Why Startrek will always be better than Starwars.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Absolutely correct. Morality plays versus an epic tale. The two are very different styles of storytelling. Epics rely on the characters holding the attention of the audience while morality plays rely on audiences identifying with the characters. Both require audience sympathy or empathy, which takes quality actors. But morality plays take better writing whereas epic need stirring adventure with legitimate challenges.

Same comparisons could be made between Gunsmoke and Ghostbusters (1984) or The Guns of Navarone (for closer genres).

Meh Red Dwarf is better than both of them.

Unfortunately, for Star Trek and Star Wars both, the best stuff came straight from the source (Lucas/Roddenberry).

You could tell TNG went into decline as soon as Roddenberry died and Star Trek was never quite Star Trek again. They made some very good stuff that was "in the spirit" of Trek but it was clear the heart and soul of Trek died with Roddenberry. That's not to say that Roddenberry didn't have some really dumb ideas or that TNG would have been what it was without people like Piller. TNG was definitely a team effort but the fear of pissing off Roddenberry kept them from going into thorny subjects until his death.

And you could see what started happening immediately. As soon as he died they started getting into stuff he wouldn't have wanted them to do. It was because he knew these subjects did not fit into his utopian idealism that humans could solve anything intelligently and humanely.

Of course most of the first two seasons of TNG were a mess but it thankfully got MUCH better for a few good years and I was very happy to have lived through that exciting time when I was watching it unfold on TV as it happened.

EDIT - One thing I really enjoyed about TNG was (for it's time) they really did a gorgeous job with the sets for something that was (for all they knew) only going to be seen on (mostly) low quality CRT TVs. They obviously did the right thing by shooting it on film. I don't know how rare it was in those days but it would have been a disaster if it was shot on tape.

I dig both but prefer Trek. Where did this "VS" stuff come from anyway? I don't remember.

originally posted by: intrepid
I dig both but prefer Trek. Where did this "VS" stuff come from anyway? I don't remember.

Aggressive millennials who are off their meds, probably.

Both Star Trek and Starwars have their merits. I really don't know why people get so uptight about these things. If you don't like watching, then don't. Turn it off, or avert your eyes and put your fingers in your ears.

One thing's for sure, both will carry on forever.

a reply to: MerkabaTribeEntity

I liked her in Dark Skies.

Voyager was by far the most uneven and undercooked Trek. There were some great episodes and 7 and the doctor were by far the best characters (and among the best in all Trek) but the whole show just felt like half the people on the creative and production staff weren't really trying.

I mean, how many shuttles crashed? They never made an effort to even explain how they could lose 50 shuttles and still have shuttles in the Delta Quadrant (AFAIK).

Neelix was a good character but he was unbelievably annoying.

Janeway was a basically good character (great actress) but very poorly written very often. For no reason at all. They seemed to be actually trying to make her look bad by having her drive the ship right into bad situations every single week. On purpose. And then five minutes later she'd say her top priority was the safety of the crew she just almost killed.

Tuvok could have been amazing but he was just good (sometimes very good).

Paris had a lot of potential but I ended up just sleeping through his scenes eventually.

Kim had TONS of potential but never went anywhere.

Torres had as much potential as Worf but it just never happened. They just utterly failed to develop her character in any meaningful way

I didn't like Chakotay at first but he actually kind of grew on me as a kind of Riker on Voyager. But I started getting annoyed with the whole native american thing with his ancestors every time he was doing anything other than ship's business. That really wasn't the kind of character development I wanted to see.

Kes had potential but agaian, they just threw that character away like it was nothing.

You know it's bad when Naomi Wildman was a more interesting character than Chakotay. And what happened to her mother? She just disappeared and was only ever mentioned. Like they didn't want to pay the actress to be there.

And that series finale? WTF was that? I've never been more pissed off than I was after I sat through 7 seasons for that. And some of those episodes were unbearable but you had to watch them to keep up.

a reply to: AthlonSavage


Star Trek is the one where they still can't cure baldness 500 years from now, right?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: AthlonSavage


Star Trek is the one where they still can't cure baldness 500 years from now, right?

In 500 years, no one will care.

Besides, they can't cure baldness now either. And they won't even admit it. They just don't want to talk about it. There are so many things they can't do a damn thing about and they refuse to just say so unless you back them into the tightest possible corner.

*But it would have been funny if the ship ran into an anomaly that gave Picard hair and that was basically the whole episode. Just an episode where Picard gets hair and is happy for half an hour and has to talk to Troi about how to accept not being bald anymore now that he has made it a part of who he is.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
In 500 years, no one will care.

I would.

Plus, tehy can stick thst assine thing on Gordi's face but they can't grow Captain Tea Drinker some hair?

They are 2 totally different things. Love them both in different ways.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

You missed that episode?

Firefly > *

Plus, probably the most realistic future scenario.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
In 500 years, no one will care.

I would.

How do you know? What if they find out that bald men are actually superior? What if baldness is evolution trying to make us better?


I mean, technically, there's nothing wrong with naked humans (unless it's cold out). We just don't like being naked on the subway for whatever reason. Really there's nothing wrong with being bald. It doesn't do anything but make you unattractive to some people.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
How do you know?

How do I know that I would care? Because I spoke to me and we're in agreement.

Just so the thread doesn't become trolled with this hair debate.
I read in original screen casting/development phase of next gen they trialled picard actor with hairpiece and natural.
They decided he looks better natural

Interestingly to add here confirmable from several credible sources on internet is William shatner wore a wig in the original startrek series. The success in that series seems to made him feel type cast for rest of his career wearing wigs. Finally now he has reached 80+ his hair miraculously grew back.

a reply to: AthlonSavage
I like both.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
How do you know?

How do I know that I would care? Because I spoke to me and we're in agreement.

But you wouldn't exist in 500 years because you're here.