Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Star Wars vs. Star Trek

Expand Messages
  • rspeer
    I think I am about to open a can of worms that cannot easily be shut again. I propose that the Star Trek legacy i.e. Star Trek TNG, Star Trek DS9, with the
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 12, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      I think I am about to open a can of worms that cannot easily be shut again.
      I propose that the Star Trek legacy i.e. Star Trek TNG, Star Trek DS9, with
      the possible exception of the original series (then again maybe not) and
      definitely with the exception of Star Trek Voyager is better than the Star
      Wars series.
      My reasoning is this: Aside from the special effects (Indrustrial Light
      and Magic handled both. I think reality is the deciding factor. I think if
      Mankind does survive for thousands of years to come, the future would most
      likely resemble the future in Star Trek. Look at the things that we have
      today that resemble the gadgets in the first Star Trek series.
      Not to take anything away from Lucas, but I think that Roddenberry had a
      clearer vision. Star Wars has the more colourful characters perhaps, but how
      many of us would trade places with a Klingon for a day? I know I would.
      Love Klingons!
      And with that "K'plah!"
      Ron
    • Joan Marie Verba
      ... I hereby declare this off topic for this list. Please do not pursue it. Thank you. Joan List Administrator
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 12, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        >I think I am about to open a can of worms that cannot easily be shut again.
        >I propose that the Star Trek legacy i.e. Star Trek TNG, Star Trek DS9, with
        >the possible exception of the original series (then again maybe not) and
        >definitely with the exception of Star Trek Voyager is better than the Star
        >Wars series.

        I hereby declare this off topic for this list. Please do not pursue it.

        Thank you.
        Joan
        List Administrator

        ********************************************************************
        Joan Marie Verba verba001@...
        Club Coordinator, Official Siddig El Fadil/Alexander Siddig Fan Club
        Secretary for the Mythopoeic Press, Mythopoeic Society
        List administrator for DocEx, MythSoc, MNSCBWI, and MNSCREENW lists
        Member of GASP, Keeper of Giles's Writing Desk
        ********************************************************************
        http://www.sff.net/people/Joan.Marie.Verba
      • Steve Schaper
        ... Boggle. No, if we survive that long, the future will likely resemble Babylon 5, Nighwatch, Home Guard, President Clark and all.
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 12, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          At 8:27 PM -0500 8/12/99, rspeer wrote:
          > I think reality is the deciding factor. I think if
          >Mankind does survive for thousands of years to come, the future would most
          >likely resemble the future in Star Trek.

          Boggle. No, if we survive that long, the future will likely resemble
          Babylon 5, Nighwatch, Home Guard, President Clark and all.

          ======================================
          It's 1999, where's Moonbase Alpha?
          ======================================
        • Matthew Heffron
          The essential problem with your logic as presented is that you miss the point of Star Wars. You refer to reality and what Mankind will do in a few thousand
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 13, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            The essential problem with your logic as presented is that you miss the
            point of Star Wars. You refer to reality and what Mankind will do in a few
            thousand years. Of course Star Trek portrays this better, but Star Wars
            never set out to. Remember the line, "A long time ago, is a galaxy far, far
            away ...."? Star Trek is realistic sci-fi, maybe, but Star Wars is certainly
            fantasy, and not at all intended to be realistic in the sense of what the
            future will look like. The two are in different genres and ought not to be
            compared. Personally, I prefer the style of Star Wars, but that is partly
            just because I prefer the genre. I also think Star Wars is a great
            mythopoeic creation - it forms a whole mythology and a great story line. But
            it is not the same category as Star Trek.

            Matt H.


            ----Original Message Follows----
            From: "rspeer" <rspeer@...>
            Reply-To: mythsoc@onelist.com
            To: <mythsoc@onelist.com>
            Subject: [mythsoc] Star Wars vs. Star Trek
            Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:27:30 -0500

            From: "rspeer" <rspeer@...>

            I think I am about to open a can of worms that cannot easily be shut again.
            I propose that the Star Trek legacy i.e. Star Trek TNG, Star Trek DS9, with
            the possible exception of the original series (then again maybe not) and
            definitely with the exception of Star Trek Voyager is better than the Star
            Wars series.
            My reasoning is this: Aside from the special effects (Indrustrial Light
            and Magic handled both. I think reality is the deciding factor. I think if
            Mankind does survive for thousands of years to come, the future would most
            likely resemble the future in Star Trek. Look at the things that we have
            today that resemble the gadgets in the first Star Trek series.
            Not to take anything away from Lucas, but I think that Roddenberry had
            a
            clearer vision. Star Wars has the more colourful characters perhaps, but how
            many of us would trade places with a Klingon for a day? I know I would.
            Love Klingons!
            And with that "K'plah!"
            Ron


            --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

            ONElist: the best place to EXPLORE topics, SHARE ideas, and
            CONNECT to people with the same interests.

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
          • Juliet Blosser
            ... I don t think that s exactly a proper basis for comparison between Star Trek and Star Wars, since Star Trek s premise is that it describes our future, and
            Message 5 of 5 , Aug 14, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 10:49:22PM -0500, Steve Schaper wrote:
              > From: Steve Schaper <sschaper@...>
              >
              > At 8:27 PM -0500 8/12/99, rspeer wrote:
              > > I think reality is the deciding factor. I think if
              > >Mankind does survive for thousands of years to come, the future would most
              > >likely resemble the future in Star Trek.
              >
              I don't think that's exactly a proper basis for comparison between
              Star Trek and Star Wars, since Star Trek's premise is that it describes
              our future, and Star Wars' premise is that it describes our past.
              You know, the whole "long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" thing.

              Personally, I enjoy the two series in different ways. Star Trek is
              a futuristic vision, a picture of how we might live centuries from now.
              Star Wars is more of a scifi fairy tale, in my opinion. It starts
              out with the equivalent of "Once upon a time." The weapon of choice
              is the light saber, one which combines technology with chivalry and
              great personal skill.

              On a lighter note, if you think our future will resemble Star Trek,
              and you appreciate Dilbert, Scott Adams' book, _The Dilbert Future_
              has an amusing chapter on why the future will not be like Star Trek. :)
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.