FX-SW or STAR TREK-Which is better, IYO?

[Voyager recruit 0]

So, which of these sf powerhouses rocks the galaxies in your view best-from a purely technical standpoint-not as a fan of the genre(s) per se...

[Takara_Soong 4]

From a technical point of view, I think Trek is superior because Trek actually takes into account real science. I don't recall ever hearing about an SW film having a science advisor, for example. Having said that I don't really think of Star Wars as being sci-fi but more fantasy that takes place in space.

[GhostofMajorHayes 10]

I gotta go with Star Wars. There was only light speed in SW, which I thought was more realistic than warp speed and trans warp drive. I liked the SW characters a bit more because they had more depth despite limited screen time. I love them both. Imo, though SW gets my vote. :lol:

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Though a lot of people like to compare the 2, I don't think it's a fair comparison. They're both SciFi and take place in space but really they're different. Star Trek is supposed to be "reality based", meaning if you were able to sort of look down upon all of real human history in one glance you'd see where we are right now, where we've been in the past and Star Trek would be our future. With Star Wars it's totally fiction based. No Earth, no "humans" (at least I don't think they call themselves human in Star Wars) and fictional planets.

 

Also, outside of that Star Trek (for the most part) is a TV show with over 700 hours of live action, a feature animated series and 10 (soon 11) feature films. With that kind of "back story" it's hard for a franchise of only 6 feature films and an animated movie (is there also a series?) to compare. If you just went by total running time there's 6 Star Wars movies compared to the equivalence of about 350 Star Trek movies (assuming each movie would be 2 hours long).

 

For me though, it's not a matter of which is better. I really like both.

[Voyager recruit 0]

Oh, well...I like both , also. I was a huge sw fan. But, 'twould seem I dropped the ball on this subject; an idea too-quickly conceived;shrug. I will give myself a C-minus for effort, though! Better luck next time....

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

Wars has the better effects.

 

You have to remember that Industrial Light and Magic does the effects for both Trek and Wars. Obviously George Lucas isn't going to give away his best effects technologies to a competing franchise.

[Takara_Soong 4]

Wars has the better effects.

 

You have to remember that Industrial Light and Magic does the effects for both Trek and Wars. Obviously George Lucas isn't going to give away his best effects technologies to a competing franchise.

 

Plus the budget for FX for the Star Wars movies was probably more than the total budget of any Trek movie. That makes a huge difference.

[Bethlehem 7]

First tell me what the FX stands for. I have to agree with VGB they are both good, Star Trek has more to choose from.

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

In terms of special effects, original SW trilogy > Star Trek > prequel SW trilogy

[Bethlehem 7]

Thanks, now I understand.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

Wars has the better effects.

 

You have to remember that Industrial Light and Magic does the effects for both Trek and Wars. Obviously George Lucas isn't going to give away his best effects technologies to a competing franchise.

 

Plus the budget for FX for the Star Wars movies was probably more than the total budget of any Trek movie. That makes a huge difference.

Not for the original Star Wars (before people started calling it A New Hope). The special effects budget for that was actually quite frugal compared to later works, even adjusting for inflation. It was only after the movie became an unexpected blockbuster hit that Lucas was given more creative control and bigger budgets by his financers (and eventually became self-financing).

Edited March 19, 2009 by Lt. Van Roy

[A l t e r E g o 9]

Wars.

 

That's not to say I thought Treks FX sucked, (well sometimes it did) it just wasn't as good. The new film is going go along way towards evening the score.

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

Maybe it's just me, but I thought the CGI in the SW prequel was incredibly sloppy in places... particularly with the Gunguns.

[Voyager recruit 0]

Okay.....I retract my statement. This is not such a bad choice I made for a topic. Thanks you guys, for weighing in! It does my heart good. Proud I am of you. Heh heh. You are getting to my intent, the technicality of it all...kudos.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

Maybe it's just me, but I thought the CGI in the SW prequel was incredibly sloppy in places... particularly with the Gunguns.

It is hard to differentiate the sloppiness of the Gungan effects relative to the sloppiness of the Gungans themselves.