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

[Doctor Amadeus]

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.

Ok let me clear something up here, I don't consider Star Wars Sci Fiction, however I did say I consider Star Wars about as much Science Fiction as I would consider Hot Dogs a Sandwich.

I agree or rather I knowledge how Star Wars is seen.


That stated you obviously are correct on many points, and me calling Star Trek Science Fiction and Star Wars Fantasy isn't about gate keeping. I mean I love The Neverending Story, however Falcor flying around with Atrayu in space doesn't suddenly make it fucking Science Fiction.


As I said I will look up more examples as you suggested and research, yes i am aware of the definition of what is Science Fiction, but as I pointed out I still stand by my opinion on Star Wars, which is if it's Science Fiction it's just barely.


However your counter argument that Star Trek may not be in contrast is nonsense, Sure you are correct there is A LOT of BS "Magic" as it were in Star Trek and No I can''t say it's all based on simple movie magic or fiction..


The over all point is though There is a difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy they are not the same, and yes there is a good reason to distinguish between the genres without gatekeeping.

Sure maybe some shows or movies hit more than one genre, I mean MAYBE.

But just because Star Wars has Star in the title or Ships in the fucking movies doesn't especially make it Science Fiction. Unless


You think Back to the Future 3 was a Western simply because it had horses and cowboys.


Lastly the examples you gave Unless Science is the vehicle, meaning the story is dependent on it, then it's not Science Fiction

[Orange Joe]

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.

Unless you are dying in a year or two I don't see how you wouldn't have time for both series? Start with movies then move on to series if you want.

[Triceron]

Star Wars because its epic space fantasy. Aliens are actually aliens and not just thinly veiled archetypes of various human cultures.

This is strictly comparing the two, I'm a fan of both series but the world of Star Wars is just more adventure-driven overall.

[Orange Joe]

Ok let me clear something up here, I don't consider Star Wars Sci Fiction, however I did say I consider Star Wars about as much Science Fiction as I would consider Hot Dogs a Sandwich.

I agree or rather I knowledge how Star Wars is seen.


That stated you obviously are correct on many points, and me calling Star Trek Science Fiction and Star Wars Fantasy isn't about gate keeping. I mean I love The Neverending Story, however Falcor flying around with Atrayu in space doesn't suddenly make it fucking Science Fiction.


As I said I will look up more examples as you suggested and research, yes i am aware of the definition of what is Science Fiction, but as I pointed out I still stand by my opinion on Star Wars, which is if it's Science Fiction it's just barely.


However your counter argument that Star Trek may not be in contrast is nonsense, Sure you are correct there is A LOT of BS "Magic" as it were in Star Trek and No I can''t say it's all based on simple movie magic or fiction..


The over all point is though There is a difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy they are not the same, and yes there is a good reason to distinguish between the genres without gatekeeping.

Sure maybe some shows or movies hit more than one genre, I mean MAYBE.

But just because Star Wars has Star in the title or Ships in the fucking movies doesn't especially make it Science Fiction. Unless


You think Back to the Future 3 was a Western simply because it had horses and cowboys.


Lastly the examples you gave Unless Science is the vehicle, meaning the story is dependent on it, then it's not Science Fiction

Since when can story only fit 1 label? You can and always have been able to mix genres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wester...iction_Western

[Nihilist74]

I love some of both star wars and star trek a lot. What I like of them, I like a lot. I would say star trek has more quality entertainment to offer than star wars though.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Since when can story only fit 1 label? You can and always have been able to mix genres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wester...iction_Western

Since never, that isn't what I am talking about, but there are specifics that qualify a genre than simply spaceships or horses.

[Orange Joe]

Since never, that isn't what I am talking about, but there are specifics that qualify a genre than simply spaceships or horses.

So? not seeing the issue here. Star Trek was always more sci fi. Star wars is more sci fi/fantasy. They both are still mainly sci fi.

[Doctor Amadeus]

So? not seeing the issue here. Star Trek was always more sci fi. Star wars is more sci fi/fantasy. They both are still mainly sci fi.

Because their isn't an issue. My Initial Stance is I would recommend Star Trek for Science Fiction, I would recommend Star Wars for Fantasy. It just became a philosophical debate.

[Endus]

The over all point is though There is a difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy they are not the same, and yes there is a good reason to distinguish between the genres without gatekeeping.

Not only is there no separation between the two, there is significant overlap between the two. The Shadowrun universe, for instance, combines cyberpunk science fiction with urban fantasy. The Shannara universe is a far-future timeline set on Earth, but has magic and elves and all that. Warhammer 40k combines both magic and sci fi. The Pern series by Anne McCaffrey is about people riding fire-breathing dragons in a medieval-esque society, and is explicitly science fiction; the prequel story shows the time immediately after humans landed on the planet and started to colonize it. And so on.

But just because Star Wars has Star in the title or Ships in the fucking movies doesn't especially make it Science Fiction. Unless

You think Back to the Future 3 was a Western simply because it had horses and cowboys.

That has to more to do with the themes, which aren't those of a classical Western. It borrows elements, however. Cowboys vs Aliens was a better combination, since it's more than just a setting. Mad Max films are basically post-apocalyptic Western sci-fi. Firefly is Westerns mixed with sci-fi. The idea that you can't mix genres is nonsense.

Lastly the examples you gave Unless Science is the vehicle, meaning the story is dependent on it, then it's not Science Fiction

Literally not what the term means. You don't get to define it. No, not even in a "what science fiction is to me" sense. You're just flatly wrong about the meaning of the genre label, and refuse to admit it, while simultaneously misrepresenting sources that contradict you on that point and failing to provide any justification to defend it.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Not only is there no separation between the two, there is significant overlap between the two. The Shadowrun universe, for instance, combines cyberpunk science fiction with urban fantasy. The Shannara universe is a far-future timeline set on Earth, but has magic and elves and all that. Warhammer 40k combines both magic and sci fi. The Pern series by Anne McCaffrey is about people riding fire-breathing dragons in a medieval-esque society, and is explicitly science fiction; the prequel story shows the time immediately after humans landed on the planet and started to colonize it. And so on.



That has to more to do with the themes, which aren't those of a classical Western. It borrows elements, however. Cowboys vs Aliens was a better combination, since it's more than just a setting. Mad Max films are basically post-apocalyptic Western sci-fi. Firefly is Westerns mixed with sci-fi. The idea that you can't mix genres is nonsense.



Literally not what the term means. You don't get to define it. No, not even in a "what science fiction is to me" sense. You're just flatly wrong about the meaning of the genre label, and refuse to admit it, while simultaneously misrepresenting sources that contradict you on that point and failing to provide any justification to defend it.

Literally what the term means, we have been over this, Star Wars doesn't even meet the literal term for the meaning of Science Fiction like nearly at all, except for the fact yes Star Ships exist in it's fantasy.

What is that you were saying about the whole "My definition of Science Fiction" Again there is either distinction or there isn't. This isn't gate-keeping and it doesn't require Academic Consensus, either there is or isn't. Star Trek is Science Fiction, Star Wars is a Science Fiction Hot Dog.


Lastly as I said, I am not contending as much concerning their can be no overlap. However for that to happen the subject we are talking about has to HIT ALL of the Bells in one Category and ALL of the bells in another.

Maybe there are some exceptions that don't hit all the bells in any genre category, however when and if that happens typically that is when we get sub genres not usually before.

[Endus]

Literally what the term means, we have been over this, Star Wars doesn't even meet the literal term for the meaning of Science Fiction like nearly at all, except for the fact yes Star Ships exist in it's fantasy.

Cite your supposed definition, then, because the Wikipedia I linked clearly covers Star Wars. If you can't see that, I have to question your facility with the English language.

What is that you were saying about the whole "My definition of Science Fiction" Again there is either distinction or there isn't. This isn't gate-keeping and it doesn't require Academic Consensus, either there is or isn't. Star Trek is Science Fiction, Star Wars is a Science Fiction Hot Dog.

There isn't a harsh distinction the way you're pretending that there is. Some stories may be entirely one, or entirely the other, or incorporate facets of each.

I have no idea where you got the idea that genre distinctions were exclusionary, but it's silly and isn't true.

Lastly as I said, I am not contending as much concerning their can be no overlap. However for that to happen the subject we are talking about has to HIT ALL of the Bells in one Category and ALL of the bells in another.

Nope. Wrong. That's not how genre works. And you've yet to provide any citation to back this up.

[Logwyn]

I came in expecting a Star Wars vs Star Trek flame fest. What I got was an argument over what is the sci-fi and what isn't.

I'd say do both! There is time. Both are good in their own ways. One Space Opera the Other a glimpse into a future. I enjoy both.

[jonnysensible]

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.

Star Wars is about radicalization and lukes path into religious fundamentalism and eventually extremist terror attacks in a sci fi setting.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I am a fairly big fan of both. But I also don't have a major investment in either at the sametime. If a movie or show ends up as not my cup of tea then I just see it and move on. The odd thing about these 2 fan bases is they often like to rip each other apart, rip themselves apart, and then rip anything around them apart as well. So just a word to the wise.. test the waters and don't listen to what you hear to much. People inject their bullshit way to hard into this.

[Darsithis]

Both!

Star Trek if you like complex stories with a lot of character development. Star Wars if you’re fond of action and masculine bravado. Or you can like both, as I do.

[Beloren]

The problem is that Star Trek doesn't start from science, with anything. They use that Asimov quote as a shield. They'll make up magical stuff and then hand-wave any accusations of bullshit with "it's technology, somehow, it's just so wildly advanced".

It's particularly silly when most magic systems are exactly the same thing. Take Harry Potter's world; magic exists. It can be controlled or manipulated by those with the biological knack for it. There are rules and principles by which it operates, which is why spells have to be uttered in specific ways and the effort practiced. There's nothing essentially "non-science" about any of it. Does that magic actually exist? Of course not. Neither do the Q or the Bajoran Prophets. But Harry Potter's world has set out more rules for their "magic" than Star Trek does for its forms of magic. It's more "scientific" than Trek, in this.

But nobody would call Harry Potter "science fiction", because of how silly the explanations are. Star Trek's explanations aren't better. They aren't better than Star Wars' explanations of The Force. It's all the same kind of magical nonsense.

The big difference between Trek and Wars isn't that one is "more sciencey" than the other. They're both magical and silly, for science fiction. The difference is largely in whether the stories are meant as simple morality plays or as adventure stories. Trek's the former, Wars the latter. I think this is what's really rubbed people the most wrong about ST: Discovery and ST: Picard; they're primarily adventure stories, with a moral message, rather than morality plays with a bit of adventure.

Would it be a fairer assessment to say Star Trek was more about science belief/religion philosophy and humanism than it is about science, fiction or otherwise? The Expanse did feel a lot more grounded in actual science than Star Trek does - it makes Star Trek's science actually feel no different than magic.

Star wars does feel more authentic, it feel a lot closer to our level of tech, with a few leaps, but doesn't try to explain them either, the science is just tech , but it can't do literally anything like science in Star Trek does, in star wars it's just , a little bit more advanced tech, some cool gadgets etc, but tech nonetheless. They don't try to explain the science behind deathstar, but the little science it shows - it's gravitational pull, even a 5 year old could understand..

[Doctor Amadeus]

Cite your supposed definition, then, because the Wikipedia I linked clearly covers Star Wars. If you can't see that, I have to question your facility with the English language.



There isn't a harsh distinction the way you're pretending that there is. Some stories may be entirely one, or entirely the other, or incorporate facets of each.

I have no idea where you got the idea that genre distinctions were exclusionary, but it's silly and isn't true.



Nope. Wrong. That's not how genre works. And you've yet to provide any citation to back this up.

Why look for another definition your Wikipedia links is just fine. Star Wars doesn’t fit the definition completely. You suggesting what I’m saying other than what I’ve said not withstanding.

It’s also not supposed to be a Harsh distinction it simply a distinction.


And now you want me to explain how genre works and categories. Look it’s not complicated

If a movie or show falls into a specific definition for a category then it will meet the definition of science fiction or fantasy or mystery suspense maybe horror.

Plenty of films and tv shows have various elements

- - - Updated - - -

Star Wars is about radicalization and lukes path into religious fundamentalism and eventually extremist terror attacks in a sci fi setting.

lol basically a story arch about good and evil. Same as with LOTRs of course the film has undead however the movie isn’t horror.

Because it’s a trimming and feature much like setting is a backdrop.

[schwarzkopf]

Star Trek is Science Fiction
Star Wars is Science Fantasy.

I'd recommend based on what sort of thing the person likes, neither is better - they are just totally different.

[Beloren]

Races play various functions in both these fictions, I wonder what you guys think humans and the various aliens in each series play

In my opinion:

Star Trek:
Klingons - the warror fighter race
Changelings - the shapeshifters
Trill - the symbiosis race
Vulcan - the high elves of star trek intellectual/logical purists
Ferengi - the greedy corporate/money obsessed type
Borg - zombie apocalyspe type

Humans - the only thing to humans I can see over other aliens is they are the most innovative race and one of the fastest learners, the reason I say this is because it would seem that since hte humans came on board, the alpha quadrant federation was not only formed but has come leaps and bounds matching and surpassing technology of races that have had it a lot longer. e.g. Ferengi and Vulcans have had warp space flight for oever 300 years before humans did, but humans have already caught up and the Federation has far surpassed the Ferengi in terms of tech.

Star Wars:

Humans are the dominant species of the galaxy, and also one of the most force sensitive species, they essentially make up and developed the jedi and sith orders and the powers there in. Human force users predate the Rakata even though they were enslaved by them, but I'm not sure they predate the celestials. I could be wrong though I'm not a star wars race expert.

Yoda's race seem to be the most powerful force using race. but there are so many aliens in Star Wars and not enough focus on them like in star trek
Hutts - intelligent giant slugs that live for 100s of years if I remember, but have no force sensitivity
Twileks - they just seem like mostly gogo dancers.

Tons of races in Star wars, but not enough covered about them in the shows and movies - maybe a lot more depth in the novels and extra material , especially in the games.. someone who knows more can tell.

[Mister K]

I like both and you can too.

- - - Updated - - -

Humans are the dominant species of the galaxy, and also one of the most force sensitive species, they essentially make up and developed the jedi and sith orders

Zabrak, Twileks, Yodedlings...generally speaking, the others are stronger.