya · 2011-09-19 04:29 · Score: 2

George Lucas even said so in 1979. He did the equivalent of focus group testing and market analysis. His real genius wasn't the story that was the first Star Wars, it was in making sure he controlled the merchandise and sequels. It has always been about the money, the story was a means to the end.

Hence Star Trek and Star Wars are wholly different regardless of that first word, that simply sets the place.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.

Re:Star Wars was created to be a mechandise empire by tverbeek · 2011-09-19 05:49 · Score: 1

The fact that Lucas had somewhat different goals for Star Wars than Roddenberry had for Star Trek doesn't make them "wholly different". It just means they're different on that point.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:Star Wars was created to be a mechandise empire by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 10:19 · Score: 0

This is another example of Lucas giving himself too much credit in hindsight. Truth is, nobody thought the merchandising would be valuable and he tried to sell it off to get funding without success. After he couldn't, he managed to capitalise on the unexpected windfall it became.
Re:Star Wars was created to be a mechandise empire by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 01:37 · Score: 0

[citation needed]

Shhhhh..... by Belial6 · 2011-09-19 04:33 · Score: 1

Hold on there partner! Don't draw the attention of the cool kids posing to our good nerd stuff or Babylon 5 might end up in the same place as the rest of the 'pop nerd' culture.

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by xdor · 2011-09-19 04:36 · Score: 1

Brilliant reduction and contrast.

Thanks for saying what I wanted to (only better)

William already made the call... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 04:40 · Score: 0

Firepower, ship size, ship speed, how cool Scotty was - none of that
matters to a true geek - William Shatner boiled it down to the only thing
that really matters as the difference - run away with the hottest girl.
It's settled, now get some sunshine everybody...

(Does anyone really bother to get the "Get Next XXX comments" button
25 times to get here anyway)?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-09-19 04:47 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why Star Wars lost its cool a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 05:01 · Score: 0

Star Trek is cooler because Hayden Christensen isn't edited back into the re-releases of the movies!

Re:Star Trek vs. Star Wars? BSG Wins by matthewv789 · 2011-09-19 05:03 · Score: 1

Agreed: the more mystical the cylons got, the more I lost interest.

Re:Star Trek vs. Star Wars? BSG Wins by coolmoose25 · 2011-09-19 05:08 · Score: 1

Star Trek was Unitarian/Universalist when it comes to religion... Sort of "yeah, it kinda sort of exists, but we'll not speak of it here." This does a disservice to humans, as religion is an integral part of our make up - has been and likely always will be.

Star Wars was extremely religious - The Force - is basically a cipher for good and evil - the Jedi way being "light" and the Sith as the "dark side" - and these priests can practice mind control and telekinesis. It was dogmatic and simplistic. Almost a comic book approach to the topic.

BSG examined religion through the lens of monotheism vs. polytheism, but examined both of these in great detail, including the various levels of commitment to one or the other, from fundamentalism (abortion, suicide bombing) to atheism (Starbuck is essentially an atheist who turns out to be an angel, huh...) It wasn't a look back at all... much more a look at our own contemporary issues. Neither ST nor SW got close enough to the essential human enigma when it comes to all manner of human endeavors - politics, societal conventions, right and wrong, and yes, religion. BSG made you BATHE in these.

--
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by spire3661 · 2011-09-19 05:18 · Score: 1

Because its impossible to imagine an alien organic that can tune radio frequencies in their head for telepathy....

--
Good-bye

Watch them all fight each other in animation by bryan1945 · 2011-09-19 05:19 · Score: 1

I saw this years ago. It took me forever to find it again. It mixes up Star Trek, Star Wars, Bab5, and Battlestar Galactica ships in various fights. The animations are about 4 years old, so they're not state-of-the-art graphics, but still fairly neat.
Spacebattles.com. Look under the "Movies" link on the left menu.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.

Troll with Flamer's on kill! by hellfire · 2011-09-19 05:26 · Score: 1

They both suck! Babylon 5 pwnz j00r future!

*scurries back under the bridge*

--

"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

There is but one true trek by SmallFurryCreature · 2011-09-19 06:28 · Score: 1

Wesley is to Star Trek what a the phantom menace was to Star Wars. That is if either existed, which they don't.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

What about Leia? by SmallFurryCreature · 2011-09-19 06:32 · Score: 1

And her kids?

Someone isn't uptodate on his lore. Hand in your geek pass at the door, from now on you will just have to sex like the rest of the plebs.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Space Opera by swv3752 · 2011-09-19 06:33 · Score: 1

The genre for Star Wars is Space Opera, where as Star Trek is Science Fiction.

Space Opera is Fantasy with a veneer of Science Fiction. Aliens, Lasers and Space ships replace Elves, Swords and Dragons, but no real attempt to explain how the science works.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life

Re:Space Opera by mattack2 · 2011-09-19 13:42 · Score: 1

I'm a huge Star Trek fan(*), but how exactly is there a "real attempt to explain how the science works"?
Heisenberg compensators, etc... and the well known tale (apparently non-apocryphal) that they would just write "" in the scripts that they would later fill with gobbledygook tech speak.
(*) Though in terms of movies, at least the original trilogy of Star Wars movies is far better than any of the Star Trek movies.
Re:Space Opera by ifrag · 2011-09-20 00:56 · Score: 1

Space Opera is Fantasy with a veneer of Science Fiction.
I don't think there is really any accepted definition of what exactly "Space Opera" is. If I had to define it, I'd point to something more like Crest of the Stars.
Although without a generally accepted standard, people are pretty much free to label stuff as they will.

--
Fear is the mind killer.

coming up next... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 06:36 · Score: 0

Next up, Daffy Duck on Muppet Babies versus Loonie Tunes Babies, or whatever.....

The Culture. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-19 06:42 · Score: 0

Maybe Star Trek is nice, maybe Star Wars is nice, but neither can hold a candle to The Culture. O:-)

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by jafac · 2011-09-19 06:58 · Score: 1

They didn't "fix" 7 of 9. She was PERFECT. :D

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by GNious · 2011-09-19 07:05 · Score: 1

I thought it was Lord Of The Rings In Space :)

Re:Star Trek vs. Star Wars? BSG Wins by yomammamia · 2011-09-19 07:34 · Score: 1

BSG completely lost the plot as it gradually moved closer to theology. I don't mind a bit of theology in Sci-fi but BSG went too far. Any further and it would have completely plagiarised Exodus. It spoiled any Sci-fi element it once had and turned the story into meaningless drivel.

Star Wars and Star Trek should never, ever, cross. by MrSenile · 2011-09-19 07:36 · Score: 1

And this is the single phrase that will prove the universes are totally incompatible:

We are Jar-Jar of Borg. Prepare to be assimmilattee-blr-blr-blr-blr-blr-blrated!

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by Trogre · 2011-09-19 08:52 · Score: 1

Fantasy, dude, Star Wars is Space Fantasy.

Or Space Opera if you like.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Man, F$ck Firefly by Weedhopper · 2011-09-19 10:47 · Score: 1

I'm one of the geeks who didn't really like Firefly. It drops pretty far into the uncanny valley for me.

Chinese is one of the things they got sorta right, then failed on. Ah, so the Chinese culture is so commonplace that Chinese words are sprinkled throughout everyone's lexicon and elements of Chinese culture are everywhere.

So, uhm, where are the Chinese characters?

Look, I understand the inherent limitations of network television and all that goes into casting a prime time show. There's a lot more white actors in Hollywood and if Fox doesn't want to take a risk, it's their money. The problem here is that Mr. Whedon is trying to sell me something that he can't actually produce. It's a visual medium. I can SEE that there aren't any Chinese on screen.

Every ten minutes, Joss opened another can of worms.

Re:Man, F$ck Firefly by Sasayaki · 2011-09-19 11:32 · Score: 1

I agree with that. While I think Firefly was beautiful, the distinct lack of Chinese people really kinda broke the illusion for me.
Note that Kaylee was originally written as Chinese but Jewel came along and blew them away so much they gave the role to her.

--
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Re:Man, F$ck Firefly by Weedhopper · 2011-09-19 13:29 · Score: 1

Don't get me wrong, I fully approve of cute, red-haired greasemonkies & engineers. (What is it about geeks and redheads?)

Chinese this, Chinese that and main cast is five white characters, a Magical Negro, a Gina Torres and a Morena Baccarin (Ethnicity: Smoking Hot).

Picard and Leia? by king_grumpy · 2011-09-19 10:49 · Score: 1

I notice that Shatner suggests that Kirk runs off with Leia. Wonder if Patrick Stewart would suggest that Picard should be the one to take Leia to the holodeck :)

Re:Star Wars and Star Trek should never, ever, cro by MightyMartian · 2011-09-19 10:52 · Score: 1

Maybe not....

"Meesa be thinkin' you be part of the Collective, and everybody be happy all the time! Meesa be assimilating you muay muay now!"

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by bckrispi · 2011-09-19 11:34 · Score: 1

Meanwhile, Star Trek is a commentary on current events and attitudes set against the backdrop of space. It's not a fairy tale or fable, it's allegory.

Star Wars had this as well. It shows what happens when corporate interests trump democracy. You have monopolies with private armies as well as representation in the Senate. These interests use their political and military power to suppress indigenous populations, causing both a social and a military crisis. Under this backdrop, the People willingly trade the inefficiencies of democracy for a dictator who promises to restore order - all to the sound of "thunderous applause". This theme wasn't put on film until the prequels, but Lucas had written much of this into the forward of the 1977 novelization of Star Wars.

--
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno

Re:Star Wars and Star Trek should never, ever, cro by bckrispi · 2011-09-19 11:50 · Score: 1

Resistance is futile, okey-day?

--
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno

Re:If we want to compare comedy standup routines.. by Boronx · 2011-09-19 17:10 · Score: 1

Merlin, attack!

--
Play Command HQ online

A battle fought long ago... by Boronx · 2011-09-19 17:15 · Score: 1

Isn't this settled in most games of VGA Planets?

--
Play Command HQ online

Re:Both Star Trek vs Star Wars reflect their origi by H0p313ss · 2011-09-19 17:54 · Score: 1

...some fans say that the best Star Trek film ever made
was "Master and Commander the far side of the world." a film set during the Napoleonic Wars.

No that was the best movie adaptation of a Hornblower ripoff.

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction

Re:Star Wars and Star Trek should never, ever, cro by RivenAleem · 2011-09-19 23:36 · Score: 1

If there were to be a cross, then it would either happen in Star Wars' far far future, or Star Trek's far far past. All the above posts about who would beat who are irrelevant and also any possibility of any characters confronting each other.

Star Trek, due to having so much more media under its belt, could easily dream up some scenario to suit its pleasures, likely involving Q to have some cross-over. Star Wars, on the other hand has no history of demi-gods or time travelling in its expanded universe.

Also, the Borg wouldn't assimilate Jar-Jar, he has nothing of value to add to the collective.

Sorry just have to do it. by fartrader · 2011-09-19 23:47 · Score: 1

Haaaaaaaaaaaaan!

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by mcvos · 2011-09-20 00:53 · Score: 1

Actually Star Trek looked backwards more than forward. Roddenberry piched it as "Wagon Train to the Stars" and based it's main character on Horatio Hornblower, an 18th century sailing captain. The worldviews expressed were firmly locked in '50's paternalism and the show was generally more of an Establishment reaction against the progressive movements than for it.

Well put. In Star Trek, the heroes represent the establishment; they operate from a position of power, most of the time. In Star Wars, the establishment is evil, and the heroes are rebelling against it.

Re:Star Wars and Star Trek should never, ever, cro by MrSenile · 2011-09-20 03:22 · Score: 1

Also, the Borg wouldn't assimilate Jar-Jar, he has nothing of value to add to the collective.

Well, you see, that all depends on if George Lucas directs the new crossover movie.

He mistakenly thought Jar-Jar served value in the original 3 movies.

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria by camazotz · 2011-09-20 04:08 · Score: 1

Completely wrong! I'd have Carrie Fisher, circa 1977 in my holodeck. Hmmm. Maybe Natalie at the same time.

In other news... by earlymon · 2011-09-20 06:14 · Score: 1

Batman battles Superman, winner defended by Denny Crane.

--
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.

personal thoughts on kirk by varience · 2011-09-20 06:42 · Score: 1

First off lets get one thing straight Kirk is far too busy ripping his shirt in every fight to win against Solo. Solo is a straight to the point and get it finished type of person. And besides if you get ten wookies and let them loose on the enterprise they would run through it like a hot knife through butter and kick their tribble loving butts back to the stone age. And besides Shatner sounds like something old people need diapers for.

Star Wars is largely for geeks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 07:17 · Score: 0

Star Wars is largely aimed at geeks, whereas Star Trek is for total dorks.

Star Wars is not Earth's future by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 07:32 · Score: 0

Star Wars takes place "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away". It contains humans but not Earthlings and doesn't take place in the Milky Way, and it is suggested that we are watching something that could have taken place a hundred years ago or a billion. But to me, that's the main difference. Star Trek is Earth's future and contains Earthlings, but Star Wars is in an entirely different galaxy and even the humans are considered aliens by our standards.

Star Wars vs. Star Trek is simple by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 07:44 · Score: 0

Star Trek is pure science fiction. All the gadgets are based in science. The society is based on trends taking place at the time it was written, etc.

Star Wars is a fantasy story set in space. You have a wizard, a young protege, a dashing rogue, a sidekick, a princess, an evil kingdom with a villain that is evil incarnate and a seemingly endless army. They use light swords for goodness sake. Give it a medieval setting and you have a dungeons and dragons quest.

You can't really compare them. The argument should be Star Wars vs. LOTR.

Scotty, I need that power!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-20 08:24 · Score: 0

Warp 10!!

I warned you about that Romulan ale, Jim! by doccus · 2011-09-20 11:51 · Score: 1

So he got a little boasty.. The original Trek does have one thing that it shares with the 70's Doctor Who episodes , and that's the cheesy cardboard cut-out effects, if there were any at all.. it forced you to use your imagination, and making it (original Trek especially) far more character based, than effects driven...

No fighters because . . . by hawk · 2011-09-20 14:26 · Score: 1

There is a very. Simple reason the federation has no fighters.

It's the same reason they *do* have transporters.

They didn't have the special effects budget to land a ship each week, so they came up with the transporters, which became plot crutches in something like 20% of the episodes in the spinoffs (those tha happened, anyway, and weren't wiped out by a time travel plot crutch, or Commander Cleavafe "sensing" something [Those were disturbingly like Lassies ability to notify folks tha Timmy was in the well, surrounded by 3 members of a gang, all carrying leaky dynamite . . .])

hawk

Slashdot Mirror

William Shatner On Star Trek Vs. Star Wars

511 comments