1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Star Trek or Star Wars?

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by OscarMadison, Nov 22, 2020.

  1. maumann

    maumann Well-Known Member

    I agree wholeheartedly. The entire 10 episodes were really well-written and acted, and lots of awesome cameos and callbacks.

    Except what a weak-ass way to set up a Season 2. At least Spock actually dies in between movies.
  2. maumann

    maumann Well-Known Member

    Neither franchise really needs science fiction to make it work. Star Wars is as much "Indiana Jones in Space" as Star Trek is "Twelve Angry Men in Space."

    Star Wars is a series of great popcorn movies, particularly Empire Strikes Back. They're supposed to pull at your emotions. There's a certain "we don't care about McGuffins or massive plot holes so just sit back and enjoy."

    Star Trek is a series of great TV shows that depict a possible future using themes from current mores. They're supposed to make you contemplate. TNG has aged extremely poorly in many instances, because it's so freaking preachy, although "The Inner Light" is still one of the greatest screenplays ever written.

    I can't comment about The Mandalorian, but Discovery and Picard (and Lower Decks) are fascinating additions to the Trek universe. Discovery's third (fourth?) season is actually a huge leap forward in distinguishing itself from the rest of Trek without losing canon. And it's finally showing a Federation with real flaws and cracks instead of a perfect ideal.
  3. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    "The Inner Light" is fantastic. It is a clever concept beautifully executed.

    Star Trek has its plot holes, too. Both franchises broke ground in different ways. Star Wars has always had a lived-in feel that most science fiction lacks. Lucas was great at world-building and the special effects in the original trilogy were ahead of their time. They also made great use of sound, from the noises made by various creatures to the music.

    Star Trek was different because it was optimistic, at least at the start. So much futuristic science fiction is built around dystopian visions. Star Wars begins in a universe dominated by an evil empire. Battlestar Galactica has an incredibly dark premise, the near-extinction of humanity. Those are just a couple among many examples.
    maumann likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page