NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

That would be a lot for me to keep.

Aren't there about 45,000 Star Trek episodes, 6 Star wars movies and 4 LOTR books?

Well you would get to have all the Star Treks for yourself then .. roll about in them .. watch them whenever you like    be my guest

Jennifer Barker wrote:

Well you would get to have all the Star Treks for yourself then .. roll about in them .. watch them whenever you like    be my guest

Thank you. I believe I'll watch some now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN3-6stydFg

Orca Bay Images wrote:

AOP Studios wrote:
The Seven Samurai, cause this is the story Lucas stole from.

No. Nononononononoooooooo. NO.

It wasn't The Seven Samurai, it was The Hidden Fortress.

Wagon Train, cause this is what Roddenberry stole from.

True.


Rolling up a BIG newspaper and getting ready to smack you widdit.

Oops, stand corrected...Seven Samurai was made into The Magnificent Seven. My bad...but then, Hidden Fortress is better than Wagon Train. 

David Shinobi wrote:
This should clear things up...

Yessss!!!

Picard FTW!!

Ninja wrote:
Lord of the Rings.  Because Peter Jackson pwns pretty much everyone else.

Big difference. The Star Wars and Star Trek franchises have occasionally turned out pretty good movies.  The three Lord of the Rings movies were absolute bore-athons.

David Shinobi wrote:
This should clear things up...

Yessss!!!
I

Charles West wrote:
How is slicing you in two civilized?

How is stun not more civilized?

Ask Lucas, it was his dialogue. lol

I am going for cool factor

The Duchess of Dork wrote:
I've always been a huge Star Wars fan, but after the last 3 abominations, I started enjoying Trek more for the good storywriting and character studies they did. Since there's less special effects and more acting, the characters had more meaning to me. Lucas could learn a thing or two from Trek about scripts.

This is why I like the Trek more, more focused on the story.... Star Wars was just a bunch of boring action crap.

NatB Photo wrote:
This is why I like the Trek more, more focused on the story.... Star Wars was just a bunch of boring action crap.

The "story" of Star Trek needed the biggest amount of suspension of disbelief I have experienced in a long time.

Remember when Kirk conveniently landed on the very same planet and ran in the very same cave (on a huuuuuge ice planet!) that old Spock was hiding? If he had run anywhere else, they would not have met and the evil Romulan would have destroyed earth.

End of story.

Boriken Warrior Studios wrote:
Star Wars

Star Trek

They both Star Suck!

They're both kiddie fodder.

Give me the new Battlestar Galactica anyday!

-Koa-

Old Battlestar Galactica, and whatever happened to Space 1999... used to watch them both like a religion when I was about 6

The Duchess of Dork wrote:
Hahaha, very true! I think I was more of a Next Generation fan, personally.. because I loved the characters.

I think I hated every single character in the new Star Wars movies, except Darth Maul. Because he didn't talk.

Same here, TNG is the only series I can get into, but I like all the movies.

Angelfactory wrote:
Another thing I had an issue with is even though the last 3 movies actually predate the first 3 the technology in the ships and weapons appeared more advanced.

Maybe because the technology to create special effects advanced during the last 30 years?

Yes...that must be it.

Renaissance Wife wrote:

Maybe because the technology to create special effects advanced during the last 30 years?

Yes...that must be it.

All true but something they should have been mindful of more so it didn't appear that way. When Star Trek did later episodes or whatever where they went back in time they didn't use the latest cgi and things to make cooler travel or weapons ,they kept it with the time period they were portraying. Star Wars just went bigger and better because they now could and it took away from it for me.

CGI Images wrote:
Old Battlestar Galactica, and whatever happened to Space 1999... used to watch them both like a religion when I was about 6

Same here when I was 10.

I like the new BSG for different reasons.


To be honest I am less a fan of any one franchise and more a fan of Science Fiction in general.

Angelfactory wrote:
All true but something they should have been mindful of more so it didn't appear that way.

Seriously, it doesn't take a genius to scale back the art so that it looked less advanced than the earlier films. Lucas' "well, Episodes 4-6 happened when there was less technological freedom" excuse was total crap. As if we wouldn't see any pretty shiny ships years into the future.. all he did was go f'ing nuts with the CGI, because he could. Which is a shame because the original 3 turned out beautifully, capturing people's imaginations, without all the bells and whistles.

Angelfactory wrote:

All true but something they should have been mindful of more so it didn't appear that way. When Star Trek did later episodes or whatever where they went back in time they didn't use the latest cgi and things to make cooler travel or weapons ,they kept it with the time period they were portraying. Star Wars just went bigger and better because they now could and it took away from it for me.

Part of the reason why I hate the "Special edition" is that it was created during a time (1996 I believe) when computer effects still looked far less realistic than real models. Every added scene looks fake and "different" to the models they used in the original movies. Totally pulls you out of the charming and dirty universe and movie experience.

The Duchess of Dork wrote:

Seriously, it doesn't take a genius to scale back the art so that it looked less advanced than the earlier films. Lucas' "well, Episodes 4-6 happened when there was less technological freedom" excuse was total crap. As if we wouldn't see any pretty shiny ships years into the future.. all he did was go f'ing nuts with the CGI, because he could. Which is a shame because the original 3 turned out beautifully, capturing people's imaginations, without all the bells and whistles.

Garry k wrote:
Star Trek vs Star Wars?

Star Trek

cus the villains are more varied and interesting

You can't compare the two (though I'm sure many will try).

Star Wars has a tightly focused storyline. It draws upon deep mythological aspects from antiquity (fall from grace, eros & thanatos, redemption).

Star Trek has a deeper library where even the franchises w/n the Star Trek universe barely look like anything from the other. Its stories were constructed as morality plays to address contemporary issues, setting it in the far flung future.

Angelfactory wrote:
The fact that they turned Darth Vader from one of the coolest villains ever into a sniveling whiny bitch who went psycho on a whole school of padawan kiddies because life was unfair totally ruined it for me.

Who do you think would become the world's greatest villian? Its the kid that got picked on & shoved into a locker at school & then goes apeshit shooting everyone.

Eclectic Vision  wrote:
Star Trek!

Agreed... because 'Seven of Nine' was one fuckin SUPERHOTTIE!...