|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 28, 2017 20:31:58 GMT -5
I was and am a very big fan of the original Star Trek series along with Next Generation and Voyager. Having said that I choose Star Wars because the series of movies held my interest longer. I have watched every Star Wars movie , But I've bailed on Star Trek Enterprise and Deep Space nine. I have to confess to not watching any of the last three reboot Trek movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 28, 2017 21:33:44 GMT -5
Khan is closest. But because of the structure of Star Trek, you have a villain of the week or villain of the movie and there isn't as much time to flesh out their story. Generally, you meet them, learn their motivations, and see them defeated in the course of the one film. I think Vader would still be a great villain if A New Hope was all that existed, but he's even better because we have Empire. I was thinking the Borg from STNG was the top threat. Every episode with them was a winner. Like many themes/stories/ideas in TNG, the Borg were amazing at first, but really got overused and depowered over time. They are clearly the closest to Vader visually, but if you want an arch nemesis, it's Q. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 22:32:54 GMT -5
I was thinking the Borg from STNG was the top threat. Every episode with them was a winner. Like many themes/stories/ideas in TNG, the Borg were amazing at first, but really got overused and depowered over time. They are clearly the closest to Vader visually, but if you want an arch nemesis, it's Q. My first impression of Q when I watched the debut of TNG as it aired was that he was a cheap imitation of Trelane from Squire of Gothos and it was done better in TOS, so I didn't watch another episode until season 2, where I got caught up on Season 1 in reruns. Q is probably one of my least favorite aspects of the newer Trek series. -M |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 28, 2017 22:56:09 GMT -5
Q gets alot better as his character gets developed.. you're right that he's not all that interesting in the premiere.
Incidently, that retconned Trelane into being a Q in one of the Peter David-written Novels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 28, 2017 23:19:14 GMT -5
I went with Star Trek, simply because the original series was formative while I was growing up and was one of my gateways to SF. That said, I've not watched any of the later show...and have seen most of the movies...once.
Star Wars started with a bang, went through a horrible adolescence and has had a couple of okay movies in the last couple of years. But I've never been compelled to delve into any of the extended stuff.
Mostly though I agree it's apples and oranges.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 1:06:29 GMT -5
Is there a Star Trek vilian that compares to Darth Vader? No, and I think that's actually a plus point for Star Trek. Vader is a pantomime villain, a cardboard Dr Doom clone. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 2:13:38 GMT -5
Q is one of those Star Trek Characters that I've really liked the most and my favorite episode was when he turned the main crew into band of merrymen and had a Robin Hood type of the thing and one of Captain Picard's female friends into Maid Marian.
It was cleverly done and it's was funny in an subtle way and that's the beauty behind Q Character that made it good. I wished he had a more prominent role in Star Trek.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Mar 29, 2017 7:42:15 GMT -5
Star Trek/Wars should never be a versus or which is better contest. They are 2 totally different aspects of science fiction/fantasy and both inspire and bring new followers into their fold. Star Trek was my 1st big exposure to adult science fiction and from watching it daily in reruns i went on to seeking out true science fiction novels and books that took my thoughts and emotions to deeper concepts. Thank you to the Great Bird of the Galaxy Gene Roddenberry as Trek dared to explore the human condition and do it intelligently and with class and humor while being creative and entertaining at a time on television when most shows were simplistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 29, 2017 7:56:46 GMT -5
Star Trek for me. I loved the first three Star Wars movies (and the comics, and those four early novel spin-offs) but nothing since Return of the Jedi has really struck a chord with me, and I really disliked the three prequels. The Star Trek universe, however, has always entertained and fascinated me. It has its ups and downs; I could never get into Enterprise, and Voyager was often a bit hit and miss. But generally, I think Trek has the better characters and the more interesting themes.
Neither of them can compare to Doctor Who, though...
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 29, 2017 8:03:59 GMT -5
I like both as well, and for different reasons, just as I like both Wagner's tetralogy and the Beatles' body of work. Star Wars is basically one big story. It has been expanded in both directions (what came before, what came after) but it is, at its core, just one tale. Star Trek is an ongoing succession of stories, where some have great impact and others less so, but where there isn't a single defining moment. Comparing the two is like comparing that great sailboat trip around the world you made with your buddies to the years you spent with your family. Both were brilliant, but not for quite the same reasons. In terms of intensity, I probably preferred Star Wars. In terms of scope, Star Trek has it. In terms of phenomenon, I personally really dislike the Star Wars expanded universe... The only derivative material I enjoyed were the Star Wars comic published by Marvel and the movie Rogue one. When it comes to Star Trek, the novels were usually better... but then again, the type of stories told in Trek were very well adapted to an ongoing series of short adventures that did not change the status quo. But Star Wars fans should not take offence... I haven't yet said what I think of the Dune prequels and sequels and in-between-quels....  |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 29, 2017 12:33:41 GMT -5
I like both as well, and for different reasons, just as I like both Wagner's tetralogy and the Beatles' body of work. Star Wars is basically one big story. It has been expanded in both directions (what came before, what came after) but it is, at its core, just one tale. Star Trek is an ongoing succession of stories, where some have great impact and others less so, but where there isn't a single defining moment. Comparing the two is like comparing that great sailboat trip around the world you made with your buddies to the years you spent with your family. Both were brilliant, but not for quite the same reasons. In terms of intensity, I probably preferred Star Wars. In terms of scope, Star Trek has it. In terms of phenomenon, I personally really dislike the Star Wars expanded universe... The only derivative material I enjoyed were the Star Wars comic published by Marvel and the movie Rogue one. When it comes to Star Trek, the novels were usually better... but then again, the type of stories told in Trek were very well adapted to an ongoing series of short adventures that did not change the status quo. But Star Wars fans should not take offence... I haven't yet said what I think of the Dune prequels and sequels and in-between-quels.... Gah! Don't get me started on what they did to Dune. Anything beyond the original books is an affront to all things good and worthy. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 29, 2017 12:36:11 GMT -5
As to the original question, I'm also in the "apples & oranges" camp. I love them both, in very different ways, despite both of them having some very bad portions.
|
|
|
|
Post by lobsterjohnson on Mar 29, 2017 13:33:29 GMT -5
As to the original question, I'm also in the "apples & oranges" camp. I love them both, in very different ways, despite both of them having some very bad portions. Pretty much the same for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 13:50:57 GMT -5
Apples and oranges. You really can't compare the two. They're both set in space and they both have "Star" in the title, and that's where the similarity ends. They're not even from the same genre: one is science fiction, the other is space fantasy. Totally agree. Plus one is several TV series & Movies. The other only has the Movies. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 14:03:28 GMT -5
Apples and oranges. You really can't compare the two. They're both set in space and they both have "Star" in the title, and that's where the similarity ends. They're not even from the same genre: one is science fiction, the other is space fantasy. Totally agree. Plus one is several TV series & Movies. The other only has the Movies. and two highly successful animated series on television. One thing that bothered me about Trek looking at it in hindsight is that for a highly progressive vision of the future, it still focuses on entire races as "the enemy" with the design of the Klingons hearkening to the Yellow Threat Fu Manchu look (much like early depictions of Ming in the Flash Gordon serials) making them come off as a bit of that Yellow Menace Peril trope while the Romulans and the Neutral Zone hit a little too close to Red Menace demilitarized zone/eastern bock buffer nations idea in a not so subtle way. For a progressive inclusive vision of the future, there is still a lot of "us and them" and "that race doesn't accept our ideology as a whole so the whole race is the enemy" messages in there. Some have pointed to the lack of a Vader-like villain, and that's fine, but when you promote a race as a villain it's a little problematic for me, and it's not something unique to TOS. To its credit, there have been some Trek stories that point out some of the issues with it, but far more often it is putting out the sweeping generalizations of races as the enemy as an acceptable norm. That's not to say there aren't problematic aspects of Star Wars either, but those aspects of Trek just struck me as so at odds with the progressive image of Trek's vision that people like to hype when talking about its merits. -M |
|
