Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

William Shatner On Star Trek Vs. Star Wars

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the phaser-versus-saber dept.

Sci-Fi 511

tekgoblin writes "Star Trek Vs Star Wars has always been a hot topic of debate in the nerd world, I honestly don't think there is any comparison between the two. William Shatner voices his opinion on the matter as well and he says they are completely different too. I just don't understand where people get that Star Trek and Star Wars are similar in any way. Lets see what Shatner had to say on the matter."

cancel ×

511 comments

Star Trek (2)

black3d (1648913) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440234)

Has always seemed much more nerd accessible - like being a nerd is almost a pre-requisite to enjoying it. Star Wars is too.. main-stream action. >

Re:Star Trek (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440336)

You'd be surprised how many non-nerds are Star Trek fans. However, you won't find them at the conventions or in Star Trek costumes. You'll find them at your corner bar or any construction site.

Re:Star Trek (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440930)

Truer than you think. Several studies have show Star Trek is enjoyed by most anyone who is the least bit disenfranchised by modern society. This can range from race to gender or simply oppression from one's social standing. Star Trek is widely accessible by large swaths of society. While Star Trek has a large swing in quality of the years, at its heart, it is true science fiction; especially where Roddenberry was involved.

Star Wars, on the other hand, is an action/adventure story set in a futuristic fantasy world. Its not really science fiction at all. Star Wars is by far fantasy, not science fiction. Hell, the story lines, when there are story lines, are literally ripped right from classic fantasy.

Honestly, Shatner is spot on in his analysis. They are two entirely different shows with two entirely different genres, with two entirely different stories and themes to tell.

Re:Star Trek (1)

Trent Hawkins (1093109) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440352)

well, not any more.
Now you have to be a nerd to enjoy the star wars prequels, or buy the re-re-re-re-re-mastered editions with the extra NOOOOOOOOOO!
While Star trek is a blockbuster action flick.

Re:Star Trek (-1, Offtopic)

OopsIDied (1764436) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440366)

why'd the Hipster burn himself with the pizza?

  because he ate it before it was cool.

God Main-stream Action Sucks (3)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440432)

Star Wars is too.. main-stream action.

Yeah. But then this happened [youtube.com] .

Slashdotted (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440846)

Server... can't... handle... the load!

Re:Star Trek (1)

AshtangiMan (684031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37441024)

I would say that Star Trek is classic science fiction, while star wars is a space western . . . the action flick rather than an examination of the human condition.

Not an issue. (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440250)

Jim would beat the fsck out of Solo with both hands tied behind his back.

No comparison.

Re:Not an issue. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440422)

Yeah, but what if Solo didn't have both hands tied behind his back? Of course, it would be a boring fight, those guys are REALLY old.

A wookie would tear a Klingon's arms off if the wookie lost a chess game to him. That is, if you could find a chess-playing Klingon (Worf, maybe, but I doubt even Worf would have the patience for chess).

Spock vs Obi Wan would be an interesting matchup.

Re:Not an issue. (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440690)

Spock vs Obi Wan would be an interesting matchup.

Getting those two to hostilities would involve some serious mental gymnastics...

Re:Not an issue. (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37441016)

Spock vs Obi Wan would be an interesting matchup. Getting those two to hostilities would involve some serious mental gymnastics...

Get Obi Wan to try and convince Spock that midichlorians exist. It'll end in bloodshed, red or green.

Re:Not an issue. (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37441196)

I'd bet Spock would be more receptive than you think. After all, all Obi Wan has to do is prove it by levitating something.

Re:Not an issue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440772)

Worf killed a number of Jem'Hadar with his bare hands. It's likely that he could do even better against some walking carpets.

Re:Not an issue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440440)

Jim would beat the fsck out of Solo with both hands tied behind his back.

No comparison.

Damn, Star Wars versus Star Trek. How quaint.
Now put in Babylon 5 and you've got some real *beep* going on.

Kirk ? A captain with no brains at all.
Solo ? A space pirate that fires second ? Not worth a dime.
Mr Garibaldi and Bester ? These two can kick the crap out of Kirk and Solo every day of the week.
No comparison whatsoever indeed.

Re:Not an issue. (1)

mla_anderson (578539) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440588)

I'd be more scared of Ivanova.

B5 wins hands down. It's one of the few sci-fi shows that I don't cringe or yell at the screen about. Being an engineer seems to ruin a lot of the sci-fi genre for me.

Re:Not an issue. (-1, Offtopic)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440652)

Now put in Babylon 5 and you've got some real *beep* going on.

"*beep*"?

Seriously, "*beep*"? You couldn't say "sh*t" or "s__t" or even "stuff", or just "shit"? The average reader here is probably 30, I'm pretty sure we can handle the occasional in-context swear word.

Re:Not an issue. (1, Offtopic)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440728)

Now put in Babylon 5 and you've got some real *beep* going on.

"*beep*"?

Seriously, "*beep*"? You couldn't say "sh*t" or "s__t" or even "stuff", or just "shit"? The average reader here is probably 30, I'm pretty sure we can handle the occasional in-context swear word.

Just be grateful it wasn't "frack" or "frell" or similar...

Re:Not an issue. (1)

lerxstz (692089) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440804)

...or "feldercarb"

Re:Not an issue. (5, Funny)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440778)

Now put in Babylon 5 and you've got some real *beep* going on. "*beep*"? Seriously, "*beep*"? You couldn't say "sh*t" or "s__t" or even "stuff", or just "*beep*"? The average reader here is probably 30, I'm pretty sure we can handle the occasional in-context swear word.

He can't help it, When he types "shit", it automatically appears as "*beep*" on your screen.

/hunter2

Re:Not an issue. (2)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440732)

Sisko: Better than all of the above.

Star Wars seemed more about the story. Rebels fighting to live free.
Star Trek to me was interesting because it was more technology based. Yes they had excellent story lines (DS9 in particular) but what got me hooked as a young engineer was "the future." PADDs, Warp Drive, etc.

Re:Not an issue. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440826)

Kirk? No brains? This is the man who beat the Kobayashi Maru by having the brains to cheat.

Re:Not an issue. (5, Funny)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440526)

Jim would win because the newly edited Solo would wait for him to shoot first. :P

Fuck you, George Lucas.

Re:Not an issue. (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440730)

Well it's not like Solo would shoot him.

Re:Not an issue. (1)

Denogh (2024280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440746)

Kirk wouldn't have a chance to beat the fsck out of Solo, because Han would shoot first.

At least he would have before the special edition...

Denny Crane says (2)

said213 (72685) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440268)

Phaser control is for communists.

No big surprise (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440296)

William Shatner thinks the work he's done far outweighs the work of, say, Harrison Ford.

Re:No big surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440412)

Captain Kirk vs. Han Solo
TJ Hooker vs. Indiana Jones
Denny Crane vs. Jack Ryan

I think Harrison has the edge with Indiana but Shatner did win an Emmy for Crane. Looks pretty even to me.

Re:No big surprise (2)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440468)

As of July 2008, the United States domestic box office grosses of Ford's films total almost US$3.4 billion, with worldwide grosses surpassing $6 billion, making Ford the third highest grossing U.S. domestic box-office star.

-Wikipedia

Re:No big surprise (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440614)

Third after Shatner and Chuck Norris. Am I right, sir?

Re:No big surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37441188)

I'm guessing you don't use linux.

Re:No big surprise (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440704)

Shatner wins hands down. No one else has ever so effectively announced themselves as Denny Crane. "Denny Crane!"

Besides, as much as Harrison Ford really has become something of a cultural icon through Solo and Indiana Jones, let's face it, the Shat was Captain Kirk. I mean, really, think about it, he was Captain Fucking Kirk. Maybe for the newer generation that don't mean much, but for a kid who watched Star Trek reruns every Sunday afternoon with his brother and his old man, and pretty much every other male member of the family who happened to be around, well, Captain Kirk loomed large on the horizon.

Re:No big surprise (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440534)

Shatner was always a much bigger star in the universe he lives in, versus the universe the rest of us live in.

Re:No big surprise (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440766)

He's right.

Re:No big surprise (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37441116)

William Shatner certainly outweighs Harrison Ford. By about 80 lbs, I'd guess.

kids these days (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440300)

I'm deeply saddened that I can't get my kids to watch either.

Well, they like the Clone Wars CGI/cartoon, but I don't think that counts.

Where have I gone wrong?!

(OTOH, the son developed an early interest in astronomy from watching the Titanic II get sucked into a black hole in Futurama, but had to cut him off of that because of most of the other age-inappropriate content :-/ )

Re:kids these days (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440438)

Congratulations, your kids will get laid.

Re:kids these days (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440674)

Uh, where do you think his kids came from?

Re:kids these days (1)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440776)

Uh, where do you think his kids came from?

Transporter accident?

Re:kids these days (1)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440808)

Transporter accident?

Re:kids these days (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440508)

If Star Trek or Star Wars were made today they wouldn't get anything close to the attention they do get because they weren't actually that good. It's the same with most things: Alfred Hitchkock films are laughably bad but he's still considered the "master of suspense", Space Invaders and Pong get pretty boring after a very short amount of time, and The Beatles certainty aren't anything special.

Most classics that are held in high regard are actually crap. You just have fond memories of them while your kids see them for what they are.

Re:kids these days (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440742)

Okay, I can see your point on Star Trek and Star Wars, but Hitchcock? Anyone who watches Rear Window or Vertigo and doesn't get a sense of the brilliance of Hitchcock has got serious issues. Yes, there were throwaways like The Birds (although the scene where the hero tries to get into that upstairs bedroom still gives me the heebeejeebies), but the great Hitchcock films, well they really are spectacles. I mean, come on, Hitchcock is the guy that managed to turn Jimmy Stewart from his various shades of nice guy into one of the great psychologically damaged anti-heroes in the history of film. Wake me up when someone can do the same for, say, Tom Hanks.

Re:kids these days (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440796)

2009 isn't recent enough?

Re:kids these days (4, Informative)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440934)

The reason they're special is because they were very original for their time, and if it weren't for them then the subsequent copiers wouldn't even exist. I've never seen any Hitchcock, but I still love a bit of Star Trek. Stargate SG-1 and Firefly are about the only sci-fi series I'd consider better than any of the Star Treks (pre Enterprise anyway, I didn't see that).

There have been some good sci-fi movies in the last 20 years, but the original Star Wars trilogy definitely are still awesome. They have lightsabers and speeder bikes. Enough said.

Plus, I didn't even ever listen to the Beatles until Beatles Rock Band came out, but now that I've heard more of their music I have to say they're pretty damn good. Definitely a lot better than most other music from that era, and still a lot better than most music today.

Re:kids these days (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440566)

Your dad was probably equally sad he couldn't get you to watch Gunsmoke or Big Valley. Welcome to the generational divide.

Fanboy rage! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440320)

Where's that Ars Technica article that explains fanboi-ism? Because it's very appropriate right here.

Seriously, who gives a shit. I like both on a good day ( Star Trek 2/4/6 and Episode 4-6) and hate both on a bad one (Voyager and Episode 1)

Re:Fanboy rage! (2)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440510)

Over here [arstechnica.com] . And you're right, it is highly relevant.

We also need a link telling us what Shatner thinks about his interview being slashdotted.

This was posted everywhere else last week? (0)

DJRikki (646184) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440338)

Stories taking a bit longer to appear on the old /. these days

Re:This was posted everywhere else last week? (0)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440410)

Stories taking a bit longer to appear on the old /. these days

You must be new here.

Re:This was posted everywhere else last week? (0)

said213 (72685) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440494)

They make up for it with unlimited free duplicate articles!

Chewbacca (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440340)

They spelled Chewbacca wrong. Great.. now I'm a Star Wars geek *and* a spelling Nazi...

Re:Chewbacca (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440844)

Spelling Nazis. I hate these guys.

Re:Chewbacca (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440888)

They spelled Chewbacca wrong. Great.. now I'm a Star Wars geek *and* a spelling Nazi...

May the Forse be with yew

Nobody gives a fsck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440356)

about William Shatner, even trekkies.

c'mon (0)

fredmunge (717927) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440368)

...get a life! W. Shattner

Of course they're the same!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440384)

Star Wars and Star Trek are the same. Just like Scarface and The Godfather are the same.

Trek fans are like WW2 vets... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440388)

....they are slowly dying away...." - George Lucas.

it's simple (4, Insightful)

burris (122191) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440392)

Outsiders don't care about the differences in the movie/show, they just see that the fans are all the same. Just like people who aren't hippies don't see any difference between the Grateful Dead and Phish, or people that aren't Christians don't care too much about the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism, or Shiites vs. Sunnis, or Republicans vs. Democrats, or furries vs. panty sniffers (oh crap did I go too far?)

Re:it's simple (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440476)

Also, the names are sort of similar, so it's easy to get confused between the "Star something thing" if you don't pay much attention to these things.

Re:it's simple (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440598)

Star...something...something...dark side...something...something...complete.

Why do we need some sort of competition? (2)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440512)

One of them is a series of sci-fi films (with a few TV series, book and comic spin-offs), the other is a TV series (with a few TV series, book, comic and film spin-offs). Both enjoyable to fans of the science fiction genre. Both significantly different from each other as to make them worthy in their own rights.

I like roast chicken and prawn curry. I don't feel the need to establish one as superior.

Re:Why do we need some sort of competition? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440970)

I don't feel the need to establish one as superior.

That's just the sort of peacenik pinko-drivel I'd expect to hear from a Bablyon 5 fan. J'accuse.

Correction: one of them is a series of SF films, the other is a documentary.

Bill Shatner (0)

Ahab's compliments (1801080) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440524)

is fat.

Evolve vs. Devolve (5, Interesting)

koelpien (639319) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440536)

Star Wars devolves, Star Trek evolves. Look at that stupid "Clone Wars." My nine-year-old couldn't care less. Sad.

Re:Evolve vs. Devolve (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440932)

I tried to watch that one as I quite enjoyed the 2D animated shorts by Genndy Tartakovsky, but I found the character designs were incredibly off putting.

Re:Evolve vs. Devolve (1)

heironymous (197988) | more than 2 years ago | (#37441020)

I'm surprised by your comment. I actually find some of the stories from the Star Wars tv series to be better written, and far more poignant, than the movies

Of course there's a difference (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440568)

Star Trek was science fiction. Star wars was science fantasy. If you don't know the difference you have to pay more attention.

Re:Of course there's a difference (2)

heironymous (197988) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440792)

I wouldn't even call Star Wars science fantasy, it's fantasy. Scotty on the other hand didn't become chief engineer because he was the son of the king of engineers.

Re:Of course there's a difference (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440872)

Star Trek was science fiction. Star wars was science fantasy. If you don't know the difference you have to pay more attention.

No, they are both science fantasy.

Star Trek would win (2)

chebucto (992517) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440616)

The Imperial ships are much larger, but they have no shields. After a couple of dozen quantum torpedoes, they'd be burning wreckage. Heck, a runabout could just transport a torpedo into the bridge of a star destroyer and it'd be toast.

Their laser cannons might pack a punch, too, but all the federation ships would have to do is remodulate the shield frequencies, and they'd be useless.

Re:Star Trek would win (1)

nonsensical (1237544) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440718)

It takes about a month to cross the galaxy in an imperial star destroyer. There are 10,000+ imperial star destroyers. 3 can turn a standard earth sized planet into nothing but molten mayhem in about 12 hours. Conclusion, any of the normal Star Trek races loses any war very quickly.

Re:Star Trek would win (1)

SocietyoftheFist (316444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440902)

I'm gonna pop some popcorn while you two work this one out.

Re:Star Trek would win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37441038)

Star Trek ships are capable of time travel. Since it was never shown how many or how fast ships from either Star Trek or Star Wars could destroy a planet (comics or books for that Star Wars extended universe crap don't count, only the films and shows are canon), it's unknown which would be more effective.

Picard once said that lasers couldn't even penetrate the Enterprise's navigational shields. A Star Destroyer would be no match for any of the ships from Star Trek unless they were running away and even then a Star Trek ship could merely travel back in time and kill whoever they wanted before they were even born..

Re:Star Trek would win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37441002)

Their shields are insignificant compared to the power of the force.

Re:Star Trek would win (2)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#37441084)

Did you completely forget the scene in Episode VI where the snubfighters blow up the shield generator on the Executor after which an A-Wing plows through the bridge causing it to crash into the Death Star? Those spheres on all star destroyers are their shield generators.

Re:Star Trek would win (2)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 2 years ago | (#37441156)

Imperial ships do have shields. From the script of Return of the Jedi, the following occurs just after Rebel fighters destroy the geodesic sphere-looking things atop the Executor's bridge:

128 INT VADER'S STAR DESTROYER - BRIDGE

Admiral Piett and a commander stand at the window, looking out to the battle. They look concerned.

CONTROLLER
Sir, we've lost our bridge deflector shield.

PIETT
Intensify the forward batteries. I don't want anything to get through.

The commander is looking out of the window where a damaged Rebel fighter is out of control and heading directly toward the bridge.

PIETT
Intensify forward firepower!

COMMANDER
It's too late!

The Rebel pilot screams as his ship hits the Star Destroyer, causing a huge explosion. The giant battle ship loses control, crashes into the Death Star, and explodes.

The big difference between the two is that Star Trek has very little in the way of fighter craft. There isn't much in the way of Star Trek canon to establish whether ships in that universe would have difficulty going up against a squadron of fighters, but Voyager got the crap kicked out of it by a few dozen supposedly obsolete fighters in one episode because the fighters were moving too fast to get a reliable shot on them.

not that difficult (5, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440634)

"I just don't understand where people get that Star Trek and Star Wars are similar in any way."

They are both Hollywood entertainment franchises that became very popular in the 1970s*, featuring space ships and other advanced technology, settings in space and on other planets, and titles that fit the pattern "Star ????" If you can't see how they're similar, you're trying too hard not to.

*Yes, I know when Star Trek debuted; read that sentence more carefully.

Obvious : they both start with "STAR" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440640)

Simple'n'easy.

On others' laurels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440646)

"Star Trek had relationships and conflict among the relationships, and stories that involved humanity and philosophical questions..."

Yes, yes it did.

Just not the one he starred in...

Difference in fans (4, Interesting)

doconnor (134648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440658)

One thing I've noticed is that most big Star Trek fan also enjoy Star Wars, while big Star Wars fans often strongly dislike and berate Star Trek. I guess the different philosophies attracts different types of fans.

An example can be seen in Fanboys where the Star Wars fan beat up some Star Trek fans for no reason.

Re:Difference in fans (3, Insightful)

rgviza (1303161) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440748)

yea but fanboys is a movie. fictional examples don't count.

Re:Difference in fans (1)

doconnor (134648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37441014)

Fanboys is a movie, but presumably it was written by and for Star Wars fans in order to reflect, if only as a parody, their actual attitudes. Although I understand movie had a very troubled history.

I know of other nonfictional examples, like one of the people who I went to high school with.

Willam Shatner once gave sage advice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440676)

... to fans at a Star Trek convention. [lmgtfy.com] He was right.

Shatner is Trolling (3, Interesting)

nonsensical (1237544) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440688)

It comes across as Shatner trolling the audience, which for those who recognize it for that, is hilarious.

Re:Shatner is Trolling (0, Troll)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440866)

It comes across as Shatner trolling the audience, which for those who recognize it for that, is hilarious.

Shatner? Trolling? If he was, he left out one key fact that made ST better - SW ignored basic physics. Whenever a space craft passed the Death Star, it cast a shadow. In a vacuum. Shadows in a vacuum. Come on, at least get some of the science right.

PS: Enterprise was the best ST of the bunch.

Why is this even news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440694)

Do we really care what Shatner thinks on ANYTHING! Everyone seems to forget he did not create Star Trek. He's just a bad actor that can't let go.

Re:Why is this even news. (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440840)

He let go years ago. For a bad actor, he's had a rather successful career post-Trek. TJ Hooker may be laughable now, but it was no worse than most cop procedurals, and no matter how hamfisted you may have thought his acting in Star Trek, the man basically reinvented his entire career with Denny Crane, and in his twilight years no less. Is he the greatest actor around? No, obviously not, but he isn't that bad, and even in the Star Trek days there were episodes where you got the sense that he did have some chops, when the material was at its best.

I actually kind of like what the guy has done. I enjoy Raw Nerve, he's a way better interviewer than most, and certainly seems willing to take things to the edge, and you know, he's done damned well for himself in a business that chews up people and spits them out.

Re:Why is this even news. (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37441198)

No, but he created Tek War. OK, it sucked, but what have you created?

The Nice Thing About Both Cosmologies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37440750)

When you get away from their core stories they get much more interesting.

He wants to bang Carrie Fisher? (3, Funny)

SocietyoftheFist (316444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440818)

That is what I took away from it.

wut? (2)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440852)

I just don't understand where people get that Star Trek and Star Wars are similar in any way.

I just don't understand why anyone cares anymore. The first two SW films were good, but from ROTJ onward, who cares? ST began to lose steam during DS9's run. Maybe the rebooted ST movie series will pan out, and maybe the Old Republic MMO will make SW interesting again. Who knows? I just never got the *obsession* with either franchise. I liked them, still watch an episode of TOS or TNG now and then, but to go on and on about it, debating one made up science over another made up science, I just don't even.

It's really quite simple (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440860)

Star Wars was a swashbuckler in the tradition of Errol Flynn movies; Star Trek was a soap opera.

Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authurian. (3, Insightful)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 2 years ago | (#37440886)

Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Arthurian Legend. Star Trek is about a possible future of our world/universe and the progress of secular Humanity, and the triumph of reason and science.

Star Wars is like a King Aurthur's knights of the round table, or spiritualist story about good vs. evil, just set in space. It discusses a quasi-religious struggle between right and wrong, and the struggle of rightful Camelot style kings vs. vicious tyrants. It is a fairy tale, or fable.

Re:Star Wars is not Science fiction, it's Authuria (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37441102)

Star Trek is about a possible future of our world/universe

lol @ "possible".

Interesting (2)

Bob-taro (996889) | more than 2 years ago | (#37441010)

FTA:

The perfect union between Star Trek and Star Wars would be if Captain Kirk and Princess Leia were to ran off together pursued by Chewbakka.

So in conclusion ... Bill Shatner was high?

For staters. . . (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#37441122)

Star Trek and Star Wars start with "Star".

BORG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37441128)

Star Trek specifically says in one episode of TNG (they meet some lower tech planets and there's a Romeo and Juliet type thing going on) that the other ships have lasers and that they would not even hurt their MANEUVERING shields. Also know as the 'keep the space dust off my ship shields'. So Trek has phasers and Wars lasers...

Also... BORG. 1 Jedi gets assimilated and thus goes the universe.

Here, let me simplify this argument for you. (1)

Vrtigo1 (1303147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37441138)

The Borg vs anything Star Wars has got. Game over. If you don't believe me, then substitute Q for the Borg...game's over before it begins.

The Netflix / Qwikster article is working fine... (1)

LowG1974 (1021485) | more than 2 years ago | (#37441170)

but post about Star Trek vs. Star Wars and you've slashdotted a site. LMAO.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...