Star Wars vs Star Trek

I've seen both of them. At one point I felt Star Trek The Next Generation was better than Star Wars...

That was before I became an ultimate geek of Star Wars and learned about all the cool stuff outside of the movies.

I like both of them, but I'd have to say I enjoy Star Wars a LOT more. I haven't watched a Trek episode in a while, and I'm not a total geek of Trek either. I just enjoy watching it and when I'm done I don't really think much more about it. Whereas Star Wars is basically always on my mind.

They are both good in their own ways.

Thoughts? Are you a fan of Trek? Both?

 

I can't say that one is better than the other. Because if you love sci-fi/fantasy and that you are a sci-fi/fantasy fan, you love almost every single sci-fi/fantasy movies.

I like both, just that in some way I like SW better.

 

I can't say that one is better than the other. Because if you love sci-fi and that you are a sci-fi fan, you love almost every single sci-fi movies.

---

that so isn't true.


In any event I don't see Star Wars a sci-fi

it's fantasy set in space,


sci-fi is people moping around in ships, doing absoloutely nothing..

like Trek​

 

Is it better now, Rick?

 

Comparing Star Wars to Star Trek is, to me, the same as trying to compare something that is filled with an amazing array of action, adventure, excitement, laughs and a never ending opportunity of enjoyment to...well....Star Trek?!

Star Wars all the way!

 

Star Trek has gotten better as of late.

 

I feel weird watching Star Trek.

 

Star Wars 100% all the way!

 

Wrath of Kahn(my opinion the best star trek has to offer) better than phantom menace, attack of the clones&a new hope
And the new Star Trek is better than those movies too. But to me Episodes 3,5&6 surpass anything Trek has ever done.

 

I truly am a fan of nearly all of the major sci-fi franchises. Star Wars will always be my "first love", but Star Trek, Stargate, Firefly, Farscape, Andromeda, etc, they all have plenty to appreciate if you can keep an open mind and you aren't constantly comparing them against each other. In my mind, they all stand on their own equally...except for Star Wars. Star Wars is still number one to me. You won't see me posting on a Star Trek forum...

 

I'm not a fan of the movies but I really like the Voyager series.

Clearly, Star Wars all the way though.

 

I've never actually watched Star Trek, I want to, so I think I'll get round to watching the movie that came out a few years ago.

 

I enjoy Star Trek a lot (especially TNG), but obviously I like SW more. But I never got the "Star Wars vs. Star Trek" thing. They do not have a lot of things in common in order to compare them, except for the "Star" part of the title, and that it involves space travel. I mean, if you can compare SW and ST, then you can compare them with Star Gate, Battlestar Galactica, and other similar franchises too.

 

I Like both! It's sorta a toss up for me.

 

I appreciate science fiction. Always have. Star Wars isn't science fiction for me either Sistros . I see is as the time immortal myth that everyone can relate to that happens to be set in a GFFA. That isn't present in most science fiction. I always tell people, "Don't let the spaceships and lightsabers fool you. They are just there because they're awesome and we all want to own them."

Like benknobi1 , I feel weird on the very odd occasion when I'm watching Star Trek. I just sit there the whole time thinking: Wait! WTH? This isn't Star Wars!

 

They are related but technically different genres imo, and i think that's what most people don't realize. I would classify Star Trek as modern sci-fi, and more specifically science-speculative fiction; while SW is fantasy, or more specifically science-fantasy. SW has more in common with the fantasy genre than with the sci-fi genre, they address different natures with regard to a bigger picture. Star Trek is pure entertainment within a classic sci-fi-speculative framework, while Star Wars uses mythological paradigms within a pseudo-sci-fi framework and a fantasy backdrop. I understand why most people don't actually realize this, but it's important when looking at them. If ST addresses anything intrinsically higher than entertainment value it would have to be social, cultural, and socio-economic memes, as opposed to SW which is very much a personal story. Personally i enjoy both, and imo The Wrath of Khan is as good as anything SW from an entertainment standpoint. The new Star Trek reboot was excellent as well, as was the TV series Enterprise (which was the best of all the ST tv series' imo). That being said, ESB and RotS are all-time classic works, and both would make my top 25 movies of all time. However, so would TWoK and the new Star Trek reboot. For me it's tough to choose, both have great moments and both have let-downs. I'd probably give the slight edge to SW, but it's so close for me as to render comparison moot.

 

Although I do enjoy Star Trek, I feel that Star Wars is immensely superior.

 

Same.

 

Wait, they're two separate things?

 

I find it hard to compare the two.

Star Trek is set in our distant future, and Starfleet is the real focus. Dozens of main and secondary characters spanning hundreds of years. Themes are typically societal, focusing on the betterment and advancement of mankind. It is also, as others have noted, very much science fiction. There is no real core to the series, in my opinion. While it originated with the Original Series, many fans will point at their preferred series as the strongest crew and story. Personally, Next Generation is what leaps to my mind when I think of Star Trek. Somebody else surely thinks the original series, while others might even say Voyager. Also, the movies are definitely second to the tv shows. Though the recent JJ Abrams movies are looking to reverse that, which I never thought was a wise decision. Star Trek works best as a series.

By comparison, Star Wars is very much the six movie (soon to be nine movie) saga. The main theme is the heroes journey, with the OT exploring one outcome, and the PT exploring the reverse. There are also the strong fantasy aspects, with sci-fi tech simply working because it works. There is little internal logic. And, of course, the series explore war and corruption of government. It is all very much removed from our own galaxy, though it deals with pretty big themes that transcend time and space. While other media explores a longer timespan, when it comes to the movies, only a period of less than forty years is explored (though the sequel trilogy might extend that to 70 or 80 years). The main focus is not on a group, but rather a family. Unlike Star Trek, tv shows come second and act as supplements to the films. Though, like Star Trek, Star Wars TV has outpaced the films when it comes to the number of hours that exist.

But, I am more of a Star Wars fan. I just enjoy it more. I have watched all the Trek shows (took a few years of watching on my commute to work) and enjoyed them, but only see myself rewatching select Next Generation seasons.

 

Nailed it

 

Both. I really don't get why people have to compare the two as if they were in some kind of competition. Is there a limit on how many franchises containing the word 'star' we are allowed to enjoy? Will I have to return my Stargate SG1 DVDs now?

 

JJ Abrams is directing both now. Might be sacrilege against both franchises if I pick favorites.

 

People compare them because, more than anything, it's fun to do, I think. It's like comparing sports teams (albeit maybe a better comparison is sports teams from different sports: Yankees vs. Lakers, Celtics vs. Steelers).

While I agree SW leans fantasy, it is science-fiction, and is thus highly comparable to Star Trek, though I also agree the natures of both differ to a large extent. Star Trek generally has a much calmer, slower vibe. Star Wars is extremely emotional.

Star Wars wins for me, because, first of all, I haven't seen enough Star Trek. I am ignorant. I have heard the original series (which is the most iconic, in my opinion, hands down- as evidenced by the still-remaining-stardom of William Shatner, for no other reason, really, than playing Cpt. Kirk, being more recognizable than any other actor in all of Star Trek, with Patrick Stewart and Leonard Nimoy as distant second and thirds)- I have heard the original series is very good, but I simply haven't seen enough of it. What I have seen is good, but plenty hokey. NG is my brand, and seems more serious, but is still sometimes silly and, really, it's all too drawn out for me.

Star Wars is more tight, because there's less of it, and because of its medium, which I prefer. And, because of its block-buster nature, it's (at least the OT) generally of a much higher-quality, altogether. But film just speaks to me more, as does the emotional nature and transcendent themes (ST does have plenty of transcendent themes, but I prefer SW's).

All that said, The Empire Strikes back is unquestionably one of the greatest films of all time, for a slew of reasons (including, but not limited to quality of film, recognition, acting, direction, cinematography, story, iconic moments). There is nothing, no film, no season, no episode, that Star Trek has in its vast portfolio, that I have seen or heard of, that can stand up to ESB. When considering everything, films, series, extended universes, SW and ST are very comparable and on similar footing (though I would assert that SW is more iconic and has had a stronger cultural impact), but when you compare the best that each has to offer, The Empire Strikes Back wins. period.

Star Wars > Star Trek

but there is a place for both, and both are enjoyable, of high quality at their best, and worthwhile. (p.s.- they also both have plenty of awful patches)