The Star Wars vs. Star Trek fandom rivalry is a myth.

[-Sentinel-]

I don't believe there is, or has ever been, any serious rivalry between Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans. At least, not to the extent commonly claimed by mainstream pop culture. I think this purported rivalry was largely made up by people who observe geek culture in much the same way Jane Goodall observes chimps.

Fandom rivalries tend to happen mostly between very similar works, often with one side accusing the other of being a ripoff, of hogging the spotlight of a particular medium/network, etc. Star Trek and Star Wars are not similar enough for this kind of rivalry. Star Trek is sci-fi (both in terms of setting and themes), while Star Wars is fantasy set in space. The former is mostly on TV, the latter is mostly movies. None is considerably "geekier" than the others; while Star Wars is considered more mainstream, it also has a wealth of supplemental material (expanded universe and such) that can answer the needs of even the most obsessive fans.

Plenty of people like both franchises equally, and for different reasons. Plenty of people see them as complementary in wider geek culture and modern Western fiction. Plenty of people prefer one over the other... but I've never seen anyone get into a heated argument over this, or accuse someone of being a "fake geek" for their preferences.

I would argue there is more of a rivalry between the fans of the various Star Trek Series (e.g., Next Gen fans vs. DS9 fans) than there is between Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans.

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't believe there is, or has ever been, any serious rivalry between Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans. At least, not to the extent commonly claimed by mainstream pop culture. I think this purported rivalry was largely made up by people who observe geek culture in much the same way Jane Goodall observes chimps.

Fandom rivalries tend to happen mostly between very similar works, often with one side accusing the other of being a ripoff, of hogging the spotlight of a particular medium/network, etc. Star Trek and Star Wars are not similar enough for this kind of rivalry. Star Trek is sci-fi (both in terms of setting and themes), while Star Wars is fantasy set in space. The former is mostly on TV, the latter is mostly movies. None is considerably "geekier" than the others; while Star Wars is considered more mainstream, it also has a wealth of supplemental material (expanded universe and such) that can answer the needs of even the most obsessive fans.

Plenty of people like both franchises equally, and for different reasons. Plenty of people see them as complementary in wider geek culture and modern Western fiction. Plenty of people prefer one over the other... but I've never seen anyone get into a heated argument over this, or accuse someone of being a "fake geek" for their preferences.

I would argue there is more of a rivalry between the fans of the various Star Trek Series (e.g., Next Gen fans vs. DS9 fans) than there is between Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans.

Based on your knowledge of said groups, if there were a rivalry, and they took it outside while wearing their full costumes and gear, who would win?

[Rodin]

Based on your knowledge of said groups, if there were a rivalry, and they took it outside while wearing their full costumes and gear, who would win?

DS9 fans clearly. The Next-gen fans would start waxing poetic about the beauty of the human spirit while the DS9 fans massacre them.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted -Sentinel-
I don't believe there is, or has ever been, any serious rivalry between Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans.

o gawd. Clearly you’ve never met some of my friends from college. One of whom stopped talking to me for several years after he misunderstood a comment of mine about Star Wars, which he took as an insufferable insult against Star Trek.

Seriously, he stopped talking to me because he thought I'd claimed that Star Wars was superior to Star Trek. "I do not read your letters" was all I heard from him for several years.

You’ve also never met some of my recent gaming friends, including another diehard Star Trek fan who can’t stop talking about how much he hates Star Wars, primarily for reasons we can’t discuss here. And this is in the presence of our gaming host, who has Sith posters all over his gaming room—and who is too classy and polite to respond in kind, but who never, ever mentions Star Trek.

So yes, there is indeed some intense antipathy in certain quarters. I can’t speak to what mainstream pop culture might have said about it, but having had deep immersion in a broad swath of nerdage over the past several decades, I can guarantee you it exists.

[Darth Ultron]

I don't believe there is, or has ever been, any serious rivalry between Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans.

It is very real.

Star Wars aims low, for children and people that like more simple fiction. And Star Wars bends over backwards to be rated G, and now with Disney all the way down to like Y7.

Star Trek aims high, for educated people and people that like complex fiction. And, sure Star Trek only dances close to PG 13, but that is still light years better then G.

But sure, you can like both.

[TeChameleon]

It is very real.

Star Wars aims low, for children and people that like more simple fiction. And Star Wars bends over backwards to be rated G, and now with Disney all the way down to like Y7.

Star Trek aims high, for educated people and people that like complex fiction. And, sure Star Trek only dances close to PG 13, but that is still light years better then G.

But sure, you can like both.

I honestly have no opinion either way- waging borderline holy war in the name of entertainment preferences has always struck me as a bit silly- but I couldn't resist pointing out that these comments come from someone who actually took their screen name (well, part of it) from the Star Wars series :smallconfused:

[Razade]

It is very real.

Star Wars aims low, for children and people that like more simple fiction. And Star Wars bends over backwards to be rated G, and now with Disney all the way down to like Y7.

Star Trek aims high, for educated people and people that like complex fiction. And, sure Star Trek only dances close to PG 13, but that is still light years better then G.

But sure, you can like both.

Oh Darth Ultron. Always trying to shoehorn in your weird "children/adult" nonsense.

The first three Star Wars movies existed before a rating system existed. All three however would be Rated PG-13 however.

Attack of the Clones was PG. Revenge of the Sith was PG-13. Force Awakens was PG 13.

[DavidSh]

The first three Star Wars movies existed before a rating system existed. All three however would be Rated PG-13 however.

Attack of the Clones was PG. Revenge of the Sith was PG-13. Force Awakens was PG 13.

MPAA rating system took effect 1968.
"Star Wars" was released in 1977.

[Razade]

MPAA rating system took effect 1968.
"Star Wars" was released in 1977.

Except the PG13 rating didn't exist until 1984. A year after Return of the Jedi. Not only that but the G, PG, R, X system didn't come into use until 1972. Before that they used a different code.

[BannedInSchool]

Neither one is Real Science Fiction. :smallbiggrin:

[Razade]

Neither one is Real Science Fiction. :smallbiggrin:

I think you'd have a hard time arguing that with most people.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Razade
Attack of the Clones was PG. Revenge of the Sith was PG-13. Force Awakens was PG 13.

And Rogue One was PG-13, under Disney ownership no less.

Back in the 80s, I read a feminist review of the first Star Wars movie, and she was absolutely gushing about how awesome it was. I don’t remember who the author was, but she wrote how she’d gone into it expecting to hate it, and ended up loving the cosmic-unity aspect of the Force.

Honestly, both Star Trek and Star Wars have the ability to appeal to both children and adults, depending on the quality of the particular movie or episode. They often appeal to different realms of emotion—curiosity and optimism, heroism and adventure—but there’s a great deal of overlap, and for better or worse the Trek reboot films are often faster and rompier than some Star Wars movies. No accident there.

But each franchise promotes its own brand of technological optimism, and in that respect they're not so different at all.


Originally Posted by Razade
Except the PG13 rating didn't exist until 1984. A year after Return of the Jedi.

And PG-13 was prompted, at least in part, by general outcry after a scene in Temple of Doom.

[Dienekes]

o gawd. Clearly you’ve never met some of my friends from college. One of whom stopped talking to me for several years after he misunderstood a comment of mine about Star Wars, which he took as an insufferable insult against Star Trek.

Seriously, he stopped talking to me because he thought I'd claimed that Star Wars was superior to Star Trek. "I do not read your letters" was all I heard from him for several years.

You’ve also never met some of my recent gaming friends, including another diehard Star Trek fan who can’t stop talking about how much he hates Star Wars, primarily for reasons we can’t discuss here. And this is in the presence of our gaming host, who has Sith posters all over his gaming room—and who is too classy and polite to respond in kind, but who never, ever mentions Star Trek.

So yes, there is indeed some intense antipathy in certain quarters. I can’t speak to what mainstream pop culture might have said about it, but having had deep immersion in a broad swath of nerdage over the past several decades, I can guarantee you it exists.

You need better friends, mate.

[Darth Ultron]

And Rogue One was PG-13, under Disney ownership no less.

Good example...like how all the heroes died from explosions and not more personal deaths (except the robot, but computer animated death does not count).




And PG-13 was prompted, at least in part, by general outcry after a scene in Temple of Doom.

Was it the rip the guys heart out of his chest? I bet it was.....

[Ramza00]

There is more of a rivalry of who would win in a fight Indiana Jones vs Spock

[Peelee]

Oh Darth Ultron. Always trying to shoehorn in your weird "children/adult" nonsense.
Well, that argument is clearly made for children. Imean, it's so obviously G-rated. No fowl language, no violence... why, your comment is practically puppies and rainbows! Now, for a comment that is complex and nuanced, you go to Darth Ultron. The way that he claims Star Wars movies bent over backwards to be G-rated even though they were all rated PG or higher, for instance, is clearly for the more scientifically-oriented adult mind to comprehend. Such nuance, such metaphor, it can only lend credence to his position.

Back in the 80s, I read a feminist review of the first Star Wars movie, and she was absolutely gushing about how awesome it was. I don’t remember who the author was, but she wrote how she’d gone into it expecting to hate it, and ended up loving the cosmic-unity aspect of the Force.
Was there any love for Leia being a badass space princess? Because Leia was a badass space princess.

[Reddish Mage]

I have to agree with the premise. There is no need, and no data I've seen, that fans one one show tend to dislike the other, or a need for one to define themselves as the other.

Also, I'm just guessing here, but is it possible that major sci-fi enthusiasts actually tend to like both?

There is, however, an infuriating tendency for non-sci-fi people to get the two mixed up, and the fact that these two franchises both have staunch followings naturally lead to media to make comparisons.

Finally, the Star Wars and Star Trek are at polar-ends in their take on Sci-Fi, its meaning, and purpose. This leads geeks to grab drinks or go to these online forums and compare the many differences on what makes these two systems tick.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Peelee
Was there any love for Leia being a badass space princess?

You know, I don’t remember. I read the article a long time ago, in a college library far, far away, and the article itself was circa 1978-ish.

Mainly I remember that the writer admitted she’d gone into the movie expecting to hate it for glorifying the military-industrial complex, and instead she came out loving it for the empowering, universal aspects of the Force. She was an instant fangirl after one viewing.

[DataNinja]

I think, as with most things, it's just that the vocal minority gets the attention. There's no media interest in hearing about or popularizing "Yep, most people are still getting along well," after all. :smallamused:

[Reddish Mage]

You know there really is only one important distinction:

There's people who know what Star Trek and Star Wars is

And there's the people who can't tell the difference.

Geeks of all fandoms unite! Take up your phasers and lightsabers, beat down the doors of the ignorant masses and make them hear...that lightsabers are found in Star Wars and phasers in Star Trek.

Do not return until they promise to never use "Live long and prosper" as a goodbye after the conversation turns to Death Stars, I mean seriously.

[scalyfreak]

Geeks of all fandoms unite! Take up your phasers and lightsabers, beat down the doors of the ignorant masses and make them hear...that lightsabers are found in Star Wars and phasers in Star Trek.

I've always found that to be annoying. I want to know if the Borg are capable of adapting to lightsabers.

[Bavarian itP]

Geeks of all fandoms unite! Take up your phasers and lightsabers, beat down the doors of the ignorant masses and make them hear...that lightsabers are found in Star Wars and phasers in Star Trek.


Also:

Photon torpedoes - Star Trek
Proton torpedoes - Star Wars

[The New Bruceski]

"There has been a rivalry" and "there shouldn't have to be a rivalry" are two separate things, and both are true. Just because it's a stupid argument doesn't mean the Trek/Wars divide, the Cola Wars of the 90s, or Nintendo vs Sega didn't happen. I was there, I saw them all. (Fought on the side of Trek, Coke, and Nintendo, for the record, but like when old western TV shows like the Rifleman have former Civil War soldiers, I look back on what happened as a tragedy all around rather than claiming a true victor.)

[Rodin]

I think you'd have a hard time arguing that with most people.

Depends on your definition, I suppose. "Takes place in space, using technology we do not currently possess" is good enough for me, but there is the periodic argument that both lack the Science aspect. Star Wars is a classic medieval fantasy movie IIIIIINNNNN SPAAAAAAAACCCCCEEE, and everything in them can be explained away by magic. Star Trek at least tries to address speculative fiction themes, but buries it under a layer of technobabble that, again, is pretty much magic. Are you inverting the flow of tachyon particles...or casting Time Stop? It's much the same.

Again, for me the genre is too wide for that to be a meaningful distinction - it's just the separation between "soft" Sci-Fi and "hard" Sci-Fi. Trying to define either as "real" Sci-Fi or trying to say something isn't Sci-Fi because it lacks a defined story-telling framework is just pedantic quibbling. It is, however, an argument I've seen made, and quite often at that.

[Razade]

Depends on your definition, I suppose. "Takes place in space, using technology we do not currently possess" is good enough for me, but there is the periodic argument that both lack the Science aspect. Star Wars is a classic medieval fantasy movie IIIIIINNNNN SPAAAAAAAACCCCCEEE, and everything in them can be explained away by magic. Star Trek at least tries to address speculative fiction themes, but buries it under a layer of technobabble that, again, is pretty much magic. Are you inverting the flow of tachyon particles...or casting Time Stop? It's much the same.

Again, for me the genre is too wide for that to be a meaningful distinction - it's just the separation between "soft" Sci-Fi and "hard" Sci-Fi. Trying to define either as "real" Sci-Fi or trying to say something isn't Sci-Fi because it lacks a defined story-telling framework is just pedantic quibbling. It is, however, an argument I've seen made, and quite often at that.

Yeah, I think if you asked someone on the street about Hard or Soft Sci-Fi they're just going to shrug and move on. It's a distinction, like so many of these things, for nerds by nerds.

[Darth Ultron]

Well, that argument is clearly made for children. Imean, it's so obviously G-rated. No fowl language, no violence... why, your comment is practically puppies and rainbows! Now, for a comment that is complex and nuanced, you go to Darth Ultron. The way that he claims Star Wars movies bent over backwards to be G-rated even though they were all rated PG or higher, for instance, is clearly for the more scientifically-oriented adult mind to comprehend. Such nuance, such metaphor, it can only lend credence to his position.

Not like there is a big difference between g/pg for adults, it is all kids stuff. Sure it's important to parents, but that is about it.

The Rogue One ''boom'' deaths are a great example. It have characters ''just sort of die'' in ''flashes of light and smoke'' is very, very safe....and ''rated G''(note I don't not just mean The Rated G rating, but any rating with a G in it). I'm sure plenty of parents could say ''oh, no, they did not die, they just escaped to live happily ever after''. After all the big thing about ''rated G'' is no consciences. We don't see Mon Mothra back at Rebel Headquarters being told ''the crew of Rogue One were all killed '' and see her sad face, see her cry, have her say ''they won't be forgotten'' and so forth.

Compare to say Star Trek II and III and really highlight the deaths of David and Spock both.

[JNAProductions]

I don't think there's anything wrong with being friendly towards kids. You can still address mature themes without alienating kids, and still be an enjoyable work for everyone.

As for the rivalry, my dad loves both. I'm more of a Star Wars fan, but that's just because I haven't seen much Star Trek. They're both good.

[Peelee]

Not like there is a big difference between g/pg for adults, it is all kids stuff. Sure it's important to parents, but that is about it.

The Rogue One ''boom'' deaths are a great example. It have characters ''just sort of die'' in ''flashes of light and smoke'' is very, very safe....and ''rated G''(note I don't not just mean The Rated G rating, but any rating with a G in it). I'm sure plenty of parents could say ''oh, no, they did not die, they just escaped to live happily ever after''. After all the big thing about ''rated G'' is no consciences. We don't see Mon Mothra back at Rebel Headquarters being told ''the crew of Rogue One were all killed '' and see her sad face, see her cry, have her say ''they won't be forgotten'' and so forth.

Ah. So you see movies as Rated R, and Rated Not R. I see my comments about the nuance and complexity of your position were, if anything, underestimating the situation.

Also, we didn't see that happening because it wouldn't have added anything to the story. It wouldn't have fit with the pacing. It would have been out of place and more than a bit silly. Who is around to tell Mon Mothma the rebels died? Only the Tantive IV made it out, and a fairly big part of the original movie is that they were only able to contact a farm boy on a backwater desert planet.

Also, I find it somewhat disturbing that you don't see death as a consequence.

[tomandtish]

Compare to say Star Trek II and III and really highlight the deaths of David and Spock both.

Which (BTW) did not get a ratings change when they released the Director's cut in 2014. Stayed PG.

And yes, if you release a director's cut on video and want to put a rating on it, the MPAA looks it over. It's why so many "extended editions" and "director's cuts" blatantly advertise the "Unrated edition" and then you discover nothing significantly extra in there. They just didn't want to bother.

Incidentally, for a really good look at the rating system (and a lot of the problems it has), check out "This Film is not yet Rated", a documentary about the system and rating issues, especially with NC-17 designation. (Unfortunately it is no longer on Netflix streaming).

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Razade
Yeah, I think if you asked someone on the street about Hard or Soft Sci-Fi they're just going to shrug and move on.

Or, as happened to me recently, they’ll shout that you’re a “f*****’ weirdo geek” and jam their finger into the sky in your general direction.

I think there’s a broad swath of the general public which is hostile to SF in general. I remember standing in front of an exhibit in a small museum, admiring poster-sized prints of vividly colored nebulas, when a twentyish girl dragged her boyfriend past and refused to let him stop. “Don’t look at that, it’s for science fiction freaks,” she insisted, loudly enough for everyone to hear. More than likely my presence as a geeky teenager inspired her hostility; she didn’t want to be associated with anything so uncool.

Unfortunately, I’ve seen that attitude a lot. At least in the U.S., a lot of people hate the very notion of expanding their minds, and despise the people who enjoy it as freaks and weirdos.

[BannedInSchool]

Star Trek at least tries to address speculative fiction themes, but buries it under a layer of technobabble that, again, is pretty much magic. Are you inverting the flow of tachyon particles...or casting Time Stop? It's much the same.

Again, for me the genre is too wide for that to be a meaningful distinction - it's just the separation between "soft" Sci-Fi and "hard" Sci-Fi.

I meant it mostly just as good-natured trolling, but I do think it's a useful distinction to identify that Science Fiction which contains scientific or technological speculation that is plausible enough to be applicable to the real world, to one's own personal possible future even, Trek *sometimes* touches on something like, "what if VR were indistinguishable from reality" or "what if people had a box that could make anything they wanted" or "what if human labor were valueless?", but most of the time it's divorced from applicability to the real world pretty completely. Advances in science and technology effect our lives, and fiction exploring what that could be is the core of Science Fiction, IMO. :smallwink: Star Trek, for the most part, still fails badly at that.

[Legato Endless]

I think there’s a broad swath of the general public which is hostile to SF in general...Unfortunately, I’ve seen that attitude a lot. At least in the U.S., a lot of people hate the very notion of expanding their minds, and despise the people who enjoy it as freaks and weirdos.

Anti-intellectualism is endemic in the US. The sci-fi hate, the belief having a technical understanding somehow impedes enjoyment, the glorification of gut feelings over evidence, to the hostile assertion the addition of a systemic methodology or data inclusion needs to stay out of the real world and go to the lab.*

*Although in the public's token defense on this one, occasionally a luminary in a field will make a boneheaded conclusion about how they'll solve another field they're clearly lacking basic expertise in. Neil degrasse Tyson's 'government of rationalia' for a recent example.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Legato Endless
Anti-intellectualism is endemic in the US. The sci-fi hate, the belief having a technical understanding somehow impedes enjoyment, the glorification of gut feelings over evidence, to the hostile assertion the addition of a systemic methodology or data inclusion needs to stay out of the real world and go to the lab.

Agreed, sadly so. I’m living this almost every day.


Originally Posted by Legato Endless
Neil degrasse Tyson's 'government of rationalia' for a recent example.

I hadn’t heard that comment, but I put no stock in anything this person says. His media fame has gone straight to his head, and he clearly feels entitled to hold forth on topics in which, as you say, he has no grounding whatsoever.

[FreddyNoNose]

Neither one is Real Science Fiction. :smallbiggrin:

You lost when you add "Real" to your quip. STTOS had some real SF writers. So it was SF.

[Peelee]

Anti-intellectualism is endemic in the US. The sci-fi hate, the belief having a technical understanding somehow impedes enjoyment, the glorification of gut feelings over evidence, to the hostile assertion the addition of a systemic methodology or data inclusion needs to stay out of the real world and go to the lab.


Agreed, sadly so. I’m living this almost every day.

Huh. I keep hearing about about that, but I have yet to ever experience it or see any of it firsthand. Which I think is kind of surprising, considering.

[hamishspence]

His media fame has gone straight to his head, and he clearly feels entitled to hold forth on topics in which, as you say, he has no grounding whatsoever.

I recall reading a theory that this was quite common among scientists as they got older - Hoyle, for example, with the whole "Archaeopteryx fossil is a fake" debacle.

[2D8HP]

..Neil degrasse Tyson's 'government of rationalia' for a recent example...


But that's been the case since 1970!

After decades of war ended when the "Wandering Sickness" 1966 devastated the surviving population, the technocrats of "Wings over the World" conquered southern England, and then the rest of humanity, and the World State rebuilt civilization until the first manned flight around the moon in 2036...

At least according to

H. G. Wells' Things to Come (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_to_Come)


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wemRBFFbhKI

[Kitten Champion]

I like Star Trek for what it attempts to do - depict a bright post-scarcity future for humanity free of discrimination and inter-conflict, center itself around peaceful exploration of space, and provoke thought in mainstream audiences by raising complex issues within - it just fails to live up to its own sense of loftiness far too often. Even when it fails though, because it does set its sights so high it allows for the sort of criticism and discussion amongst its viewers which most American television in the 20th century never aspired to. There's a lot better SF out there than most of what constitutes Star Trek - and television/movies in general - if you look for it, but they don't have the hundreds of hours of a franchise that's lasted decades and left an indelible mark on pop culture.

I don't really like Star Wars because of how simplistic it is and how little weight anything has, the mish-mash of spiritual sentiments behind it is troubling too though it's not really enough of a thing for me to care about really.... but so what? It's not like it's advocating for kitten genocide or anything, it's just, ya'know, a harmless thing other people love.

Fact is, every fandom has abrasive jerks in it and the closer proximity fandoms are conceptually to one another the more likely the jerks from one will collide with the other in some fashion. Add to the size, scope, and age of these franchises combined with the Internet and you've got a pretty big Venn diagram for a-hole fans to snipe at one another.

[Knaight]

I don't believe there is, or has ever been, any serious rivalry between Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans. At least, not to the extent commonly claimed by mainstream pop culture. I think this purported rivalry was largely made up by people who observe geek culture in much the same way Jane Goodall observes chimps.
Jane Goodall observed chimps by spending months on end with them, year after year. Anyone observing geek culture like that is worth taking seriously when they opine on geek culture.


I recall reading a theory that this was quite common among scientists as they got older - Hoyle, for example, with the whole "Archaeopteryx fossil is a fake" debacle.
There's also the matter of how expertise in one field doesn't translate to expertise in another, and when people assume it does they tend to say something really stupid. Physicists coming up with what they think are revolutionary hypotheses in biology after a few months of casual research into the field are endemic, and these tend to be something somebody already thought of fifty years ago and somebody else largely discredited forty years ago.

[tomandtish]

There does seem to be a rivalry, and we've seen enough evidence of it even on these forums to know it exists to sum extent.

But as others have said, it is different from a lot of rivalries because for a majority of fans it's more about which is better, and not a "this one is great and this one sucks" rivalry. The majority (yes I know, not all) are fans to some degree of both.

Honestly, I suspect you get more intense rivalries WITHIN each franchise. Which shows is better: DS9 or Next Gen? Who's the better captain: Kirk or Picard? Are the prequels any good? (No).

It isn't like a sports rivalry where the default position tends to be that the other team is crap.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I haven't much experienced anything I would call a rivalry between the franchises. That said, I do have one I like. And I don't like the other one for how it subtly supports troublesome ideas that are harmful to society.

It seems to me most people do have a preference, but I've not seen it go so far as a rivalry. Probably because I don't hang out with people who strongly identify themselves by the media they consume. If I did hang out with more people like that, I imagine my experience would be quite different.

[Tyndmyr]

Seems no more a rivalry than anything else. Saying you don't much care for Firefly might get you some flak in some circles, Star wars/trek seems to garner no more vitrol than that.

I mean, everyone's got preferences, and sometimes geeks get pretty intent about theirs, but it certainly doesn't seem like something specific to those two fandoms.

[Legato Endless]

Probably because I don't hang out with people who strongly identify themselves by the media they consume.

This is excellent discretionary advice for relationships in general.



Honestly, I suspect you get more intense rivalries WITHIN each franchise. Which shows is better: DS9 or Next Gen? Who's the better captain: Kirk or Picard? Are the prequels any good? (No).

There's an old joke about this in the academic disciplines as well but I can't precisely remember it. Hello Internet had a discussion on it. Where commonalities are emphasized when two disciplines are far enough apart, but divergences become acute when it's two people in the same or closely related fields.


Honestly, I suspect you get more intense rivalries WITHIN each franchise. Which shows is better: DS9 or Next Gen? Who's the better captain: Kirk or Picard? Are the prequels any good? (No).

Are the new sequels any good?

Is Rey...?

A. Awesome
B. Solid but not why I'm here
C. Necessary
D. 'Overpowered'
E. Emblematic of the over saturation of Force Sensitives
F. A Tool of the Feminist agenda to eliminate masculine ideals from Cinema


It isn't like a sports rivalry where the default position tends to be that the other team is crap.

Sort of relevant (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/america-has-spoken-the-yankees-are-the-worst/)











Picard is better.

[Peelee]

Are the new sequels any good?
Eh.

Is Rey...?

A. Awesome
B. Solid but not why I'm here
C. Necessary
D. 'Overpowered'
E. Emblematic of the over saturation of Force Sensitives
F. A Tool of the Feminist agenda to eliminate masculine ideals from Cinema
A, B, and D.

Picard is better.

They were both the best captain for their crew.

[Scarlet Knight]

I like the sports rivalry analogy.

As a Star Trek fan, I don't hate Star Wars. I do pity its fans the way as a Yankee fan I can only pity the Mets. So much potential, so little delivery.

I save my hate for Red Sox fans and mouthbreathers who think Picard is better than Kirk...




Is Rey...?

A. Awesome
B. Solid but not why I'm here
C. Necessary
D. 'Overpowered'
E. Emblematic of the over saturation of Force Sensitives
F. A Tool of the Feminist agenda to eliminate masculine ideals from Cinema

Picard is better.
Ooops. :smallredface: D & F

[tomandtish]

Sort of relevant (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/america-has-spoken-the-yankees-are-the-worst/)


Wow. I knew the Yankee's were unpopular, but not that unpopular....


.... and mouthbreathers who think Picard is better than Kirk...


Sisko would thrash them both.... :smallbiggrin:

[Lethologica]

Janeway tho

[Malimar]

Janeway tho
She's my favorite, because alone among the captains, she didn't spend her whole career wearing red; she used to be a science officer. So for the first several seasons, she got to perform the science officer rôle, up until they added Seven of Nine to make her redundant in that department.

DS9's still the best show by miles tho.

[scalyfreak]

DS9's still the best show by miles tho.

I give Garak and Quark full credit for that.

[Knaight]

I give Garak and Quark full credit for that.

They certainly deserve a lot of it, but there are a lot of solid characters, several of which provide some of the best Garak and Quark interactions. See: Garak's various attempts to involve Bashir in espionage; the Ferengi heavy episodes involving Quark, Rom, and Nog; and the small matter of how Odo was a near perfect foil for Quark for about four seasons. DS9 did a lot right.

On the other hand, Vic Fontaine.

[scalyfreak]

They certainly deserve a lot of it, but there are a lot of solid characters, several of which provide some of the best Garak and Quark interactions. See: Garak's various attempts to involve Bashir in espionage; the Ferengi heavy episodes involving Quark, Rom, and Nog; and the small matter of how Odo was a near perfect foil for Quark for about four seasons. DS9 did a lot right.

Agreed on all of that. The DS9 cast of characters was spectacular. (Bashir and Odo are two of my favorites of all time.)

I'm partial to the two I mentioned because they are unusual and deceptively complex. And because there aren't enough scoundrels in my life.

[TeChameleon]

Honestly, I'd say the same was true to a certain extent of TOS as well- that the supporting cast were what really made the show. Kirk wouldn't have been a fraction the captain he was without Spock and McCoy backing him up (and bickering over his shoulders like an oversized version of the shoulder angel/shoulder devil pair... who was which depended on the situation, of course :smalltongue:), and to a lesser degree Scottie, Uhura, and Sulu. Might have been able to get away without Yeoman Rand, Nurse Chapel, Chekov, and the apparently endless supply of redshirts, though.

And some of my favourite moments in DS9 came when Odo and Garak were interacting, something that happened far too rarely, in my opinion.

[Reddish Mage]

I recall reading a theory that this was quite common among scientists as they got older - Hoyle, for example, with the whole "Archaeopteryx fossil is a fake" debacle.

Yet neither lack of age nor scientific accomplishments prevents the internets from tackling these subjects.


I like Star Trek for what it attempts to do - depict a bright post-scarcity future for humanity free of discrimination and inter-conflict, center itself around peaceful exploration of space, and provoke thought in mainstream audiences by raising complex issues within - it just fails to live up to its own sense of loftiness far too often.

I don't really like Star Wars because of how simplistic it is and how little weight anything has, the mish-mash of spiritual sentiments behind it is troubling too though it's not really enough of a thing for me to care about really.... but so what? It's not like it's advocating for kitten genocide or anything, it's just, ya'know, a harmless thing other people love..

1. So Stat Trek is about post-scarcity peaceful exploration...not fist-i-cuffs settling all matters of war and diplomacy, or how such exploration ends up finding species after species that just wants to conquer/assimilate/otherwise do bad thing to yours...oh wait I get it


2. Star Wars is symplistic? I still haven't been able to figure out what the heck all that politicking was about in Episode I-III or the sort of configuration of government where Senator Jar-Jar acquires tremendous influence. Also is democracy a good thing or no, cause hearing someone who carried the title Queen tell it to her "knight" sends a bit of a mixed message.

Okay, I get it, Star Trek is in the tradition of Sci-Fi stories that use stories about the future and future science to say big philosophical things...

Star Wars is actually in a parallel Sci-Fi traditionof space adventure that never was meant to have a point beyond your usual good-evil themes...except it's more of a swords and sorcery tale in many ways. The Force philosophy injects it with some sort of quasi-religious mystical moral theme that isn't too far off from pagan swords and sorcery themes.

I believe both space adventure and more Twilight-Zone esq stories of the Sci-Fi genre were present side by side in Sci-Fi journals back in the day (early 20th century) when the term "science-fiction" first started getting used.

And popularly, Escapists Space Adventure (Buck Rogers, those other old black white dudes) always did dominate over higher minded themes.

Star Trek itself was never completely free of a desire to be a space adventure, and a lot of plot lines show that...although I tend to think even more are concerned with technical, human, or philosophical concepts and approach the threat in ways that deliver a message.

Star Wars, if it's a philosophical message it's one no deeper than "good triumphs over evil and virtue over vice" and doesn't really go for those gooey ethical greys.

[tomandtish]

She's my favorite, because alone among the captains, she didn't spend her whole career wearing red; she used to be a science officer. So for the first several seasons, she got to perform the science officer rôle, up until they added Seven of Nine to make her redundant in that department.

DS9's still the best show by miles tho.

Mailimar, not sure what you're referring to. Janeway (Kate Mulgrew was the actress) startred as the Captain of Voyager from the very first episode of Season 1. There was a lot of discussion when the show was first announced about a woman captain.

In fact, I'm not sure Voyager had a formal science officer as such for most of the run (presumably died when they were yanked into the Delta Quadrant).

[BeerMug Paladin]

Mailimar, not sure what you're referring to. Janeway (Kate Mulgrew was the actress) startred as the Captain of Voyager from the very first episode of Season 1. There was a lot of discussion when the show was first announced about a woman captain.

In fact, I'm not sure Voyager had a formal science officer as such for most of the run (presumably died when they were yanked into the Delta Quadrant).

It's mostly an informed background trait. Voyager was a scientific research vessel, and the crew was intended to mainly investigate scientific anomalies and the like. You'll notice that Janeway engages in technobabble at a much higher rate than is typical for captains throughout the various other shows. This was the "explanation" for that facet of the character. They were just too lazy to really write almost anything about the characters' backgrounds into the actual show.

Of course, technobabbling is much more common in general for Voyager than the other shows, as the writing style shifted towards that throughout the series. But early on Janeway was a pretty consistent character to springboard into that domain. (As opposed to Tuvok, Chakotay, Harry, Paris, etc..)

[Peelee]

Janeway tho

Oh god. Janeway would have been the worst character on Voyager if it hadn't been for all the others. The Doctor was the only part of that show I actually liked.

[Kitten Champion]

Mailimar, not sure what you're referring to. Janeway (Kate Mulgrew was the actress) startred as the Captain of Voyager from the very first episode of Season 1. There was a lot of discussion when the show was first announced about a woman captain.

In fact, I'm not sure Voyager had a formal science officer as such for most of the run (presumably died when they were yanked into the Delta Quadrant).

Presumably they did, there was someone sitting in the science station on the bridge in the appropriate science/medical-teal and we meet science officers throughout the show who presumably were managed by someone. They just didn't warrant the same time, respect, and place in staff meetings the way the cook obviously did.

Though, yeah, Janeway did do a lot of the science-ish exposition early on. Which was something of a twist, since part of the point of having a science officer or the like was so they could do the whole exposition bit and the captains can save their energy for fighting space werewolves, arguing with alien deities, and bedding green women.

[GloatingSwine]

Oh god. Janeway would have been the worst character on Voyager if it hadn't been for all the others. The Doctor was the only part of that show I actually liked.

Yeah, but at least she wasn't Archer...



Though, yeah, Janeway did do a lot of the science-ish exposition early on. Which was something of a twist, since part of the point of having a science officer or the like was so they could do the whole exposition bit and the captains can save their energy for fighting space werewolves, arguing with alien deities, and bedding green women.

Whereas on Voyager most problems were solved either by a) technobabbling at them until they went away or b) feeding Harry Kim to them.

[Malimar]

Mailimar, not sure what you're referring to. Janeway (Kate Mulgrew was the actress) startred as the Captain of Voyager from the very first episode of Season 1. There was a lot of discussion when the show was first announced about a woman captain.

In fact, I'm not sure Voyager had a formal science officer as such for most of the run (presumably died when they were yanked into the Delta Quadrant).

Yeah, what the others said: I'm talking about her background, before the show started. And you've hit upon my very point: Voyager's science officer died, so Janeway (having a science officer background) did the technobabbling the science officer usually does.

[2D8HP]

I really don't know if just one man counts as a "rivalry", but author David Brin has posted many different times about "why Start Trek is better than Star Wars,

here's one (http://www.salon.com/1999/06/15/brin_main/)

As for the intra-Star Trek debate, I'd go:

1) Sisko

2) Kirk

3) Janeway

4) Picard

5) Archer.

Why is Picard so low?

Q.

I hated any episodes with Q (which ruined the pilot "Encounter at Farpoint").

[Malimar]

♬ Only question I ever thought was hard was do I like Kirk or do I like Picard? ♫


As for the intra-Star Trek debate, I'd go:

1) Sisko

2) Kirk

3) Janeway

4) Picard

5) Archer.

Archer is definitely way too shouty and yelly to be a good captain.

Tho yeah, Sisko's good -- between Janeway, Picard, and Sisko, we have an embarrassment of riches in terms of good captains.

Janeway > Picard > Sisko > Kirk > Archer

[JBPuffin]

Also:

Photon torpedoes - Star Trek
Proton torpedoes - Star Wars

Is it bad I've never heard the R in proton torpedoes? Never used it in conversation, but that comment has changed my ears permanently.

[Lamech]

Can I say that both have things that are both good and bad, and are both horrible and great at times. The best experience is taking the best parts of both series to watch and skimming over the poopy parts?

[Legato Endless]

They were both the best captain for their crew.

Or their time. The era of early cold war frontierism to soft power cultural hegemony.


I really don't know if just one man counts as a "rivalry", but author David Brin has posted many different times about "why Start Trek is better than [I]Star Wars...

There's a few minor Internet personalities along that line but they're fairly inconsequential. David Wong of Stardestoyer.net for another. Not so much for who would win in a fight debate but when his 'analysis' of themes and culture comes out there's preferential bias and ignorance.

There's also the fact that making grandiose slanted comparisons is an easy way to generate traffic. By declaring the superiority of one element over another in a fandom or between works or how what you like actually sucks is an easy attention hook. How much is sincere versus marketing.

[An Enemy Spy]

I don't think most people see these fandom "rivalries" as anything but a bit of fun. You can see the ones that really do get worked up over this stuff in the YouTube comment section and they come across as very poorly adjusted souls. If you find yourself becoming furious that something similar to a thing you like has fans, you really need to take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself why you've gotten to this point.

[Honest Tiefling]

Maybe it's a location/generational thing? From what I've seen, people like Star Trek when they want to discuss something (And ignore episodes like Code of Honor, Wrongs Darker then the Darkest Night, or Rejoined), while the three Star Wars films are for when you want a good movie.

That, and Star Trek is way easier to cosplay.


Oh god. Janeway would have been the worst character on Voyager if it hadn't been for all the others. The Doctor was the only part of that show I actually liked.

Probably the most universal geek statement I have ever encountered. Sir, I do salute you. Let us join together and hold hands to bask in the truth of this statement.


Can I say that both have things that are both good and bad, and are both horrible and great at times. The best experience is taking the best parts of both series to watch and skimming over the poopy parts?

The three aforementioned episodes (along with a lot of others) leads me to believe that when Star Trek is good, it's great. When it's not good...You have to wonder if they really intended for that message.

[scalyfreak]

The three aforementioned episodes (along with a lot of others) leads me to believe that when Star Trek is good, it's great. When it's not good...You have to wonder if they really intended for that message.

Watch The Measure of a Man. It's somewhere in the middle of the first season of TNG.

I'll be here waiting to discuss it when you're done.

[Honest Tiefling]

Watch The Measure of a Man. It's somewhere in the middle of the first season of TNG.

I'm confused, I never said there weren't good episodes, just that when Trek is bad, it's BAD and possibly offensive.

[An Enemy Spy]

Watch The Measure of a Man. It's somewhere in the middle of the first season of TNG.

I'll be here waiting to discuss it when you're done.

I'm pretty sure that's a second season episode. Season 1 of TNG is a wasteland.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm pretty sure that's a second season episode. Season 1 of TNG is a wasteland.

scalyfreak, watch Code of Honor then tell me that you are surprised that someone got fired for that one...

[scalyfreak]

Season two was a wasteland as well. Less putrid, but that doesn't say much. But you're right, it is in season two. They blend together into one long and blur of terrible in my mind.


scalyfreak, watch Code of Honor then tell me that you are surprised that someone got fired for that one...

I did watch that one. It improved considerably after I turned it into a drinking game. Every time someone who looks like an extra from the original series says something unbelievably dumb, have a drink. :smallbiggrin:

Are either of you familiar with the absolutely brilliant website known as SF Debris?

[The New Bruceski]

The writer for Code of Honor did SG-1's Emancipation? Geez, that was another stinker.

[An Enemy Spy]

Season two was a wasteland as well. Less putrid, but that doesn't say much. But you're right, it is in season two. They blend together into one long and blur of terrible in my mind.



I did watch that one. It improved considerably after I turned it into a drinking game. Every time someone who looks like an extra from the original series says something unbelievably dumb, have a drink. :smallbiggrin:

Are either of you familiar with the absolutely brilliant website known as SF Debris?

Dear god, how were you not killed? And I adore SF Debris.

[Honest Tiefling]

Are either of you familiar with the absolutely brilliant website known as SF Debris?

I love that man's work. And I think he discussed the fact that yes, SG-1 Emancipation was written by the same writer.

I really want to know how her non-white coworkers looked at her. 'Oh, another tale of a white, blue-eyed blonde attractive woman getting kidnapped by non-white folks. Guess it's the Asian's turn today'.

Oddly, she did the actually decent episode of Deep Space Nine, which DOESN'T read as some racially charged porn...

[scalyfreak]

Dear god, how were you not killed? And I adore SF Debris.

Very careful sipping.

And for the record, that episode is one of a few that proves Honest Tiefling wrong. It is blatantly offensive, not possibly. :smallwink:

Anyways, Code of Honor was worth suffering through only because it made the SF Debris review make more sense and becomes more entertaining.

[Honest Tiefling]

And for the record, that episode is one of a few that proves Honest Tiefling wrong. It is blatantly offensive, not possibly. :smallwink:

True, as is Wrongs Darker then Death or Night (I got the title wrong and I don't like this episode enough to go back and fix it) and the various LGBTQ attempts are probably more in the blatantly offensive camp.

Say what you will about Gunguns, at least they never tried to forcibly marry anyone.

[Strigon]

True, as is Wrongs Darker then Death or Night (I got the title wrong and I don't like this episode enough to go back and fix it) and the various LGBTQ attempts are probably more in the blatantly offensive camp.

Say what you will about Gunguns, at least they never tried to forcibly marry anyone.

(Patiently waits for the Star Wars nerd to come in and show that, in comic series who-knows-which, issue 147.5, oh yes they did.)