• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

WAS STAR TREK BETTER THAN STAR WARS? WILLIAM SHATNER THINKS SO.

gregg75

gregg75

And Gilligan's Island was better than Fantasy Island.
 
Tom Wells said:
And Gilligan's Island was better than Fantasy Island.
Click to expand...

I'd certainly take Ginger & Mary Ann over Tatoo & Mr. Rich Corinthian Leather. ;D
 
Neither was good.

Star Wars was a combination of an old Roman sword fight and WWII battle. The only thing that made it unique was the SFX which were well done if somewhat corny.

Star Trek was junk. A soaper set in space with no sense of sci-fi underpinnings. If filmed in black and white it could easily have passed for a cheesy Flash Gordon serial.
 
I'd venture to say that the original Star Trek series did have an even larger impact on the culture than the entire Star Wars double-trilogy of films did. Before you call me crazy, think about it: Star Trek was on our TV sets every day for decades (before TNG, DSN or the others were even thought of). Given that level of repetition and access, it's inevitable that this show would have more impact than a movie that you might see a couple of times.

Amazingly, some of the Star Trek tech stuff that was pure sci-fi in 1966 is now reality: the flip phone (communicator) is the first one that comes to mind. How about the 16:9, flat screen TV? Yeah, that was on the bridge of the Enterprise. In 1966. There are many others.......
 
Perhaps some kind of combination of the two series would be best.

I never got into Star Trek because they just seemed to be standing around talking most
of the time. Star Wars was all effects trying to prop up a weak storyline.
 
i never could get the which is better star trek or star wars mentality.even more baffeling to me is the only star trek not star wars and visa versa mentality.

i just enjoy both for what they are.if i have to chose between which i watch it depends on what episode of tv or movie options there are at the time. not if it is star wars or star trek.
 
I loved them all for one simple reason: They were fantasy that didn't rely on gross-factor, shock-factor, nudity or otherwise to entertain. You could put the entire family in front of the TV screen or Movie screen.

If I had to pick one though, I am not sure I could.
 
It's a silly debate -- both Star Wars and Star Trek were milestones for filmed science fiction, but they were very very different animals. Star Trek was produced on TV-sized budgets and inherently had to rely of interesting stories and dialogue to cover for a lack of special effects budget. It did a pretty good job, producing two seasons that had many great episodes, and one that was unfortunately loaded with duds.

Star Wars, in contrast, was intended as a special effects heavy space opera -- an old fashioned battle between good an evil. Character development was decidedly limited, but the effects were well done for the time and the story was definitely engaging.

While neither is perfect, both were good.

And for an opposing viewpoint, we have this:

landtuna said:
Neither was good.

Star Wars was a combination of an old Roman sword fight and WWII battle. The only thing that made it unique was the SFX which were well done if somewhat corny.

Star Trek was junk. A soaper set in space with no sense of sci-fi underpinnings. If filmed in black and white it could easily have passed for a cheesy Flash Gordon serial.
Click to expand...

Yes, a show that drew on scripts from several prominent science fiction writers has "no sense of sci-fi underpinnings". I'd laugh, but I don't think this comment was intended to be humorous.
 
If you had been there in 1966, the SFX of the transporter on Star trek seemed fantastic.
Just 3 years before on "Lost in Space" people simply went BWEEEEW! (Pooof of smoke) and they were gone.
Both Star Trek and Batman were very innovative in certain way that year.
 
TexasTom said:
Yes, a show that drew on scripts from several prominent science fiction writers has "no sense of sci-fi underpinnings".
Click to expand...

Star Trek was to science fiction as Spiderman is to Asimov.
 
Personally, I like Star Trek Next Generation more than Star Wars. I don't hate Star Wars but seeing and hearing about their merchandise and parodies so often annoys me greatly. Not so much with Star Trek's merchandise and parodies.
 
wncc said:
The real question is Who's the better actor William Shatner or Mark Hammill? ;D
Click to expand...

One did the Star Wars Holiday Special and the other did T.J. Hooker.

Tough call!
 
FreddyE1977 said:
wncc said:
The real question is Who's the better actor William Shatner or Mark Hammill? ;D
Click to expand...

One did the Star Wars Holiday Special and the other did T.J. Hooker.

Tough call!
Click to expand...

Shatner: I...am....the...better...actor.
Hamill: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom