Star Trek vs Star Wars
- Thread starter OneArmWillie
- Start date
rock2d2
Born to lose, destined to fail.
Luke was whiny bitch. Han was the MAN!
Kirk was a man of action. Spock was a man of thought.
Star Wars had a mystical religion called "The Force" that we all still try to use to this VERY DAY when we go to the super market and we want the automatic doors to open just a little faster (admit it).
Star Trek has more sex and more fights.
George Lucas was the man when he put out the original 3 films. He saw himself become a scoundrel after the 50th re-re-re mastered version (I fell for it. I had to take my son to see on the big screen).
Gene Roddenbury was kind of a tool, and his original name for star trek was "Wagon Train to the Stars." His show spawned more spoofs, spin offs, and hot space babes than we can remember.
In short. Kirk over Picard, Han over Luke, and Chewbacca will always rule.
{i think my nerd is showing}
Kirk was a man of action. Spock was a man of thought.
Star Wars had a mystical religion called "The Force" that we all still try to use to this VERY DAY when we go to the super market and we want the automatic doors to open just a little faster (admit it).
Star Trek has more sex and more fights.
George Lucas was the man when he put out the original 3 films. He saw himself become a scoundrel after the 50th re-re-re mastered version (I fell for it. I had to take my son to see on the big screen).
Gene Roddenbury was kind of a tool, and his original name for star trek was "Wagon Train to the Stars." His show spawned more spoofs, spin offs, and hot space babes than we can remember.
In short. Kirk over Picard, Han over Luke, and Chewbacca will always rule.
{i think my nerd is showing}
skatetheame
Been Around the Block
jdub said:
Well, that's what we're talkin about.
I think in general those of us who were 6-10 in 1977 when Star Wars came out prefer it over the at-the-same-time earlier and later Star Trek TV series and subsequent 'oohhhh money in sci-fi movies' big screen show.
All that being said, Empire Strikes Back and Wrath of Kahn. Hands down. The rest you can freeze in carbonite and send to Ceti Alpha V.
All that being said, Empire Strikes Back and Wrath of Kahn. Hands down. The rest you can freeze in carbonite and send to Ceti Alpha V.
jwarriner
Been Around the Block
BobaChris said:
They never fought. They didn't want to. We will never know. But my personal opinion is that Norris has a little more street cred as a martial artist due to his real world accomplishments in the sport. Bruce Lee, I mean obviously he was good but there isn't a whole lot of evidence, just hearsay.
If it weren't for the rabid following Star Trek had, Star Wars would probably have never been funded. Star Trek literally paved the way for all the sci fi that followed, before that all the well funded movies were westerns, or historical dramas.
As for Bruce Lee vs. Chuck Norris, when I asked Chuck (in the early '80s) if Bruce was really that good. Chuck said yes, Bruce was a street-fighter when he was young, not a match fighter with rules and referees, and had trained religiously all his life. Neither wanted to bet there life on the outcome of a match. And besides they were friends, and had a lot of mutual respect.
As for Bruce Lee vs. Chuck Norris, when I asked Chuck (in the early '80s) if Bruce was really that good. Chuck said yes, Bruce was a street-fighter when he was young, not a match fighter with rules and referees, and had trained religiously all his life. Neither wanted to bet there life on the outcome of a match. And besides they were friends, and had a lot of mutual respect.
Whitey80
You're all idiots.
Both have selling points.
When I was young, and went to see the second and third Star Wars films in theaters, it blew my mind, all the toys and such were all over my neighborhood and we would play out our tiny epic battles in the empty lot at the end of the street.
I had always watched reruns of original Star Trek with my father and TNG in the late 80's/early 90's as well, so I also have some fond memories of that story too. The films were pretty hit or miss, with more bad than good really (I still like Star Trek IV though, as goofy as it is), but the recent Abrams one was fantastic and, for me, definitely trumps any recent Star Wars film.
So, I have to say that when younger, it was definitely Star Wars, up to about 23. After that, Star Trek kept my attention better, as it is primarily about the relationship between Kirk, Spock and McCoy, a smaller story in a huge world.
When I was young, and went to see the second and third Star Wars films in theaters, it blew my mind, all the toys and such were all over my neighborhood and we would play out our tiny epic battles in the empty lot at the end of the street.
I had always watched reruns of original Star Trek with my father and TNG in the late 80's/early 90's as well, so I also have some fond memories of that story too. The films were pretty hit or miss, with more bad than good really (I still like Star Trek IV though, as goofy as it is), but the recent Abrams one was fantastic and, for me, definitely trumps any recent Star Wars film.
So, I have to say that when younger, it was definitely Star Wars, up to about 23. After that, Star Trek kept my attention better, as it is primarily about the relationship between Kirk, Spock and McCoy, a smaller story in a huge world.
Cafe Redneck
Been Around the Block
Mr.E said:
Agree,
since is still floating aroung... star trek, I can sit through a trek movie...
OneArmWillie
Active Member
7 of 9 what a babe!
