The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > General Star Trek Discussions > What about the Star Trek/Star Wars rule?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-20-2008, 06:22 PM
Zefram_Cochrane's Avatar
Zefram_Cochrane Zefram_Cochrane is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 257
Default What about the Star Trek/Star Wars rule?

Lets have some fun starting another fire storm. You know the saying (or rule). You either love Star Trek or Star Wars, not both.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-20-2008, 06:27 PM
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 213
Default

Hm... I probably do prefer Star Trek, but I like Star Wars just fine too. I wouldn't say I love Star Wars though, so I don't know if that counts.

What I do like about Star Wars is you could, theoretically, remove the sci-fi elements and it would still be a good story. Farscape was sort of the same. Star Trek's different really because it's an optimistic view about the future, rather than a pure plot-driven franchise.

And I'm not saying Star Trek lacks plots, of course. Its purpose is just different.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-20-2008, 06:29 PM
Zefram_Cochrane's Avatar
Zefram_Cochrane Zefram_Cochrane is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
Hm... I probably do prefer Star Trek, but I like Star Wars just fine too. I wouldn't say I love Star Wars though, so I don't know if that counts.

What I do like about Star Wars is you could, theoretically, remove the sci-fi elements and it would still be a good story. Farscape was sort of the same. Star Trek's different really because it's an optimistic view about the future, rather than a pure plot-driven franchise.

And I'm not saying Star Trek lacks plots, of course. Its purpose is just different.
Star Trek and Star Wars are similar in that they both have faltered. Star Trek had bad movies and Star Wars did too. Now I'll just grab my light saber and beam down...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-20-2008, 06:30 PM
Bagheera's Avatar
Bagheera Bagheera is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Valinor
Posts: 15
Default

I actually like both for different reasons... Star Trek I like because it's a optimistic and uplifting view of the future. Star Wars I like because it's fairly close to a fantasy film, just with a sci-fi setting. They are drastically different in scopes and in message, though I can see why people often compare them side-to-side... both being immensely successful sci-fi franchises with massive fandom followings.
__________________
~Let Knowledge and Intellect Guide Our Wisdom, So Long as Dreams and Imagination Guide Our Hearts~
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-20-2008, 06:32 PM
sir num nums sir num nums is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sherwood, AR
Posts: 2,357
Default

If you are talking about bad movie ratio, I think Star Wars wins that award.
Ep:1 / Ep:2 / Ep:3(about half of it)

I guess because I have watched Star Trek so much in my life time, that I prefer Trek over Star Wars. But, I like both. Except Jar Jar... That d-bag can go and rot in hell.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-20-2008, 06:32 PM
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zefram_Cochrane View Post
Star Trek and Star Wars are similar in that they both have faltered. Star Trek had bad movies and Star Wars did too. Now I'll just grab my light saber and beam down...
Yeah, in ironically different ways.

To me, Star Trek is about being an optimistic view of the future, a future we can aspire to attain. But the last few movies have felt more like pure action movies than Star Trek movies. Generations was the last one I thought had a real Star Trek feel to it, even if it did have faults (and even though I did like First Contact).

Star Wars, on the other hand, has always been more about telling a story and less about the future. As it says in the opening, 'a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.' But the prequels just failed at telling a story, for the most part. I mean, they did okay, but they weren't the originals in my eyes, that's for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-20-2008, 06:35 PM
RATEDNCC1701's Avatar
RATEDNCC1701 RATEDNCC1701 is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: RENO, NV
Posts: 642
Default

At least, there won't be any more Star Wars films, so we won't have to worry in that department. I would have to agree that both have different reasons for liking them as well. Star Trek has Kirk and Spock. Star Wars has Darth Vader and Yoda. There is no lack in iconic characters for either one. I like Trek more, but I did like Star Wars a lot growing up because there second trilogy was releasing, but so was Generations, First Contact, and Insurection. I guess it is a matter of personal preference.
__________________
If You Smelllllllllllll what the Vulcan is coooking!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-20-2008, 06:35 PM
Zefram_Cochrane's Avatar
Zefram_Cochrane Zefram_Cochrane is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
Yeah, in ironically different ways.

To me, Star Trek is about being an optimistic view of the future, a future we can aspire to attain. But the last few movies have felt more like pure action movies than Star Trek movies. Generations was the last one I thought had a real Star Trek feel to it, even if it did have faults (and even though I did like First Contact).

Star Wars, on the other hand, has always been more about telling a story and less about the future. As it says in the opening, 'a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.' But the prequels just failed at telling a story, for the most part. I mean, they did okay, but they weren't the originals in my eyes, that's for sure.
Lucas waited too long. They don't feel or look like prequels because of the advanced film making technology. The original Star Wars had a charm that can't be replicated on a big budget (the original was only 10.5 million).
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-20-2008, 06:38 PM
sir num nums sir num nums is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sherwood, AR
Posts: 2,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zefram_Cochrane View Post
Lucas waited too long. They don't feel or look like prequels because of the advanced film making technology. The original Star Wars had a charm that can't be replicated on a big budget (the original was only 10.5 million).
Look at the earlier Star Trek films, they has less than 30 million to make a movie. As the budget got bigger, the movies got a little slacked. Of course we can thank a couple of people for that
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-20-2008, 06:39 PM
Zefram_Cochrane's Avatar
Zefram_Cochrane Zefram_Cochrane is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir num nums View Post
Look at the earlier Star Trek films, they has less than 30 million to make a movie. As the budget got bigger, the movies got a little slacked.
I agree. Look at TOS. Low budget for sure but some powerful episodes (some of the best in all of Star Trek).
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:38 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.