Star Wars, Star Trek Or Dr. Who?

[ChocolateChipCharlie]

This is tricky.

The original Star Wars trilogy WAS a runaway winner here before Lucas cut it to pieces and tried his best to ruin it.  The THX remastered version is the best, and would win this vote.

However, Episode I was an abomination, Episode II was thin, and Episode III was pretty good but not good enough to make up for the butchering of the original trilogy and Episode I.

Star Trek is also tricky.  The original series was fun, and I like Next Gen also.  I don't have any interest in any of the other series though.  Movies 1, 2, 6, Generations (DIE SHATNER, DIE!!!!!), and First Contact were all pretty good.  6 is a personal favorite, and obviously the death of Kirk in Generations makes it an instant classic.  But major point deductions for Deep Space Nine and The Return of Spock.

I have never watched Doctor Who.

So, given all this, I have no idea how to vote.  Star Wars I guess, but under protest because Lucas is a dick.

[Dr. Whom]

Dr Who, obviously (but you'd have guessed that from my alias)

[66Crush]

I had to go with the underdog, "Doctor Who!" I loved it because it was so different. There were elements of Hammer Horror in it. Ridley Scott was a big fan. You can see seeds of "Alien" in episodes like "Ark in Space," "Robots of Death" and "Horror of Fang Rock." You didn't have ridiculous expectations if Doctor Who was your hero. He wasn't super strong, didn't have great powers (except for a few tricks to keep him breathing) and was not a ladies man. He was just smart. Don't get me wrong. To this day, I think "Star Wars" is the greatest movie of all time, it changed my life at the tender age of six. "Star Trek" was great and I watched it all the time, but I never cared for the spin-offs. Shatner is so charismatic, I don't want to see anyone else in the captain's seat.

[Trevor]

I loved Dr Who as a kid ~ Tom Baker, Peter Davison, Colin Baker and a tiny bit of Jon Pertwee as well.

I loved the original Star Wars chapters but I have never seen 1, 2 or 3 at all.

The original Star Trek series for me, the animated series and the first six movies. Nothing else.

Sorry, DS: I can't vote as I love them all. 

[theedinburghbteam]

It's all about the Star Wars. Theres a big nostalgia part of that, but I can still watch it whenever and still love it. However, I only ever watch the theatrical old versions (Greedo has never shot first) of the original trilogy, and I was never a fan of the new films. They seemed a bit heartless.

I enjoy watched the old series of Star Trek, but I never got into it properly, same as Doctor Who really.

[Hammock Rider]

I voted for "None of the Above" only becasue I couldn't pick a clear winner of the three. I like them all for different reasons.

I like Star Wars mostly for nostalgia reasons. It blew my little mind when it first came out and Empire and to a lesser extent Jedi were good follow-ups. But after that it went down hill.

I like Star Trek also for nostalgia. I like some of the stories and characters better too. I think these were much more focused on than in Star Wars. However it seems like at some point during TNG they became more interested in protecting their franchise than innovative storytelling, which is what helped put them on the map in the first place.

Dr. Who keeps trucking along. There are some classic stories here, and some great characters. They do seem the more capable of change and mixing things up than Star Wars or Trek, as long as they stay within their comfortable template. The stories are usually less dynamic than the other choices though, and while there ae some really great ones there are also some dogs,. Also if you don't like any of the Doctors you're kind of stuck until a new one comes along.

[Couchtr26]

It's all about the Star Wars. Theres a big nostalgia part of that, but I can still watch it whenever and still love it. However, I only ever watch the theatrical old versions (Greedo has never shot first) of the original trilogy, and I was never a fan of the new films. They seemed a bit heartless.

I enjoy watched the old series of Star Trek, but I never got into it properly, same as Doctor Who really.

I actually have to agree with your sentiment on Star Wars.  I can't tolerate the re-released versions are horrid and can't stand watching them.  It takes away from what I love about Star Wars.  I enjoy that first experience when I watched it and always will prefer the version I remember from my youth. 

[Doggett]

Doctor Who for me.
There's just something so manic and imaginative about it. 

I love the classic Trek films but not the series.

Wars is fun but never left a lasting impact on me.

[ChocolateChipCharlie]

This should provide adequate sustenance for the Doctor Who marathon:

[HappyGilmore]

Dr. Who. Never liked the other two.

[66Crush]

This got me thinking of why the three original "Star Wars" films are so much better the new ones. The first one was made by the skin of it's teeth, technology had to be created. You had a simple story with strong characters right down to R2D2, this beeping trash can actually had a personality. Lucas relied on the cuts and the music score to dictate the pace instead of the actors. It was a new way of doing things and worked so well. The reason "Empire" is thought to be the best is because it was story driven. Irving Kirshner was the perfect director for that one. The actors really got to sink their teeth into it. Plus that suprising "I am your father" revelation. "Jedi" was a nice way of just wrapping the whole thing up. A formula had been established and Lucas put in a few suprises. So even though "Jedi" isn't quite as good as the first two, it is very satisfying. "Phantom Menace" was just CGI and The begining of a boring back story. Jar Jar was suposed to be there for the kids to like but I think kids found him annoying. Yoda, The Ewoks, R2D2 and C3P0 didn't play directly to the kids, and that's why kids liked them. Kids are smarter than even George Lucas thinks. I see why "Clones" works better as a cartoon series than a movie, because the clone wars are really a separate story that plays into the overall mythos. Haden Christensen and Natalie Portman's performances are so wooden and plastic. They are not right for these parts. Ewen McGreggor on the other hand was born to play Obi-Wan, and is the glue that holds the preqeuals together. "Sith" is the best of the three, it had to be. But I still found Anakin a bit to weak, even as he was transforming into the monster of Darth Vader. I was dissapointed that Vader didn't beat up on Obi-Wan a little more. And The Emporer should have beaten Yoda in a battle. Instead he has to have Ankin help battle Mace. Overall it was a B-rated ending.

[AndyC]

Exactly. And it helped that for at least the first movie, nobody fully grasped what they'd created until after Star Wars was released. It was not only a phenomenal hit, but a merchandising juggernaut. Kenner struggled to keep up with the unanticipated demand for the toys. Meco's disco version of the theme made it to number one the same summer, and John Williams score not only won an Oscar, but sold extremely well as a double album and took three Grammys. I don't think any film before Star Wars had success that transcended the movie medium to that degree.

And you can see how each of the first three movies takes more advantage of those other income streams than the last. For Star Wars, the merchandise was gravy. In Empire, we see more cool vehicles and more cool characters, and settings that lend themselves well to playsets. By Jedi, it was starting to get a little crazy, particularly the number of freaky looking aliens who serve no purpose other than to be seen. If you look back at the original Star Wars, you had Jawas, Wookies, Sand People, and a handful of funny-looking aliens in Mos Eisley who did serve a purpose. Every part of Jedi was throwing distinctive characters at us in bunches. Still, the movie came first.

Jump forward to 1999, when merchandising is a major concern for any blockbuster or family film, and a priority throughout development. Star Wars never stopped being a cash cow, so a new trilogy was bound to be engineered to utilize its full merchandising potential. I admit, the first time I saw Phantom Menace, I loved it just because it was a new Star Wars movie. It took a while for me to reach the conclusion that the good parts didn't really balance out what was bad. However, even in that bedazzled state, I could see every potential toy and video game in that movie, and recognize ships, people, funny-looking aliens, droids, vehicles and whole scenes that seemed to exist for the sole purpose of becoming merchandise. The story itself seemed less interested in advancing a plot than it was in taking us between all these things, and ultimately going a long way to travel a short distance. It was a bare-bones plot straining under the weight of all this other gimmicky stuff.

The second prequel, as basically the middle act of a three-act play, had even less going for it plot-wise. All it does is take the people and situations introduced in the first act and move them toward the events of the final act. Sith, as the third act, fared somewhat better, because it had the payoff. With the climax and denouement of the whole trilogy, it got the biggest and best share of the plot.

I think that's where the original Star Wars also worked better. Lucas didn't know for sure that he'd get another kick at the can. He might have had a series of stories in mind, but he could only really plan for one movie that would deliver the goods in one shot, and would stand on its own. Empire was very much a middle chapter, but still managed to work because as the first sequel, it needed to meet or exceed the first movie in order to ensure a third. When Lucas got to the prequels, he knew for sure there would be three, and the whole trilogy was mapped out from beginning to end as a three-act play, resulting in a very uneven distribution of plot. One movie accomplishes little other than to introduce everybody and set things in motion. The next just keeps things moving in the direction we knew they were going in. Pretty much the entire story happens in the third. Really, the prequels spread about enough plot for one and a half movies over three, such that two of them get less than half a movie's worth of plot.

There might have been some method to the madness, though. Since we knew what was eventually coming, audiences would assume that anything not delivered by the first movie would be in the next, and that would keep the anticipation and speculation going for three movies. The prequels might have been unevenly plotted to deliberately jerk us around and keep us interested. It might keep up publicity and ticket sales, but as an audience member, I find being jerked around more frustrating than entertaining.