Star Wars vs. Star Trek

The Genesis Project was a powerful and complex message. A scientific discovery that could "create life from lifelessness" yet in the wrong hands it was the most powerful weapon of destruction ever conceived. Should such a device exist? Can it be trusted to the right people? In the end its very existence caused so much death and suffering I think the answer is no.

It was the ultimate "good can be bad, bad can be good" message that Star Trek loves to promote.

 

While all the above may be true, it was also utterly bowled over by the Kahn plotline and lost in the shuffle. The Genesis Device was only a PLOT device, a means to an end, never reaching or even intending to be the quasi-Character that the Death Star turned out to be. The Death Star WAS the bad guy of SW, but the same cannot be said about Genesis. This is obvious in the level of pop culture adoption that the Death Star received, a name that has survived in the language to the present day.

 

That's the whole point. Genesis wasn't meant to be the bad guy, or a character. It was a lesson. Not only was it a lesson in technological over-confidence (such as the Death Star was) it was also moral and political. I'm not arguing that it should be more popular or remembered as the Death Star, but the very idea behind it is quintessential science fiction. It reminds us that too much power can be abused, and perhaps shouldn't be developed in the first place. The Death Star was just designed to be abused. Its evil simplicity just teaches us that the bad guys are always bad.

 

The Sith had lost all their power. *hehe*

 

One could wonder about how effective the Genesis Device would be against the Death Star...

 

It causes a big explosion, right? So it would probably be pretty devastating.

 

Or it might create life on the surface of the Death Star- atmosphere, plant-life, animals- the works. Galactic version of putting a flower in the rifle barrel.

 

The Genesis device destroyed the Reliant in a huge explosion before it formed the planet. The same thing would happen with the Death Star. Khan wanted it because it's a viable weapon, not because it's a totally benign life-creating device; it could destroy a planet if used on one.

 

"Or it might create life on the surface of the Death Star- atmosphere, plant-life, animals- the works. Galactic version of putting a flower in the rifle barrel."

Shhhh! You're going to give Lucas ideas. Next thing you know, 20 yrs from now when he re-remakes the OT that's how Luke will destroy the Death Star, with a giant blast of love... Heh heh.

I can see it now...

And as they gazed upon the surface of the Genisis planet, once known as the Death Star, the Gungans new they'd found home...

D_M_S_L

 

Star Wars vs. Star Trek?

Sorry, but Babylon 5, Farscape, and the new version of Battlestar Galactica puts both SW and ST to great shame.

 

I like them both,they are both great in their own way. When it comes to ST I prefer TNG, but other than that they both rock.

 

Not quite destroy. It would just convert existing living matter into its "new matrix" as Spock put it. It destroyed the Reliant because it was detonated inside it, and the resulting explosion vaporised the surrounding nebula and converted it into a new planet somehow.

 

I will forever choose Star Wars over Star Trek. When comparing the films and their EUs, just no contest at all. Star Trek I just find too full of static characters, situations, and gobbledygook. But I did like 'Wrath of Khan'.

But I love Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica so much too. But Star Wars triumphs anything. And I actually liked it when the NJO emulated the 5-year arc of Babylon 5 somewhat, it was so awesome to see Star Wars use a tactic from my then-fav sci-fi TV series.

And I still miss 'Invasion'.

 

No competition, Star Wars takes the prize easily. It's not that I hate Star Trek, it's just that Star Wars is infinitely cooler. Klingons and tacky little guns aren't as cool as Star Wars in my opinion, the Borg come close though.

 

No, they didn't. hrhr