addictionary
Well-Known Member
#DatPoliticalResponse
A Guy Just Said to me that Star Wars...
- Thread starter addictionary
- Start date
If I had to choose I'd say star wars for the more immersive world. But I'm not a fanatic of either.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Um Are you ok? Srsly the dreaded Utah winter hasn't even hit us yet.
I'm a star trek guy as to these two franchises. That said:
The distinction isn't in which babble you like better (Star Wars demonstrates pretty conclusively that magic and science are indistinguishable from one another in this genre of fiction). It's what kind of story you want.
Star Wars has approx. 16 hours of total running time. It tells one generationally long epic story. That story is largely about a handful of important characters and is dressed up in a conflict about a civil war (the real trilogy) and some kind of merchant trade conflict (the second garbage pile). That story is what it is.
Star Trek has hundreds of hours of content spread across different centuries and characters that have loose connections to one another across those series. It not only has hundreds of episodes of television but a dozen movies on top of that, two of which take place in an alternate timeline. Fundamentally it's an anthology show. It exists to have one hour that's a courtroom drama, one hour that's a casino heist, and one hour that's a retelling of Casablanca starring Ferengi. Then hundreds more hours about all different topics at varying levels of serialization. It is doing something totally different than Star Wars.
The two, in my opinion, aren't even remotely comparable. We can talk about each of them on their own merits but the comparison as to each other is nonsensical.
The distinction isn't in which babble you like better (Star Wars demonstrates pretty conclusively that magic and science are indistinguishable from one another in this genre of fiction). It's what kind of story you want.
Star Wars has approx. 16 hours of total running time. It tells one generationally long epic story. That story is largely about a handful of important characters and is dressed up in a conflict about a civil war (the real trilogy) and some kind of merchant trade conflict (the second garbage pile). That story is what it is.
Star Trek has hundreds of hours of content spread across different centuries and characters that have loose connections to one another across those series. It not only has hundreds of episodes of television but a dozen movies on top of that, two of which take place in an alternate timeline. Fundamentally it's an anthology show. It exists to have one hour that's a courtroom drama, one hour that's a casino heist, and one hour that's a retelling of Casablanca starring Ferengi. Then hundreds more hours about all different topics at varying levels of serialization. It is doing something totally different than Star Wars.
The two, in my opinion, aren't even remotely comparable. We can talk about each of them on their own merits but the comparison as to each other is nonsensical.
Spare me.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I'm not trollin you.
Oh, you're legitimately concerned about my health then?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I asked if you were ok. I'm honestly not trying to provoke you.
In that case, yes. I am okay. Thanks for asking. And how are things with you?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Meh. Lookin for change but I really can't complain too much.
That's not much of a lunch! I had spinach and feta puff pastries and a pear.