 |
| |
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
Trek is hardly a homogenous entity. Quite a lot of it has been made after the original creator died. The current people directing the Trek franchise are utter morons, and have been churing out stupendous amounts of crap for a long time. When Roddenberry was still around it was a good series, though.
Star Wars is great, from a certain stand point. It's good space opera, a high-budget B movie. Some of the original Trek clearly surpasses it as science-fiction (Especially The Wrath of Khan), but they've both got their places.
But Star Trek has Nimoy 
--"Anybody for Babylon 5?"
Haven't seen the entire series yet (wish those yo-yos hadn't managed to lose the HD masters, then I'd be quite happy about buying the DVDs), but what I saw was good. About the only recent show that actually qualifies as science-fiction.
--"2. Since when did the Federation use fighters?"
It's been around quite a while, but since the focus has been on the Enterprise there wasn't a whole lot of reason for them to show up on screen.
--"Every single Federation ship was different; no wonder they're losing if they have a different design for every ship."
Just like every other fleet, there are different classes for different purposes. The Hood and the Enterprise D (IIRC) were the same class, for instance, so it's only reasonable they'd be very similar.
Star Trek has always been primarily about the Enterprise (or DS9, etc, but about a single ship's crew). Star Wars has been largely about Luke/Vader, etc, but also concerned with the overall Empire vs Rebellion/Republic. It's just a difference in scope.
--"And besides, I've never understood how they manage to deflect those lasers."
They're not lasers, they're "blasters". Dressed up technobabble can make them pretty much anything.
Check out this Lightsabres page and this technical commentaries page for more Star Wars info.
--"I much prefer Stargate SG-1."
I haven't been too fond of that series. Just never clicked for me. The movie's not bad, but also nothing special.
*sigh* Now if only someone would license and subtitle Legend of the Galactic Heroes...
Wraith
"I fail to see what they find so amusing."
-- Spock
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
ST is for hardcore sci-fi nerds.
SW is for Joe Everybody who just wants to have some fun.
Ok, not that simplistic. I'm definitely in the SW camp. I don't care of ST is more "realistic" (It isn't though...just different things are unrealistic, like the absence of any dirt in the universe, time travel, a fat, middle-aged captain with a bad hairpiece being the hero...).
I think SW captures the imagination better, as it relies on simpler, classic themes and images. SW has a grittier, earthier feel to it, while ST seems just a little too formal and, frankly, prissy. It's like the difference between Wagner and Mozart. Sure, Mozart was cleaner and prettier, but Wagner really grabs you by the nuts and draws you into the epic.
SW easily has more memorable characters. Luke is the everyman that ST lacks (everyone in ST seems a little too nauseatingly perfect, don't they?), Han is brilliant (thanks to Ford's portrayal, of course), and there is no character in ST that rivals Darth Vader, who has become an archetype of sci-fi villainy. Even the droids are pretty memorable, and who out there doesn't recognize R2-D2 on sight?
The imagery of SW also sticks in your mind more. The Death Star...the Hoth Battle...lightsaber duels...X-wing/TIE Fighter dogfights...Han frozen in carbonite...Jabba the Hutt...the Tatooine Bar... Luke and Leia swinging the chasm...the trench run...Dagobah...Cloud city...
For the life of me, I can't think of any moments in ST that rival these in terms of seizing the imagination and creating a lasting feeling of wonder and interest in a fantasy world. That really is an integral part of the magic of the SW saga.
So, while ST is certainly nothing to sneeze at (and DS9 is still, IMO, the only ST series that can be considered "great"), I think SW trumps it in terms of having a cultural impact that will be felt for ages to come.
PS--plus, SW has Imperial Star Destroyers. 'Nuff said.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
Did I mention how much I hated star wars jet fighters in space? At least they could try for semi-realistic physics
As for moments how about the self- destruct of the Enterprise in Star Trek 3. Or the image of the Enterpise pulling too slowly away from the Reliant (is that the correct ship name?) in Star Trek 2. They knew they were doomed and weren't going to make it. In fact that whole battle sequence sticks in my mind. How about the first shots of the Enterprise in Star Trek 1 which may be the worst movie however. I admit the later films lacked this imagery. But so do Star Wars later films. |
While pretty images, they don't stick in the minds of most people like the ones in SW do. I mean, when most people think of sci-fi, they get in their heads an image of the Death Star or Darth Vader first, I'd wager. Certainly the Enterprise in ST is a recognizable image, but I think the sheer volume of such imagery in SW overwhelms ST.
SW is more playful, ST just takes itself too seriously (in the films, at least). Sadly, the new SW films are doing this as well now, because Lucas has become a pompous jerk (or he always was one and is just now letting that show in his films).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-05-2002 18:40
|