In the following video, William Shatner weighs in on the decades long debate of which is the “better” movie franchise between Star Trek and Star Wars.
William's t-shirt is ugly…word is born
Shatner might be a bit biased on this one…
(For the record, I'm an equal opportunity "star" fan. Love 'em both, and not changing that.)
Seriously? You ask the star of the most singularly focused incarnation of a long-standing series if it's better? Doesn't Mr. Shatner have syndication rights? And doesn't he still get paid for Convention appearances? Of COURSE he's going to say Star Trek is better. His gorram show was just CANCELED, for geeks' sake!
I don't think EITHER is "better." They're BOTH special effects nightmares. The latest movies of BOTH have destroyed the foundations of the originals. They BOTH are terrifying and horrifically awesome. But asking Mr. Shatner is just…WRONG. jeez. and no, I do not feel strongly about this at all.
"They're BOTH special effects nightmares."
Huuuuh? Just to be clear, you're not talking about the original trilogy, right?
To clarify, I mean "nightmares" as something along the lines of "special effects heavy and you can tell in most scenes and the crew who worked on the effects spent a ton of man hours doing so." I guess that's really not any more clear, but I think it's as close as I can get. I did write that comment after being up all night.
Wasn't this posted last week?
I think more than anything else this leads to an interesting question…how drunk was Shatner for the interview?
the special effects in the new star trek are done by ILM….
*squints* Jabba, is that you?
Honestly if his going to break it down like that he has to go back to Isaac Asimov, not Star Trek. Shatner's argument is a poor a constructed argument for two very fundamental reasons. First of all after the cancellation of the Star Trek series (TOS) it was Star Wars's popularity that sparked CBS's interest in reviving the saga in a movie format. So if it wasn't for Star Wars he wouldn't have his Star Trek movies. The second reason gets closer to the heart of the stories. Star Trek is about humanities future among the stars. What we as humans have become, leaving Earth and "Boldly going where no man (sorry women) has gone before…" Star Wars on the other hand is an attempt at an isolated scifi story that is completely removed from what we understand as OUR humanity. Not just separate by distance (a galaxy far far away), but separated by time (a long time ago). Now humans are still in Star Wars, but they aren't the Earth humans that are us. The humans in Star Wars are their to give us a sense of familiarity with the world. Star Wars is as devoid from humanity as a scifi series can possibly be without isolating its audience. Thus they tell two different stories. They are liking comparing Mango to Habenaro. While each is delicious in their own right, together as an equally accepted part of scifi they are delicious, but to throw which is better. Asimov was BBQ, the original.
Gee, I wonder who did the effects in the old Star Trek movies with Shatner in them? *whistles and looks around innocently*…..
I'll give you a hint.. which SFX company did the SFX for Star Wars. ;)
Look at all the "star wars kids" (if they didn't actually hang out with the star wars kid, they certainly wish they could have) getting utterly trolled and bent out of shape. lol