Star Wars or Star Trek???

Star Wars definitely has a bigger impact than Trek. These days Trek is very much a cult thing, whereas Star Wars has never been out of mainstream culture really since it first came on the scene. And while they are both I guess seen as "nerdy", you get the impression that people consider Star Wars as slightly more socially acceptable!

Personally though I love both. I'd have to take Star Wars over Trek though just because I've been in love with it since I was four years old, and got into Trek a lot more recently. Although, while they have always been weighed up against each other, they are very different animals, and if you want to seriously compare them like for like I don't see what you could say really! It's like comparing LOTR with a historical film like Braveheart. Though, with the inaccuracies in the latter, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few Elves in Wallace's ranks

 

I like Star Trek, in some ways more than Star Wars. They are apples and oranges. If it wasn't for both being Star _____ I'm not even sure the franchises would have this "rivalry" any more than Battlestar Galactica has a rivalry with Star Wars.

As far as cultural impact. I'd say Star Wars. Star Wars was a phenomenon from the start that had a far reaching impact on film and whose characters became household names.

Star Trek ran for three seasons and was canceled. It later had renewed success with its reruns and then launched a series of movies to ride off the success of Star Wars (Leonard Nimoy has even stated as much). Those films paled in comparison to Star Wars. I really don't think Star Trek found a solid footing again until The Next Generation and possibly DS9 before declining with Voyager and finally with the cancellation of Enterprise in its fourth season in 2005 until the "reboot"/alternate universe film of 2009 (which arguably has more of a Star Wars flavor). In the bonus features of the Star Trek (2009) DVD it is even mentioned how they wanted the film to have more of a Star Wars flavor, which could be a reason for its renewed success after films like Star Trek: Insurrection and Nemesis.

Star Trek has its huge fan base, and its one of the most prominent science fiction franchises with characters like Spock who many people - even those that have never seen an episode of Trek - would recognize as being of that franchise. But when it comes to raw impact, I would have to say Star Wars hands down.

 

Have you ever watched Star Trek?

Sulu, Uhuara and Chekov have practically nothing to do in the series and movies. Scotty only slightly more and mainly because he was the only one Kirk trusted to take the conn when he was planet side or generally otherwise engaged with scantly clad fortresses.

Now I like these characters, especially Scotty, and I get that it was big deal to even have actors as like Nichols and Takei as and a Russian character as regulars on TV but their roles could easily be taken by any random red shirt.

Kirk, Spock and McCoy are Star Trek. It isn't Star Trek without them.

The other characters were never fully utilised until the new movie, if fact over utilised, at the expense of McCoy. Uhuara had far too much screen time and her importance could only be increased by making her Spock's lover.

Leia doesn't need to be anyone's woman. If fact one of the original ideas was that Luke's sister is someone else completely and neither Luke or Han win her over.

 

Vulture did a thing not too long ago on the Top 25 fandoms. Star Wars was ranked much higher that Trek, and I think you'd be surprised by what else did as well.

 

I liked both Star Trek and Star Wars.... However I hated the last Star Trek movie which is why I don't want JJ Abrams anywhere near Star Wars.

 

I have heard that a Spock lunch box used to get a kid's ass handed to him but a Han Solo t-shirt was free pass.

And as to comparisons between the two - I did ask early how they even came to be compared since they are, as you aptly put it, "very different animals".

 

You are right to mention Battlestar Galactica. It has more claim to rivalry with Star Wars than Star Trek and it was created as a direct result of trying to copy the success. In fact, wasn't there a claim by Lucas that it actually lifted ideas from his early drafts?

Star Trek was in the process of returning anyway at the time, but Star Wars' box office success merely changed the idea to movies instead of a TV show.

 

Thanks for the link - I'm interested to know what fandoms there are that make it 25.

 

Haha my old Star Wars lunchbox (and pencil case... and ruler... and bag... and pen....) never gave me any problems!

I think TaradosGon hit the nail on the head:

In many ways Galactica would be much easier to compare with Star Wars than Trek is.

 

What did you hate about it?

Plus, I love the Ratboy avatar - that alone earns you a follow no matter what you say about Trek

 

Star trek is even lamer than katy perry's ugly ex-husband, Russel brand.

 

There was an early connection between ILM and the BG folks. I'm pretty sure Fox and Lucas sued - or at least started legal proceedings against BG. I don't recall how that turned out.

 

It was too technobabble, not even epicness or mythical tropes to it, and it didn't have John williams, 21st century mozart, music to it......

 

Both cool...but way different...like a game of thrones and lord of the rings

 

Star Trek IS technobabble

 

I was never real huge on Star Trek. For one thing there's no Lightsabers. I always kinda had a liking for Spock though. I find him Facinating. The plots of most Star trek shows are really odd and make no sense to me. Some episodes nearly put me to sleep. Too slow paced and boring for my taste. Star wars is sooooo much better.

I will say though that the recent JJ Abrams film definitely kicked up the action. It honestly felt like it was trying to be more like Star wars and that's probably why I liked it.
I'm sure it made hardcore Trekkies a little angry having their thing turned into a Star wars ripp off.

 

Dude, that is just bizarre!!!

 

This makes even less sense than the Katy Perry post - plus I asked the question of Jinn-N-Tonic.

 

How does it make no sense? Star Trek isn't as epic and dramatic as Star Wars. I'm a warsie not a trekkie...

 

It wasn't a Star Trek rip off - they were just trying to break free of TNG's death grip.

 

Moving to community, as this really has nothing to do with Episode VII.

 

Thank you..

 

There was no technobabble in the new movie, it was epic, Star Trek was never about mysticism, John Williams is irrelevant as he has never worked on a Trek project, and Williams is not a 21st century Mozart for several reasons, chief among them being that the majority of his work is in the 20th century and he is not Mozart - Mozart is Mozart and John Williams is John Williams - both are different, unique talents that stand tall in their own right and deserve to be treated as such and not be compared to anyone else.

No one should. Everybody is there own person.

 

Did my last post still go through?

 

Yep.