If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Experts debate the psychology of Star Wars vs. Star Trek. Solo mutters something about a bad feeling   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 50
    More: Silly, psychology, Star Trek, Star Wars, social psychologies, genetic engineering, complex question, American Psychological Association  
•       •       •

1838 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Mar 2013 at 9:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-30 08:47:50 AM  
FTFA:  "Here's how we all win: We all have J.J. Abrams now."

i.stack.imgur.com

bulk2.destructoid.com

In the interest of fairness
 
2013-03-30 09:30:16 AM  
In before that inevitable slapfight.
 
2013-03-30 09:37:20 AM  

Mister Peejay: In before that inevitable slapfight.


Look, both franchises had three good movies and three terrible ones. Now they're both getting rebooted by JJ Abrams. And in a few years, we'll get the thrilling scene where R2D2 fights Khan, and Khan screams out, "I WILL BREAK YOU!" And then Chewie gets all emotional in the face and screams "KHAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNN". And then the Doctor just shakes his head and gets right back into his TARDIS, along with C3P0, who's going to go get gay-married to Kamelion. They'll have a nice little house in Leadworth and a little robot dog that's K9 mk5.
 
2013-03-30 09:43:36 AM  
....I'd watch that.

/it's not $8.50 to see a movie, it's $8.50 to sit in air conditioning for three hours
 
2013-03-30 09:45:23 AM  
t3knomanser:
And then the Doctor just shakes his head and gets right back into his TARDIS

Also a wise response to where this thread is probably going.

/Kamelion?  You must be old school, and a wizard.
 
2013-03-30 09:45:52 AM  
Well, its socialism vs capitalism.

One is about all-are-equal and "we have no need for money" as the heroes (starfleet) and the other is about distinct social classes, based largely on genetics (jedi) and "ill do anything for money" independent contractors (han & chewie, the cloners, pod racers, etc)

/did not RTFA
 
2013-03-30 09:51:19 AM  

No Such Agency: t3knomanser:
And then the Doctor just shakes his head and gets right back into his TARDIS

Also a wise response to where this thread is probably going.

/Kamelion?  You must be old school, and a wizard.


"You came in THAT thing? You're braver than I thought."

The Doctor (indignantly): "She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts."
 
2013-03-30 09:52:29 AM  
Whoever wins, we all lose.
 
2013-03-30 10:07:56 AM  
"George Lucas really has an understanding of what makes evil," she said.

Yeah, like Anakin's fall from grace. Driven by love, he took small steps away from the path of his monk-like Jedi celibacy, which let him be more and more influenced by emotion and led to his downward spiral. It's a classic tale of how the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Oh, no wait, I forgot. He was creepy stalker and an insufferable douchebag who gave zero f*cks about the Jedi vows, and lured Padme into breaking her own rules. (Because where she's from people in government positions aren't allowed to have sex or something.)

Lucas' path to evil looks something like this:

Whininess --> Douchebaggery --> Being a Poopyhead --> "Muwahaha" Evil!!!
 
2013-03-30 10:08:07 AM  
i478.photobucket.com
/obligatory
 
2013-03-30 10:08:14 AM  
Except that doesn't entirely work.  In Star Wars, there are people that become evil through their actions - like Vader, or Jacen Solo.  But there are also people that are born evil.  Palpatine does not exist without his malevolent ambition; it's who he is.  The Hutts are largely evil because they are by nature decadent creatures who, like Khan, believe they have existed as dominant life-forms for millennia because they are superior.  The Sith philosophy itself is built upon an evil concept, that compassion and mercy are signs of weakness.

And there's also a difference between evil and just really Lawful within Lawful Neutral.  The Borg are Lawful Neutral; they have a set of rules for expanding the collective and they follow that tirelessly.  (Well, that's what the Borg are supposed to be; Brannon Braga and Ron Moore utterly ruined the Borg with that miserable turd of an idea known as the Borg Queen.)  Thrawn was very Lawful Neutral; he was not sadistic like Vader or Palpatine, and rewarded innovative thinking even if it came out of failure.

t3knomanser: Mister Peejay: In before that inevitable slapfight.

Look, both franchises had three good movies and three terrible ones. Now they're both getting rebooted by JJ Abrams. And in a few years, we'll get the thrilling scene where R2D2 fights Khan, and Khan screams out, "I WILL BREAK YOU!" And then Chewie gets all emotional in the face and screams "KHAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNN". And then the Doctor just shakes his head and gets right back into his TARDIS, along with C3P0, who's going to go get gay-married to Kamelion. They'll have a nice little house in Leadworth and a little robot dog that's K9 mk5.


Here's a philosophical debate for you:  What moment is a more cringe-worthy piece of film - the two scenes in Attack of the Clones where Anakin and Padme are on Naboo, exploring each other's feelings, or the last 30 minutes of Star Trek V?
 
2013-03-30 10:10:17 AM  
for all the talking points, only one of the debate topics conclusively demonstrates differences between the two series:

FTFA: Round 1: Nature vs. Nurture
They say Vader was someone who was turned bad by circumstance whereas Khan was someone who was born bad by genetics, and then somehow conclude that the Vader story is more compelling because it reminds us of the complexity of humans (yawn - emphasis added)

For my money, Khan's being born bad confronts us in two huge ways. First, the reality that there are such things as bad eggs - no matter how advanced we become, how able we are to provide, how compassionate, how loving, there are just going to be some freaks born.

And second, because Khan was genetically engineered, it raises the old risks-of-scientific trope: we made Khan, he became because of us, we create our own nightmares, even when we are only trying to make progress for the betterment of all.

Vader's story might touch us more directly, but he's nothing more than a gaden-variety sociopath who turned bad because he didn't get enough hugs. Khan's story confronts us on a deeper, more existential level.

advantage: trek
 
2013-03-30 10:12:52 AM  
 
2013-03-30 10:16:00 AM  
The original Star Wars movies were epic and myth-infused. It's too bad Lucas didn't start immediately on the next set of movies after he finished "Return of the Jedi" because the original creative spark was obviously long gone before "Episode 1" hit the screen. In terms of evil villains, Anakin's turn to the Dark Side is completely unbelievable and barely explained; I guess once you've revenged yourself on the tribe that murdered your mom, the next logical step is to kill a bunch of small children and betray your friends. The Jedi are a bunch of clueless, arrogant pricks who richly deserved to lose and. indeed, it's hard to understand how they held onto power in the first place. In fact the whole "Look! It's about politics!" thing merely underscored Lucas' complete lack of understanding of politics--in fact, of human nature. His reliance on computer gizmo-try over actual acting merely confirms the decision of his high school nemeses to tape "Kick Me" signs to his back and jam him in a locker.

Star Trek has its faults too--forty years later it's still 1960's American culture transported to the 23rd century with James Bond as captain of a star ship--but at least it attempts to obey the laws of nature, human and otherwise, and presents a future where it's not necessary to have superpowers in order to accomplish something. In the Star Trek universe the engineer is king, and that's a big improvement over Jedi gobbledygook.
 
2013-03-30 10:16:12 AM  
more cerebral science fiction of "Star Trek"

Reversing the polarity of the deflector dish/positron beam/shields is not cerebral science. Neither is setting the phasers to randomising frequencies (considering the number of times this worked makes you wonder why that isn't the default setting).
 
2013-03-30 10:19:06 AM  

I eat mop: for all the talking points, only one of the debate topics conclusively demonstrates differences between the two series:

FTFA: Round 1: Nature vs. Nurture
They say Vader was someone who was turned bad by circumstance whereas Khan was someone who was born bad by genetics, and then somehow conclude that the Vader story is more compelling because it reminds us of the complexity of humans (yawn - emphasis added)


Well....

Vader wasn't some ordinary person.  He was born of a slave woman with no father - and the soon-to-be-Emperor all but stated outright that he manipulated the Force to do it.  Everything that happened was strictly for the purpose of creating the ultimate Sith to serve under him.  Everything was happening, so they say, by his design.
 
2013-03-30 10:26:13 AM  

DerAppie: Reversing the polarity of the deflector dish/positron beam/shields is not cerebral science.


No, but the words used were were "cerebral science  fiction". Despite the forays into technobabble (which got worse with each incarnation of Trek, it seems), the better Star Trek episodes used that as a backdrop for serious (or not so serious) examinations of the human condition. Nowhere in Star Wars's sword-and-sorcery epics do we see the same level of tense conflict as we get in "Balance of Terror". That episode, one of the best in any ST incarnation, adapts the submarine-movie style of battle to space, and builds a boiler-room tension out of it. It's slow and thoughtful. It's a very  cerebral battle, in part because there wasn't the budget or technology for anything else.
 
2013-03-30 10:28:40 AM  

t3knomanser: Mister Peejay: In before that inevitable slapfight.

Look, both franchises had three good movies and three terrible ones. Now they're both getting rebooted by JJ Abrams. And in a few years, we'll get the thrilling scene where R2D2 fights Khan, and Khan screams out, "I WILL BREAK YOU!" And then Chewie gets all emotional in the face and screams "KHAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNN". And then the Doctor just shakes his head and gets right back into his TARDIS, along with C3P0, who's going to go get gay-married to Kamelion. They'll have a nice little house in Leadworth and a little robot dog that's K9 mk5.


"Well, the thing's got to have a tailpipe."
 
2013-03-30 10:31:32 AM  

born_yesterday: t3knomanser: Mister Peejay: In before that inevitable slapfight.

Look, both franchises had three good movies and three terrible ones. Now they're both getting rebooted by JJ Abrams. And in a few years, we'll get the thrilling scene where R2D2 fights Khan, and Khan screams out, "I WILL BREAK YOU!" And then Chewie gets all emotional in the face and screams "KHAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNN". And then the Doctor just shakes his head and gets right back into his TARDIS, along with C3P0, who's going to go get gay-married to Kamelion. They'll have a nice little house in Leadworth and a little robot dog that's K9 mk5.

"Well, the thing's got to have a tailpipe."


Lawls-a-mercy that's quality fark right there.
 
2013-03-30 10:33:37 AM  
FTFA: Round 1: Nature vs. Nurture...
...we now know that the villainous Darth Vader was not always bad. But the greatest villain of "Star Trek," Khan Noonan Singh, was literally born bad-a product of genetic engineering who believed himself superior to lesser men. So, which is the better story?


No, you fatuous idiots. If you were truely a fan of both sci-fi's, you would know that Khan was genetically engineered to be a superior human, was smart enough to reason it true based on logical metrics, and was rejected by the planet and society that created him. His villainy in his first appearance on the TOS Trek is a result of a lifetime where "normal" humans have proven duplicitous and impossible to trust, and he also has a quite reasonable desire for vengeance, if misdirected. He wasn't "born bad", the whole humanist approach of that episode is to say that nurture is more important than nature - and nurture had failed Singh.

On the other hand, Star Wars is about a prophecy that has doomed Anakin to evil through ambiguous wording, and if you can stand to sit through the prequels, there is no point in any of the three films where Anakin does something in the name of a greater good or something larger than himself. Even as a child, his desires are depicted as self-obsessed. He was simply "born bad" via destiny, and though he was depicted as innocent for a time, he was never someone who desired to do good - only make life better for himself (often by pleasing his superiors).
 
2013-03-30 10:41:56 AM  

starsrift: FTFA: Round 1: Nature vs. Nurture...
...we now know that the villainous Darth Vader was not always bad. But the greatest villain of "Star Trek," Khan Noonan Singh, was literally born bad-a product of genetic engineering who believed himself superior to lesser men. So, which is the better story?

No, you fatuous idiots. If you were truely a fan of both sci-fi's, you would know that Khan was genetically engineered to be a superior human, was smart enough to reason it true based on logical metrics, and was rejected by the planet and society that created him.


Conclusion:  Khan was a Reaver.
 
2013-03-30 11:08:01 AM  

clambam: The original Star Wars movies were epic and myth-infused. It's too bad Lucas didn't start immediately on the next set of movies after he finished "Return of the Jedi" because the original creative spark was obviously long gone before "Episode 1" hit the screen.


Lucas didn't create the first movies in a vacuum.  His (ex) wife was a kick ass editor and he didn't direct the second and third movies focusing instead on building his business. He should of just stuck to crafting stories and leave the heavy lifting to talented directors (see Indiana Jones).

/and people forget that roddenberry was removed from any direct involvement in Star Trek after the relatively poor showing of the first movie and what was delivered in the second movie is still one of the best Star Trek movies ever made
 
2013-03-30 11:14:07 AM  

Mister Peejay: I eat mop: for all the talking points, only one of the debate topics conclusively demonstrates differences between the two series:

FTFA: Round 1: Nature vs. Nurture
They say Vader was someone who was turned bad by circumstance whereas Khan was someone who was born bad by genetics, and then somehow conclude that the Vader story is more compelling because it reminds us of the complexity of humans (yawn - emphasis added)

Well....

Vader wasn't some ordinary person.  He was born of a slave woman with no father - and the soon-to-be-Emperor all but stated outright that he manipulated the Force to do it.  Everything that happened was strictly for the purpose of creating the ultimate Sith to serve under him.  Everything was happening, so they say, by his design.


No way I am rewatching them, but do you have any links that highlight where he hinted at that?
 
2013-03-30 11:30:21 AM  

Mister Peejay: starsrift: FTFA: Round 1: Nature vs. Nurture...
...we now know that the villainous Darth Vader was not always bad. But the greatest villain of "Star Trek," Khan Noonan Singh, was literally born bad-a product of genetic engineering who believed himself superior to lesser men. So, which is the better story?

No, you fatuous idiots. If you were truely a fan of both sci-fi's, you would know that Khan was genetically engineered to be a superior human, was smart enough to reason it true based on logical metrics, and was rejected by the planet and society that created him.

Conclusion:  Khan was a Reaver.


i1.kym-cdn.com

/I had a good ME related one, but damn you Fark size limits!
 
2013-03-30 12:05:35 PM  
liam76:

No way I am rewatching them, but do you have any links that highlight where he hinted at that?

You and me both, but when Palpatine was explaining who the Sith were to Anakin, he said something to the effect of "Powerful Sith were even able to create life from the Force."

He also mentioned something about how that one was the most recent Sith leader-guy until he was killed by his apprentice.  So maybe it wasn't Palpatine who did it, but rather the Sith he apprenticed under and subsequently killed.
 
2013-03-30 12:16:53 PM  
The complex character development of Anakin Skywalker, as he is seduced to the dark side:
i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-30 12:17:54 PM  

Mister Peejay: liam76:

No way I am rewatching them, but do you have any links that highlight where he hinted at that?

You and me both, but when Palpatine was explaining who the Sith were to Anakin, he said something to the effect of "Powerful Sith were even able to create life from the Force."

He also mentioned something about how that one was the most recent Sith leader-guy until he was killed by his apprentice.  So maybe it wasn't Palpatine who did it, but rather the Sith he apprenticed under and subsequently killed.


Never picked up on that, danka.
 
2013-03-30 12:32:25 PM  
Khan wasn't a sand-hating, bland, kid-killing whiner. Advantage: Trek.
 
2013-03-30 12:47:55 PM  

starsrift: No, you fatuous idiots. If you were truely a fan of both sci-fi's, you would know that Khan was genetically engineered to be a superior human, was smart enough to reason it true based on logical metrics, and was rejected by the planet and society that created him. His villainy in his first appearance on the TOS Trek is a result of a lifetime where "normal" humans have proven duplicitous and impossible to trust, and he also has a quite reasonable desire for vengeance, if misdirected. He wasn't "born bad", the whole humanist approach of that episode is to say that nurture is more important than nature - and nurture had failed Singh.


Starsrift you ignorant slut.

While there were a few non-canon novels written about Khan's childhood, not a thing about his upbringing was mentioned in the episode.  When Spock relates the Eugenics Wars, he states flat-out that the problem was "superior ability breeds superior ambition".  Many augments staged coups and conquered territories and then immediately started fighting each other.  You'd have to adopt a pretty unorthodox definition of "bad" to say that the augments weren't necessarily bad to think of themselves as the natural-born masters of the human herd and that bombing entire populations out of existence (Spock's description again) was a legitimate way to establish the top dog.  There is no duplicity and no "nurture failed Singh" to the global population refusing to be subjugated (quoting ol' pointy-ears again) "like a team of animals under one whip".  Yeah, there were no atrocities under Khan's rule, but there was just as little freedom.   Aw, poor sad socially-rejected Khan, the misunderstood wannabe-Ceasar.  If there is a humanist message, it is that humans are fine the way we are now; we don't need to try and breed a superior race to get Star Trek's optimistic future society.
 
2013-03-30 12:48:43 PM  

Sweet Chin Music: Khan wasn't a sand-hating, bland, kid-killing whiner. Advantage: Trek.


And he had good taste in literature.

/have you ever read Milton, Captain?
 
2013-03-30 12:51:30 PM  

Son of Thunder: Sweet Chin Music: Khan wasn't a sand-hating, bland, kid-killing whiner. Advantage: Trek.

And he had good taste in literature.

/have you ever read Milton, Captain?


It's funny how in my lifetime, as a kid, Star Trek went from something geeky that got you looked down upon, to something more "respectable" than Star Wars, which everyone loved when I was a kid.
 
2013-03-30 12:58:24 PM  
No mention of how Star Wars is an Air Force culture, while Star Trek was Naval?

/Old observation, but fundamental.
 
2013-03-30 01:32:46 PM  

abb3w: No mention of how Star Wars is an Air Force culture, while Star Trek was Naval?

/Old observation, but fundamental.


Other than the ranks/structure, how so?
 
2013-03-30 01:56:44 PM  

FloydA: The complex character development of Anakin Skywalker, as he is seduced to the dark side:
[i105.photobucket.com image 402x640]


Now, go kill some children!
 
2013-03-30 02:05:06 PM  

blue_2501: FloydA: The complex character development of Anakin Skywalker, as he is seduced to the dark side:
[i105.photobucket.com image 402x640]

Now, go kill some children!


It makes sense that he would kill all of those children, seeing as how he was motivated by his love for his own wife and unborn children.

/I wouldn't let Lucas write the plot to a street sign.
 
2013-03-30 02:22:11 PM  
The main difference in the 2 franchises,

In Star Trek the group that wanted to rule over everyone because they claim to know better what to do for you than you do was the protagonists, the Federation.

In Star Wars the group that wanted to rule over everyone because they claim to know better what to do for you than you do was the antagonists, the Galactic Empire.

Knowing what I know of human nature sadly I have to say that the Star Wars version is the reality, the Star Trek version is a pipe dream
 
2013-03-30 02:23:05 PM  

blue_2501: FloydA: The complex character development of Anakin Skywalker, as he is seduced to the dark side:
[i105.photobucket.com image 402x640]

Now, go kill some children!


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-30 03:32:30 PM  
i172.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-30 03:39:10 PM  

Oldiron_79: The main difference in the 2 franchises,

In Star Trek the group that wanted to rule over everyone because they claim to know better what to do for you than you do was the protagonists, the Federation.

In Star Wars the group that wanted to rule over everyone because they claim to know better what to do for you than you do was the antagonists, the Galactic Empire.

Knowing what I know of human nature sadly I have to say that the Star Wars version is the reality, the Star Trek version is a pipe dream


Neither.  It's Firefly, where the protagonists lost the war.
 
2013-03-30 03:49:35 PM  

blue_2501: Oldiron_79: The main difference in the 2 franchises,

In Star Trek the group that wanted to rule over everyone because they claim to know better what to do for you than you do was the protagonists, the Federation.

In Star Wars the group that wanted to rule over everyone because they claim to know better what to do for you than you do was the antagonists, the Galactic Empire.

Knowing what I know of human nature sadly I have to say that the Star Wars version is the reality, the Star Trek version is a pipe dream

Neither.  It's Firefly, where the protagonists lost the war.


Yes, but that clouds the whole SW/ST discussion by dragging a third series into the discussion.
 
2013-03-30 04:00:40 PM  

imfallen_angel: [i478.photobucket.com image 378x480]
/obligatory


Whoever made that is a complete idiot.
 
2013-03-30 04:15:18 PM  
So no one who contributed to this article saw, and/or understood any of the material they were writing about.
 
2013-03-30 07:47:47 PM  

blue_2501: FloydA: The complex character development of Anakin Skywalker, as he is seduced to the dark side:
[i105.photobucket.com image 402x640]

Now, go kill some children!


"No."

"sudo go kill some children."

"Okay."
 
2013-03-30 08:54:38 PM  

Oldiron_79: blue_2501: Oldiron_79: The main difference in the 2 franchises,

In Star Trek the group that wanted to rule over everyone because they claim to know better what to do for you than you do was the protagonists, the Federation.

In Star Wars the group that wanted to rule over everyone because they claim to know better what to do for you than you do was the antagonists, the Galactic Empire.

Knowing what I know of human nature sadly I have to say that the Star Wars version is the reality, the Star Trek version is a pipe dream

Neither.  It's Firefly, where the protagonists lost the war.

Yes, but that clouds the whole SW/ST discussion by dragging a third series into the discussion.


True, but in both series, the good guys win.  The good guys never win.  Good guys may have small victories, but ultimately, evil and apathy will always trump good.
 
2013-03-30 09:09:38 PM  
blue_2501:
True, but in both series, the good guys win.  The good guys never win.  Good guys may have small victories, but ultimately, evil and apathy will always trump good.

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-30 09:40:10 PM  
Mister Peejay: blue_2501:
True, but in both series, the good guys win.  The good guys never win.  Good guys may have small victories, but ultimately, evil and apathy will always trump good.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]


Because Good is dumb.

blue_2501: Oldiron_79: blue_2501: Oldiron_79: The main difference in the 2 franchises,

In Star Trek the group that wanted to rule over everyone because they claim to know better what to do for you than you do was the protagonists, the Federation.

In Star Wars the group that wanted to rule over everyone because they claim to know better what to do for you than you do was the antagonists, the Galactic Empire.

Knowing what I know of human nature sadly I have to say that the Star Wars version is the reality, the Star Trek version is a pipe dream

Neither.  It's Firefly, where the protagonists lost the war.

Yes, but that clouds the whole SW/ST discussion by dragging a third series into the discussion.

True, but in both series, the good guys win.  The good guys never win.  Good guys may have small victories, but ultimately, evil and apathy will always trump good.


Yes, well the Alliance while definitely bad, weren't like full space Nazi like the Empire or full space Attilla the Hun like the Klingons, they was kinda like the corrupt version of the Federation (or the U.S. govt in real life)
 
2013-03-31 04:22:13 AM  
I'm not 100% familiar with the 'Verse for Firefly, but how exactly was the central Alliance 'evil' in general? There's the experimentation done on River Tam, as well as Miranda - but as far as I know, there's nothing supporting that they were central policies as opposed to rogue agents within the government. The Senator that River got the information on Miranda from may have just been part of the oversight committee that investigated the situation.

One could argue that the Unification war was 'evil', but we don't have the full backstory on the early colonization of the system. It may be that part of the charter for the original settlements included, as soon as was able, a central governmental body - or even one from the start - and the Alliance was just then getting around to actually enforcing it's claims that the original founders of the outworlds had agreed to.

I don't necessarily subscribe to that view, just positing it's possibility. If a United World Government gave colonization charters to expeditions to colonize worlds in other systems, those charters would also include other bodies in said systems. IE, if we sent out a colony with a charter for Earth, any colonies that spring up on Mars, Venus, Europa, or Titan would also fall under said charter, under legal precedent.

But going back to Star Wars vs Star Trek, yes... I would see that the Federation is US Democrat vision of what a government can do, while the Empire is a US Republican vision of what government can do.
 
2013-03-31 10:49:30 AM  

liam76: Other than the ranks/structure, how so?


It's mainly the structure -- in ST, a clear chain of command, orders flowing out and information flowing back; in SW, more a "top gun" pilot mentality, and emphasis on individual initiative and skill rather than personal responsibility.

Granted, I'm not military myself, so I'm not sure how much more there is to it.
 
2013-03-31 05:55:35 PM  

blue_2501: Oldiron_79: The main difference in the 2 franchises,

In Star Trek the group that wanted to rule over everyone because they claim to know better what to do for you than you do was the protagonists, the Federation.

In Star Wars the group that wanted to rule over everyone because they claim to know better what to do for you than you do was the antagonists, the Galactic Empire.

Knowing what I know of human nature sadly I have to say that the Star Wars version is the reality, the Star Trek version is a pipe dream

Neither.  It's Firefly, where the protagonists lost the war.


Firefly is the period after the US civil war IN SPACE.
 
2013-03-31 07:49:01 PM  
Mister Peejay: blue_2501: Oldiron_79: The main difference in the 2 franchises,

In Star Trek the group that wanted to rule over everyone because they claim to know better what to do for you than you do was the protagonists, the Federation.

In Star Wars the group that wanted to rule over everyone because they claim to know better what to do for you than you do was the antagonists, the Galactic Empire.

Knowing what I know of human nature sadly I have to say that the Star Wars version is the reality, the Star Trek version is a pipe dream

Neither.  It's Firefly, where the protagonists lost the war.

Firefly is the period after the US civil war IN SPACE.


Yeah, Firefly is pretty much The Outlaw Josey Whales INNNNNN SPAAAAAACE
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report