Star Wars or Star Trek ? Which would you recommend and why?

[Kithelle]

As long as Kurtzman is attached to Star Trek it will never be my Star Trek. Dude pretty much invalidates the entire premise and history of the show in order to create something so far away from what Star Trek represents that it's hard to even consider it the same thing. Just throw in explosions, hand-waving exposition, vapid plots, forget everything about everything and you have yourself Discovery and Picard.

That's not to say Kurtzman is the only person who has poorly treated ST but boy he just keeps on digging that grave.

At this point The Orville is a more faithful adaptation of Star Trek.

He has no ability to create, so he basically just rips off any piece of fiction he can find and piece it together like a Frankenstein's monster. He never got Star Trek and is basically trying to turn it into Star Wars...it's to the point where it's more space fantasy opera than Star Wars is. They even made a point to add a line where Picard says "I never liked science fiction" just because he loves flipping the bird to the fans

[Ivanstone]

Warp Drive, in Trek, works because magical crystals somehow make a bubble of Ignore Physics around the ship and flick it across the galaxy because don't think about it. If you're gonna tell me it's meant to be an Alcubierre drive (the "real" warp drive, in terms of actual science), I'll point out it has zero relation, in any sense. An Alcubierre drive doesn't create a "warp bubble", doesn't accelerate to lightspeed instantly, etc.

But that still makes it sciencey.

Consider two things we know: If we're going to move interstellar distances efficiently we'll probably need to bend time rather move fast and an anti-matter/matter reaction makes a lot of energy.
Star Trek did actually consider those things. How do we do these things? Ok this is where things get handwavey and technobabbly but I at least appreciate the effort. TheBattleForDS9People might not.

- - - Updated - - -

Star Wars didn't become much about any technology until after the Original Films and Hell it didn't even have a social element to it either.

Striking a blow against fascism is a social element. Whether you use a bouncing dambuster bomb or force-guided torpedo is up to the director.

[Endus]

Hard Science, are you forgetting this entire genre is Science FICTION correct. And Star Trek took a lot more pains when it came to science than Star Wars ever has. As for Vulcan telepathy. Not to rip you off or anything but it simply could be a means of technology or development as humans we don't have.

For it to be "hard science", you'd have to be able to provide me with the actual theoretical if not actual physics that describe exactly how it functions.

If you can't, it isn't hard sci-fi. If your explanation is "it could be something we just don't know yet", you're outside hard science fiction.

However if you are going to talk shit about Vulcans being able to mind meld, how the fuck can you or anybody suggest a movie series about people with the ability to emit electricity from their fucking fingers, or wheeled a light saber.

I encourage you to go way back to my first posts in this thread where I said I like both Star Trek and Star Wars.

These weren't condemnations; it's just an establishment of subgenre standards. I was making the point that both Trek and Wars are soft science fiction that engage in a lot of pseudo-science magical nonsense. Not that doing so was somehow "bad", in either case.

I'll grant you points on the Vulcan shit, but outside of everything else that is very minor in comparison to Star Wars or FFS Harry Potter.

It isn't just Vulcans.
Betazoid telepathy.
The Q.
The Bajoran Prophets.
Plenty of other cases.

Star Trek has as much of this kind of hand-wavey stuff as Star Wars. By the arguments you're using, The Force is "science", too, for that matter.

Saying Star Trek is Science Fiction while Saying Star Wars is Fantasy isn't a slight, it's just an accurate statement.

No, it is not. Star Wars is clearly science fiction. Spaceships and all that.

If Star Trek isn't as hard of Science "FICTION" you get you want to give me a better example

Dude, take some time to learn some subgenre classifications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction

- - - Updated - - -

But that still makes it sciencey.

Consider two things we know: If we're going to move interstellar distances efficiently we'll probably need to bend time rather move fast and an anti-matter/matter reaction makes a lot of energy.
Star Trek did actually consider those things. How do we do these things? Ok this is where things get handwavey and technobabbly but I at least appreciate the effort. TheBattleForDS9People might not.

I'm just making the point that Star Wars does just as much with their Hyperdrive. People act like there's a serious divide on "science vs fantasy" between those two properties, and it's never held up. It was only writing in this thread where I think I hit the real distinction; Trek is morality plays and Wars is adventure stories. They're both equally soft-science sci-fi, they're different in the kinds of stories they tell.

Edit: Yes, morality plays can have elements of adventure, and adventure stories can have morals, but the two approaches to storytelling are distinct even if some concepts overlap.

[Doctor Amadeus]

For it to be "hard science", you'd have to be able to provide me with the actual theoretical if not actual physics that describe exactly how it functions.

If you can't, it isn't hard sci-fi. If your explanation is "it could be something we just don't know yet", you're outside hard science fiction.



I encourage you to go way back to my first posts in this thread where I said I like both Star Trek and Star Wars.

These weren't condemnations; it's just an establishment of subgenre standards. I was making the point that both Trek and Wars are soft science fiction that engage in a lot of pseudo-science magical nonsense. Not that doing so was somehow "bad", in either case.


It isn't just Vulcans.
Betazoid telepathy.
The Q.
The Bajoran Prophets.
Plenty of other cases.

Star Trek has as much of this kind of hand-wavey stuff as Star Wars. By the arguments you're using, The Force is "science", too, for that matter.



No, it is not. Star Wars is clearly science fiction. Spaceships and all that.



Dude, take some time to learn some subgenre classifications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction

Firstly I never brought up Hard Science Fiction, You did, so you would have to enlighten me. As for Star Trek, yeah you pointed out a some inconsistencies, the other shit with The Q and Bajoran not so much, and YOU if you watch all of TNG and followed should know better.

Some concepts were really written out to come back again, remember the Episode about the planet where a woman used science to trick the entire planet she was a GOD?


Or how about the Episode where the TNG crew accidentally revealed themselves to an undeveloped civilization who thought they were GODS. There was a reason for episodes like that, just like there were reasons for episodes with Q from the very beginning or episodes that involved seeing Romlans for the first time in the series and the Star Bases on both sides that went missing HintThe Borg) even before they were formally introduced.


The Point is Bajorans Prophets and Q are simply in the same vein, they aren't gods and they don't posses magic, and while despite yourself some of your point about yes sometimes technology can seem like magic yes, that is precisely the point. It's doesn't slap you in your face and TNG wasn't the first to play with this theme.


So no there aren't plenty of cases, there are SOME cases where as you said the Vulcan thin isn't entirely science based.



However the vehicle for the show IS, that is what makes it science fiction based.



Star Wars is about Good and Evil, which is why it takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.



I said Star Trek is Science Fiction and Star Wars is Fantasy, that's it. We moved two prerequisites for hard science fiction and I will be more than happy to read what you linked and read more up.

If the Argument now is that ST is just not hard Science Fiction then ok. My counter is that Star Wars isn't even Science fiction, and no star ships doesn't suddenly make it science fiction at least unless their some function of that technology that facilitates the story.


And don't tax yourself to hard on this one because I am going to help you out here, THERE ISN'T ONE, a Death Star that blows up Planets really doesn't count for the reason I just stated.

- - - Updated - - -

Striking a blow against fascism is a social element. Whether you use a bouncing dambuster bomb or force-guided torpedo is up to the director.

Honestly if anyone ever wanted to go through Star Trek and point out the pure absolute bullshit and magic in those terms then yeah, the list is endless on criticisms, and even as stupid as some of the explanations can be it still Science Fiction.

As for the newer properties maybe they have improved I don't know. Hell Star Wars has evolved too so who knows now IMO, certainly seems to be a lot of content to fill in the plot holes MAYBE hehe!

[Endus]

If the Argument now is that ST is just not hard Science Fiction then ok. My counter is that Star Wars isn't even Science fiction, and no star ships doesn't suddenly make it science fiction at least unless their some function of that technology that facilitates the story.

And you're wrong about this. That's both not how science fiction is defined, and Star Trek runs afoul of your own separation as much as Star Wars does.

[Aleksej89]

Star trek (not the "discovery" one, honestly don't watch that) is more about futuristic ideas, ideals, philosophy and such imaginings of the future (though some episodes are more about action).
Its best enjoyed if you actually think about the topics and moral dilemmas and whatnot else they are portraying.
Some of its actors/actresses are phenomenal and do a really good job - while others will be painful like needles in your eyes/ears (i still have nightmares from keiko).

Star wars is pewpew action drama.
Its like Call of Duty games, run and gun without much thought.
Visual effects are great because of the billions of funds available to it.
Sadly the story writing, telling and how characters are handled tends to be atrocious and unforgivable, below elementary school show quality.
Only thanks to the skill and charisma of some actors do their characters actually become likable and beloved.
Imho by far the best Star Wars thing ever produced is the animated series Clone Wars - but if you do not already know who the characters are it won't make much sense to you.
The latest star wars movies set a new standard for garbage, proving that you can spend billions on talentless hacks and all you get is shame and ridicule.

If you are going to watch anything Star Wars you really have to read up on at least the basics of franchise characters and story because they all kinda assume you know it and don't bother explaining who is who and why is what (and even then the consistency is all over the place, especially in modern films).

If you are going to watch Star Trek its a lot easier to get into it assuming you start from season 1 episode 1 of whatever series you choose.
But its mostly slow paced and requires you watching your screen and not your phone, otherwise its not going to make any worthwhile sense to you.

[Doctor Amadeus]

And you're wrong about this. That's both not how science fiction is defined, and Star Trek runs afoul of your own separation as much as Star Wars does.

I tell you what Endus I'll make a wager with you. Don't worry, not for money or anything just simple bet I win or you win.


I will name you as many Star Trek Ideas made REAL as I can, and YOU find me any Star Wars, Harry Potter or any other loose fantasy you think could be Science Fiction. If you can't name me more technologies in real life based on or inspired by them I win Deal?


Oh and I won't even use Cell Phones which is probably the one typically used and compared to Communicators, which I don't agree. Communicators were simply two way walky talkies that already existed arguably.


However Flatscreens TV vs Viewscreens
Smart Phones vs Tricorders
Touchpad controls vs Touch Pad Controls
Tablets vs Tablets on TNG

That's 4 off the top of my head Now tell me where the fuck is your light saber?



Oh and as for your hard science in the shows. Ok how about this


Better yet Star Trek Star ships run on Dilithium Crystals or using a Quantum Singularity (Magic).

What is the Empirical Destroyer fueled by or Better yet the Death Star?


Star Trek as Science Fiction might have some silly names for why things work or don't. But Star Wars never even bothered with the question if one should come up, because again Star Wars is Fantasy it doesn't rely on technology.

[Malania]

Someone who’s never watched em is thinking of giving them a try. They don’t have time for both because there is so much stuff especially when you count all the series.

You are told to pick one or recommend one. Which would you? Or how would you advise them of the two so they instead can make an informed choice?

Both have a lot of buzz and both are active again, described as the two biggest names in sci fi tv/movies. This has garnered the interest.

Trek. Star Wars had 2 good films.

[msdos]

Star Trek hasn't had good writing since DS-9, so it's basically unwatchable now. Star Wars basically has children in mind when it's written, I lost interest in it after Episode 1, I just grew out of it and LoTR took over.

I still watch old Star Trek though. The writing is amazing.

[Ivanstone]

I'm just making the point that Star Wars does just as much with their Hyperdrive. People act like there's a serious divide on "science vs fantasy" between those two properties, and it's never held up. It was only writing in this thread where I think I hit the real distinction; Trek is morality plays and Wars is adventure stories. They're both equally soft-science sci-fi, they're different in the kinds of stories they tell.

They're not equal though. Star Trek puts in an effort to make it look like Sci-Fi even when its clearly fantastical. Star Wars mostly doesn't bother.

Having spaceships doesn't make what you're doing Sci-Fi. The Dranei have spaceships. A Giant Turtle that floats around the cosmos is a spaceship. Some people believe the Earth is flat, space is a hoax and Spaceships are by definition fantastical.

[Doctor Amadeus]

They're not equal though. Star Trek puts in an effort to make it look like Sci-Fi even when its clearly fantastical. Star Wars mostly doesn't bother.

Having spaceships doesn't make what you're doing Sci-Fi. The Dranei have spaceships. A Giant Turtle that floats around the cosmos is a spaceship. Some people believe the Earth is flat, space is a hoax and Spaceships are by definition fantastical.

Yeah Star Wars is about good and evil, which is why they have a dark side of the force. however Star Trek really doesn't need this because most adults understand you wouldn't go slaughtering young children because your evil mentor told you to because you had a bad dream.

Seriously there was a reason Lucas never planned on any films based the original 3

[Malania]

Star Trek hasn't had good writing since DS-9, so it's basically unwatchable now. Star Wars basically has children in mind when it's written, I lost interest in it after Episode 1, I just grew out of it and LoTR took over.

I still watch old Star Trek though. The writing is amazing.

I agree but that's still a wealth of material to watch. Star Wars has 2 good movies. The rest added ended up being remakes. They remade A New Hope twice.

[Endus]

I tell you what Endus I'll make a wager with you. Don't worry, not for money or anything just simple bet I win or you win.

I will name you as many Star Trek Ideas made REAL as I can, and YOU find me any Star Wars, Harry Potter or any other loose fantasy you think could be Science Fiction. If you can't name me more technologies in real life based on or inspired by them I win Deal?

Why?

That's not what "science fiction" means.

Oh and I won't even use Cell Phones which is probably the one typically used and compared to Communicators, which I don't agree. Communicators were simply two way walky talkies that already existed arguably.

However Flatscreens TV vs Viewscreens
Smart Phones vs Tricorders
Touchpad controls vs Touch Pad Controls
Tablets vs Tablets on TNG

That's 4 off the top of my head Now tell me where the fuck is your light saber?

1> None of those ideas were originated by Star Trek. Not a single one.
2> https://nypost.com/2020/10/13/youtub...-slices-steel/

Star Trek as Science Fiction might have some silly names for why things work or don't. But Star Wars never even bothered with the question if one should come up, because again Star Wars is Fantasy it doesn't rely on technology.

Making up a nonsense name doesn't make something science, dude.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Why?

That's not what "science fiction" means.



1> None of those ideas were originated by Star Trek. Not a single one.
2> https://nypost.com/2020/10/13/youtub...-slices-steel/



Making up a nonsense name doesn't make something science, dude.

The idea does. Meaning you still have no idea the meaning to any thing else in the Star Wars universe.

And all of those technologies didn’t exist before Star Trek now they do making it more Science based than anything you can name.

Science Fiction literary means.

Fiction predicated technology. Which all of the examples you gave clearly aren’t.


Here I’ll make it easier for you.

Star Wars is as much Science Fiction as a Hot Dog is a Sandwich.

I mean you could argue it and I’m sure many might agree. But at this point you know it’s not a sandwich and so does everyone else.

We can argue all day which is better. Still not Science Fiction.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I mean, that's...a torch. Not exactly a new creation, and nothing like a lightsaber in any way.

It’s also not charged by a magic energy crystal either. It has to remain plugged in.

[Endus]

The idea does. Meaning you still have no idea the meaning to any thing else in the Star Wars universe.

And all of those technologies didn’t exist before Star Trek now they do making it more Science based than anything you can name.

Science Fiction literary means.

Fiction predicated technology. Which all of the examples you gave clearly aren’t.

That's not what "science fiction" means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

You don't get to just make up your own meanings for terms.

Here I’ll make it easier for you.

Star Wars is as much Science Fiction as a Hot Dog is a Sandwich.

I mean you could argue it and I’m sure many might agree. But at this point you know it’s not a sandwich and so does everyone else.

We can argue all day which is better. Still not Science Fiction.

And you'll remain wrong, forever, because Star Wars is clearly science fiction. There's nothing to be gained by gatekeeping. Science fiction isn't some higher caliber of fiction, or something.

I mean, that's...a torch. Not exactly a new creation, and nothing like a lightsaber in any way.

And smartphones don't have anywhere close to the capabilities of tricorders.

And why pick on lightsabers, specifically? We could point to Star Wars' low-tech displays and holograms, which are real things we can replicate. Mandalorian slug-throwers are literally just guns. Etc.

Nor do we have anything remotely like transporters, Trek's warp drive, the holodeck, replicators, I could keep going.

- - - Updated - - -

It’s also not charged by a magic energy crystal either. It has to remain plugged in.

It's weird to think Khyber crystals are "magic" but dilithium crystals aren't.

[Doctor Amadeus]

That's not what "science fiction" means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

You don't get to just make up your own meanings for terms.



And you'll remain wrong, forever, because Star Wars is clearly science fiction. There's nothing to be gained by gatekeeping. Science fiction isn't some higher caliber of fiction, or something.



And smartphones don't have anywhere close to the capabilities of tricorders.

And why pick on lightsabers, specifically? We could point to Star Wars' low-tech displays and holograms, which are real things we can replicate. Mandalorian slug-throwers are literally just guns. Etc.

Nor do we have anything remotely like transporters, Trek's warp drive, the holodeck, replicators, I could keep going.

- - - Updated - - -



It's weird to think Khyber crystals are "magic" but dilithium crystals aren't.

So even according to your own source you’re wrong.

Science fiction (sometimes shortened to sci-fi or SF) is a genre of speculative fiction that typically deals with imaginative and futuristic concepts such as advanced science and technology, space exploration, time travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. It has been called the "literature of ideas", and often explores the potential consequences of scientific, social, and technological innovations.

Star Wars doesn’t fall under the very first few lines

Star Wars is a fantasy predicated on a fable between the light and dark sides of the force. It’s not gatekeeping. It’s just knowing what is and isn’t science fiction.

I mean family guy had a parody of the Jetsons it’s still a animated comedy.

It’s also humorous you think a kybar crystal is based on science fiction or a light saber.

I mean seriously they have shock troops blasters and a Death Star. What purpose does this light saber bring.

[Endus]

So even according to your own source you’re wrong.

Star Wars doesn’t fall under the very first few lines

Jesus wept.

It includes space exploration and extraterrestrial life, as specific examples it cites. That definition clearly includes Star Wars. I cannot fathom how you could possibly argue otherwise; that's not an exhaustive list that requires every single element to exist to qualify, y'know, they're just examples.

Star Wars is a fantasy predicated on a fable between the light and dark sides of the force. It’s not gatekeeping. It’s just knowing what is and isn’t science fiction.

Except, you don't. You clearly don't understand the label, if you're gonna argue that Star Wars doesn't qualify. I have no idea what you think you're going to gain from this, but pretty much no academic would agree with your completely baseless take on this.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Jesus wept.

It includes space exploration and extraterrestrial life, as specific examples it cites. That definition clearly includes Star Wars. I cannot fathom how you could possibly argue otherwise; that's not an exhaustive list that requires every single element to exist to qualify, y'know, they're just examples.



Except, you don't. You clearly don't understand the label, if you're gonna argue that Star Wars doesn't qualify. I have no idea what you think you're going to gain from this, but pretty much no academic would agree with your completely baseless take on this.

Space exploration? No

Aliens? Sure

But ok I’ll try to make this as simple as I can.


What part of Star Wars requires technology specifically meaning the Story couldn’t be told any other way?

Because that’s always going to be your first and most important Clue.

Star Trek depends on technology to tell the story. It’s also literally part of its social construct.

I’ll give you some examples.

The Time Machine couldn’t have taken place without a fucking time machine. Technology

Back to the Future couldn’t have happened without a time machine.

Therefore both are Sci Fi

[Endus]

But ok I’ll try to make this as simple as I can.

What part of Star Wars requires technology specifically meaning the Story couldn’t be told any other way?

Because that’s always going to be your first and most important Clue.

It's a useless question. Sci fi doesn't require that, at all. Orwell's 1984, Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, all sci fi classics, none really reliant on future tech (Fahrenheit 451 is about TV, but that was already around when Bradbury wrote it).

Worse, Star Wars hits it tons of ways. Lightsabers, blasters, hyperdrive, spaceships, space stations, etc.

Your question both fails to describe science fiction as a genre, and clearly includes Star Wars regardless.