Star Trek vs Star Wars (Ultimate Nerd Showdown)

1.1 - The originality advantage can hardly be awarded to Star Trek when science fiction has been a popular aspect of literature for hundreds of years. It's no secret that man has been fascinated by the moon/stars since the beginning of time and early novelists realized this. This fascination culminated in the 50s when serials were introduced and regularly focused on alien visitors. Fast forward to 1965 and Star Trek is introduced to American television viewers, a tv show that is according to you, wholly original. Let's face it, Star Trek and Star Wars are science fiction, a genre that is hugely over produced and capitalized on whether in literature or film. Originality advantage goes to neither saga and does nothing to prove your original point that Star Trek is better than Star Wars. 1.2 You originally praise the Star Trek reboot for "[p]aying homage to the original Star Trek characters while remaining fresh and unique in the eyes of even the most orthodox of old guard fans." In your counterpoint, you say "it has more than proven its ability to move forward and leave the original characters far behind." So what exactly is the merit of the reboot? The fact that it pays homage to the original series or that it leaves them in the past? The characters of Star Wars are rich and diverse and still captivate audiences 30 years later. Bad example, Marvel's multiverse wasn't introduced until the 2000s while DC Comics has been around since the 80s and offers a much more lush environment. 1.3 Please expand on this argument and why my counter was false. Sure, Star Trek: The Next Generation was introduced new characters and brand new 'trek' but did nothing to reinvent the original series. As I said, this was done in the reboot of 2009. As far as Star Wars being a "commercial success, but [not] artistic or nerd-worthy" is preposterous. The Clone Wars Animated Series that aired from 2003-2005 on Cartoon Network featured artwork by Genndy Tartakovsky, a true artist and master mind behind Samurai Jack. The art direction behind this series was outstanding and featured new and original content that disproves your theory that Star Wars hasn't reinvented itself. 2.1 Sure, Star Trek is based on the natural human need to explore and one of the natural facets of Star Wars is that of political dealings. Beside the point that no other piece of science fiction has dealt with political matters at a universal level, there's also the fact that Star Wars is based more on the human condition than Star Trek could ever hope to achieve. Every aspect of Star Wars was based on an era of World History, tying it more so to this world than you though. For example, the notion of Jedis were based on the ancient Samurai techniques and fighting styles. Stormtroopers are based on Nazis and the Empire is reminiscent of Nazi Germany in general. This is me just scratching the surface of the real world comparisons. You might argue that this makes Star Wars unoriginal, but I argue that it enhances its real world appeal by tying a far off galaxy with out own. Your conclusion: "Star Trek is more relevant from its core thesis, Star Wars belongs on a make believe history shelf." I argue that Star Wars belongs on our history shelf, creating a text book of allusions. 3.1 I think you've missed my point altogether. Star Wars is a series made for kids and you fail to realize it. The popularity stems from children finding these movies at a young age and falling in love with the visuals, characters and storyline. Sure, as one ages, the gaps in the story are more apparent, the over-commercialization becomes intrusive and the prequels disappoint. However, the joy comes full circle when one geek shows their children the joy of Star Wars and the child-like wonder returns. 3.2 See above. -------------- 1.1 You are referring to Anakin Skywalker in your argument who I agree "is an incessant wah-a-thon." Darth Vader is the villain I was talking about, the one that strangles a Rebel to death within the first five minutes of A New Hope. And yes, these are two completely different characters. 2.1 "Kahn, the Klingon, the Borg, the Ramulens, Q, Hugh, the Nexus, the Dominion, the "conspiracy" bugs, all have had their own unique dimensions and dasterdliness which Star Wars bottles up in only one bad-guy, who turns out to be a brat in a black costume." The true villain is the Empire and not Darth Vader. Vader was simply brainwashed and manipulated into becoming a Sith Lord. On top of this, Star Wars is so much more than Vader and offers a lush backdrop of creatures and villains that outweigh the examples you provided from Trek. From 4-Lom and Zuckuss to Dengar and IG-88, the Bounty Hunter rogue gallery alone is massive and impressive. 3.1 One character cannot cancel out another, especially in films twenty years apart. Boba Fett is one of the coolest characters in film history and nothing from Star Trek comes close. However, the horribleness that is Jar Jar Banks is met and exceeded in so many characters of Trek that it is pathetic. Whoopi Golderg as Guinan. Really?! 3.2 Sure 7 of 9 was an attractive female but what did she really bring to the game besides getting nerds like you off the couch and into a vat of Shea butter? When it really comes down to it the better saga is awarded to which ever you personally grew up with and this nulls your initial argument that one series is better than the other. If however, you still wish to argue, then keep this mind. Millenium Falcon > USS Enterprise.