Entertainment desk
< December 29	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 30

Star Wars vs. Star Trek... why?

Dear Gentlemen

I often see comparisons between the popular science-fiction works Star Wars and Star Trek. My question is, why do people like to compare two totally different works that barely have anything in common? Why does nobody compare Space Patrol and Star Trek, despite that these works are by far more similar (for example: nobody makes a comparison between the Narnia and the Harry Potter books)?--92.105.189.138 (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few seconds over at Google found Harry Potter and the C.S. Lewis's Narnia stories - a brief comparison.. I don't know the answer, but suspect that the reason is that both Star Trek and Star Wars have their devoted (if not obsessive) followers, and they like to try to prove that they're better than the other lot. Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think they "barely have anything in common" then I guess you see a lot of different science fiction. To most people they have many things in common, and they are both popular – that's one of the common things. People generally write far more about popular works. Oh, and WP:WHAAOE: Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a decidedly different "tone" to those respective universes. Star Trek is generally serious and realistic (in a certain way) while Star Wars is strictly action-adventure and almost satirical, or at least an homage. It's like trying to compare The Magnificent Seven with Blazing Saddles. But for each respective pair, there is some commonality, at least at a high level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're two immensely popular franchises in roughly the same genre.(Especially in USA.) And not just popular, but enduring.

That's similarity enough, really. By now, Trek-vs-Wars has become a cultural meme in and of itself, which is why "Star Wars Verses Doctor Who" doesn't have the same cultural power, even though that's an equally valid discussion.

APL (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Star Wars is a lot more like Dr. Who than it is like Star Trek. But they're still within the realm of sci-fi / fantasy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Star Wars and Doctor Who fans clash at Norwich convention - "Police were called to a science fiction convention after an argument between two rival groups of fans. Trouble flared at the fourth Norwich Sci-Fi and Film Convention at the University of East Anglia..." Très drôle. Alansplodge (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that for real? It sounds like a good plotline for Big Bang Theory. "The Nerd Wars!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a very big fan of both sci-fi literature and movies (since I am spending time in europe, I have the chance to read and watch European sci-fi, which is quite interesting). Star Trek is set a few hundred years in the future while Star Wars is set in a fantasy galaxy, like the old Grimm fairy tales. Star Trek is about the exploration of our milky way galaxy, while Star Wars is about the downfall of the old republic and the rise and fall of a galactic empire. @Baseball_Bugs: I do not think that Star Wars was intended as a realistic depiction of space faring, since it is strictly a fantasy movie (much like "Lord of the Rings" does not represent our medieval history).--92.105.189.138 (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Star Wars (the original, at least) is like King Arthur set in outer space. And the Lord of the Rings series as well as the Harry Potter series likewise center on magic and witchcraft (except in Star Wars it's called "The Force"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most of the respondents above are looking at this too closely (and our article, if you can even call it that, is terrible). A distressing amount of speculative fiction is very narrowly focused or incompletely thought out; the writer wants to look at this particular thing or that particular technology. Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas - and their respective creative teams - deliberately tried to make their fictional universes as rich as possible. There are a multitude of species and cultures and languages, with myriad details and idiosyncrasies for fans to pick up on and enjoy. That expansiveness invites people to consider that they could perhaps be joined somehow. ST and SW are not the only fictional universes with detailed histories (LOTR takes that cake, and easily), but they are both futuristic (ignore the "long, long, ago" part), space-faring fictions, with broadly similar technologies. In terms of characterization, it's perhaps true that Star Wars would be easier to compare with, say, The Lord of the Rings than Star Trek, but the conceits are so different that it would be pointless to get into a discussion. It would be like trying to compare the Montreal Canadiens with the New York Yankees; sure, they're the most decorated sports teams in their leagues, but you can't compare catchers to goalies or something. Likewise Strider to Han Solo. Ah, but comparing Solo to Kirk, that's close enough to let you get started... Matt Deres (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt Deres: Your argument is very interesting. It seems that both franchises are (or were) the most successful commercial products in their categories. Star Wars is the best known sci-fi movie of all time, and Star Trek is pretty much the only sci-fi show, that is even famous among most people.--92.105.189.138 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desert war reference needed

I've been working on an article about the Benghazi burner, an improvised cooking stove used by Allied troops in the North African Campaign in WWII. There is a scene in the 1958 British war film Ice Cold in Alex, in which a German spy, played by Anthony Quayle, gives himself away by not being able to make tea with the aforementioned burner. It would be great to include this in the article - all I need now is a reference.... Alansplodge (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This book (British Film Character Actors: Great Names and Memorable Moments by Terence Pettigrew) mentions the scene on pg 7, although it doesn't use the specific term "Benghazi burner".--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 16:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done - I might be able to get away with it! Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]