Are Star Wars & Star Trek like Elvis & The Beatles?

[Buttercup]

NEOWatcher said in another thread (George Takei/"Twilight"), regarding Star Wars and Star Trek:

As a fan of both (not evenly though)...

Which brings to mind Quentin Tarantino's character in Pulp Fiction (portrayed by Uma Thurman) pointing out that people can like both Elvis and The Beatles, but never equally: You either like Elvis more or The Beatles more.

Does the same hold true for Star Wars and Star Trek?

I *much* prefer Star Wars.

What say you?

[NEOWatcher]

What say you?

I say it's an age thing and what you grew up with and what irritates you the most.

ST was 60s and forward, SW was 70s and forward.
Elvis was 50s, Beatles were 60s.

Elvis had his fat years, ST had its odd numbered movies.
Beatles had Ono, SW had JarJar.

[Buttercup]

Beatles had Ono, SW had JarJar.

Ouch!!

Lol!!

Enjoyed your entire reply!

[Moose]

I like the concept of SW a bit better than SW, but I prefer Wrath of Khan to Empire Strikes Back.

[NEOWatcher]

I like the concept of SW a bit better than SW

That typo works for me if you think SW456 vs SW123.

[Buttercup]

Anakin beats Capt. Kirk in the "looks" category too.

[HenrikOlsen]

And Patrick Steward beats both. So what?

[Moose]

That typo works for me if you think SW456 vs SW123.

Heh. Concept of SW better than ST. I blame my cats on the keyboard, or... something.

[Buttercup]

And Patrick Steward beats both.

What?!

Fine actor yes; terrific voice too.

But better looking than Hayden C *and* William Shatner???

Nev-er!

That'd be like me saying Sally Field is more gorgeous than both Angelina Jolie and Uma Thurman. Naaaah.

I came back to this thread to say the only Star Trek movie I truly like is The Motion Picture. That is one awesome sci-fi film!

[Moose]

What?!

Fine actor yes; terrific voice too.

But better looking than Hayden C *and* William Shatner???

Easily.

Stewart easily beats Shatner right now. There was a recent photo of him, Shat, and Kate Mulgrew where it was pretty clear that Steward was by _far_ in the best shape of the three. Shat and Mulgrew, not so much.

As for Hayden C, when 900 years old he reaches, look as good he will not. (Heck, he doesn't look as good now, IMO.)

[Swift]

Are Star Wars & Star Trek like Elvis & The Beatles?

Yes, one is completely dead and the other is 50% dead.

[geonuc]

That'd be like me saying Sally Field is more gorgeous than both Angelina Jolie and Uma Thurman. Naaaah.

But that would be true!

[Paul Beardsley]

My feelings towards SW and ST are equally lukewarm. There have been splendid examples of both (Empire Strikes Back and that one with the flute) but I have not seen all of either and I am happy for things to remain thus.

ST isn't interested enough in the science to really work as science fiction, even though it isn't anything other than science fiction. SW doesn't pretend to be more than a fantasy with SFnal trappings, but it doesn't do fantasy as well as it thinks it does.

So the winner is Doctor Who!

[Van Rijn]

So the winner is Doctor Who!

Nah, the winner is Babylon 5, though Doctor Who can be fun.

[HenrikOlsen]

Easily.

Stewart easily beats Shatner right now. There was a recent photo of him, Shat, and Kate Mulgrew where it was pretty clear that Steward was by _far_ in the best shape of the three. Shat and Mulgrew, not so much.

There's some of those here.

From what I read, Mulgrew does the de Niro thing of slimming down/buffing up for the roles that require it and relaxing otherwise.

ETA I actually think Steward looks like he's in better shape now, at 71, than Shatner was in his 30's when he did TOS.

[Van Rijn]

Heh. Concept of SW better than ST. I blame my cats on the keyboard, or... something.

To me, the concept of ST was better than SW by quite a bit. For me, growing up, something like ST was the sort of thing I hoped could happen someday. SW (the original movie) was great fun to watch, but there was no thought anything like this would happen in the future, or I'd want anything like it to happen.

[Gillianren]

Patrick Stewart has been more attractive than William Shatner forever. On the grounds of he's attractive. Honestly, of TOS, I'm marginally in the Sulu camp and meh on pretty much the entire rest of the cast. (Well, Nichelle Nichols is a fine-looking woman.) Certainly over that cardboard twit from Star Wars: The Failed Years, I'll take Shatner. Then again, the new trilogy also has Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor. Even Jimmy Smits is not a bad-looking man.

[Moose]

There's some of those here.

[...]

ETA I actually think Steward looks like he's in better shape now, at 71, than Shatner was in his 30's when he did TOS.

Yup, that's the very pic I meant, and yup, at 71, he looks better than most guys half his age.

I'm not slamming Mulgrew. Goodness knows I'm not in any position to play healthier-than-thou. I do have to say that Shatner, on the other hand, looks every bit his age, plus most of mine.

[Gillianren]

I was actually at a Star Trek convention lo, these many years ago which had Shatner and Nimoy as guests. Shatner told some long, involved story about stealing DeForest Kelley's bagels on the set of Star Trek VI, and Nimoy's response was, "So, wait. DeForest is practically withering away before our eyes, and Bill was eating carrot sticks?" And the audience lost it. Even when they were filming the series, the man could stand to lose a few pounds. (Same caveat--not that I couldn't. But Patrick Stewart was the one who got the snazzy weight-concealing jacket?)

[danscope]

Star Trek or Star Wars? We should not compare them. Star Trek was by comparison 'thrown together' as a weekly show . Star Wars is a film which was built and filmed for hundreds of millions of dollars, lavish special effects etc etc etc.
They both have merit and have entertained us for many years. At least they followed a basic moral code.... namely good always triumphs over evil
and championed the value of and respect for different cultures got the most part. All that as opposed to slasher/horror shows and films which have no
moral foundation except to excite and shock the viewer.
Without these excellent films and works we should be much the poorer indeed.

Best regards.
Dan

[novaderrik]

Elvis had his fat years, ST had its odd numbered movies.
Beatles had Ono, SW had JarJar.

that's really not at all fair to Jar Jar..

and weren't whales a big part of an even numbered ST movie?

[jokergirl]

I always preferred Star Wars. I'm pretty meh on any incarnation of Star Trek, though the last movie was pretty fun and I enjoyed some of the others. Don't care for the prequels though.

[Paul Beardsley]

and weren't whales a big part of an even numbered ST movie?

All right-thinking people love the one with the whales.

[Paul Beardsley]

Nah, the winner is Babylon 5, though Doctor Who can be fun.

At one time I would have agreed with you - especially on that Bank Holiday Friday I might have mentioned once or twice when Clare and I sat through ten episodes of B5 and part of an 11th.

But whereas it certainly had some great moments and great episodes, it simply hasn't stood the test of time. IMO, of course, but I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way.

It was definitely better than Star Trek, though!

[NEOWatcher]

and weren't whales a big part of an even numbered ST movie?

I actually liked that one, but not for the storyline, special effects or other stuff you normally associate with ST. I think it was a pretty good character movie.

What I like about ST over SW is the volume and (attempted) consistancy and (attempted) scientific parallels spread across so many series and movies. The volume has a big deal to do with it. Were talking about 500 hours of ST vs about 20 hours of SW.

[Swift]

To me, the concept of ST was better than SW by quite a bit. For me, growing up, something like ST was the sort of thing I hoped could happen someday. SW (the original movie) was great fun to watch, but there was no thought anything like this would happen in the future, or I'd want anything like it to happen.

That would be my feelings too. Sort of like the difference between fantasy and science fiction, and I don't have to pick which one I like better, I can like them for different reasons.

I also think both should long ago have been put to rest and have long ago outlived their entertainment value (IMO). I saw the last ST movie and won't go see the next one. And the last few SW movies... don't get me started.

[Paul Beardsley]

And the last few SW movies... don't get me started.

What's your issue with the last few SW movies, Swift?

[Buttercup]

I like the animated Clone Wars series.

[jokergirl]

But whereas it certainly had some great moments and great episodes, it simply hasn't stood the test of time. IMO, of course, but I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way.

I respectfully disagree. Many of the themes in the later seasons - censorship, propaganda, politics - are creepily MORE relevant now than they were when the series was made.
(Yes, I too rewatched it recently.)

It's still better than ST or SW, though.

[ToSeek]

Star Trek or Star Wars? We should not compare them. Star Trek was by comparison 'thrown together' as a weekly show . Star Wars is a film which was built and filmed for hundreds of millions of dollars, lavish special effects etc etc etc.

Not the original three. Star Wars cost $11 million, and the remaining two cost about $32 million each. Of course, that's still a lot more than what was spent on Star Trek - I think the average cost of a TOS episode was in the low six figures.