posted
Roddenberry effectively used the resources he had to make a series with several others following, and an eventual movie franchise. Lucas on the other hand, first took the movie approach. The way I see it is that beginning with a series first as Roddenberry did is a much better strategy than movies…sure you might think that star wars has a larger gross in movies but that doesn’t account for episode VHS that trek offers. What Roddenberry's has done in making a series first is ensure continuity anyway this thread is not about who’s better...who am I kidding...well just try to humor Wars a little. Star trek once a week and a movie once every three or so years Vs star wars once every as an average eight years. The fact is the Star Wars story line is somewhat blurry in comparison to Star Trek. What Trek has on the other hand is a bold outline of events; it is an idea on what the future of a society could be like. A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away Vs. Seek out new life and new civilizations to boldly go where no man has gone before…
posted
And yet the Star Wars movies do much better in the theaters then Star Trek films, essentially ruining your theory that a TV show equals higher movie grosses (I don't think the X-Files film did all that well either, did it?)
BTW: I had to re-read your post like five times before I figured out what the hell you were saying. Try to be more clear, okay?
posted
Snay--the X-files movie made around $80 million domestically, so it was a hit on a certain level, but no where near Star Wars.
I have to say I like Star Wars better than Star Trek. It may be because I grew up with it longer than Trek, or that I think Star Wars is written better (dodges rocks of people who disagree). I like Star Trek, but not as much as Star Wars.
posted
Star Trek at its best is quality hard s-f. At its worst, Trek is pop-culture pablum. But all of it, even the movies, is the victim of the episodic mentality -- that the status quo be maintained form installment to installment. Big things may happen, but the core characters and ship are back to where they were at the beginning by the end. Even Star Trek II and III, if you look at them as the two-parter they are. The only significant changes have been the refit of the original Enterprise (and the destruction of same), and the destruction of the TNG Enterprise. And both for the same reason -- the TV miniature wasn't detailed enough for the big screen.
Star Wars, on the other hand, is space opera or epic poetry. It's the ancient heroic monomyth set in a science-fiction-y universe. There's no moral, no commentary on contemporary cultural issues. It's just a mythic cycle writ large for latter-20th-century audiences.
...And Star Wars films come out every three years, not counting the gap between the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Star Trek at its best is quality hard s-f. At its worst, Trek is pop-culture pablum.
I'm sorry, but did I miss the hearing on this matter at the axiom approval commission?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Didn't someone once say that Star Trek and Star Wars only exist so that we continue to appreciate Babylon 5?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
