Star Wars (Pro) Vs Star Trek (Con)
Debate Rounds (3)
You can choose what you want to debate about the two pieces of science-fiction and feel free to look at the link above and see if there is anything I've already put that you disagree with or would like me to expand on.
I'm not a big fan of the J.J.Abrams Star Trek movies (though they aren't bad movies themselves, they just aren't Star Trek to me) and admit that all of Star Wars trumps them completely. Roger Ebert summarises my feelings in this quote brilliantly - The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action.
However when comparing the Star Wars and Star Trekverse, I prefer the Star Trek series/ original movies though I still really like/ respect Star Wars.
I will now copy and paste some of my points from the original debate and add a little extra.
Star Trek goes much deeper into politics than Star Wars does (which I can understand might make Star Trek more boring for some people); with more developed sides, ideologies ext... For example; the Klingon (a warmongering race) have a very rocky relationship with most races, Cardassians think they are superior to many other races and would like to help (conquer) them, the peacekeeping Federation trying to keep the peace, Ferengi who always scheming for financial profit and how they all interact is fascinating as you never know what is going to happen next.
Greys and Depth of Character
As much as I like Star Wars; the characters of Star Trek are far more interesting to me due to their depth. Examples; Luke - a nice guy and well acted by Mark Hamill but doesn't seem to have much personality (feel free to disagree). Whereas Kirk is impulsive, reckless, stubborn and a womaniser, Picard can be cold, repressed, proud and a hypocrite. They seem much more compelling to me as they have more flaws.
Another example is Palpatine, once again well acted (I love his voice) but what is his motivation? I've read on a wiki (feel free to correct me) that he grew up with a first for power but what created that source? His surroundings and family don't seem to push him to be this way but he just is which hints at him being born evil which is an idea I disagree with. Two villains I prefer are Khan (who grew up as a superhuman and lived in a time when tyranny ruled and thus became a tyrant himself) and Dukat (who grew up in a civilization that believed they were superior to every other race and are never wrong), their surroundings helped engineer them into villainy and also have a lot of positive traits.
Though Darth Vader and Yoda are amazing characters and some of the best throughout cinematic history so no complaints with those characters just the ones surrounding them.
Star Wars does deal with some moral questions (e.g. Jedi/ repressed peace or Sith/ passionate destruction) however Star Trek asks much deeper questions like is it right to lie/ manipulate people if it could save countless lives? Would that make you any better than your enemy?
Society and history
I prefer Star Trek's look into the past and present.
Here is a scene where they strongly reference WWII and how the occupiers of France may have justified themselves (DS9 - my favorite series of Star Trek and one of my favorite scenes from the series).
Here is a scene on racism (Original Series)
A little on the nose perhaps but still well written, brilliantly acted and thought provoking.
I look forward to your reply.
The difference between Star Wars and Star Trek is taste. Star Trek provides though-provoking scenarios, and while I'm totally into that, I think Star Wars has much more desirable charcheristic to it: action. The whole focus is to bring the audience the excitement and thrill of battle. Who hasn't wanted to jump into an X-Wing and shoot down some TIE Fighters? And how could I forgot the desire of every Star Wars fan to reach to their hips, grap a cylinder object, and ignite the lightsabers?
I will reiterate, I love thought provoking movies. But, my dear voters, does that trump on of the best action movies of all time? On that note, I hand the debate mike over to Con.
I think Star Wars does appeal to those that prefer action (aka. the larger demographic) over thought provoking scenarios as the former is more fun:
Star Wars: Action with a little philosophy
Star Trek: Philosophy with a little action
I do admit that I prefer the weapons/ starships of Wars and that galaxy far far away is very exciting escapism.
I also admit that the Star Wars trilogy are three of the best action sci-fi movies ever made.
The way I'd summarise these two are the following.
Star Wars = Fun, adventure, emotions, wisdom, how emotions can corrupt anyone and the fight between order (perfectionism and elitism) and freedom (individuality, chaos and passion) that resides with society and within all of us.
Star Trek = Idealism, cultures and differing points of view, exploration, how events can corrupt anyone, the greys within people and the human condition.
Both may appear similar but have differences which make them fundamentally different.
I can see good in both of them and believe Star Wars is amazing.
Thank you for discussing with me, you have been a good opponent. Have a great day and feel free to end the debate however you want.
I think it will come to the voters whether they perfer action or thought proving movies better. I hope I did a good job convinced them that most people prefer that action is preferable. I end this debate after the next period.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.