Why is Star Trek such garbage compared to Star Wars?

fukking Lawl!

dude, wars is 'le force' 'le luke' fantasy shit

trek is science fiction, ethics and morality, philosopher's stone type-a-shit

This thread is contrarian cancer

Honestly both are pretty bad and the fact that they are the biggest "sci-fi" series out there tells wonders of the current state of the genre

Tip your fedora any harder and your dominant snack hand might break, faggot.

>Star Trek is bad
>post-millennials really believe this

explain. Since this board tends to stroke it to starwars movies and has containment threads for trek, this thread seems very in line with the taste of this board.

So how is it contrarian?

They even started using Enterprise to hide their threads in so their threads would stop getting massive amounts of shitposters fucking their threads up.

And yet Klingons, Vulcans and Borg are far more memorable than any Star Wars alien because creativity is more than make-up.
Also there are plenty of non-humanoid Star Trek aliens (Trill, 9472, Xindi, the list goes on).

I actually like this new star trek movies more than star wars.

>pol
>Starwars
>is against capitalism but for transcending cultural boundaries (or vice versa)
Probably even a mobile poster.

That's okay, it's because it's the better movie.

>how is a board about "Star Trek sucks" contrarian?
You must be new here or have bad reading comprehension skills. Im gonna go and guess both.

>space dwarves - tellerites - space elves - vulcans etc

Twileks/Hutts alone are as well known. I would say in interest of fairness though starwars is space fantasy and star trek has space fantasy elements, they're not fair to compare them considering one is more vastly popular than the other.

The newest star trek movie isn't even trek and it failed to make money.

Disney is making a starwars movie every year now.

You are provoking massive shit posts and macros from him. Not that I do not agree with you.

>The newest star trek movie isn't even trek and it failed to make money.
Stop lying, it made money.

>Also there are plenty of non-humanoid Star Trek aliens (Trill, 9472, Xindi, the list goes on).

there really aren't. also Trills are humanoid (the symbionts don't count, they're almost never on screen and don't have lines)

I do not think you understood my post at all, Star Trek TNG did use a capitalist allegory as something to make fun of and call backwards. I do not attend Cred Forums and am very much against socialism but my bias was pretty plain to read when I pointed out 'post-scarcity' socialism and the fact that I'm aware of things in trek and starwars and made a comparison that went above your head, apparently.

Yeah everyone shitted on Beyond because of F&F guy directing it but I had more fun watching it than any SW movie ever.

Because Star Trek was only revived as a franchise following the success of the first (fourth) Star Wars movie.

It is like asking why Buck Rodgers isn't as good as Star Wars.

My favorite fact about star trek: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police did a study where they found that 97% of people arrested for sex crimes with children had Star Trek memorabilia in their residence.

look at this guy not old enough to remember the Star Trek movie where they went on a search for God. Start Trek V I believe.

>Trills are space dwarves
>Twileks/Hutts alone are as well known.
Pic related. Also you even missspelled Twi'lek.
>The newest star trek movie isn't even trek and it failed to make money.
I have been watching Star Trek since before I could read and it was the most "Star Treky" movie since Resurrection. It also made enough money to warrant a sequel.

not according to those websites that track money that movies make. It is still in negative by about 50 million or so.

But they're using the double the budget for advertising metrics so it could be off a little.

I don't think you understand what the word 'contrarian' means. To be contrary is arguing that society as a whole views star trek favorably when it cannot even produce a movie that is by even other Trektards as something to be hated..and still can't make money.

Star Trek will always be niche. So I'm arguing the board is representative and accurate when discussing Star trek and share of threads it gets is accurate and representative down the line to people shit posting against it.

if people were wildly defending Star trek to the tune of saying it was the best thing ever, then it would be contrarian.

Technically you're being a contrarian contrarian. I'm not even sure that is a thing beyond the double negative.

TNG aired in 89

>The Trill (or Trills) were a humanoid species native to the planet Trill
>were
How many lines did the Twi'leks have? Like 5? Pic related had more, Q had more, Sheliaks had more, the thing that killed Jar had more etc. The fact they the toy industry milked the shit out of every small alien that ever appeared in Star Wars doesn't make the aliens creative or memorable. It just proves how effective marketing toys to 5 year old kids can be.

>the movie before that was a huge hit even with a weird plot
>the movie after that is still cherished by fans
They made 6 movies out of TOS and only one is flat out bad.

Post the source of the graph, link?

I sure 'missspelled' huh? before you try correcting people, proof-read first.

inquisitr.com/3409505/its-official-star-trek-beyond-is-a-box-office-flop/

forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2016/08/12/why-star-trek-beyond-hasnt-hit-warp-speed-at-the-box-office/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

screenrant.com/star-trek-beyond-box-office-success-failure/

There must be 500 articles talking about 'diminishing returns' and the fact that star trek even in comparison with 09' movie is a flop.

Yet I have people telling me otherwise.

Trekfags are naturally more retarded about this because they dropped substantually more time and mental interest primarily because Star Trek is a TV show.

Starwarsfags on the other hand are the festival-goers of Sci-Fi. And are better because they appreciate their shit for what it is rather than trying to hype it to be something it isn't.

>not according to those websites that track money that movies make. It is still in negative by about 50 million or so.
>which I am unable to post cause I am a retarded liar

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_bombs

Scroll down to Star trek beyond.

>he doesn't know about google n-gram
Read your own damn "articles."
>While Star Trek Beyond probably won’t make as much (particularly domestically) as the first two movies, it is not a disaster in any meaning of the word. It will get a nice boost at the very end of the summer from its international rollout, which will push the film into the realm of profitability.
latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-china-box-office-20160913-snap-story.html
variety.com/2016/film/asia/star-trek-beyond-international-box-office-secret-life-of-pets-1201857606/

It sure looks they broke even if you don't rely on articles from fucking August.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_bombs
The math is actually wrong there and the assumption always is that 150+ million are spend on marketing it seems. Pretty unreliable numbers if you ask me.

>have an episode of discussing politics.
This. People want to praise Star Trek for being so mature and focusing on relevant topics but really it's pretty telling that some people need to learn about politics and social problems by watching a sci-fi program about aliens.

>TNG aired in 89

first star trek movie was greenlit because of the success of SW. Show had been cancelled for a decade.

Captain. I recommend a full spread of torpedoes!

everyone is using the same hollywood math user. Especially the breakdowns for theater chains/studio cut, tax incentives etc. The only truly unknown is the actual budget break down for the advertising.

if you're saying everyone is wrong though, then you cannot argue they made a profit either since profits are calculated in the same way.

So then we might as well just talk about our feelings.

like I get that you're memeing but this is "literally" the most sensible course of action always

What? Are you saying I'm not old enough? What? Nigga I love that one. They almost casted Sean Connery for the role of thst one Vulcan, Spoc's brother. Did you know that, faggot?

user how accurate could analytics be that they're basing data on things that existed before the modern internet. How would you even collate something like that.

Just use their search engine to scan the internet it has access to? Posting analytics without a reasonable measure to talk about could be the same as making the bar graph yourself.

>I still dont know what contrarian means
>I have no knowledge of Star Trek

Go back to r/Cred Forums you degenerate tourist. You need to do better research

>posts an accurate example of how the person posting to my post doesn't make sense by the very definition of the word

>memes anyway

The only one not making sense, is you friendo. Thanks for visiting

which was the one where they all wore suits that looked like they were made out of thick-gage velour? Like what you would find on an 89 Olds Cutlass bench seat. And turtlenecks so their old man turkey gobblers didn't show.

Star Trek 4?

>Supreme Chancellor, delegates of the Senate. A tragedy has occured which began right here with the taxation of trade
routes, and has now engulfed our entire planet in the oppresion of the
Trade Federation.

Fuck me i was so excited with this thrilling political dialogue truely oscar winning dialogue

for some fucked up reason, the F&F guy made a great star trek flick.

I don't know what to think anymore.

...

Is this from one of the logh movies or the series?

So basically start wars and Star trek are to what marvel and DC are.

>tfw to intelligent

Sure thing, buddy.

Source

The series, I think.

"Commander, tell me about your sexual organs."

Episode 51 of the show

Never watched Star Trek before where should I start Trekkie bros?

TOS is great, but younglings have trouble getting into the 1960's vibe of it. Only three seasons, but a bunch of movies, some being great, some being not so great.
TNG is also a good starting point if you can't handle TOS. Probably the most accessible to a new watcher, but I'd still recommend TOS if you can handle it.
DS9 is often regarded as the best star trek, but should really be watched after you've seen TNG. Has some pretty large season spanning stories, so isn't that great for random episode watching. Best side characters, and villains of all Star trek.
Voyager is the weakest of the treks, but very entry level friendly. Underlings around these parts got into trek when this show was on the air. Half the cast is made out of cardboard, and while the weakest star trek, is perfectly enjoyable.
Enterprise is a terrible place to start, but worth watching once you have seen a good amount of the rest. Got shafted by the network, and lacks resolution. Feels the most different of the Star Treks, but not in a bad way.
I haven't actually seen the animated series, but as I understand it is pretty good if you are in need of more of the Original series. Been on my backlog for far too long.

Worth noting is that they mostly start off at their worst, and get better with age, with TNG being notorious of being guilty of this.

Pic related is a list of both in universe order, and release order if you're after some chronological sense.

i agree with this user.

TNG is superior in every way to TOS. You are just a nostalgia faggot. TNG has some of the best writing in all of Trek

Prove me wrong. Give me a TOS episode better than Measure of a Man

>DS9 is best trek
>watch TOS if you can handle it (((tips fedora)))

What a wrong and pretentious shithole you are

youtube.com/watch?v=gd5yB9Vmd6I

pretty much this

Star Trek also has some of the worst fans in its fanbase, but most of it is just shitposting bait

Are you saying im shitposting with my opinion just now?

They're identical.

When your opinion is that shitty, every post you make is a shitpost.

Whats shitty exactly with saying that TNG is a better written show and possibly the best version of Trek we will ever get?

>tfw
youtube.com/watch?v=nrizm2gnQBo

>trek is science fiction, ethics and morality, philosopher's stone type-a-shit
but the latter movies are just Space Fast'n'Furious

I never understood why is Start Trek so popular.
I saw few episodes on TV and it was boring as hell, and felt very pretentious.

Star Wars is shit, but at least they have interesting things like Force and lightsabers. You can watch Clone Wars just for the action alone, and have good time.

>interesting
>light sabers

They're literally just space swords

>They're literally just space swords

which is still more interesting to watch a swordfight than someone in a uniform talk to the camera and say "fire photon torpedoes"!

youtube.com/watch?v=hLrmyv-gFJ4

>star wars
Science fiction take on classical tales oh heroes, wise men, good and evil - basic themes found through out history
>star trek
A utopian vision of the future that discusses ethics and politics, but does dip into camp space fun because it knows how to balance the serious with the silly
Both are good, both are different, if they didn't have the word Star at the beginning of their names you wouldn't fucking compare them so much

Ones entertainment value comes from action scenes and artistic creativity

While the others entertainment value comes from dialogue scenes and conceptual creativity.

Only someone who looks at them at the most superficial aesthetic level would compare them. They have different audiences with different interests.

Basically this.

The most exciting star trek ever got was someone jamming a squib in a plastic space cube. Star trek was never about excitement. You don't give the simpsons a hard time for not being exciting, because its not trying to excite you, its trying to make you laugh.

>someone jamming a squib in a plastic space cube

They both have really interesting production stories too. The hurdles Star Wars faced were purely with the content production, that it was expensive and hot and shit kept breaking and it wouldn't look right in editing, all that. It took one hell of a team to churn out New Hope way back then. Star Trek on the other hand seemed to have a people problem, it was a production nightmare in the sense that the higher-ups were breathing down their necks while they tried to produce something they technically didn't have the means to do so.

star wars focuses on selling toys that's it. every decision is based on if it will sell toys.

It seems to be a general problem with most sci fi shows for some reason.
I suppose 1. Making wildly original content is expensive and 2. making wildly original content makes executives nervous.

user you're right, but If I wanted good dialogue and conceptual creativity Star Trek would be the last place to look.

The thing is, it's hard to take seriously show where people dressed up in pyjamas are talking about intergalactic politics.

I would watch new BSG. At least they have proper uniforms and act as an actual soldiers and politicians.

Star Wars from 1977 revolves entirely around a political conflict, it even begins with a diplomatic vessel being chased by imperial agents.

star wars is about the rise and fall of democracy 100% politics

Weird I actually got to the opposite conclusion.

I actually found the tense moments during star trek space battles far more exciting than the giant space battles in star wars where shit kept exploding every second.

Hell, some of the best space battles in Star Trek are the ones where neither side ever fires a single shot.

Those moments when the crew encounters a unknown ship with unkown intentions are the best parts for me.

yeah and jj abrams made a complete average star wars movie after literally making star trek reboot and sequel into fucking star wars

does my head in

One is asian, one is a corporate jew. Jews fear the samurai user.

>implying OP isn't wrong

they're both shit enjoyed only by plebs

Star Trek is nerd shit
Star Wars is for who call themselves " muh nerd" shit.

both are shit .

Would also like to know source

try following the responses

title