Star Trek or Star Wars?

**kevin** · 7th October 2005, 13:11

I like Star Trek better. Theres more of a meaning in Star Trek. During the 60s, Star Trek used and talked about the problems of the sixties (racism, the Vietnam War, etc). Star Wars doesnt do that. On Star Trek, theres Spock (one of the most interesting characters ever created for TV and the movies). In my opinion, William Shatner is a better actor than Mark Hamill (who has not aged gracefully!). Plus C3PO gets annyoing after a while. On special effects, Star Wars always had 4 times the budget for effects than Star Trek did. But Star Treks effects are great with less money. The Wrath of Khan was created with little money, and still it had great effects. On music, Star Trek is ahead by a nudge. But thats not saying Star Warss music isnt great too. If you havent seen a Star Trek movie before, shame on you, and go see Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, its the best Star Trek action movie. Or if you like slow-thinking ones, go to Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

If you have seen a Star Trek movie, tell me what one(s) and what you thought?

**RogueTwoRobots** · 7th October 2005, 19:34

The main reason Star Wars probably didnt touch on all the racism and stuff was because its was a flim rather than a TV series. TV programs are more likely to feature that sort of theme because theyre being broadcast every week with people watching every day, so it makes more sense to deal with every day issues. Films are more one-off things, hence the less realistic issues some of them deal with. I personally prefer Star Wars. I dont really have a strong reason as to why that is, except that I never found the Star Trek TV series that interesting as a child whereas Star Wars - being a film - seemed more fantastical to me. I suppose its just one of those things - although my dad has got the Star Trek movies and they are good - I was just never keen on the TV series.

**babeth** · 8th October 2005, 11:43

I prefer Babylon Five.
Although I have been a huuuuge fan of Blakes Seven and Battlestar Galactica in the past and as a 6-year old I was absolutely smitten by Space 1999.
Star Trek AND Star Wars were just absolutely wonderful to my adolescent brain. Likewise I also liked Buck Rogers and Logans Run.
Those were all reasonabely good SF-series you know. Most of them started with a movie to test for interest amongst the audience and then got their own tv-series.

I dont care to make a choice, to my humble opinion they all had their good and bad points, most were either made with serious intentions to tell a good story or just plain wacky camp (like Buck Rogers) - whether or not intentionally.

**kevin** · 8th October 2005, 12:41

Babylon Five is great too.

**dogbot4000** · 3rd November 2005, 19:24

It might be too late but star wars is so much better

**kevin** · 8th November 2005, 21:08

thats not a deep statement, you have to explain why you think that.

**dogbot4000** · 9th November 2005, 15:59

I think that because if you think about it Star Wars has got more planets because of what Ive seen in cartoons and what Ive heard off Star Trek is just spaceship not planets or great memorable moments as in people know may the force be with you or Luke Im your father more.

**RogueTwoRobots** · 9th November 2005, 21:20

Then theres the Star Wars soundtracks that just add so much to the movies whereas with the Star Trek TV series (cos they dont spend as much money on it) the music is cool but not as cool as some of the movie stuff - especially the music they use in the battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin at the end of Revenge of the Sith - that was awesome.