Star Trek vs Star Wars, aka Carrie Fisher vs William Shatner

Found these videos today, Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia) calling William Shatner (Captain Kirk) out on which series is better.



Shatner's reply:


My take on the whole Star Wars vs Star Trek argument:
Star Wars & Star Trek are two COMPLETELY different genres of sci fi. Star Wars is considered for fantasy, (the force, etc) Star Trek is more rooted in science fact (warp drives, matter/antimatter).
Star Wars takes place 'a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away', Star Trek takes place in our future. The storylines of both series are completely difrent. Star Wars covers the rise, fall and redemption of one man, Star Trek tells us about our interaction of mankind with other galactic races we encounter in our travels aboard the Enterprise. There should really be no comparison between the two as to what is the better series. Can a person be fans of both? Certainly! I am for one. Star Wars fills my need for sci fi fantasy, and Star Trek fills my need to speculate on our future as a race and our status in our galaxy with our stellar neighbors.
So which is better? Neither. Both. It depends on what youre looking for in a sci fi series, but the argument on which is better in general? There is no way to compare them

ETA: some reason Shatner's reply wont post correctly, here's the link
www.youtube.com...

If not for Star Trek....StarWars would have never been born. Star Trek based on a science striving people wanting to explore the universe. Star Wars is just that,,a story of war and destruction. Remember, The Enterprise's mission....Boldly go where no man has gone before. To explore as the old time explorer's did. Carrie Fisher made millions off Star Wars....William Shatner is still making millions even into his 80's.

Star Trek IMHO is more the way it will end up being... one day a man will boldly go where no man has gone before.

Star Trek is more Hard scifi.

Star Wars is Science Fantasy .

And are representive of Two major branches of Sci-Fi.

One more science based and projects where we may be tech wise in the future, and what issues that might cause.

The other More Adventure Fantasy, Both have a place, Both equally important to the Genre.


Fan Boyism is the absolute worst, and is detrimental to any Genre you find it in, it stifles innovation as future writers seek to match their demands in general.

reply to post by openyourmind1262


Sw tends to owe its Existence to Battle-star Galatica more than anything else.

It's like the whole Beatles versus Elvis debate. You can say that you like both, but deep down you like one more than the other!
I enjoy both but prefer the OT of Star Wars but i also enjoy quite a bit of TNG of Trek.

benrl
reply to post by openyourmind1262

 

Sw tends to owe its Existence to Battle-star Galatica more than anything else.

I think they ALL owe their existence to Frank Herbert's Dune.
Also Arthur C. Clarke's novels, but more importantly his collaboration with Kubrick that became 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Plus tons of other pulp writers and space epics that stretch back to the late 19th Century.

reply to post by HomerinNC


Star Wars is for the cool nerds. Star Trek is for the nerdie nerds.

Guess which one I think is better.

benrl
reply to post by openyourmind1262

 

Sw tends to owe its Existence to Battle-star Galatica more than anything else.

You know BSG came out AFTER Star Wars, right?
Just a bit of trivia: John Dykstra, who did the SPFX in Star Wars ALSO did the SPFX in BSG

Star Trek started in 1966. BSG started in 1978, Star Wars came out in 1976. The novel Dune came out in 1965. 2001 A Space Oddyssey came out in 1968.....IMHO they all took there cue from Dune. It was first. As far as staying power, Star Trek wins hands down. I recently watched Star Trek Into the Darkness. I was impressed with the movie staying sort of true to the series. Except I found a plot hole or whatever you want to call it.

I will explain. In the film they have yet to start their 5 year mission. But yet they have a Trebble on board that McCoy brings back with Kahns blood. Can't be this way. They discovered the treebles on their 5 year mission, so how can they have one onboard the ship? The cast they have for these new Star Trek films IMHO is first class keeping with the series. I look forward to any future Star Trek films with this particular cast. And for the record.BSG sucked. Dune (movie) sucked, 2001 was extremley boring, and Star Wars just became a massive retail revenue generator. If nothing else Star Trek has staying power even with new generations of viewers.

openyourmind1262
Star Trek started in 1966. BSG started in 1978, Star Wars came out in 1976. The novel Dune came out in 1965. 2001 A Space Oddyssey came out in 1968.....IMHO they all took there cue from Dune. It was first. As far as staying power, Star Trek wins hands down. I recently watched Star Trek Into the Darkness. I was impressed with the movie staying sort of true to the series. Except I found a plot hole or whatever you want to call it.

I will explain. In the film they have yet to start their 5 year mission. But yet they have a Trebble on board that McCoy brings back with Kahns blood. Can't be this way. They discovered the treebles on their 5 year mission, so how can they have one onboard the ship? The cast they have for these new Star Trek films IMHO is first class keeping with the series. I look forward to any future Star Trek films with this particular cast. And for the record.BSG sucked. Dune (movie) sucked, 2001 was extremley boring, and Star Wars just became a massive retail revenue generator. If nothing else Star Trek has staying power even with new generations of viewers.

edit on 24-3-2014 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)

Actually Rodenberry developed ST in 1964 so it was in motion before Dune came out so it didn't take it's cue from Dune. It was a combination of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers. And George Lucas's son said that his father got a lot of his ideas from Roddenberry.

The new Trek movies are an insult to the Trek series because they don't follow the timeline. The people behind the new movies said the movies are inspired by Trek so they really aren't Trek movies they are just cashing in on the name.

reply to post by openyourmind1262


Good summary on the history!
Dune was revolutionary. There's a documentary about some art film type guy that had a proposal for a Dune movie before Lynch. Salvador Dali was to play the emperor as long as he was the highest paid actor ever. Marlon Brando was going to play Baron Harkonnen as long as they made good on their promise to have his favorite French chef as his personal caterer.

I think there is room for both Trek and Wars. Both also have staying power for the foreseeable future. As long as there are humans and enough technology. The more the merrier. I can get into both. Trek loses me sometimes with all of the time travel. I thought the new movies did a good job with it.

Is this the video?

the owlbear
It's like the whole Beatles versus Elvis debate. You can say that you like both, but deep down you like one more than the other!
I enjoy both but prefer the OT of Star Wars but i also enjoy quite a bit of TNG of Trek.

Exactly what you say, it's like having to choose between The Beatles and Elvis.

I like them both but if I have to choose I'd always choose Star Trek.......because I wish I could travel where no man has been before on the Enterprise.

reply to post by openyourmind1262

And for the record.BSG sucked.

I was your friend til you posted that

Well, I was going to say that Carrie Fischer looks better in a bikini than William Shatner, but I'm not sure that is the case anymore.

STTNG FTW.

There should really be no comparison between the two as to what is the better series. Can a person be fans of both? Certainly! I am for one.

I agree. I like both.

That said, I think most of the arguments that happen CAN be well argued. For example, which captain is better (and why), who would win in a fight between the Millennium Falcon and the Enterprise.

(the Falcon, by the way, going by the technical specs from their respective canons...remember that Star Wars is fantasy, so they can be much beefier in their weapon megatons!!! Not to mention the Falcon can cross the galaxy in days vs. years like in Star Trek...of course, you have to ignore Han's comments on speed in the movie, as they contradict the speeds later established as canon). For one thing, Lucas had him quote a time in parsecs (a measure of distance). For another, the .5 past light speed quote wouldn't be enough to make the trips the ship actually made.

C'mon, we nerds can always argue these two religiously.... Heck, one even HAS a bona-fide religion!!!

The one thing this proved to me is that Carrie Fisher is dumber than a skunk.

reply to post by Gazrok

of course, you have to ignore Han's comments on speed in the movie, as they contradict the speeds later established as canon). For one thing, Lucas had him quote a time in parsecs (a measure of distance). For another, the .5 past light speed quote wouldn't be enough to make the trips the ship actually made.

Balderdash.

The Kessel Run was one of the most heavily used smuggling routes in the Galactic Empire.[3] Han Solo claimed that his Millennium Falcon "made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs". A parsec is a unit of distance, not time. Solo was not referring directly to his ship's speed when he made this claim. Instead, he was referring to the shorter route he was able to travel by skirting the nearby Maw black hole cluster, thus making the run in under the standard distance. By moving closer to the black holes, Solo managed to cut the distance down to about 11.5 parsecs.[source?] The smuggler BoShek actually beat Solo's record in his ship, Infinity, but without cargo to weigh him down. A few months later, Han Solo beat both his own and BoShek's records in a run he made with Luke Skywalker.[2]

In A.C. Crispin's Han Solo Trilogy, the Maw cluster of black holes distorts space and time, so the distance of the run is shortened by flying close to it. Han and Chewie make the time (and distance) while escaping from an Imperial customs ship.

In the commentary for Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope DVD, George Lucas mentions that the parsecs are due to the Millennium Falcon's advanced navigational computer rather than its engines, so the navicomputer would calculate much faster routes than other ships could.

Source

I have always been a Star Wars guy. I've tried to get into Star Trek, and enjoy some of the episodes, but there really is no comparison. Everything in Star Wars is bigger and better. Slave 1 would whoop the Enterprise. A Star Destroyer wouldn't even have to try. The things were a mile long and had over 40,000 people aboard.



I can't think of a single character in Star Trek as iconic as Darth Vader or Yoda. No one is even close.

Star Trek is great to watch after a cocktail when you want to fall asleep.

reply to post by HomerinNC


Sorry Homer, But I thought that show was really lame. Even when I was a kid and watched it...it was lame. Now that I'm all grown up..even lamer

Evening,

I don't know.
Saying either movie is better than the other is like saying Granny Smith's are better than Seedless Grapes...it's completely subjective.
They're both wondeful franchizes that both have remarkable and unremarkable installments.
It all boils down to whatever floats your boat I guess.
J.J. turned me off of Trek but he'll likely do no worse at turning me off of Star Wars than Lucas already has.
Blinking Ewoks?
Seriously?
Give it a rest George...

-Peace-