• TootSweet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Star Trek used to be better than Star Wars.

    Main reason: weekly episodes. You had to wait years to decades for the next Star Wars. But the next Voyager was just next Wednesday, and DS9 was next Thursday. At worst, they were in reruns for the next few months at most.

    Hell. Star Trek had Star Wars beat on quantity of movies too.

    Now, it’s balanced out quite a bit and Star Wars probably has the edge right now on quantity and quality, but not by much, the gap is shrinking, and the situation could reverse pretty quickly.

    Oh, also, Roddenberry didn’t have the George Lucas syndrome making him want to retroactively ruin the whole franchise he birthed.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      18 hours ago

      honestly, it’s apples to oranges. Different shows. different vibes. Different stories.

      I like them both, and, jokes about Spock wanting a lightsaber aside… arguing which one is better is… a matter of personal preference, I guess.

      now. Arguing about whether the millenium falcon could take, I dunno, the defiant, or if the enterprise could take an ISD?

      Those are arguments we really should be having.

    • OpenStars@piefed.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Although Roddenberry was a visionary, whereas George Lucas was better at having created the universe than the actual films. Still, it connected with people more - seeing “space wizards” was somehow still far more believable than space communism I guess? :-P

      img