Off Topic Circle Jerk

Started by quanchi1121,317 pages

Originally posted by -Pr-
That's not an accurate comparison, though. Star Trek has tons of books and comics too, but when it comes down to it, It's a primarily television based piece of media. Star Wars is a movie one. That might not be fair when we're talking quantity, but that doesn't change the facts.
Star Trek has more movies and a reboot movie with another one on the way. Giving Star Trek seasons of their tv shows makes things drastically unfair compared to Star Wars movies alone. I didn't include the cartoon clone ways for Star Wars either.

If you're going to go ST films vs SW films, just use the MVF.

I must warn you though, the Reman Scimitar alone could likely take out an armada of Star Destroyers.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're going to go ST films vs SW films, just use the MVF.
That's what I was planning but I put it out there in a few other places so it increases my chances to catch a fly in my web.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Star Trek has more movies and a reboot movie with another one on the way. Giving Star Trek seasons of their tv shows makes things drastically unfair compared to Star Wars movies alone. I didn't include the cartoon clone ways for Star Wars either.

Star Trek movies aren't the same as Star Wars movies, though.

Star Wars movies were the primary story-telling mechanic for that franchise. Star Trek movies on the other hand, are an excuse to get the crew back together for a (usually PIS filled) adventure.

For example the Enterprise D. If we took it on movies alone, it would be, well, shit.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Star Trek movies aren't the same as Star Wars movies, though.

Star Wars movies were the primary story-telling mechanic for that franchise. Star Trek movies on the other hand, are an excuse to get the crew back together for a (usually PIS filled) adventure.

For example the Enterprise D. If we took it on movies alone, it would be, well, shit.


Excellent point. The star trek next gen films were steaming piles of plotholes compared to the show. One of the films was actually almost on par with the show in terms of special effects, lol.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Star Trek movies aren't the same as Star Wars movies, though.

Star Wars movies were the primary story-telling mechanic for that franchise. Star Trek movies on the other hand, are an excuse to get the crew back together for a (usually PIS filled) adventure.

For example the Enterprise D. If we took it on movies alone, it would be, well, shit.

Still have the Borg. They still have the reboot which infuses much needed action in this lame franchise.

Originally posted by quanchi112
That's what I was planning but I put it out there in a few other places so it increases my chances to catch a fly in my web.

I must warn you though, the Reman Scimitar alone could likely take out an armada of Star Destroyers.

Originally posted by omgchos
Excellent point. The star trek next gen films were steaming piles of plotholes compared to the show. One of the films was actually almost on par with the show in terms of special effects, lol.

👆

Originally posted by quanchi112
Still have the Borg. They still have the reboot which infuses much needed action in this lame franchise.

And the reason for you wanting the thread is revealed. Not surprised, tbh.

Originally posted by -Pr-
👆

And the reason for you wanting the thread is revealed. Not surprised, tbh.

I like comparing different universes. I guess you think the movies only Star Wars dominates.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I like comparing different universes. I guess you think the movies only Star Wars dominates.

Obviously.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I like comparing different universes. I guess you think the movies only Star Wars dominates.

If you go by quantity, the star trek movies have much more working against them. If you by quality, star treks never been one for sppecial effects pioneering but the origional movies (at least 2, 4, and 6) had great charcters and great actors portraying them. Max Von Sydow, and Carl Montlebaun. However in as honoring the source material goes id say Star Wars fell horribly short with the prequels.

Originally posted by omgchos
If you go by quantity, the star trek movies have much more working against them. If you by quality, star treks never been one for sppecial effects pioneering but the origional movies (at least 2, 4, and 6) had great charcters and great actors portraying them. Max Von Sydow, and Carl Montlebaun. However in as honoring the source material goes id say Star Wars fell horribly short with the prequels.
The only thing I liked aboutu Star Trek honestly was the reboot. The original films are a chore to get through but I will give them Spock being character I can respect.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The only thing I liked aboutu Star Trek honestly was the reboot. The original films are a chore to get through but I will give them Spock being character I can respect.

You weren't watching the right ones, then.

Originally posted by -Pr-
You weren't watching the right ones, then.
I've seen almost every single one. They mostly sucked. Granted some I haven't seen in years upon years all the older ones but the new generation movie ones were awful.

Next generation.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I've seen almost every single one. They mostly sucked. Granted some I haven't seen in years upon years all the older ones but the new generation movie ones were awful.

facepalm

Originally posted by quanchi112
I've seen almost every single one. They mostly sucked. Granted some I haven't seen in years upon years all the older ones but the new generation movie ones were awful.

Yeah im going to needyou to go back and watch the even numbered origionals.... yeah.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Next generation.
Originally posted by -Pr-
facepalm
A typo. If you guys posted as much as I did then maybe you'd realize.

Nah. Just admit you've not seen any and are arguing out of ignorance again. It's okay, no one expects less of you.