|
|
Post by blackest_knight on Oct 3, 2003 17:24:50 GMT -5
Star Wars or Star Trek? Well people? (We all know Star Wars!)  |
|
|
|
Post by MotherShabooboo on Oct 3, 2003 18:17:00 GMT -5
c'mon, you know it's Star Trek!
like, without it, you wouldn't be able to see ... um ... Captain Kirk ... uh ... I DON'T KNOW, SOME CRAP WHERE THEY SAVE A BUNCH OF CRAP LOUSY WHALES! ...
glad i got that out of my system. Star Wars.
|
|
|
|
Post by MotherShabooboo on Oct 3, 2003 18:17:36 GMT -5
(and, you do know, Star Trek is mainly a show, not a movie)
|
|
|
|
Post by blackest_knight on Oct 4, 2003 1:00:52 GMT -5
(movies and tv can be discussed here. Do you want me to change the thing on the homepage so it says that?)
|
|
|
|
Post by unimportantguy on Oct 4, 2003 15:00:45 GMT -5
Let me see... Star Trek = SF/Fantasy masterwork with some not-so-stellar sequels and an army of anal fanboys.
Star Wars= SF/Fantasy masterwork with some awful prequels and an army of anal fanboys.
I'd have to go with Star Trek.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackest_knight on Oct 5, 2003 17:52:39 GMT -5
note: when I say Star Wars, I'm just talking about the original three, episodes 4, 5 and 6. The prequels don't count.
|
|
Green Lantern
Junior Member
Stiny! Who spilt coffee over the plans for my Death Ray?!
Posts: 61
|
Post by Green Lantern on Oct 6, 2003 0:14:18 GMT -5
Actually I liked Stargate better than both franchises. Both of them are so old, and beaten like a dead horse. Stargate actually has originality to it. The aliens, the weapons, everything was totally new. And the TV series SG-1, builds on that mythos that the movie introduced and improves upon it.
Star Wars and Star Trek have both gone horribly down hill. The last two series of Star Trek sucked big time, and the new Star Wars movies are garbage save Natalie Portman who's the saving light in that movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRisen on Oct 6, 2003 0:19:29 GMT -5
GL got a point about it.
The Star wars classic trilogy was amazing, and star treks got only about 3 great movie outta 10 or whatever it was. They both are good but lack freshness due to the original creators going cash hungry and not trying new or bold.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRisen on Oct 6, 2003 0:20:05 GMT -5
and btw, the last star fighter is my choice for hotness.
|
|
|
|
Post by MotherShabooboo on Oct 6, 2003 20:22:18 GMT -5
well, I still stand by the Star Wars is better than Star Trek. I dunno, I just find it hard to get into Star Trek and care.
And if you like Stargate better, start a "Stargate is the best" forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by MadameDove on Oct 8, 2003 21:42:37 GMT -5
Personally, I think Farscape blows everything out of the water.
|
|
Sonn
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by Sonn on Oct 14, 2003 23:44:06 GMT -5
I refuse to answer the question of this thread... It's just too nerdy even for me... but I definitly would have quoted undergrads if it hadn't been done already.. *god I need a life...*
|
|
|
|
Post by unimportantguy on Oct 15, 2003 19:46:47 GMT -5
The original creator of Star Trek is dead, I believe. Far as I know, he had nothing to do with either Voyager or Enterprise.
I dunno about Farscape. I really liked it in the beginning, but as the show went on, it kinda ceased to hold my interest as much. I still thank that show for adding the word "frell" to my vocabulary of expletives. ;D
|
|
Green Lantern
Junior Member
Stiny! Who spilt coffee over the plans for my Death Ray?!
Posts: 61
|
Post by Green Lantern on Oct 18, 2003 17:04:53 GMT -5
Your right unimportant guy. Gene Rodenberry had nothing to do with Voyager or Enterprise. Although the two series could've been based on some work he did. As there are a million different series (most which aren't very good) comming out with his name tacked onto the title.
|
|
Nitsua
Junior Member
How you doin'? ;)
Posts: 93
|
Post by Nitsua on Nov 21, 2003 23:57:55 GMT -5
and why has nobody mentioned Babylon 5?
|
|
