Do I really need to explain this one? While a boarding crew in Star Trek brings what I assume is an old Nokia phone that's more than likely "set to stun," a Jedi knight brings a more civilized weapon for a more civilized age, a glowing beam of light powered by a crystal encased in an elaborate hilt.Coming in a variety of colors and styles, a lightsaber is able to cut through almost any material in the galaxy and deflect blaster shots and lightning (the super evil kind). A lightsaber also instantly makes whoever uses it at least 11 times cooler. Don't believe me? I don't recall Luke blowing up many Death Stars before getting a lightsaber.
Star Trek has the occasional local warlord, the rogue Romulan and the occasional Klingon warlord bent on creating havoc. Star Wars has a racist and totalitarian regime ruled by a pair of Sith overlords bent on twisting the galaxy to suit their own personal desires and ambitions … oh yeah, and the Empire actually wins most of the time instead of magically being thwarted at the last moment.
With their knack of creating overly expensive and gargantuan space stations capable of vaporizing planets (and then forgetting to put some boards up over that hole), vast armies, and potent arsenals, the Galactic Empire is the ultimate foe for anyone who enjoys not being oppressed. Following our band of ragtag rebels, Star Wars' Galactic Empire represents the ultimate and all-powerful opposition for us to hate.
Star Wars is obviously better than Star Trek because George Lucas use small actors so people would want to see the movie for the story not the actors. When A New Hope came out it was a huge success. Star Wars is one big story. Star Trek is the same story over and over again
People buy SW toys not ST toys. ST is so nerdy it's painful, even to SW fans. You just want to strangle spock. The Abrams films are the only thing keeping ST alive. The younger generations are not turned on at all by ST, lightsaber duels and cooler villains and cooler ships in SW win by far. I'm amazed SW is losing the poll right now wow.
I'm just going to make versus things for this debate
Death Star vs Enterprise = Death Star
The Death Star has enough power to destroy a planet so I say it would win
Luke vs Spock = Luke
Think about it, Luke has a freaking lightsaber and the force. Spock has a phaser and ... His knowledge.
Phaser vs Lightsaber = Lightsaber
The Lightsaber is more iconic and more recognizable. The Phaser is also recognizable but if it weren't for Star Trek's popularity it would just be like any other gun from any Sci-Fi move or TV series (Also the guns in Star Wars are rarely set on "Stun").
Dramatic Moments in Star Wars vs Dramatic Moments in Star Trek = Star Wars
I know Star Trek has more of these moments but that doesn't mean anything compared to the "I am your Father" Moment because that scene is awesome and at the time it was the biggest thing ever in movie history and the best part is.... IT STILL IS.
Anyway they are my reasons.
Each Character in the Star Wars Movies had a part to play, but if you look into each character through the Internet, each character has a past and a Future. If something was not explained in the movies, it was explained in Clone wars, if it was not explained in Clone wars, it was explained in Extended Universe.
Star Wars has a lot of books concerning matters other than the movies. From what I know, I never heard someone speak of a Star Trek "Expanded Universe". The Millennium Falcon is epic just because George Lucas had the idea to create it, while the Enterprise is known simply because it's been present in series and films for the last 30 years. The "Falcon" appears only in 3 movies. Captain Kirk doesn't stand a chance against a light saber. The fact that Star Trek physics are more "realistic" isn't worth anything, compared to the awesomeness of the Death Star. Also, the ship Boba Fett uses, "Slave I", is more powerful than the Enterprise. Star Wars soundtracks are some of the most well known music pieces on Earth (I was able to play the Main Theme on the piano before I even knew what Star Wars was). Star Wars "hyperspace" is much faster than Star Trek's "warp drives" (I calculated the Falcon to be more than 46 millions times faster than light while travelling in hyperspace). Overall, in 6 words: Star Wars is 1000000000000000000 times better.
From my point of view, I prefer Star Wars because it created a set of incredible and dynamic characters in a short set of movies. They also created a universe that was large and complex enough that books, television shows, and even more movies have been released from a small product. Star Trek is also a fantastic series, but it is not nearly as accessible as Star Wars. I do not understand anything about Star Trek despite how many times I've attempted to keep watching the show, because I've always had to hop right in the middle. In short, Star Wars is better because they were able to accomplish in three movies what took Star Trek seasons of episodes to accomplish.
Star Wars is an epic sci-fi fantasy, almost more similar to Lord of the Rings than Star Trek. Star Wars focuses on a set of well-developed (now iconic) characters. These characters are quite dynamic, they change dramatically through the struggles we see during the series. We are shown strong friendships, sacrifices, corruption of the innocent, betrayal, violence, compassion, and finally redemption. These themes aren't examined in passing (as in Star Trek) but are experienced more deeply through the character's individual struggles.
The Star Trek storyline focuses more on technology and social analogy, and less on spiritual or ethical concerns. The various TV series of Star Trek are composed largely of contrived situations to demonstrate something about society or the future. The characters in Star Trek (not including JJ Abram's adaptation) tend to be vehicles to transport a variety of messages, rather than dynamic characters in their own right.
Don't get me wrong, both Star Wars and Star Trek are fantastic series. Both have very well-developed worlds and interesting characters. Each has some advantages over the other. Perhaps Star Wars has depth and Star Trek has breadth. I have to say, JJ Abrams brought Star Trek to whole new, and amazing, level.
People often attribute Star Wars success to its special effects budget. However, the first Star Trek movie's budget was $46 million while Star Wars' budget was only $11 million. Star Wars made $774 million while Star Trek made $140 million. Star Wars is relatable to those outside it's fanbase, Star Trek has a smaller, more focused group. Star Wars is certainly flawed as a series, but it contains more than enough humanity to make it something amazing to experience.
Star Wars is better than Star Trek. Star Wars originally came out in movie form. This allowed people to see it and understand it in one large chunk, as opposed to having to watch a television show for days and weeks in order to understand what was happening in the show.
If Star Trek ever used melee weapons to the degree of Star Wars there would be consideration. Also Star Wars has made far more money overall and has attracted more famous actors than Star Trek. Star Wars also has a far more recognizable score, characters, villains, weapons and ships. Thank You and may the Force be with you.
About 80% of the people on the Star Wars side haven't even watched Star Trek or at least given it a chance in their lives. This is an unfair debate. Star Wars fans are prejudice towards Star Trek (and don't start saying "YOU ARE BEING PREJUDICE TOWARDS STAR WARS FANS") , and have no taste for Sci Fi. Star Wars isn't Sci Fi, it is Space Fantasy. Star Wars 1, 2, 7, 6 (this is because of number 7, and it proves that George Lucas was going down the path of repeated "Death Stars"), and rouge One have sucked bad. The End.
If you compare both, I have only unintentionally laughed maybe one or twice at the whole entire franchise where as Star Wars, all I did was unintentionally laugh. If there wasn't Star Trek there wouldn't be a Star Wars plus I find the Star Wars films are too childhdish. Obey one kanobie, jar jar binks, yoda, what a bunch of silly names. Han Solo is a wimp and spock would kick his butt. And darth vader v.S. Kahn ? Come on, Kahn Is so menacing and 100% better. Plus in Star Trek, it's a different bad guy every movie and not the same black bucket with asthma.
If Lucas had left the originals alone this would be a much harder decision but unfortunately we live in a world where they exist and are most certainly "Canon" and no amount of tie in novels can protect/fix them. - That's all I needed to say although it demands at least 50 words.
Star Trek is a deeply thought-out, well-written story line with lots of interesting and humorous dialogue, balanced with the action that people these days seek out.
Star Wars is all action, poor plot, and the worst dialogue EVER. I've written better dialogue in my A.V. Club. I'm in 8th grade.
Star Trek has 5 different series and 12 movies. All 5 of the series are good and all 12 of the movies are good.
Star Wars has 6 movies, 3 of which are just barely acceptable, the other 3 are terrible.
In Star Wars, Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father. Who didn't see that coming? "Vader" means "Father" in German!
Star Trek has a very diverse cast of characters including many varying types of aliens and also, females. Most of which are competent and/or attractive to some people.
Star Wars has princess Leia and no real diverse species, and the aliens are mostly ugly or stupid.
In Star Trek, androids look like humans (or other species of aliens).
In Star Wars, robots look like garbage cans taped to one of those "Roomba" vacuum cleaners.
Star Trek has Spock. Enough said.
Star Trek all the way!!!
Both are great fun, but Star Trek is more than that. It was (and is) used as a vehicle to explore humanity and forward a vision of what our future could be. While I find both Star Trek and Star Wars entertaining, I don't see much value in Star Wars beyond the story.
I like both, but Star Trek has always been a good "North Star" for us to guide ourselves by. Star Wars is pretty much the opposite, especially since it takes place in the past in an alien galaxy. Star Trek also focuses on science, philosophy, and Social Acceptance while Star Wars is more about politics.
A lot of Star Trek episodes deal with philosophy, religion, and time travel. For someone you doesn't like that but prefers mile-a-minute constant decapitations and impaling scenes, Star Wars is preferable, but for someone who happens to like to mull over the bigger questions in life, Star Trek is better. It had plenty of action wrapped around it with a core of deep thinking.
They appeal to different audiences. I really don't see how either one could be considered better than any other. Star Wars' plot is more accessible and exciting, but Star Trek's plots tend to be much deeper. The characters in both are equally strong. Really, the only similarities between them are the sci-fi genre and the name. These debates are pointless.
No I personally do not think Star Wars was better than Star Trek. Star Trek has a better story line, which makes it seem a lot more thought out and planned which makes it more interesting. Star Wars seemed like it went on and on forever without any real plot to it. Star Trek has more creativity within it, and is far more complex.
Star Wars is your basic good versus evil coming of age story. While it is interesting, and well done, it does not operate on other levels. Star Trek on the other hand operates in different dimensions, worlds, and time periods. This allows it to tackle more complex and interesting issues than Star Wars.