# Why Star Trek is better than Star Wars **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 8, 2000, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545 "2000-02-08T03:48:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/1 "2000-02-08T03:48:00Z")
1. No Ewoks. 2. Women get to do more, including captain a starship. 3. Worf could kick Chewbacca’s hairy ass. 4. Jadzia Dax could kick Princess Leia’s ass. 5. Shapeshifters. 6. No Ewoks. 7. The starship _Enterprise_ can go 1000 times the speed of light. The _Millennium Falcon_ can only go “point five past light speed,” whatever the hell _that_ is. 8. Certain captains are not afraid to go bald. Or shave their heads. 9. We don’t have to wait 16 years for sequels. 10. A phaser is more accurate and more useful than either a light saber or a laser blaster. Try heating up a rock on Hoth with a blaster and all you’ll get is rubble. Try stunning someone with a light saber and see what happens. 11. The Vulcan neck pinch. 12. Better hairdos. (No “cinnamon buns”!) 13. Leonard Nimoy is a better director than George Lucas. 14. No one on _Star Trek_ needs the Force to be heroic. 15. The computers speak a language its users can understand. 16. Nine movies and more than 300 TV episodes vs. four movies, two of which were kinda lame. 17. Some of the best science-fiction writers around have written _Trek_ episodes and/or novels: Larry Niven, Harlan Ellison, Alan Dean Foster, Theodore Sturgeon, Samuel Peeples, Norman Spinrad, Robert Bloch David Gerrold, Joe Haldeman, Steven Barnes, Diane Duane, and Vonda McIntyre, to name a few. Some of the best writers are/were fans: Philip Jose Farmer, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Ray Bradbury. 18. Twelve Klingons could’ve wiped out every last Ewok before lunch. 19. Tribbles. 20. Captain Picard knows Shakespeare. 21. Transporters. 22. The only droid on _Trek_ was good for something other than comic relief. 23. Many _Trek_ episodes were about something besides war. 24. No Jar-Jar Binks. 25. No Ewoks. Of course this debate belongs here. We’re already debating “Trekker vs. Trekkie,” aren’t we? * * * \>\< DARWIN \> \_\_ **L\_\_\_L** ---
**Author:** ![WallyM7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5e925/32.png) [@WallyM7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WallyM7)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/2 "2000-02-08T03:58:00Z")
Don’t forget the Holo-Deck. In my opinion, that was the best thing about Star Trek. Look at all the fun Barclay had. * * * I don’t have to do drugs to mess up my head. I went to Catholic school. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/3 "2000-02-08T04:02:00Z")
You’re right except for the CHewbaca Worf thing. Worf’s a puss. Here’s the evidence. Chewbaca won. [http://www.lightlink.com/grudge/old/chew-worf.html](http://www.lightlink.com/grudge/old/chew-worf.html) ---
**Author:** ![Road\_Rash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a8b319/32.png) [@Road\_Rash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Road_Rash)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/4 "2000-02-08T04:40:00Z")
I was going to argue for Star Wars, but its all too geeky dorky for me. As William Shatner said on a Saturday Night Live sketch about trekkies, “get a life.” ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/5 "2000-02-08T04:45:00Z")
Cooldude, That is the number one reason Star Wars is better the Star Trek 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Alphagene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Alphagene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alphagene)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/6 "2000-02-08T04:47:00Z")
I could post an anti-Trek rebuttal, but my time is limited, seeing as how I’m sexually active. Enjoy your Tribbles though. * * * **Marge** : Your father is… resting. **Bart** : “Resting” hung over? “Resting” got fired? Help me out here. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/7 "2000-02-08T05:23:00Z")
There is no meaningful comparison without firsthand experience. Please forward to me one Federation class starship, one Millennium Falcon, one Ewok, one tribble, one pbaser, one light saber, …um, to be brought to me by one Lt. Uhura and one Princess Leia, of course. I will render my decision in due time. * * * Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/8 "2000-02-08T06:11:00Z")
jab1 wrote: > [@](#): > > 1. The starship Enterprise can go 1000 times the speed of light. The Millennium Falcon can only go “point five past light speed,” whatever the hell _that_ is. Yeah, but the Millennium Falcon can _also_ make the Kessel Run in twelve parsecs. Can Captain Picard bend space like that? Hmmm? Can he? Hmmm? Huh? Hmmm? And what about light sabers? They look neato-keen and make that way-cool “bvvvvvvvvvoosh” sound. _Star Trek_ doesn’t have anything like them. Nor does _Star Trek_ have anyone of John Williams’s caliber writing its background music. (Sure, Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner did a couple of Trek movies each, but _Star Trek_ can’t even stick with the same main title theme song in each movie, fer cryin’ out loud!) And finally, if it wasn’t for the first _Star Wars_ movie, none of the Trek movies would have ever happened. _Star Wars_ was single-handedly responsible for the Hollywood “rush” on space-based special effects extravaganzas. Without that push, Paramount never would have seen Trek as anything more than a minor cult phenomenon. So there. * * * The truth, as always, is more complicated than that. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/9 "2000-02-08T06:50:00Z")
Since the plots, the “science,” and the philosophies behind both series are basically drek, it remains that the action sequences in Star Wars are way cooler than those of Star Trek (that tends to consider light shows “special effects”). I can waste a couple of hours watching either, but I’m usually smiling when I finish a Star Wars. * * * Tom~ ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/10 "2000-02-08T08:04:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Nor does Star Trek have anyone of John Williams’s caliber writing its background music. (Sure, Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner did a couple of Trek movies each, but Star Trek can’t even stick with the same main title theme song in each movie, fer cryin’ out loud!) Uh…Star Trek really didn’t have too many theme “songs”. I mean, there was one in ST V. (I’m being silly and anal about this, but if there is not actual vocal _singing_ in a musical piece, it’s not a _song_, it’s, well, a musical piece or composition.) But, getting to my point: I won’t speak for James Horner, but Jerry Goldsmith is every bit as good a composer as John Williams. Star Trek dropped the ball by having anyone other than him score all the films. (The only redeeming things about the abysmal ST V are the fact that the opening scenes are shot in Yosemite, and that the score is by Jerry Goldsmith!) I like Star Trek for many reasons. The great authors that wrote many episodes is one good reason. Tribbles is another. Jerry Goldsmith is another. (I’m a fan of his.) Star Wars has: Liam Neeson. Harrison Ford. Great special effects. Great music, except for the stuff written for the Ewoks. And even though some of the Star Wars films weren’t as good as others, Star Trek has several medicocre or downright _stinky_ films. Quantity does not equal quality. ---
**Author:** ![aschrott](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@aschrott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aschrott)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/11 "2000-02-08T14:47:00Z")
I happen to be a fan of both, but (with the exception of George Lucas’ most recent dissapointment) I have always found Star Wars more compelling on a personal level. Spock is the only Star Trek character that I ever gave a damn about–everyone else is too perfect. The Star Trek universe is overly sterile for my taste. For that reason, I find the recent emphasis on the Borg plots refreshing–very cool. ---
**Author:** ![RTA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b4bc9f/32.png) [@RTA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTA)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/12 "2000-02-08T15:33:00Z")
Debating such a thing makes me want to start talking like the comic-book owner on “The Simpsons”. Nevertheless: _Star Trek_ is lame, _Star Wars_ kicks ass. End of story. For further reference, I would say go rent the documentary “Trekkies”, now out on video … If you are like me, you will be so shocked and appalled at the extremes of delusional nerdiness therein that you will swear never to watch any episode, of any _Star Trek_, ever again. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/13 "2000-02-08T15:47:00Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. Women get to do more, including captain a starship. I hope this isn’t an endorsement of (ugh) Star Trek: Voyager. That would nullify every other point you raised. _worst episode ever_ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f8ce5/32.png) [@The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Peyote_Coyote)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/14 "2000-02-08T15:49:00Z")
Do I sense a deep-rooted hostility toward Ewoks, jab1? Actually – and I speak as someone who began reading sci-fi in the sixth grade when Mom let me read her copy of Phillip Jose Farmer’s The Maker of Universes – they both blow. Some episodes of Star Trek aren’t too bad, but on the whole, I can live without both. You want to experience real sci-fi, read Farmer, Poul Anderson, Heinlein, Niven, Harlan Ellison, Bradbury et al. * * * The Coyote gnaws … but he does not swallow. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/15 "2000-02-08T16:30:00Z")
First of all, comparing apples and oranges is stupid, even if creatively done. 😉 It doesn’t help if the apples aren’t all apples (trying to lump the original series in with the current variations on the theme is ridiculous; _Star Trek_ in its original incarnation was a third-rate TV drama with no special effects worth mentioning and acting so bad that it made Ricardo Montalban look good). Starting with _Star Trek: The Next Generation_, the Star Trek ‘franchise’ has shifted from the idea of being cowboys in space to the theme of thoughtful exploration of the unknown combined with exploration of inter-species relations (using made-up species to mimic various human traits and then seeing how culture clash plays out). Over this basic premise, they place a thoroughly modern approach to character development which mimics in some ways the successful efforts of _Hill Street Blues_. _Star Wars_ is about the good guys beating up the bad guys against hopeless odds, with little else in the way of theme or message contained. Any relationship between the _Star Wars_ movies and the _Star Trek_ shows and movies is totally coincidental, beyond the nifty special effects efforts of both. Two observations that CAN legitimately be made between the two sets of **movies** : _Star Wars_ has MUCH better actors (this isn’t even debatable; to any who don’t agree I simply say: DeForrest Kelly), and _Star Trek_ has had too many poor entries in the run of movies (face it, only II, IV, VI and VIII were worth watching; and V and VII were total junk). ANYone who wants to experience TRUE science fiction is advised to go back to the authors of the 30’s and 40’s, when space was an unknown and writers like Asimov, Heinlein, _et alia_ were at their best. After getting a good grounding, move on to later writers like Ellison, Niven, Pohl, etc., and cap it off with moderns like Bear, Cherryh, etc. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Neobican](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Neobican](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neobican)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2000, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/16 "2000-02-09T06:04:00Z")
Star Trek all the way baby. Star Wars is just a movie - Star Trek is nearly a way of life. Trek’s intelligence level is warp 9 past anything in Star Wars, thier unexplained technology is pure story and fluff, while Star Trek is closer to science fact. I am very surprised that a lot of the “dopers” go for a light show instead of a true space drama. Trek is by far more realistic and enjoyable than Wars will ever be. * * * _“Wow! Spider-Man! Are you really friends with the X-men?”_ **"Not since Cyclops tried to use my viewmaster."** (Marvel Team Up #1) ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2000, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/17 "2000-02-09T06:10:00Z")
> [@](#): > > while Star Trek is closer to science fact. Yeah, well that’s like saying I’m closer to the moon because I’m 6’3" tall and my SO is only 5’. And you said it with a straight face. Just like a knee-jerk trekkie. 😉 “Closer” does NOT equal “close.” Holodecks, warp speed, transporters, phasers–all soundly in the realms of fantasy. -andros- ---
**Author:** ![Robbnn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f05b48/32.png) [@Robbnn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robbnn)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2000, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/18 "2000-02-09T06:21:00Z")
Okay, the whole subject is kinda goofy, BUT the comment that the original series was 3rd rate DEMANDS a rebuttal. Compare Classic Trek to its only contemporary competitor. Lost in Space. What else needs be said? ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2000, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/19 "2000-02-09T06:39:00Z")
Would any of you guys mind if I just continued ignoring both? * * * Uke ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2000, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545/20 "2000-02-09T06:52:00Z")
I, too, was going to ignore both, till Robbnn said, “Compare Classic Trek to its only contemporary competitor. Lost in Space. What else needs be said?” Exactly! Lost in Space was a delightful campy, witty romp that knew how goofy it was and had fun with it! Star Trek and Star Wars are both pompous and humorless and don’t even understand how silly they are . . . Give me a nelly Dr. Smith crying, “Oh, the pain, the pain!” any day. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-star-trek-is-better-than-star-wars/17545.md?page=2)