Hi! Im a Sci-Fi movie addict as well as a follower of both Star Wars and Star Trek.. I do love them both and lately my friends came to my house and saw my collections of Star Wars and Star Trek, starting from clothes, action figures and more. They ask me this hard question which one of the 2 i like the best.. And my Answer? I did not respond cause to the fact that i like both of them.. So guys how about you? Which ome do you like most? Or what side will you choose.

Both are good, and I would continue to resist picking favorites if I were you. This Trek VS Wars thing is almost as rediculous as the pirate vs ninja debate.

Star Wars is grounded in mythology: the struggle between good and evil drawn in such broad strokes that few characters have any shades of gray. Even Darth Vader, who switches from good to evil and then back again, is never anywhere in between — he flips between extremes. Is it any real surprise that the most popular character from the original trilogy is Han Solo, who isn’t as cut-and-dried? The Star Wars storyline requires you to take a lot for granted: Most fundamentally, the main characters are far, far more important than anyone else in their world, even the “good” ones. Look, for instance, at how everyone acts after Luke returns from blowing up the Death Star: They’re all cheering and hugging, and then Luke gets really upset about R2-D2 being damaged — his good friend Biggs and a dozen other men were just blown to pieces, but Luke’s upset because his droid is busted. Nice. And at the end of Return of the Jedi, Vader turns good and saves Luke by killing the Emperor, and then the ghost of Anakin Skywalker appears along with Obi-Wan and Yoda. This man is responsible for personally killing hundreds of innocent beings, for ordering the deaths of countless more, and for torturing quite a few as well; but he is completely redeemed because he saved his son’s life. This can only mean that Luke’s life is worth as much as (or more than) those of all the (probably) thousands of people Vader slaughtered put together, because otherwise it simply makes no sense, right? These are the two examples that stand out the most in my mind, but there are plenty more where they came from.

KUDOS TO STAR WARS!

I have to give the nod to Star Trek. For all its technobabble and implausible extrapolation from current reality, it’s just on the whole a better product. It’s far more egalitarian, and so easier to identify with. I get the feeling that, if I were transplanted to the Star Trek universe, I could make a go of it and be a productive member of society on some level; conversely, I get the feeling that, if I were transplanted to the Star Wars universe, I would be one of those guys who has two lines and then gets shot by stormtroopers, who as everyone knows can only aim well at unimportant folks. Plus, percentage-wise as well as (obviously) length-wise, Star Trek simply has a lot more good material.

Star Trek, and this is coming from someone who went through a major Star Wars phase but never owned a toy phaser.(Have seen all movies and all series except the majority of TOS)

Now when we start getting a few long running Televison Series set in the Star Wars Universe I might reconsider, but until then I enjoy Trek more for the characters and large volume of quality material.

Seriously though, who needs Galactic Wars and Jedi? I'll take a live-action series about law enforcement X-Wing pilots (think Chips in Space) or even a medical or legal drama set in the Star Wars universe.

Originally posted by Heeris

I have to give the nod to Star Trek. For all its technobabble and implausible extrapolation from current reality, it’s just on the whole a better product. It’s far more egalitarian, and so easier to identify with. I get the feeling that, if I were transplanted to the Star Trek universe, I could make a go of it and be a productive member of society on some level; conversely, I get the feeling that, if I were transplanted to the Star Wars universe, I would be one of those guys who has two lines and then gets shot by stormtroopers, who as everyone knows can only aim well at unimportant folks. Plus, percentage-wise as well as (obviously) length-wise, Star Trek simply has a lot more good material.

Choose your two lines carefully young Padawan.

I agree with your post though hehe.As far as which I like better I dont know I enjoyed watching both as well as Battlestar Galactica but never been a hardcore follower of any.

Star Wars has only seemed moderately science fiction to me. It's more like Dungeons & Dragons with technology filling in for the magic since the technology is never given scientific explanation. The heroes of Star Wars are all archetypal fantasy characters: knights, princesses, rogues, mercenaries, and the obligatory "chosen one." The whole thing romanticizes the Royalty America and France had revolutions to overcome, with its cynical portrayal of the Republic and idealization of the princess. Star Wars' overall take on humanity is cynical, where, despite living in galaxy filled with technology resembling magic, people are just as unenlightened and motivated by baser desires as they are today.

Good science fiction asks questions that pertain to the human condition and every single episode of Star Trek sets out to tackle the hard philosophical questions. Star Trek takes a positive perspective of humanity's future, with upstanding characters who seek intelligent solutions to social and technological dilemmas presented to them. The humans in Star Trek are the role-models for other species. Earth is the center of the Federation of Planets, the center of a working democratic United Nations on a galactic scale, complete with a Prime Directive to prevent a repeat of Earth's colonialist mistakes.

Star Trek gets accused of being "Philosopher Kings in Space" or of
presenting an idealistic vision of Communism, but these can also be seen as criticisms of the character's intellectualism and their personal virtue of serving the greater good, as academia is called elitist and humanism accused of socialism in today's society. The fact that we can even have such a debate about the sociopolitical dimensions of Star Trek make it a million-bazillion-times more nerdy than Star Wars' blaster and saber show.

Star Wars is fantasy, Star Trek is SF, and I can rant on and on and on about the differences between the two and why SF is vastly superior in every dimension, with the exception of fantasy making better escapist fare for when you want to turn off your brain for a few hours.

Honestly, I think the biggest difference between the two universes was that Star Trek, DS9 excluded and not in a bad way, was generally about hope. That's really the central, core tenant of the show.

In the future, all these worries and burdens and injustices we have now will be behind us. For example, it said (in the 60's) that if you're a woman, there's a place for you on the bridge, just like everyone else. If you're black, eventually nobody will care. If you're blind, you can still be chief engineer of a Starship.

I think this is why Trek appeals so much to the GLBT crowd. The idea -- the hope -- that in the future, life will be governed by tolerance and reason. That there's a place for everyone and replicated food means nobody goes hungry.

Star Wars represents, I think, a more grim picture of the future (again, not in a bad way). There's injustice and authoritarianism everywhere. People will kill you for old debts, for being a member of an almost extinct religion, or for opposing the state. There are wars spanning across solar systems. There is money, corruption, politics, and weapons of mass destruction.

For people who prefer this world, I can imagine why it's appealing. It's adventurous, engaging and realistic; as we can see in the modern day Republican party people don't abandon their preconceptions and hatreds just because technology marches on. In Trek there's no money, but honestly people want to make a buck; the basic idea of currency has been with us for so long we rightly can't imagine a world without it.

So what do I prefer?

I love them both, they are different, and they give a totally separate picture of the future.

For example, one of the long-running issues I've had with Trek is... If everything's so egalitarian and racism is a thing of the past, then where are all the Chinese people (1\4 of the world's population)? Instead of the 'token asian', shouldn't each ship have a token white guy?

Accordingly, the majority of the crew of the ships in Lacuna are Chinese. Unlike Trek, people didn't give up their nationalities in this future; and nationalities tend to clump together when all mixed up, like oil and water. Old terrestrial grudges show up occasionally too, something that Trek was only able to explore in allegory.

Sci-fi is such a fun and vibrant setting to write in, in particular because of this tradeoff of hope vs realism. The reimagined BSG, for example, took that far to the extreme of realism and was brilliant; Trek took it the other way. Star Wars is somewhere in the middle.

Star Trek and Star Wars look a lot alike, beyond the obvious similarity between their names. Each has a lot of spaceships, strange worlds, ray guns, and aliens, many of whom look startlingly like humans with prosthetics and makeup. But of course geeks are not casual observers, and we know just how different they are. Star Wars is grounded in mythology: the struggle between good and evil drawn in such broad strokes that few characters have any shades of gray. Star Trek begins with a premise so ridiculous it could only have originated in the Sixties: a united Earth, only about 250 years from now. At least Star Wars started off by telling you it was happening “in a galaxy far, far away” so any assumptions based on what we know about Earth and humanity didn’t necessarily apply. But Trek is science fiction, not fantasy, and so different rules need to apply, and they break them all the time. The Star Warsuniverse would look so much better were it not for Episodes 1 to 3, and the Ewoks. And the Star Trekuniverse would look much better without Star Trek V, and Generations, and Insurrection, and (in my opinion, anyway) Nemesis, not to mention quite a few episodes of each of the five TV series.

I love them both for different reasons. But I grew up. Star Wars for the heroic Space Opera of Good vs Evil is the essence of our childish need to be excited by heroes. When George put more effects in, he actually appealed to more children. Star Trek was (and still is) the epitome of the dream that human beings can strive to be better. That in our near future, we can explore more of our universe in person. We can let the experience of achieving this ability, and the act of living it out from there shape us into a more understanding and benevolent society toward ourselves and possible others.

I hate to quote, but here it is. "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." Star Trek made us truly dream about what was possible here and in the near future..not in some galaxy far, far away ...

Niether of the two are close to reality. Since it always is here are the facts. Think about the first five or so episodes of star trek TNG. There is Q, an all powerfull being and such that has virtually no limits. Ok thats realistic... not. Then you have the force to match that. In epidoe four of season one I believe or maybe five they travel to the "outer rim" of our Universe and guess what there is random floating light and wierd stuff and all of there thoughts become manifestyed into reality. Thats not exactly realistic. Now there is the transporters. In the future, and I mean distant future it is possible. BUT it is widely accepted the only way this could happen would be by making a copy of everything about the person and than sending those blueprints to the designate area and recreating it. Guess what though, it would have to be recreated and therefore it would actually not be the person but a clone. Look it up. This also debunks the possibility of transporting from or to a location with no teleporter. For the warp drive it would also be close to impossible to stably contain antimatter but I am not going in to that. Lastly, ligfhtsabers. Many say u cant have a laser beam stop after a couple feet. This is completely true yet in star trek tng episode 7 an alien has a laser that does just this. Despite this however it is clear lightsabers are not even lasers. Im not by any means saying star wars is a science textbook but as far as realism i think they are relatively equal. The difference is star trek adds in a bunch of fictional science that makes it appear more realistic. In the end though I really do love both and they are both entertaining in their own way but if I had to choose, It would be star wars for me.

Originally posted by brinadenzell

Snip

As an experiment, me and a few others tried to come up with some designs that would take care of the lightsaber dillema.

Acutally using light turned out to be bunk, it is possible to manipulate light via forces like gravity. But the power required to contain the beam like that would easily be enough to shred entire planets, and if the focus was just a bit off, it WOULD shred entire planets. we tossed that out rather shortly. Partly because of the safety issue, but also because if you've got that kind of power in your hands, there are more efficient ways to use it than simply for a sword.

We experimented for a time with kinetic particles. Basically the lightsaber would be the futuristic equivalent of a chainsaw blade, with "teeth" that were far too small to be seen. Manipulating the particles in an effective manner turned out to be incredibly difficult. And again, if you've got the power to do it, there were more efficient weapons you could use.

Tightly contained superheated plasma ended up being our best option. Either using controlled magnetic fields or some kind of shield/force field. This concept had some problems as well. Magnetic fields would not cause lightsabers to bounce off or impact each other. More likely it would cause the two beams to meld together and/or lose containment, spraying plasma everywhere. A force field may or may not nullify most of the amount of heat radiated from the beam depending on its nature. If too much heat was nullified, the blade would be useless.

I'd say both.  But...

Id choose star wars because of the light saber hahaha! its really cool when they use it in battle. Also I like star wars because they have a background story of how the wars started and etc. My favorite character is "Yoda" he is so cool with his moves especially the way he talk = I LOVE IT!!! Well I can say that Star Trek is nice too because its really the original space wars ever and they have this geeky dialect that i dont understand meaning coolness points for them. though they lack action scenes unlike star wars mostly battle ships and adventure. Anyway both of them are nice and since you asked for my opinion is choose star wars.

Star Trek

Kirk > greater then anything in Star Wars

They both have stupid looking star ships, but the best one is the defiant. it actually looks like it would stand a chance of not getting blown to bits on it's very first assignment. And what is with the millenium falcon?! the shitty, beaten up tiny old freighter thrown together out of scrap, who's engine was replaced with a spacious room, could travel much faster than any other star ship, destroy anything it seems to be faced with, withstand any form of weapons fire for long enough to do whatever it needs to do, and even take on a massive state of the art imperial capital ship!!!

Star Wars all the way, it has so much of a better story and is an international, and american tradition, plus john williams music in the scenes destroy everything. i would much rather watch star wars over and over again every day, which i do. i bet half of treekkkkkies(funny name) havnt evern seen the STAR WARS Saga(plus they are coming out on blu-ray and 3d, have way more games, and started a new movie and tv series(Clone Wars) star wars was started in 1977 and they are still going on with it now. Star Wars has always been the best for me when compared with Star Trek!! by the way great lens and awesome collection of mouse pads will buy one for myself..keep updating this lens thank you!

I definitely prefer Star Wars! On a side note, if the guys making these awesome movies need to move a car they can call Weber Auto Transport and we can take care of them live!Star wars, completely. Not including it's amazing plot, characters, and everything else, music. Star Wars has awesome music awards have been given to just the music. That's something that sometimes fans forget about. Star Trek guyz got no auto cannons that can turn just 2 main cannons that cant turn. this is what also sucks

For me guys i really dont know which one is better.. To tell you the truth both of them are good and has their own uniqueness, You have to remember that the Death Star's only gun isn't the big huge one, it was built to fight capital ships (which lead to its demise, the laser cannons weren't geared for small fighters). Since Star Trek doesn't really ever use fighters (except for maybe the most recent movie with Data) this means that the Death Star would seriously kick some booty before it was destroyed. Remember, the Enterprise is too big to fly down one of those incy wincy exhaust shafts. The Klingons could get pissed but against a moon-sized battlestation built for taking on huge fleets I really don't know. Methinks that once the Death Star did decimate all of the fleets it would just fly around and blow up the popular planets one by one. Tarkin would bring Picard up to the Death Star's bridge and say 'We have to demonstrate the power of this battlestation just one more time, or maybe three or four more times].

When Star Wars was first released on the Wednesday before Memorial Day in 1977, it arrived in theaters with good reviews and excellent advance word. It didn't take long for it to become a phenomenon (although, admittedly, 1997's publicity for the Special Edition dwarfs that of the original 1977 release). It was a true family film -- perfect for kids and parents, a throwback to the space serials of the past and a look ahead to what the future might hold. Adults appreciated Lucas' masterful, magical movie-making. Children loved all the strange creatures. Suddenly, Star Wars was everywhere; there were bed sheets, lunch boxes, trading cards, action figures, comic books, picture books, posters, records, and just about anything else you could imagine.

The Star Wars fad, such as it was, lasted into the early '80s, and the original film received two additional theatrical runs. Then it was on to the small screen. But watching the movie on videotape, which has been the exclusive viewing experience of just about anyone under the age of twenty, isn't the same as seeing it in a packed theater. Now, however, with the advent of the original movie's twentieth anniversary and the promise of new films in another two years, Star Wars is as hot as it has ever been. Those predicting anything less than a financial windfall for the Special Edition don't have the world's pulse.

Every year, a handful of movies are re-released to commemorate an anniversary. All of these feature new, clean prints. Some have re-mixed soundtracks. A few, such as Lawrence of Arabia,Vertigo , and The Umbrella of Cerboug, have been painstakingly restored. But Lucas wanted more than this for Star Wars. He didn't just want to re-create the original theatrical experience, he wanted to improve upon it. So, in addition to cleaning up the print and re-mixing the soundtrack into a digital format, he has used state-of-the- art special effects to change the film's look. This includes adding more than four minutes of never- before-seen footage. And, while the new scenes don't appreciably improve the movie, they're fun to see, especially for anyone who has memorized every detail from the original. More importantly, although the newer, flashier effects subtly alter the Star Wars experience, they do not degrade it.