@@cmdraftbrn closemindness does not exist because it is always from a certain point of view. So who is judge or/ and jurry? Who decides wat tiny things are? General relativity does not exist in human culture.
Here is a old Sci-Fi forum fan joke I heard years ago: Scientists asks science fiction fans if they would like live in their favourite fictional universe: The Star Wars fan says "yes I would". The Star Trek fan says " yes I would". The Halo fan says "yes I would" The Warhammer 4000 fan says "no because there are easier ways to commit suicide".
@@dianabarnett6886 As much as people cotton to the idea of being mind-raped by militant space-wizards, killed by plastic wearing space-nazis, being sent hurtling through time, or dying, knowing that it was because their shirt was red. You could find negatives in any of the four mentioned franchises. Though, admittedly it *is* easier to do so with some franchises (looks, wearily, at the churning mass of "grim-dark" that is WH40K) than others.
@@dianabarnett6886 think of it like this Star Wars: only in danger if your in some form of military or on an important planet Star Trek: only in danger if your in some form of military or on an important planet Halo: only in danger if your in some form of military or Live during Human-Cov war (before and after you should be safe as a Civi) Warhammer 40k: *THERE IS NO SAFETY. ONLY ENDLESS WAR* (There real is no were safe in 40K)
Nobody in their right mind would want to live in the Halo universe. Sure it might not be as bad as a universe of endless wars for pointless reasons and stupidly over the top weapons and vehicles, but living in the Halo Universe would suck with the large covenant empire that aims to wipe out humanity and non-believers and the almost unstoppable eldritch-like horror that is the Flood.
The Fandom Wars have changed over the years in the last decade, It is a war between fan factions fighting for what they believe is better and even against each other: The Alliance to Preserve the Expanded Universe The Anti-EA liberation Front the New Canon Loyalists the Star Trek fans (From original to Ent) And also the new Star Trek Era
@@zeehero7280 Considering the poor guys who have to fuel them by hand also have to carry their own coffins with them. Yeah I agree with your statement.
Welcome to the 8 o'clock news. Today's top story is: 'Fanboys cold war over Star Trek and Star Wars has turned hot again and as a result stores are reporting a shortage of popcorn and salt.'
There is no contest Star Trek was first and Star Wars ripped off the first part of Star Trek they could have been called Galaxy Wars or outer space wars but they went for star cuz I knew would work
That's the thing, though. The Templin Institute wasn't stoking any flames. Though, admittedly, the title of the video was more than a bit inflammatory. All they did was point out a strong, positive aspect about Star Trek. Political intrigue, as well as moral and philosophical quandaries, has always been one of Star Trek's strong suits. The same cannot be said in regards to Star Wars, at least nowhere near to the same extent, especially early on in its continuity. You can like both franchises, no problem. But, you can't really deny that Star Trek is *objectively* superior to Star Wars, in regards to political intrigue.
Ehhhh, from a worldbuilding perspective I agree multi-polarity is interesting. But looking at Star Wars from an out of universe context, it (at least the original movies) has always been about good vs evil, as trite as it sounds. It was a fairy tale in space where the plucky rebellious underdogs fight back with grit and tenacity against the massive evil empire. Making the Rebellion into patsies for another equal state would take away from that a bit. More importantly, it was escapism from our world, to one of magic and wonder in a galaxy far far away. I do *not* think making a Cold War or Vietnam War analogy (6:05) in it during the 70s-80s would've appealed that much at all to audiences. Basically, yes multipolarity makes stories interesting, but it shouldn't need to apply for all settings, especially with the context some were made in.
The most intresting multi polarity in star wars came in ledgends. When there multiple imperial states, fledgling republic and variois medium powers who did their own thing. I hope they go multipolar after ep9 with the jedi not politically bound.
@@jessetellez3924 Aren't the Jedi sexless monks? How can they be pedos? Also didn't the empire do what the Federation could only dream of, unify the whole of the galaxy? Heck the Romulans and Dominion can't even do that and they're explicitly violent imperialist states.
@@eps200 The interim between episode 6-7 has multiple Imperial successor states be they small (Moff Gideon) or large (the Core Region's Imperial Remnant) or quasi-large but distant (First Order).
Love SW above all but.. umm... Tarkin theirs an old man, a farm hand an a dude that looks oddly like Harrison Ford on the Death Star again.. an the gunners are kinda creeped out bout it.
The whole ideology of Star Wars is the light vs the dark, if that universe wasn't unipolar or bipolar it wouldn't work... Also based on that I would argue that SW is actually always bipolar even if the Empire is far superior to the Rebel Alliance! The majority of SW's history has been two equally powerful in the force factions in an everlasting war.
That’s true, but it doesn’t change much. Only ever having two powers isn’t very interesting. It would be far more interesting to have another major faction that is just as powerful as the other two. For example, in SWTOR, the Eternal Empire is far more powerful than both the Republic and the Sith Empire. What if it was just as powerful as either one of them, but not as powerful as both combined? Or what if there was a major galactic power in the Unknown Regions? Perhaps one that is using the First Order as a proxy to test the Republic? These kinds of ideas make a universe much more interesting.
But that's boring. Light and dark, 100% good and 100% evil just isn't interesting. There are good things about star wars, but "interesting", "realistic" or "well-thought-out" were never up there.
Malcolm La Prairie You clearly don't know anything about the EU and the philosophies introduced in KOTOR. I would suggest you watch the video "The Philosophy of Kreia: a critical analysis of star wars"
force..hehe..anyway...yeah...we are indeed rivals..in the meantime stargate and halo chadly dance in the backround as they massacare the enemies of humanities with ruthless efficiency was they discover there past and a ancient empire that once ruled the galaxy
Oh, I can already see the friendly, peaceful comment sections! In all seriousness, saying one is better than the other is only true to people who share your opinion on it. Objectively, neither are better than the other. Art is something that cannot be objectively measured for quality, as each individual piece has its merits and values to someone, somewhere, at some time. Both Star Wars and Star Trek are art, after all, and I love art.
It's like saying why is GoT better than LOTR. They are both separate entities and serve different purposes within the same umbrella genre, neither one is really better.
@@biggsydaboss3410 how? the writing at times is often so generic and bland with clear right and wrong black and white morality usually ending up with humans being right. Maybe more recent shows/seasons fixed this but for a long time it wasn't very interesting and the alien races look laughable.
video not even out, already 50% split like dislike. not even wait for context or arguments. take cover, thats gonna be a shitshow. serious, why rate the video when you have no idea what is gonna be in it. it could be klickbait aswell or do a 180 or be sarcasm, or wahtever.
DerAnanasKing because comparing which universe is "better" when they're apples and oranges is ridiculous from the very beginning. One is a sci-fi another space-fantasy opera
but the flood IS a third player that want to whipe out both major forces at once and now the Halo universe is divided between UNSC, several covenants remains, and AI
@@dradmiral5224 The evil Cortana and the AI are from Halo 5. I'm not sure how much of it is explained in the games (I read the novels, too) but the USNC Infinity which is in Halo 4 is built with many Forerunner improvements. Shortly after the end of the war the UNSC found some Forerunner Hugarok (Engineers) on (or in?) a Dyson-Sphere. The Covenant engineers seem to have vanished after the Great Schism which crippled the surviving Covenant factions ability to build and repair their ships. The UNSC is basically the only faction that can build big warships and none of the Covenant ships can match the Infinity. TLDR: The UNSC Navy was the dominant faction after the war until Cortana took over.
Agreed, what this video misses is that bipolar universes inevitably spawn other factions. They rarely REMAIN bipolar. In Halo, the Food (re)appears and then there is a revolt within the Covenant (which is itself a hierarchy of different alien species) and then the Prometheans and then AI. Even in Star Wars there are always factions like the Hutts, the Chiss or the Voss which remain outside the control of either the Republic of the Empire.
Star trek as an example of Multipolarity is a good one, but it's definitely risen as a plot device in the movies and TNG era series. With the Federation-Klingon-Romulan being the holy trinity of this dynamic. As shown by your video, Babylon 5 is also an excellent example of multipolarity which pretty motivates the entire storyline by using the agency of its' characters, the best example would be comparing EA, Narn Regime and Centauri Republic between the 1st season to the 4th. Even the Minbari saw change in it's interstellar politics. Another example I would like to bring forth, is from the Expanse, with with it starting as a Bipolar system with Earth and Mars, with the belt being fought as proxy war. Later evolving to a Multi polarity with the OPA being a power to reckon with. Also add to that multinational bodies like corporations with their own agenda, and you got a powder-keg waiting to explode. There are additional evolution as shown in further books, but we'll keep it at that. And last but not least, WH40 should be considered a multipolarity, but it got so many levels due to it's wargaming mechanics, that it is, as it's lore, quite insane and convoluted.
@@mackenziebeeney3764 I believe that WH40 is the equivalent of a tesseract of a multipolarity. Too many sides, and as I've mentioned, the mechanics of the game make it insane. The imperium alone is another layer of multipolarity within itself.
@@shiran31 I wouldn't consider 40k multipolar on the principle of few of the factions are comparable in strength. It's more a dipolar with many tiny factions. If you ignore the 'mids as more of a natural disaster then a government. You have the Imperium and Necrons as the galaxies super powers in terms of possible resources. Then you have a bunch of regional powers like the tau and craftworld eldar. Every other faction isn't able to bring to bear a fraction of the sort of resources the Imperium or Necrons(theoretically) can.
I would question whether the UNSC post-Covenant War counts as a hyperpower. Yes, the war technically was an Earth victory and the Covenant splintered, but nearly every other human world save Earth was "glassed" by the Covenant and rendered uninhabitable. Post-war, the alliance between the USNC and the Swords of Sanghelios seems less like a hyperpower and vassal state in a unipolar system as much as two badly depleted powers in relative parity trying to keep everything in the galaxy from going to hell. (Which is also a great source of conflict.)
That's why I love Babylon 5 so much. I'm now on the latter half of season 3 and it has only gotten deeper with each episode. Ever evolving show, terrific stuff.
The problem with this video is that you're looking at this in terms of relationships between nations instead of examining the sort of story the franchises tell, or the themes therein. Conflict and political maneuvering on a larger scale does not automatically a more compelling story make. Star Wars was always about a clash of ideology, and a commentary on the allure of power and its corrupting influence. About the way in which republics are ultimately corrupted as their institutions get older and more vested interests sink their claws into government, and ultimately tend towards fascism, with a fantastic example being the United States today. The story of Star wars does not span the four-year Galactic civil war depicted in the original trilogy, but through the expanded universe spans tens of thousands of years. And while there is generally some dominant superpower, there are many, many cultures and empires that rise and fall from power within it, and, as the title suggests, peace is generally short-lived.
Here's my take: Star Trek is a future that is feasible, one that humanity can hopefully attain if we are determined enough. Star Wars is but a fantasy. A superficial battle between light and dark, with the gray areas taken away because comprehending the depth of the real world is too difficult for George Lucas. *grabs popcorn*
The first season Babylon 5 was the most interesting to me when it comes to the political front. Not only was it a multipolar world, but there were some actors (Vorlons and other ancients) that could wipe the floor of any of them if they so choose. From Small powers to nearly indomitable powers, all in the same time.
Far more realistic world in B5 as well. It would take far more than a few hundred years to get war, hatred, bigotry, fear, hunger and the rest out of the human equation. And religion is going to be there forever - so showing other races with their own major and minor religions all tends towards making sense in my head. It was so refreshing to see a sci-fi show embrace the real "human cultural element" of our existence and transpose it into the future.
There are a few problems I have with seeing halo as a bipolar state. First, the covenant the clear superpower, and humanity would barely be considered a great power, it only being so as there are no other comparisons in the universe. While the Human-covenant war was a human victory, the UNSC was left weakened by it as a whole. By the end of the war, most of the fleet was wiped out and most planets either glassed (like reach) or heavily damaged (earth). So while they’ve managed to rebuild somewhat, the UNSC is far from what a super power would be in that world. Hell, the UNSC doesn’t even control all of the lost territory, with humanity split between the UNSC and insurrectionists. And despite the covenant schism and various fractions vying to power, they still very much pose a threat to the UNSC and humanity. And while I like the idea of there being other factions either involved, or at least neutral, the main problem is that the covenant is humanities first contact, and any other factions that may have existed, would be discovered by the covenant first and would therefore be incorporated into it or wipeout by the time they discover humanity. So thank you for coming to my ted talk.
Speaking just in regards to Star Trek and Star Wars, both tell plenty of good stories - even good political ones. However, they seem to follow different philosophies in their approaches. Being a huge Star Wars fan myself, I am more intimately familiar with Star Wars lore. However, I am close friends with families of Trekkies (and I have maintained some level of fandom since ST: TNG, going on and off between series) so I have plenty of exposure to Star Trek Lore. Star Trek lore, overall, does tend to focus more on the macro level. The multiple types of conflicts, rivalries, and alliances between multiple governments and factions - each with their own (usually fairly detailed) lore - do tend to show an even grander picture of the galaxy. This can be a negative, however, as it can leave so many characters as appearing to be nothing more than expendable cogs in a machine (afterall, the red shirt meme came first, well before the stormtrooper). Plenty of good and interesting stories can still be told, though the individual relatability (i.e. how one person is/isn't just a cog) aspect can be reduced or broken if not handled properly. While the Original Series did plenty of personal stories for Kirk, from Next Generation onwards, Star Trek has focused more on the "big picture" (to varying degrees with each series) while trying to show ways of finding your own place/answer within it (at least, that's my main take from Next Gen, which was when I started getting into Star Trek). Star Wars lore has tended to focus more on the micro level, more on the individual. It was made fairly evident with the original trilogy of movies, how they focused on a select group of individuals and shined more light onto their stories than anyone or anything else's. Granted, Star Wars was always sold as a "space epic," a play on the "hero's epic" that it heavily draws from (which is always about the main character - a.k.a. the hero), and virtually every Star Wars story written has focused on the individual, either the same characters from the movies or someone else entirely. In a way, Star Wars is saying that no matter what is going on around, this is still someone's life/story, where even someone who, at best, would be considered a footnote in the "grand galactic picture" can still have a good and interesting life/story and have it told (say whatever you want about its quality, but without that underlying philosophy, we wouldn't have gotten Rogue One). Star Wars tends to get more personal with its stories, and sometimes those stories end up having some degree of influence on the galaxy. Now, whether Star Trek or Star Wars is overall better depends on what you're looking for. If you want more grand and larger-scale stories (of which politics usually fits well with), then Star Trek can be better. If you want more individualistic stories that focus more on select people (for whatever reason they were selected), then Star Wars takes it. As for other sci-fi franchises, that still depends on what you're looking for. This was just between these two franchises.
I honestly think the reason that the New Republic and Galactic Republic were so prone to infighting, was that there were no rivals for them, Think about it in, Legends when the Old Sith Empire (if you played SWTOR) you know what I'm talking about the Senate was more unified and less prone to infighting because of the threat of a rival power. Once it was defeated then it descended more into infighting
.... There are so many issues with this argument that I can't even get into them, but fundamentally I argue think that your argument that there's a causal relationship between complexity and interesting worlds, is flawed. Setting aside (and hell i'm a star trek fan) your gross oversimplification of the Star Wars universe's politics and power polarity the premise the argument is based on is flawed. It is true that a more complicated multi-polar world could have more interesting story opportunities, but frankly saying that a world's potential to interest audiences is based on the world details themselves is... not right. Ultimately, and granted this is my opinion, the storyteller's ability to make a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar world interesting is far more influential than whether it is a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar world. Case 1: Lord of the Rings. Bipolar world between forces of good and evil. (okay arguably with multi-polar cultures) Still Infinitely intriguing due to Tolkein's detailed worldbuilding so much so that people have been copying off of it for years? Very much so. Case 2: Marvel Cinematic Universe and DC Animated Universe, Bipolar sometimes unipolar but intriguing because of the characters that inhabit it. Case 3: Real Life. Just because people in the past lived in say the 90s post-cold war US where there's a hyper polar superpower controlling things doesn't mean their lives weren't less or more interesting. None of these cases are hard and shut and you can argue that one's still less interesting than the other, but I think the point is... trying to say a world is more interesting because their are more centres of power is... absurd given stories are interesting not because of their worlds but because of how people portray them!
Case 1: A read of the books (or the Silmarillion for the full picture) shows that Middle Earth is multipolar af. Case 2: Asguard. Thanos. SHIELD. HYDRA. Wakanda. The NOVA corps. The Ravagers. The Avengers themselves. MCU is multipolar AF. DCAU: Atlantis. Themiscyra. Luthercorp. Guardians of Oa. New Gods. The Justice League themselves. And countless other factions that maybe only showed up for an episode or so, but the ability to keep bringing in groups like that was essential to the story in the JL/JLU shows. Multipolar AF. (seriously the multipolarity of comic book universes puts everything, including Dr. WHO and 40k, to absolute shame.) Case 3: I guess you have a point, but consider that we are artificially limited to a single viewpoint character regardless.
I would just like to raise one point and that's just because there is a single super power doesn't mean there are as many good stories their, a good writer shouldn't need multiple powers to create a interesting world, it can be done with one. At the end of the day it's more to do with the story being told and if it's better for the story to have multiple powers or just one or two. If the story's a more character driven narrative then it may not be necessary and will do more harm than good. But that's just my opinion, overall a good video
You know, I found a new appreciation for the Halo Trilogy and Reach once I found out what the story was telling. Before I understood what english I thought it was "Fuck yeah Space marines"...you know, like the current games. But no. It was about humanity fighting an unwinable war. It did not matter how many grunts Master Cheif killed. That one spartan team anihalated an entire fleet prepearing to invade Earth. The UNSC was still losing...And that is what I've grown to love about the early Halo games. The fact that humanity is without a doubt, totaly and royaly fucked yet they keep on fighting. That is the theme and thing I find intresting about the Halo seris, not the implications of a bipolarrity (Once again to hell with the newer Halo games)
You could argue that Star Wars has multiple sides. Instead of looking at the military, you should look at the Jedi vs the Sith. Also, just because it has more complex and interesting political interactions does not mean it’s better. Someone who does not like that kind of plot (political intrigue) would very likely say Star Wars is better.
Ehhh, umm, hmmm....no. The problem I've always had with ANY Star Trek Vs. Star Wars debate is that you're not comparing like with like. Star Wars at its core, movie wise anyway, has always been about light vs dark, good vs evil and the plucky band of rogue going up against the greater evil empire and coming out on top. Star Trek at its' core is about exploration, answers through science and yes, politics. Space politics. Star Trek needs a multipolar system to increase the pool of stories it can tell. Star Wars doesn't need that. It needs one powerful faction and one less powerful one, with jedi and sith sprinkled in for good measure. Neither system makes a franchise more interesting then the other. They're both interesting, just in different ways. Interesting vid, though. Definitely gave me something to think about in the never-ending debate.
For another great multipolar system, look at the game Sins of a Solar Empire. Each of the three major factions is split internally between two opposing ideologies, leading to uneasy alliances and a drive to seek out third parties to side with them, peaceably or otherwise. Granted, if the developers ever continue the lore it may turn out that the three-pole initial setting is really just smaller local politics bickering while a true hyper power approaches in the background. As the setting stands now, that is just background material to drive the urgency of the local conflicts.
There is one major difference between the uni-bi-multipolarity argument and it has nothing to do with the universe. Uni: Star Wars - Movie Multi: Star Trek - TV show You can't really have multipolarity in a movie that lasts a few hours. At least not without a boatload of context before hand. Multi is defined by the sharp turns, shifts, and general uncertainty. To have that in a two hour movie is virtually impossible. Even in the 12 hour movie series of LOTR you are stuck with bipolarity. Look what happens when the roles are reversed. The Clone Wars TV show which was more bi, but had multi was much more detailed and interesting then the movies taken without context or knowledge of the EU. Star Trek movies, though often quite bad, turn to bi and are more action flicks then complex stories. Now I am a massive Trekie, but anyone who tries to argue which is better beyond personal tastes are arguing an apples to oranges case. They are trying to compare the complex trek show to the simple wars movies. If you reverse it with the wars shows compared to the trek movies, you will probably see a reversal.
There's so many facets and branches to both franchises that I don't think comparison is really effective. It's like which is better, the largest fungus or the largest coral colony. Both are gigantic sprawling entities with zillions of parts.
I lived in Ireland from 1967 to 1969. When I came back to the US, Star Trek was the second tv show I saw (Mission Impossible was the first). I'm been a Trekkie ever since.
Heavily debatable.. kinda why all of us do. BUT it also kinda very largely depends. In GROUND/PLANETARY warfare.. basically ALL Trek factions are horribly underarmed, under equipped and practically naked in comparison. While near all the SW ground forces and factions are riddiculous some of them armed and armored to the teeth. While ships and navies... it gets really hard to tell. It's kinda easy with Borg VS Force users though when you think about it.. Hows a Borg shield gonna adapt to a sith that decides to reach out with they hand and mind.. make a fist and then crush that drone like a tin can? An even Borg ships have to avoid HUGE space anomalies which Jedi and Sith BOTH can conjure outta thin air if they strong enough and really want to.. ALSO we dont know what SW verse in weapons will do to Trek tech. If it's similar or same the more heavily armed SW troops are gonna steam roll them. Like the Dominion did to Starfleet in their 1st war. Great shields, magic laser rifles, and Photon Torpedoes are all Trek's got to fight with most them. But they don't really got an answer for an angry Extremly strong Sith with their lightsaber. An Trek isn't used to war least Starfleet isn't most the time. SW barely knows Peace. Which is hard for them. The Sith/Jedi relationship is EXTREMELY complex... let's see Janeway, Picard, Kirk and Sisko... most of which I love try and get Yoda and Sideous to peace talks... sorry but it'll never happen. The Borg will become allies to the Federation first
@@SkywalkerWroc not me anyways, but maybe bout half us fit this category. Funny that trekkies also love to think trek ships are all powerful just cuz they got a shield. At its strongest, Trek Media usually just shows things that at most can destroy planets with rare exceptions... Star wars often has as much galaxy destroying as well as planet killers as they go blaster cannon and missile launchers
I would add another type: Monopolar system that collapses into a multipolar one. Like a late roman empire with multiple small enemies and factions inside of it.
Im a fan of all the series and agree that multi-polarity is one of Star Trek's strengths. But then you said "Wouldn't it be more interesting if the Rebellion were funded by another power, perhaps just as brutal as the Empire?" Well. No. Just because Star Trek benefits from it's political complexity doesn't mean that it works in Star Wars. That would undermine it's strengths and make it a much weaker story.
Maybe, maybe not. I could actually see it if it was the Adepts of the White Current from the Black Fleet Crisis, whose influence on the Rebel Alliance would have been COMPLETELY INVISIBLE due to their mastery of the Space Elf BS side of the force. It would actually create a meaningful incentive and milestone for Luke to further grow his understanding of the force after defeating the Emperor, as he gradually became able to detect, and then understand, the scope of their interference, culminating in a showdown on their planet of Alderaan (which was never actually destroyed, they just made it LOOK like it was (I'm not calling it the Space Elf BS side of the force for nothing)) where he has to work his way out of every Lotus Eater trap they can throw at him in order to engage them in an actual philosophical discussion and point out some of the flaws in their ideology. All while the New Republic was still dealing with the Imperial Remnant, of course. In my opinion, this COULD actually make the story stronger, because it would show how the New Republic was coming into its own not only in terms of military victories against a material oppressor, but also philosophical maturation via deconstruction and reconstruction of its early black and white idealism in order to break away from the influence of paternalistic space elves.
Except the space wizards are a result of sufficiently advanced technology and the Vorlons and Shadows have a lot more nuance to them besides ‘light vs dark’
I believe that Star Wars is focused more on internal problems than on diplomatic problems like in Star Trek. In Star Wars we have civil war, separatism, criminal underworld, this is all very interesting.
If the political complexity is of the matter, than Star Trek really pales in comparison to Babylon 5 that was featured. B5 nations don't only fight external wars, but have significant political shifts within themselves, along with revolutions, changes of government etc. While United Federation is realistically way too stable for what it is. Babylon 5 League is especially on-point with the idea of how political alliances work. ST is also arguably not that much better than SW, because Republic itself is more akin to confederation, its hold over many planets, even in the Core, is more symbolic than anything. Most planets are selfgoverned and there are many inter-republic alliances. You also forgot the Hutt space, that is arguably a constant second polar in the SW universe. Along with occasional Sith empires, the Chiss empire etc. We also don't know much about Outer Rim politics, just because films were always focused around the core worlds. Hence, the comparison is unfair.
"but have significant political shifts within themselves, along with revolutions, changes of government, etc." Have you watched DS9? The Cardassian Union has had all of these, and there were was an arc about an attempted coup over the Federation, along with Section 31 and their attempts at genocide. "Most planets are self-governed and there are many inter-republic alliances." Just because the US states have a level of autonomy and might have a few rivalries with each other doesn't make them independent nations. Even if a few systems might secretly be supportive of the CIS doesn't make it a multipolar universe lol. He doesn't mean by "bipolar" that there are only two powers in the entire galaxy. Star Wars has always been about one light side faction fighting a dark side faction, which is bipolar. "We also don't know much about Outer Rim politics, just because films were always focused around the core worlds." The Prequels were the only trilogy focused on the Core Worlds, correct me if I'm missing something obvious but I don't think we even see a core world in the Original Trilogy (not counting the special edition at the end of Return of the Jedi) and we only see one get destroyed in the Force Awakens.
Actually, Star Wars has almost always been a bipolar system with the greatest cultural and military influence being vested in two central powers. If a war wasn't literally between the Sith and Jedi, it was a proxy war between the Sith and Jedi... and this includes the Galactic Civil War. The endless fleets of Star Destroyers and even both Death Stars were ultimately a sideshow so long as the Jedi had Luke. After all... the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
They are multi purpose ship. They normally use ships with weaponry just to defend themselves. But it wartime, they are refitted, and the refitting is quick, and i mean really quick.
About what you were saying about the Galactic Civil War and what you wish Halo could be: That sounds a lot like The Clone Wars. We have a more-or-less bipolar system of galactic powers competing in a 3-year conflict. Both try to get nonaligned systems to join. While the Republic mostly defeats the Separatists, both sides wear each other out and the whole thing turned out to be orchestrated by the Sith. In conclusion, Star Wars and Star Trek are both awesome franchises that are hard to really compare. They are set up very differently and while Star Wars has a more unique interesting universe, Star Trek is much more complex and has much more to it.
6:17 you're going to want to watch Legend of the Galactic Heroes, a bi-polar universe with both sides having vast military resources with hundreds of thousands of ships and both sides being manipulated from the shadows.
There are a lot of things we don't actually see on screen in the Star Wars universe. The Extended Universe was actually quite expansive, extending far beyond the Jedi, the Sith, the Galactic Empire and the Republic. A lot of people didn't even know who the Mandalorians were until the show came out, and even then, I still find people who don't know how important they were in shaping the Star Wars universe long before Episode I....
As somebody who prefers Star Trek to Star Wars, I think you're completely wrong on this point. Star Wars was conceived as trying to tell a very particular story. As much as I like Star Trek, that setting wouldn't be as conducive to telling a "quest" story like we see in Star Wars, where a Hero arises to topple an unjust Empire. The story of Half Life 2, as another example, is best told in a unipolaric setting, where all the odds are stacked against Gordon Freeman, the Hero, and where the Resistance is the scrappy underdog. Giving the factions parity with one another would just dilute the themes that are prominent in that kind of story. While we're at it, I also think you're wrong about the Halo franchise, too. Halo, at its peak, was never about politics and trade negotiations, but about a massive war that threatens to see the extinction of humanity. Giving the UNSC and Covenant "rough" levels of parity, so that the UNSC is capable of putting up a fight, heightens the tension of the conflict and allows the story to focus on THAT conflict, rather than either side trying to rally support from neutral nations. The conflict between the Jedi and the Sith is similar, and allows the two forces to act as foils for one another. Overall, the political structure of a setting has to be selected to best compliment the kind of story being told. You couldn't tell a "quest," hero-centric story in the Star Trek universe, just like having a pseudo political drama in the Star Wars universe wouldn't make much sense. Saying that one style is objectively "better" across the board doesn't do credit to the sorts of stories that these franchises are trying to tell.
Counterpoint: The Life and Times of Surak of Vulcan, and his quest to change his peoples' ways forever. And he did it, too. That's Joseph Campbell 1,000 faces level stuff right there. You absolutely COULD do a hero-centric "Quest" story in the Star Trek universe, complete with the fighting AND the space magic, and have it be cannon, no less. Khaless the Unforgettable would work just as well, though you couldn't really do the space magic. And if this has to be taking place in the 23/24th century, then The Life and Times of Q, as told from his own perspective. His journeys among strange lands, enduring trials, slowly finding his purpose, and then fighting to reform his people. Thematically speaking, this would actually be a fascinating foil for the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was all about mortals' struggle to obtain immortality. Here we basically have the struggles of a God to understand the meaning of life.
"What if one is financed by another power to destabilize another?" Legends of Galactic Heroes: The tiny Dominion of Phezzan covertly influenced the war between the Galactic Empire and the Free Planets Alliance to maintain its economic position between the two superpowers. And yes, that story eventually ended in a unipolar.
Meh, I have to disagree. I feel like this video is asking the wrong questions on what makes a fictional universe interesting within whatever medium and tone they’re going for. The OT is already charming in its straightforward story and family drama, but a multipolar world would’ve been more interesting for the ST. Halo’s original trilogy was multipolar at times thanks to the flood and forerunners, but I agree the post-war stories are boring and could’ve been multipolar.
I would argue that the desperateness of the Rebellion in Star Wars is what make it interesting. What are the feelings of individuals willing to fight such overwhelming odds? If they had some other counterpower to balance the Empire would make the stakes significantly less high. Not to mention the single political system forces political inclined individuals who are against the Empire to work within the political system of the Empire, internal power politics can be plenty interesting. Overall I would argue that no political power system is more interesting than the other, it depends on the creator to make it interesting.
I get where you were going with this, but it comes across as a false comparison, because the cores of the franchises - tv for Trek, movies for Wars - inherently lend themselves to different conflicts.
That's what I thought. In order to give Trek movies a broader appeal, and to tailor it to work better in a theater, JJ Abrams gave Trek a more SW feel by increasing the scale of action and space battles. On the other hand, if SW wanted to do a TV series they would have to make it more like Trek.
I think you underestimate the intrigue and machinations that can occur in a "unipolar" world. As seen in Dune or the Iron Throne of Westeros, internal alliances, dynastic politics, and political ambition can make good conflict that can range from subtle manipulation of rivals to all out civil war within the state. Also, just to deflate the Trek fandom's ego a bit, the more complex great power politics post TOS was despite Roddenberry (who wanted a hyperpower Federation that just stewed in its on sense of smugness). Latter writers and producers added rival nations to generate some form of conflict to create interesting stories, and they could only ever really create generic bad guy (insert species) empire, who never posed a serious threat to the Federation.
agree 100% with you, in legends despite stupid power levels have quite a good view on different factions. Well if sidious didn't come back and screw everything up with his dark empire
Can someone explain the Star Trek map? Theres a patch of Federation territory on the otherside of Klingon space. How do they maintain that or even get to it without violating any space?
I would agree with this argument if that is what you are looking for. I prefer Star Wars because its story is based on a different context, the light overcoming darkness. I belive that the way star wars story is told and its political system work to show that. Sometimes a simple or basic idea can be better for the story than a complicated one.
I'd like to present a counter argument: While a multipolar setting does make the world more interesting, for some people it makes it hard to follow. Right now my family is watching The Expanse which is a multipolar setting (Earth, Mars, the Belt, and ProtoGen) and my mom has a lot of trouble following the story and understanding what's happening. It seems like every 20 minutes my dad and I need to explain to her everything that's happening and sometimes even my dad who's as much a fan of science fiction as I am isn't picking up on everything that's going on. Consequently, I think Star Wars is more popular because it's much easier to follow than Star Trek. So while I think you're right, you're also wrong. Great video by the way.
This is why, in the old Star Wars expanded universe, following the Yuuzhan Vong invasion, I was hoping a singular, galactic government wouldn't be able to establish itself again, that we'd see the galaxy divided among disparate groups with their own goals and ideologies, with the Jedi left afloat trying to make sense of it all. It's also why I think the Old Republic era is the best. The dynamic between the Galactic Republic and the Sith Empire was great.
Now while I respect your opinion and think the comments talking about fandom vs fandom are ultimately foolish and miss the entire point of the video. I do think it's important to introduce a conflicting perspective to your own, one in this case that I hold. Though before I start I want to reiterate that I am not disregarding your opinion, nor do I wish to have people use my comment to make vitriolic statements towards you or your videos. I would very much encourage any friendly discourse you might wish to have based on what I'm about to say and I'd rather frame this as a discussion than any sort of debate. The problem I have with what you've presented here is that it ultimately creates a general case of what is "better" or "worse" in a given universe without examining the individual context and conflict of the universe itself to make that determination. To take your Star Wars example, the core tenants of the SW universe, in the context of the original trilogy, would have been violated if they were merely tools for an alternate power that was "just as bad as the empire." The entire point of the OT was to create a desperate situation for a group of characters who were on the back foot, who triumphed through adversity and ultimately restored the original republic through their quite frankly lacking means. This plot structure works quite well and ultimately created a more engaging narrative than if you had to present those themes with the addition of another power, which based upon how you framed them would conflict with the themes and principles of the characters in the story. On the same token I agree that Star Trek's multi-polar nation system works fantastically in its universe, however, Star Trek isn't good because it's multi-polar, it's good because the writers of ST took that concept and weaved an actually engaging narrative (most of the time). This allowed the multi-polar setup of ST to work to its fullest potential during its major story arcs, the various factions and alliance systems worked in something like the Dominion War because the story was suited to that style of narrative, as were the characters. I just don't believe the assertion that Star Wars, Halo, or whatever other Universe would become better as a result of moving away from its current power structure is a correct one, at least in the way you presented it. Quite frankly I don't care that you prefer Star Trek's universe to Star War's, I think that's an entirely reasonable position that I might even agree with and you shouldn't be attacked for holding it. I just think the statement you've presented is overtly general without the nuance of further examination, and as a result doesn't hold value in regards to actually examining different universes.
A unipolar world can be very interesting as well, provided you explore internal conflict within the state. A unipolar world can also still have many smaller countries where the hegemon would be stretched thin if it tried to control everything. Foreign policy can become tied with internal policy, if certain interest groups have ties or interests in certain countries. Let's not forget that even in the presence of a single great power, there will also be regional powers competing against each other. Doing so in the shadow of a "world police" country carries it's own risks and opportunities.
The wide world building shows that the Star Wars universe has almost all of what is prioritized here in the Star Trek universe, provided that one looks at a wide span of time in these universes. Simply put, there is so much more than the bi-polar conflicts in the episodic films. The SW world building has conflicts playing off & influencing others, entangling countless dealings to make a galaxy just as fascinating and dynamic as Star Trek. The difference is the ST dynamic nature is in the fans face. The same dynamic nature is present in SW but the fan hast ti dive much further into the SW universe to find it...
by your interpretation i can see why the three kingdoms period in chinese history is so popular - especially during the early days it's multipolar like no tomorrow, tons of characters with different motives each trying to be the ultimate unipolar state
Both franchises do certain things better than the other and I agree that in this regard Trek wins. The politics and logistics of Trek are more interesting than many non-Clone Wars Wars stories, not to say there isn't potential in Wars just that Trek has the advantage of existing logistics and a galaxy still widely unexplored. I would actually have liked to see a multipolar system in the new canon, maybe even after the Empire fragmented into a small remnant the emerging New Republic couldn't convince the entire galaxy to sign on so numerous governments comprising of a few systems or sectors each sprung up on their own.
The main reason I love Star Trek over Star Wars is it's just better Sci-Fi... And all the Star Wars fans I have met aren't even real Sci-Fi fans. They just like space lasers and light sabers.
I'm in no way stating my opinion here, I love both of these franchises, but the 'bipolarity-multipolarity' thing is kinda... absurd. Sorry. In this case, it's just because these universes are WRITTEN with bipolarity(SW)/multipolarity(ST) in mind. It in no way means that one is better than the other: they're just different. Equally awesome, but different. Once again, this isn't a case of better/worse, these are just different motives. Oh, you were talking about SW Canon there? ... Oh
Let me pull an ancient, baroque, master crafted popcorn bucket adorned with a golden double headed Aquila to enjoy a snack while SW and ST fans fight each other The Emperor Protects!
i love both of the universes for different reasons myself and i feel that you may have forgotten that there have been other major powers to rival the republic in the starwars universe throughout its history externally as well as plenty going on within the republic as well, let us not forget that while the many factions are under the smae banner there is plenty of political intrigue and back stabbing going on within the republic as well, and im very supprised that the WH40k or Battletech universes never got a mention when talking about Multipolar systems
I'm sure that in your research and fomenting of your argument you must have considered this, but, as one of the earlier commentators remarked. The reason why Star Wars is unipolar or even bipolar is because of the Force and its inherent bipolarity. The entire saga sees the battle of Light vs Dark, Good vs Evil, Skywalker vs Palpatine. A multipolarity of power in universe would make little sense and, in fact would detract from the overall story of Good wins over Evil, confusing it with shades of gray from multiple different worldviews from multiple different cultures. The story would simply not be the same. The Star Trek universe does have a multipolar system. And this is due, in part, to the lack of a homogeneous galactic culture. Star Wars is a perfect example of this homogeneous culture and has allowed for the even spread of technology and culture throughout the entire Star Wars galaxy. Because of the slowness of warp speeds as well as antiquated laws like the prime directive, the Star Trek universe has not had the opportunity to spread the cultures of its different factions around nearly as much as the Star Wars universe. And it would be interesting to see what happens to those factions when faster than warp travel is realized by all of them. I might also add that while the Star Trek Universe does have a multipolarity of political power, that multipolarity fades away as the federation progresses from alliance to massive interstellar faction. The Federation is increasingly seen as the all-powerful behemoth, having sole dominion over all of the Alpha and Beta quadrants without any equal besides maybe the Borg. But the Borg are a non-factor after Voyager so that leaves the Federation the most powerful faction in the galaxy. And this unipolarity increases even further when it is revealed in Enterprise that the Federation is still around in the future and is handily defeating time manipulating beings who reside in fluidic space. This multipolarity has got out the window, so to speak.
Ehh but it's not really complicated most majior races would rather just see the other fight and not make allies to spicy the story up can get pretty boring but I still love it (tau being an outlier because they actually do want allies which makes them pretty unique and the horus heresy being a cool change of pace)
this is why i like the honor harrington book series it is not only military but you also have the political intruigue in the back ground and how they react to certain events that happen in the the series, this counts on both sides of the fence 'good' guys and 'bad ' if such a thing even exists.
Yes, I really like this series. Came for the space battles stayed for the politics. Then we bigger space battle. Then bigger politics. And bigger, and bigger, and bigger.
@@earnestbrown6524 another thing i like is how you dont even realise how much character progression happens while you are following the series as it by some of the later books you end up following the characters (on all sides) with baited breath as you have basically followed them in their way to each point it is .... amusing how investing it gets.
I dont know what setting is better, i like more SW because its more sandbox universe... But many people fight, when is better Warp or Hyperdrive and for this case a made a research... Light Year (AU) - 150 000 000 km / 150m km Light Speed - 229 793 km/s 1 079 252 848 km/h Range per second: ST Voager - Warp 9 Jump per second (9xLight Speed Jump) = 2 068 137 km / 2 Milion Km Range: Hour is 3600 seconds SW Venator Class Cruiser - 60 000 AU / Jump = 9 Trilion Km (9 000 000 000 000) ST Voager - Warp 9 Jump per hour (9xLight Speed Jump) = 7.4 Bilion Km (7 445 293 200) (Voager must travel about 1 208 hours / 50 days to meet one Jump range of Venator)
Technically the Old Republic era was a bi-polar scenario. With the Sith Empire and the Republic acting as equally powerful states throwing massive armadas at each other and even going as far as having them negotiating with independent world's for alliances and trade deals. Especially during the war that the MMO takes place in.
While I do agree that the macro politics of Star trek has definitely got it's merits and makes for an interesting shifting political landscape between nation's. Star wars as the time of the Galatic civil war was more of micro politics. Small shifts between different factions in the same country for individual or planetary rights which did lead to a civil war under a despot star empire. And while there are a few small nation's or powers in the Star wars universe they did play a part in the actual war. The hutts being on example though more of a criminal organization did have some influence same with individual planets. Separate they might not be much but as added up does show case interesting political landscape
@@REVERSE-th2bb The stakes are different . In Star Wars , an evil Empire fights relentlessly with the Rebel Alliance for Galactic Domination . In Star Trek , the main theme is about the exploration of different worlds and realities . To boldly go in a quest for knowledge and not war .
Thanks to everyone for making this our most disliked episode ever! We couldn't have done it without you!
Sly move with the segue from "FANDOM WARS!" to "let's look at this one aspect of international politics!"
Lol
You don't have to thank me ;D
You really hit the hornets nest didn’t you!
Could you make a Pike, Kirk, Sisko and Janeway video like you did with Picard?
Well this isn't going to cause any arguments.
No not at all
arguing over tiny things is the sign of a small mind.
@@cmdraftbrn closemindness does not exist because it is always from a certain point of view. So who is judge or/ and jurry? Who decides wat tiny things are? General relativity does not exist in human culture.
@@marijnr6821 *look at the internet as a whole*
sure... I guess?
Crazeenerd surprisingly, I haven’t seen one.
Here is a old Sci-Fi forum fan joke I heard years ago:
Scientists asks science fiction fans if they would like live in their favourite fictional universe:
The Star Wars fan says "yes I would".
The Star Trek fan says " yes I would".
The Halo fan says "yes I would"
The Warhammer 4000 fan says "no because there are easier ways to commit suicide".
Er, people like the idea of being glassed by the Covenant or becoming Flood chow?
@@dianabarnett6886 As much as people cotton to the idea of being mind-raped by militant space-wizards, killed by plastic wearing space-nazis, being sent hurtling through time, or dying, knowing that it was because their shirt was red.
You could find negatives in any of the four mentioned franchises. Though, admittedly it *is* easier to do so with some franchises (looks, wearily, at the churning mass of "grim-dark" that is WH40K) than others.
@@dianabarnett6886 think of it like this
Star Wars: only in danger if your in some form of military or on an important planet
Star Trek: only in danger if your in some form of military or on an important planet
Halo: only in danger if your in some form of military or Live during Human-Cov war (before and after you should be safe as a Civi)
Warhammer 40k: *THERE IS NO SAFETY. ONLY ENDLESS WAR* (There real is no were safe in 40K)
Nobody in their right mind would want to live in the Halo universe. Sure it might not be as bad as a universe of endless wars for pointless reasons and stupidly over the top weapons and vehicles, but living in the Halo Universe would suck with the large covenant empire that aims to wipe out humanity and non-believers and the almost unstoppable eldritch-like horror that is the Flood.
plot twist, Warhammer is the result of the rapture
Begun, the Fandom War has.
Begun, the Neckbeard Virgin War has.
The Fandom Wars have changed over the years in the last decade, It is a war between fan factions fighting for what they believe is better and even against each other:
The Alliance to Preserve the Expanded Universe
The Anti-EA liberation Front
the New Canon Loyalists
the Star Trek fans (From original to Ent)
And also the new Star Trek Era
Great to meet a fello rebeI! will love to see the money grubbing EA fall!
Indeed.
300 thousand virgins bred already with 250 thousand more on the way.
I feel a great disturbance in the force.
As if many fanboys suddenly cried out in rage.
jorik rouwenhorst I’ve seen more people complaining about fanboys than actual fanboys...
begun, the Star Wars fan civil war, it has.
Lmao😂😂😂
@jorik rouwenhorst
I am sorry about that, I had beans last night and I did not mean to do that.
To be honest I'm kinda salty
Star Wars: We use hyperdrives.
Star Trek: We use warp drives.
40k: We go through hell.
Which is obviously cooler and more badass but the least practical of all of them.
@@zeehero7280 Considering the poor guys who have to fuel them by hand also have to carry their own coffins with them. Yeah I agree with your statement.
40K: Might arrive on time, or before they left, or long after the last star has burnt out. Or not at all. Or inside out.
Fun!
Minecraft: We go through hell, too.
Welcome to the 8 o'clock news. Today's top story is: 'Fanboys cold war over Star Trek and Star Wars has turned hot again and as a result stores are reporting a shortage of popcorn and salt.'
Carde, What about butter?
"Now to Ollie with the weather. Ollie?"
"IT'S GONNA RAIN"
"Thank you Ollie"
Though i am surprised that there still wss some salt left with this seasons wifu wars just heating up again in the anime community.
Back to the studio
There is a Star Wars and Star Trek conflict .
Lol I've lived with wars and am getting into trek . They're both damn good in their own ways .
The oldest fandom war rages on to this day. Expect response video bombardment.
Oldest fandom war? I think a number of religions would disagree with you on that one.
...I would think the oldest fandom would be "Who is the greatest playwright - Geoffrey Chaucer or William Shakespeare"?
@@TheSpectacledOwl Chaucer didn't write plays, but I could imagine a fandom war between Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe fans. There is one now.
The fandom war rages on .
There is no contest Star Trek was first and Star Wars ripped off the first part of Star Trek they could have been called Galaxy Wars or outer space wars but they went for star cuz I knew would work
I was there. I was there when the Great War began on The Templin Institute
When the institute fell into civil war...
I was there, the day Horus killed the Emperor..
I was also there.
Stoking fandom wars is tired and lame. I love both for different reasons.
Yeah. It's the beauty with SW and ST: There's something for everyone in there, so it's possible to like both for different reasons
^The objective truth^
Yeah i like star wars for some ship design and the same for star trek
JJ Ambrams be with us all! :D
That's the thing, though. The Templin Institute wasn't stoking any flames. Though, admittedly, the title of the video was more than a bit inflammatory.
All they did was point out a strong, positive aspect about Star Trek. Political intrigue, as well as moral and philosophical quandaries, has always been one of Star Trek's strong suits. The same cannot be said in regards to Star Wars, at least nowhere near to the same extent, especially early on in its continuity.
You can like both franchises, no problem. But, you can't really deny that Star Trek is *objectively* superior to Star Wars, in regards to political intrigue.
Ehhhh, from a worldbuilding perspective I agree multi-polarity is interesting. But looking at Star Wars from an out of universe context, it (at least the original movies) has always been about good vs evil, as trite as it sounds. It was a fairy tale in space where the plucky rebellious underdogs fight back with grit and tenacity against the massive evil empire. Making the Rebellion into patsies for another equal state would take away from that a bit.
More importantly, it was escapism from our world, to one of magic and wonder in a galaxy far far away. I do *not* think making a Cold War or Vietnam War analogy (6:05) in it during the 70s-80s would've appealed that much at all to audiences.
Basically, yes multipolarity makes stories interesting, but it shouldn't need to apply for all settings, especially with the context some were made in.
The most intresting multi polarity in star wars came in ledgends.
When there multiple imperial states, fledgling republic and variois medium powers who did their own thing.
I hope they go multipolar after ep9 with the jedi not politically bound.
@@eps200
If we are to belive some rumours that are thrown around the sequel trilogy is about to get Thanos'd by timetravel.
Your Jedi are pedophiles. And your galactic empire sucks balls. Live Long and Prosper. :)
@@jessetellez3924 Aren't the Jedi sexless monks? How can they be pedos? Also didn't the empire do what the Federation could only dream of, unify the whole of the galaxy? Heck the Romulans and Dominion can't even do that and they're explicitly violent imperialist states.
@@eps200 The interim between episode 6-7 has multiple Imperial successor states be they small (Moff Gideon) or large (the Core Region's Imperial Remnant) or quasi-large but distant (First Order).
Can I jut say the Galacticraft mod for Minecraft is by far better than either of these
TRUTH
Xenolith Aye! I remember that mod! Still got it on my PC.
fuckin true
The nostalgia
Well, here I go to Minecraft
Target the Templin Institute. You may fire when ready.
Love SW above all but.. umm... Tarkin theirs an old man, a farm hand an a dude that looks oddly like Harrison Ford on the Death Star again.. an the gunners are kinda creeped out bout it.
You may begin to argue when ready .
Don't worry, the Harrison Ford look alike is just Indiana Jones and hes not importent to the plot.
we've analysed their attacks, sir and there is a danger. Should I have your ship standing by?
oh no
WHO RETURNED TARKINS SLIPPERS?!
The story arc of the Cardassian Union from TNG to the end of DS9 is a pretty good example.
The whole ideology of Star Wars is the light vs the dark, if that universe wasn't unipolar or bipolar it wouldn't work... Also based on that I would argue that SW is actually always bipolar even if the Empire is far superior to the Rebel Alliance! The majority of SW's history has been two equally powerful in the force factions in an everlasting war.
Yeah, that's called life. Good must always resist the rise of evil. You'll never eliminate evil from existence.
'No! You don't get it. Star Wars is shit because it has to be shit. It wouldn't make sense if it were interesting'.
That’s true, but it doesn’t change much. Only ever having two powers isn’t very interesting. It would be far more interesting to have another major faction that is just as powerful as the other two. For example, in SWTOR, the Eternal Empire is far more powerful than both the Republic and the Sith Empire. What if it was just as powerful as either one of them, but not as powerful as both combined? Or what if there was a major galactic power in the Unknown Regions? Perhaps one that is using the First Order as a proxy to test the Republic? These kinds of ideas make a universe much more interesting.
But that's boring. Light and dark, 100% good and 100% evil just isn't interesting. There are good things about star wars, but "interesting", "realistic" or "well-thought-out" were never up there.
Malcolm La Prairie You clearly don't know anything about the EU and the philosophies introduced in KOTOR. I would suggest you watch the video "The Philosophy of Kreia: a critical analysis of star wars"
You fool! You have reignited the Trekkie- Starwarsians War once more! Doom upon the fandoms! Salt for the salt god!
Malgax The Great LET THE FANDOM BURN!!!!!
Kinda warms my heart that after all these years this particular small and petty rivalry is still going with such force and passion :-)
force..hehe..anyway...yeah...we are indeed rivals..in the meantime stargate and halo chadly dance in the backround as they massacare the enemies of humanities with ruthless efficiency was they discover there past and a ancient empire that once ruled the galaxy
Now both are ded
Oh, I can already see the friendly, peaceful comment sections!
In all seriousness, saying one is better than the other is only true to people who share your opinion on it. Objectively, neither are better than the other. Art is something that cannot be objectively measured for quality, as each individual piece has its merits and values to someone, somewhere, at some time. Both Star Wars and Star Trek are art, after all, and I love art.
Dude you should like chat gpt when I ask this shi🤣
Art can be objectively measured though. Art isn’t immune from objectivity just because it’s a subjective form of expression
Star Trek and Star Wars: *Bickering*
Warhammer 40K: *Sighs*
So true!
Daddy emp.... 'Trek and 'Wars are fighting again!
Space Station 76: *Looks down at all three*
@@franceschik1 I know son, they take themselves far too seriously. Now, go kill that daemon spawn with this chainsaw.
More like
Warhammer 40K: "How cute."
It's like saying why is GoT better than LOTR. They are both separate entities and serve different purposes within the same umbrella genre, neither one is really better.
Star Trek is superior in every regard
@@biggsydaboss3410 sci-fi =/= space opera, they're completely seperate
@@biggsydaboss3410 how? the writing at times is often so generic and bland with clear right and wrong black and white morality usually ending up with humans being right. Maybe more recent shows/seasons fixed this but for a long time it wasn't very interesting and the alien races look laughable.
@@falco6121 What? Space opera is subgenre of sci fi.
@@falco6121
I'd agree with that
video not even out, already 50% split like dislike. not even wait for context or arguments.
take cover, thats gonna be a shitshow.
serious, why rate the video when you have no idea what is gonna be in it. it could be klickbait aswell or do a 180 or be sarcasm, or wahtever.
DerAnanasKing because comparing which universe is "better" when they're apples and oranges is ridiculous from the very beginning. One is a sci-fi another space-fantasy opera
@@Solaxe Star Trek is also a Space-fantasy. ESPECIALLY the Original Series.
@@Solaxe *pushes up glasses* Well ACTUALLY, according to our Lord and savior George Lucas, shut the fuck up
And then people actually started watching the video... ;)
Why rate the video before watching?
what do you think? ;-)
You were the chosen one! It was said you would destroy the Trek, not join them! You were to bring balance to the Fandom, not leave it in darkness!
but the flood IS a third player that want to whipe out both major forces at once
and now the Halo universe is divided between UNSC, several covenants remains, and AI
The flood are a natural disaster, not a faction.
None of the other factions (save for the Created (AI)) can rival the unsc since they acquired forerunner technology.
@@dradmiral5224 The evil Cortana and the AI are from Halo 5.
I'm not sure how much of it is explained in the games (I read the novels, too) but the USNC Infinity which is in Halo 4 is built with many Forerunner improvements. Shortly after the end of the war the UNSC found some Forerunner Hugarok (Engineers) on (or in?) a Dyson-Sphere.
The Covenant engineers seem to have vanished after the Great Schism which crippled the surviving Covenant factions ability to build and repair their ships. The UNSC is basically the only faction that can build big warships and none of the Covenant ships can match the Infinity.
TLDR: The UNSC Navy was the dominant faction after the war until Cortana took over.
@@wendtchr i would agree if the flood didn't had gravemind. But with them they do become a faction with a strategy and a clear goal.
Agreed, what this video misses is that bipolar universes inevitably spawn other factions. They rarely REMAIN bipolar. In Halo, the Food (re)appears and then there is a revolt within the Covenant (which is itself a hierarchy of different alien species) and then the Prometheans and then AI.
Even in Star Wars there are always factions like the Hutts, the Chiss or the Voss which remain outside the control of either the Republic of the Empire.
I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the Death Star (Mk III) your right to say it.
Star trek as an example of Multipolarity is a good one, but it's definitely risen as a plot device in the movies and TNG era series. With the Federation-Klingon-Romulan being the holy trinity of this dynamic.
As shown by your video, Babylon 5 is also an excellent example of multipolarity which pretty motivates the entire storyline by using the agency of its' characters, the best example would be comparing EA, Narn Regime and Centauri Republic between the 1st season to the 4th. Even the Minbari saw change in it's interstellar politics.
Another example I would like to bring forth, is from the Expanse, with with it starting as a Bipolar system with Earth and Mars, with the belt being fought as proxy war. Later evolving to a Multi polarity with the OPA being a power to reckon with. Also add to that multinational bodies like corporations with their own agenda, and you got a powder-keg waiting to explode. There are additional evolution as shown in further books, but we'll keep it at that.
And last but not least, WH40 should be considered a multipolarity, but it got so many levels due to it's wargaming mechanics, that it is, as it's lore, quite insane and convoluted.
You think 40k is multipolarity? Well, I suppose so now with the tyranniids in the fray.
@@mackenziebeeney3764 I believe that WH40 is the equivalent of a tesseract of a multipolarity. Too many sides, and as I've mentioned, the mechanics of the game make it insane. The imperium alone is another layer of multipolarity within itself.
Fellow Citizen. Multipolarity in The Empire you think? No? Its heresy then... HERESY!!!
@@shiran31 I wouldn't consider 40k multipolar on the principle of few of the factions are comparable in strength. It's more a dipolar with many tiny factions. If you ignore the 'mids as more of a natural disaster then a government. You have the Imperium and Necrons as the galaxies super powers in terms of possible resources. Then you have a bunch of regional powers like the tau and craftworld eldar. Every other faction isn't able to bring to bear a fraction of the sort of resources the Imperium or Necrons(theoretically) can.
The Expanse is just cool all around, can't wait for the new seasons coming up!
One word for that click bait title: Brave.
I mean, I personally agree, but still, brave AF.
I would question whether the UNSC post-Covenant War counts as a hyperpower. Yes, the war technically was an Earth victory and the Covenant splintered, but nearly every other human world save Earth was "glassed" by the Covenant and rendered uninhabitable. Post-war, the alliance between the USNC and the Swords of Sanghelios seems less like a hyperpower and vassal state in a unipolar system as much as two badly depleted powers in relative parity trying to keep everything in the galaxy from going to hell. (Which is also a great source of conflict.)
Some colonies remain.
Just for a third faction to come in and fuck everything.
History repeats itself
That's why I love Babylon 5 so much. I'm now on the latter half of season 3 and it has only gotten deeper with each episode. Ever evolving show, terrific stuff.
Babylon 5 is indeed the best.
The problem with this video is that you're looking at this in terms of relationships between nations instead of examining the sort of story the franchises tell, or the themes therein. Conflict and political maneuvering on a larger scale does not automatically a more compelling story make. Star Wars was always about a clash of ideology, and a commentary on the allure of power and its corrupting influence. About the way in which republics are ultimately corrupted as their institutions get older and more vested interests sink their claws into government, and ultimately tend towards fascism, with a fantastic example being the United States today. The story of Star wars does not span the four-year Galactic civil war depicted in the original trilogy, but through the expanded universe spans tens of thousands of years. And while there is generally some dominant superpower, there are many, many cultures and empires that rise and fall from power within it, and, as the title suggests, peace is generally short-lived.
you should have mentioned the legends stuff but B5 stomps almost everything when it comes to politics
I prefer #5.
Yeah. The EU was full multipolarity
Here's my take: Star Trek is a future that is feasible, one that humanity can hopefully attain if we are determined enough. Star Wars is but a fantasy. A superficial battle between light and dark, with the gray areas taken away because comprehending the depth of the real world is too difficult for George Lucas.
*grabs popcorn*
It's not that it's too difficult for George Lucas, it's just that Star Wars is for kids, and he's said this himself.
@@charlesford7887 And by assuming its too difficult for kids, we ensure the next generation never grows up and becomes ignorant fools.
The first season Babylon 5 was the most interesting to me when it comes to the political front. Not only was it a multipolar world, but there were some actors (Vorlons and other ancients) that could wipe the floor of any of them if they so choose. From Small powers to nearly indomitable powers, all in the same time.
Far more realistic world in B5 as well. It would take far more than a few hundred years to get war, hatred, bigotry, fear, hunger and the rest out of the human equation. And religion is going to be there forever - so showing other races with their own major and minor religions all tends towards making sense in my head. It was so refreshing to see a sci-fi show embrace the real "human cultural element" of our existence and transpose it into the future.
Is this where I step in to say Stargate is better than both of the others? xD
And then in comes Battlestar Galactica.
What about mass effect
Which is better?
Star-Trek
Star-Wars
Star-Gate
Battle-Star-Galactica
The Orville
Mass-Effect
Halo
(Class Discussion)
What about the expanse
Indeed.
There are a few problems I have with seeing halo as a bipolar state. First, the covenant the clear superpower, and humanity would barely be considered a great power, it only being so as there are no other comparisons in the universe. While the Human-covenant war was a human victory, the UNSC was left weakened by it as a whole. By the end of the war, most of the fleet was wiped out and most planets either glassed (like reach) or heavily damaged (earth). So while they’ve managed to rebuild somewhat, the UNSC is far from what a super power would be in that world. Hell, the UNSC doesn’t even control all of the lost territory, with humanity split between the UNSC and insurrectionists. And despite the covenant schism and various fractions vying to power, they still very much pose a threat to the UNSC and humanity. And while I like the idea of there being other factions either involved, or at least neutral, the main problem is that the covenant is humanities first contact, and any other factions that may have existed, would be discovered by the covenant first and would therefore be incorporated into it or wipeout by the time they discover humanity. So thank you for coming to my ted talk.
Star Trek was the beginning for me, it introduced me to nerdom. Not to mention the Constitution Class refit is the best looking starship in sci-fi.
The Refit Connie is definitely the best.
You're correct sir.
You're definitely right about that!
Both og and refit Connies are timeless classics.
I have honest question. Why most people love refit Constitution class? Because I don't like that ship design too much.
@IAN HEINE That's a big part of the Falcon's appeal. and the appeal of the whole STAR WARS Galaxy. "Used Universe"
*Laughs in 40k*
"Show me what passes for fury amongst your misbegotten kind!"
*Laughs in Space Station 76*
The Emperor Protects
Meanwhile Q turns all the Chaos Gods into his little loli cock-sleaves.
@laz kar those are some fighting words, babe. better watch yourself
Speaking just in regards to Star Trek and Star Wars, both tell plenty of good stories - even good political ones. However, they seem to follow different philosophies in their approaches. Being a huge Star Wars fan myself, I am more intimately familiar with Star Wars lore. However, I am close friends with families of Trekkies (and I have maintained some level of fandom since ST: TNG, going on and off between series) so I have plenty of exposure to Star Trek Lore.
Star Trek lore, overall, does tend to focus more on the macro level. The multiple types of conflicts, rivalries, and alliances between multiple governments and factions - each with their own (usually fairly detailed) lore - do tend to show an even grander picture of the galaxy. This can be a negative, however, as it can leave so many characters as appearing to be nothing more than expendable cogs in a machine (afterall, the red shirt meme came first, well before the stormtrooper). Plenty of good and interesting stories can still be told, though the individual relatability (i.e. how one person is/isn't just a cog) aspect can be reduced or broken if not handled properly. While the Original Series did plenty of personal stories for Kirk, from Next Generation onwards, Star Trek has focused more on the "big picture" (to varying degrees with each series) while trying to show ways of finding your own place/answer within it (at least, that's my main take from Next Gen, which was when I started getting into Star Trek).
Star Wars lore has tended to focus more on the micro level, more on the individual. It was made fairly evident with the original trilogy of movies, how they focused on a select group of individuals and shined more light onto their stories than anyone or anything else's. Granted, Star Wars was always sold as a "space epic," a play on the "hero's epic" that it heavily draws from (which is always about the main character - a.k.a. the hero), and virtually every Star Wars story written has focused on the individual, either the same characters from the movies or someone else entirely. In a way, Star Wars is saying that no matter what is going on around, this is still someone's life/story, where even someone who, at best, would be considered a footnote in the "grand galactic picture" can still have a good and interesting life/story and have it told (say whatever you want about its quality, but without that underlying philosophy, we wouldn't have gotten Rogue One). Star Wars tends to get more personal with its stories, and sometimes those stories end up having some degree of influence on the galaxy.
Now, whether Star Trek or Star Wars is overall better depends on what you're looking for. If you want more grand and larger-scale stories (of which politics usually fits well with), then Star Trek can be better. If you want more individualistic stories that focus more on select people (for whatever reason they were selected), then Star Wars takes it.
As for other sci-fi franchises, that still depends on what you're looking for. This was just between these two franchises.
Star Wars hasn't been telling any good stories recently, sadly. :(
I agree with the red shirt thingy.
@@aiosquadron Red shirts are no death sentence.
@@continuumastra1018 If we actually look at the stats, red shirts have the lowest fatalities rate.
I honestly think the reason that the New Republic and Galactic Republic were so prone to infighting, was that there were no rivals for them,
Think about it in, Legends when the Old Sith Empire (if you played SWTOR) you know what I'm talking about the Senate was more unified and less prone to infighting because of the threat of a rival power. Once it was defeated then it descended more into infighting
.... There are so many issues with this argument that I can't even get into them, but fundamentally I argue think that your argument that there's a causal relationship between complexity and interesting worlds, is flawed.
Setting aside (and hell i'm a star trek fan) your gross oversimplification of the Star Wars universe's politics and power polarity the premise the argument is based on is flawed.
It is true that a more complicated multi-polar world could have more interesting story opportunities, but frankly saying that a world's potential to interest audiences is based on the world details themselves is... not right. Ultimately, and granted this is my opinion, the storyteller's ability to make a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar world interesting is far more influential than whether it is a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar world.
Case 1: Lord of the Rings. Bipolar world between forces of good and evil. (okay arguably with multi-polar cultures) Still Infinitely intriguing due to Tolkein's detailed worldbuilding so much so that people have been copying off of it for years? Very much so.
Case 2: Marvel Cinematic Universe and DC Animated Universe, Bipolar sometimes unipolar but intriguing because of the characters that inhabit it.
Case 3: Real Life. Just because people in the past lived in say the 90s post-cold war US where there's a hyper polar superpower controlling things doesn't mean their lives weren't less or more interesting.
None of these cases are hard and shut and you can argue that one's still less interesting than the other, but I think the point is... trying to say a world is more interesting because their are more centres of power is... absurd given stories are interesting not because of their worlds but because of how people portray them!
virusguy5611 I had the same thoughts
Case 1: A read of the books (or the Silmarillion for the full picture) shows that Middle Earth is multipolar af.
Case 2: Asguard. Thanos. SHIELD. HYDRA. Wakanda. The NOVA corps. The Ravagers. The Avengers themselves. MCU is multipolar AF. DCAU: Atlantis. Themiscyra. Luthercorp. Guardians of Oa. New Gods. The Justice League themselves. And countless other factions that maybe only showed up for an episode or so, but the ability to keep bringing in groups like that was essential to the story in the JL/JLU shows. Multipolar AF. (seriously the multipolarity of comic book universes puts everything, including Dr. WHO and 40k, to absolute shame.)
Case 3: I guess you have a point, but consider that we are artificially limited to a single viewpoint character regardless.
I would just like to raise one point and that's just because there is a single super power doesn't mean there are as many good stories their, a good writer shouldn't need multiple powers to create a interesting world, it can be done with one.
At the end of the day it's more to do with the story being told and if it's better for the story to have multiple powers or just one or two. If the story's a more character driven narrative then it may not be necessary and will do more harm than good. But that's just my opinion, overall a good video
True. Mass Effect have single super power in the galaxy(The Citadel)
That's a writing problem. Out of the scope of the topic.
Have we forgotten Mass Effect?!?!
You know, I found a new appreciation for the Halo Trilogy and Reach once I found out what the story was telling. Before I understood what english I thought it was "Fuck yeah Space marines"...you know, like the current games. But no. It was about humanity fighting an unwinable war. It did not matter how many grunts Master Cheif killed. That one spartan team anihalated an entire fleet prepearing to invade Earth. The UNSC was still losing...And that is what I've grown to love about the early Halo games. The fact that humanity is without a doubt, totaly and royaly fucked yet they keep on fighting. That is the theme and thing I find intresting about the Halo seris, not the implications of a bipolarrity (Once again to hell with the newer Halo games)
You could argue that Star Wars has multiple sides. Instead of looking at the military, you should look at the Jedi vs the Sith.
Also, just because it has more complex and interesting political interactions does not mean it’s better. Someone who does not like that kind of plot (political intrigue) would very likely say Star Wars is better.
The militaries of the Republic and the Sith Empire(s)/CIS have always been intertwined in the Star Wars, so that isn't much of a point.
Ehhh, umm, hmmm....no.
The problem I've always had with ANY Star Trek Vs. Star Wars debate is that you're not comparing like with like. Star Wars at its core, movie wise anyway, has always been about light vs dark, good vs evil and the plucky band of rogue going up against the greater evil empire and coming out on top. Star Trek at its' core is about exploration, answers through science and yes, politics. Space politics.
Star Trek needs a multipolar system to increase the pool of stories it can tell. Star Wars doesn't need that. It needs one powerful faction and one less powerful one, with jedi and sith sprinkled in for good measure. Neither system makes a franchise more interesting then the other. They're both interesting, just in different ways.
Interesting vid, though. Definitely gave me something to think about in the never-ending debate.
What is your opinion about
The Imperial Senate ?
For another great multipolar system, look at the game Sins of a Solar Empire. Each of the three major factions is split internally between two opposing ideologies, leading to uneasy alliances and a drive to seek out third parties to side with them, peaceably or otherwise.
Granted, if the developers ever continue the lore it may turn out that the three-pole initial setting is really just smaller local politics bickering while a true hyper power approaches in the background. As the setting stands now, that is just background material to drive the urgency of the local conflicts.
I saw the title to this on Templin and my thought is, “oh man, shots fired.”
my thoughts were
this is where the fun begins
There is one major difference between the uni-bi-multipolarity argument and it has nothing to do with the universe.
Uni: Star Wars - Movie
Multi: Star Trek - TV show
You can't really have multipolarity in a movie that lasts a few hours. At least not without a boatload of context before hand. Multi is defined by the sharp turns, shifts, and general uncertainty. To have that in a two hour movie is virtually impossible. Even in the 12 hour movie series of LOTR you are stuck with bipolarity.
Look what happens when the roles are reversed. The Clone Wars TV show which was more bi, but had multi was much more detailed and interesting then the movies taken without context or knowledge of the EU. Star Trek movies, though often quite bad, turn to bi and are more action flicks then complex stories.
Now I am a massive Trekie, but anyone who tries to argue which is better beyond personal tastes are arguing an apples to oranges case. They are trying to compare the complex trek show to the simple wars movies. If you reverse it with the wars shows compared to the trek movies, you will probably see a reversal.
There's so many facets and branches to both franchises that I don't think comparison is really effective. It's like which is better, the largest fungus or the largest coral colony. Both are gigantic sprawling entities with zillions of parts.
I lived in Ireland from 1967 to 1969. When I came back to the US, Star Trek was the second tv show I saw (Mission Impossible was the first). I'm been a Trekkie ever since.
Heavily debatable.. kinda why all of us do. BUT it also kinda very largely depends. In GROUND/PLANETARY warfare.. basically ALL Trek factions are horribly underarmed, under equipped and practically naked in comparison. While near all the SW ground forces and factions are riddiculous some of them armed and armored to the teeth. While ships and navies... it gets really hard to tell.
It's kinda easy with Borg VS Force users though when you think about it.. Hows a Borg shield gonna adapt to a sith that decides to reach out with they hand and mind.. make a fist and then crush that drone like a tin can? An even Borg ships have to avoid HUGE space anomalies which Jedi and Sith BOTH can conjure outta thin air if they strong enough and really want to.. ALSO we dont know what SW verse in weapons will do to Trek tech. If it's similar or same the more heavily armed SW troops are gonna steam roll them. Like the Dominion did to Starfleet in their 1st war. Great shields, magic laser rifles, and Photon Torpedoes are all Trek's got to fight with most them. But they don't really got an answer for an angry Extremly strong Sith with their lightsaber. An Trek isn't used to war least Starfleet isn't most the time. SW barely knows Peace. Which is hard for them. The Sith/Jedi relationship is EXTREMELY complex... let's see Janeway, Picard, Kirk and Sisko... most of which I love try and get Yoda and Sideous to peace talks... sorry but it'll never happen. The Borg will become allies to the Federation first
@@SkywalkerWroc not me anyways, but maybe bout half us fit this category. Funny that trekkies also love to think trek ships are all powerful just cuz they got a shield. At its strongest, Trek Media usually just shows things that at most can destroy planets with rare exceptions...
Star wars often has as much galaxy destroying as well as planet killers as they go blaster cannon and missile launchers
Templin here is only focusing on the Star Wars Canon, it's way more interesting in Legends, specially post-Endor.
This is very true. It is really fascinating.
The comment section
1% people actully arguing
49% "the war has begun"
50% a third party saying " well ____ is actully better then them both
So you're saying the fandom wars are multipolar now, too.
I would add another type: Monopolar system that collapses into a multipolar one. Like a late roman empire with multiple small enemies and factions inside of it.
I enjoy both. But I watch Star Trek more.
Same
Im a fan of all the series and agree that multi-polarity is one of Star Trek's strengths.
But then you said "Wouldn't it be more interesting if the Rebellion were funded by another power, perhaps just as brutal as the Empire?" Well. No. Just because Star Trek benefits from it's political complexity doesn't mean that it works in Star Wars. That would undermine it's strengths and make it a much weaker story.
Maybe, maybe not.
I could actually see it if it was the Adepts of the White Current from the Black Fleet Crisis, whose influence on the Rebel Alliance would have been COMPLETELY INVISIBLE due to their mastery of the Space Elf BS side of the force. It would actually create a meaningful incentive and milestone for Luke to further grow his understanding of the force after defeating the Emperor, as he gradually became able to detect, and then understand, the scope of their interference, culminating in a showdown on their planet of Alderaan (which was never actually destroyed, they just made it LOOK like it was (I'm not calling it the Space Elf BS side of the force for nothing)) where he has to work his way out of every Lotus Eater trap they can throw at him in order to engage them in an actual philosophical discussion and point out some of the flaws in their ideology.
All while the New Republic was still dealing with the Imperial Remnant, of course. In my opinion, this COULD actually make the story stronger, because it would show how the New Republic was coming into its own not only in terms of military victories against a material oppressor, but also philosophical maturation via deconstruction and reconstruction of its early black and white idealism in order to break away from the influence of paternalistic space elves.
And Babylon Five is better than both *Does the Leonidas pose*
B5 had something like space wizards AND stodgy political drama! Not to mention the clash between light and dark
Except the space wizards are a result of sufficiently advanced technology and the Vorlons and Shadows have a lot more nuance to them besides ‘light vs dark’
I believe that Star Wars is focused more on internal problems than on diplomatic problems like in Star Trek.
In Star Wars we have civil war, separatism, criminal underworld, this is all very interesting.
If the political complexity is of the matter, than Star Trek really pales in comparison to Babylon 5 that was featured. B5 nations don't only fight external wars, but have significant political shifts within themselves, along with revolutions, changes of government etc. While United Federation is realistically way too stable for what it is. Babylon 5 League is especially on-point with the idea of how political alliances work.
ST is also arguably not that much better than SW, because Republic itself is more akin to confederation, its hold over many planets, even in the Core, is more symbolic than anything. Most planets are selfgoverned and there are many inter-republic alliances. You also forgot the Hutt space, that is arguably a constant second polar in the SW universe. Along with occasional Sith empires, the Chiss empire etc. We also don't know much about Outer Rim politics, just because films were always focused around the core worlds. Hence, the comparison is unfair.
"but have significant political shifts within themselves, along with revolutions, changes of government, etc."
Have you watched DS9? The Cardassian Union has had all of these, and there were was an arc about an attempted coup over the Federation, along with Section 31 and their attempts at genocide.
"Most planets are self-governed and there are many inter-republic alliances."
Just because the US states have a level of autonomy and might have a few rivalries with each other doesn't make them independent nations. Even if a few systems might secretly be supportive of the CIS doesn't make it a multipolar universe lol. He doesn't mean by "bipolar" that there are only two powers in the entire galaxy. Star Wars has always been about one light side faction fighting a dark side faction, which is bipolar.
"We also don't know much about Outer Rim politics, just because films were always focused around the core worlds."
The Prequels were the only trilogy focused on the Core Worlds, correct me if I'm missing something obvious but I don't think we even see a core world in the Original Trilogy (not counting the special edition at the end of Return of the Jedi) and we only see one get destroyed in the Force Awakens.
Actually, Star Wars has almost always been a bipolar system with the greatest cultural and military influence being vested in two central powers. If a war wasn't literally between the Sith and Jedi, it was a proxy war between the Sith and Jedi... and this includes the Galactic Civil War. The endless fleets of Star Destroyers and even both Death Stars were ultimately a sideshow so long as the Jedi had Luke. After all... the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
Politics is BS when your self-proclaimed "ships of exploration" can match other factions' war ships in combat.
So clean and direct. Bless your heart.
They are multi purpose ship. They normally use ships with weaponry just to defend themselves. But it wartime, they are refitted, and the refitting is quick, and i mean really quick.
About what you were saying about the Galactic Civil War and what you wish Halo could be:
That sounds a lot like The Clone Wars. We have a more-or-less bipolar system of galactic powers competing in a 3-year conflict. Both try to get nonaligned systems to join. While the Republic mostly defeats the Separatists, both sides wear each other out and the whole thing turned out to be orchestrated by the Sith.
In conclusion, Star Wars and Star Trek are both awesome franchises that are hard to really compare. They are set up very differently and while Star Wars has a more unique interesting universe, Star Trek is much more complex and has much more to it.
Impressive job avoiding both the terms hegemony and concert of powers as descriptors within the first 4 minutes.
6:17 you're going to want to watch Legend of the Galactic Heroes, a bi-polar universe with both sides having vast military resources with hundreds of thousands of ships and both sides being manipulated from the shadows.
There's already a superior empire in Star Trek, the Terran Empire.
Long live the Empire!
I mean its emperor wears a badass long coat instead of a bathrobe for one.
There are a lot of things we don't actually see on screen in the Star Wars universe. The Extended Universe was actually quite expansive, extending far beyond the Jedi, the Sith, the Galactic Empire and the Republic. A lot of people didn't even know who the Mandalorians were until the show came out, and even then, I still find people who don't know how important they were in shaping the Star Wars universe long before Episode I....
As somebody who prefers Star Trek to Star Wars, I think you're completely wrong on this point.
Star Wars was conceived as trying to tell a very particular story. As much as I like Star Trek, that setting wouldn't be as conducive to telling a "quest" story like we see in Star Wars, where a Hero arises to topple an unjust Empire. The story of Half Life 2, as another example, is best told in a unipolaric setting, where all the odds are stacked against Gordon Freeman, the Hero, and where the Resistance is the scrappy underdog. Giving the factions parity with one another would just dilute the themes that are prominent in that kind of story.
While we're at it, I also think you're wrong about the Halo franchise, too. Halo, at its peak, was never about politics and trade negotiations, but about a massive war that threatens to see the extinction of humanity. Giving the UNSC and Covenant "rough" levels of parity, so that the UNSC is capable of putting up a fight, heightens the tension of the conflict and allows the story to focus on THAT conflict, rather than either side trying to rally support from neutral nations. The conflict between the Jedi and the Sith is similar, and allows the two forces to act as foils for one another.
Overall, the political structure of a setting has to be selected to best compliment the kind of story being told. You couldn't tell a "quest," hero-centric story in the Star Trek universe, just like having a pseudo political drama in the Star Wars universe wouldn't make much sense. Saying that one style is objectively "better" across the board doesn't do credit to the sorts of stories that these franchises are trying to tell.
Well said. There is more to a setting than just political structure and each IP has a different way of developing their world and/or universe.
Counterpoint: The Life and Times of Surak of Vulcan, and his quest to change his peoples' ways forever. And he did it, too. That's Joseph Campbell 1,000 faces level stuff right there. You absolutely COULD do a hero-centric "Quest" story in the Star Trek universe, complete with the fighting AND the space magic, and have it be cannon, no less.
Khaless the Unforgettable would work just as well, though you couldn't really do the space magic.
And if this has to be taking place in the 23/24th century, then The Life and Times of Q, as told from his own perspective. His journeys among strange lands, enduring trials, slowly finding his purpose, and then fighting to reform his people. Thematically speaking, this would actually be a fascinating foil for the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was all about mortals' struggle to obtain immortality. Here we basically have the struggles of a God to understand the meaning of life.
"What if one is financed by another power to destabilize another?" Legends of Galactic Heroes: The tiny Dominion of Phezzan covertly influenced the war between the Galactic Empire and the Free Planets Alliance to maintain its economic position between the two superpowers. And yes, that story eventually ended in a unipolar.
Meh, I have to disagree. I feel like this video is asking the wrong questions on what makes a fictional universe interesting within whatever medium and tone they’re going for.
The OT is already charming in its straightforward story and family drama, but a multipolar world would’ve been more interesting for the ST. Halo’s original trilogy was multipolar at times thanks to the flood and forerunners, but I agree the post-war stories are boring and could’ve been multipolar.
I would argue that the desperateness of the Rebellion in Star Wars is what make it interesting. What are the feelings of individuals willing to fight such overwhelming odds? If they had some other counterpower to balance the Empire would make the stakes significantly less high. Not to mention the single political system forces political inclined individuals who are against the Empire to work within the political system of the Empire, internal power politics can be plenty interesting. Overall I would argue that no political power system is more interesting than the other, it depends on the creator to make it interesting.
I get where you were going with this, but it comes across as a false comparison, because the cores of the franchises - tv for Trek, movies for Wars - inherently lend themselves to different conflicts.
That's what I thought. In order to give Trek movies a broader appeal, and to tailor it to work better in a theater, JJ Abrams gave Trek a more SW feel by increasing the scale of action and space battles.
On the other hand, if SW wanted to do a TV series they would have to make it more like Trek.
I think you underestimate the intrigue and machinations that can occur in a "unipolar" world. As seen in Dune or the Iron Throne of Westeros, internal alliances, dynastic politics, and political ambition can make good conflict that can range from subtle manipulation of rivals to all out civil war within the state.
Also, just to deflate the Trek fandom's ego a bit, the more complex great power politics post TOS was despite Roddenberry (who wanted a hyperpower Federation that just stewed in its on sense of smugness). Latter writers and producers added rival nations to generate some form of conflict to create interesting stories, and they could only ever really create generic bad guy (insert species) empire, who never posed a serious threat to the Federation.
When in doubt, err on the side of Legends. It is just more interesting
agree 100% with you, in legends despite stupid power levels have quite a good view on different factions. Well if sidious didn't come back and screw everything up with his dark empire
Can someone explain the Star Trek map? Theres a patch of Federation territory on the otherside of Klingon space. How do they maintain that or even get to it without violating any space?
I would agree with this argument if that is what you are looking for. I prefer Star Wars because its story is based on a different context, the light overcoming darkness. I belive that the way star wars story is told and its political system work to show that. Sometimes a simple or basic idea can be better for the story than a complicated one.
It's not like Star Trek is very complicated to understand, it's a reflection on the human condition and comments on social factors and on our history.
So many veterans here, I still remember when I was still young and the fan war was still going strong, so many pains and anger 😢
I'd like to present a counter argument:
While a multipolar setting does make the world more interesting, for some people it makes it hard to follow. Right now my family is watching The Expanse which is a multipolar setting (Earth, Mars, the Belt, and ProtoGen) and my mom has a lot of trouble following the story and understanding what's happening. It seems like every 20 minutes my dad and I need to explain to her everything that's happening and sometimes even my dad who's as much a fan of science fiction as I am isn't picking up on everything that's going on. Consequently, I think Star Wars is more popular because it's much easier to follow than Star Trek.
So while I think you're right, you're also wrong. Great video by the way.
This is why, in the old Star Wars expanded universe, following the Yuuzhan Vong invasion, I was hoping a singular, galactic government wouldn't be able to establish itself again, that we'd see the galaxy divided among disparate groups with their own goals and ideologies, with the Jedi left afloat trying to make sense of it all.
It's also why I think the Old Republic era is the best. The dynamic between the Galactic Republic and the Sith Empire was great.
Now while I respect your opinion and think the comments talking about fandom vs fandom are ultimately foolish and miss the entire point of the video. I do think it's important to introduce a conflicting perspective to your own, one in this case that I hold. Though before I start I want to reiterate that I am not disregarding your opinion, nor do I wish to have people use my comment to make vitriolic statements towards you or your videos. I would very much encourage any friendly discourse you might wish to have based on what I'm about to say and I'd rather frame this as a discussion than any sort of debate.
The problem I have with what you've presented here is that it ultimately creates a general case of what is "better" or "worse" in a given universe without examining the individual context and conflict of the universe itself to make that determination. To take your Star Wars example, the core tenants of the SW universe, in the context of the original trilogy, would have been violated if they were merely tools for an alternate power that was "just as bad as the empire." The entire point of the OT was to create a desperate situation for a group of characters who were on the back foot, who triumphed through adversity and ultimately restored the original republic through their quite frankly lacking means. This plot structure works quite well and ultimately created a more engaging narrative than if you had to present those themes with the addition of another power, which based upon how you framed them would conflict with the themes and principles of the characters in the story.
On the same token I agree that Star Trek's multi-polar nation system works fantastically in its universe, however, Star Trek isn't good because it's multi-polar, it's good because the writers of ST took that concept and weaved an actually engaging narrative (most of the time). This allowed the multi-polar setup of ST to work to its fullest potential during its major story arcs, the various factions and alliance systems worked in something like the Dominion War because the story was suited to that style of narrative, as were the characters.
I just don't believe the assertion that Star Wars, Halo, or whatever other Universe would become better as a result of moving away from its current power structure is a correct one, at least in the way you presented it. Quite frankly I don't care that you prefer Star Trek's universe to Star War's, I think that's an entirely reasonable position that I might even agree with and you shouldn't be attacked for holding it. I just think the statement you've presented is overtly general without the nuance of further examination, and as a result doesn't hold value in regards to actually examining different universes.
Thank you for being awesome. I completely agree with what you said and hope that more people point this out.
I agree with OP. Each IP has a different way of building its narrative and world/universe.
A unipolar world can be very interesting as well, provided you explore internal conflict within the state. A unipolar world can also still have many smaller countries where the hegemon would be stretched thin if it tried to control everything. Foreign policy can become tied with internal policy, if certain interest groups have ties or interests in certain countries. Let's not forget that even in the presence of a single great power, there will also be regional powers competing against each other. Doing so in the shadow of a "world police" country carries it's own risks and opportunities.
The wide world building shows that the Star Wars universe has almost all of what is prioritized here in the Star Trek universe, provided that one looks at a wide span of time in these universes. Simply put, there is so much more than the bi-polar conflicts in the episodic films. The SW world building has conflicts playing off & influencing others, entangling countless dealings to make a galaxy just as fascinating and dynamic as Star Trek. The difference is the ST dynamic nature is in the fans face. The same dynamic nature is present in SW but the fan hast ti dive much further into the SW universe to find it...
by your interpretation i can see why the three kingdoms period in chinese history is so popular - especially during the early days it's multipolar like no tomorrow, tons of characters with different motives each trying to be the ultimate unipolar state
No one expects the Templin Inquisition!
Both franchises do certain things better than the other and I agree that in this regard Trek wins.
The politics and logistics of Trek are more interesting than many non-Clone Wars Wars stories, not to say there isn't potential in Wars just that Trek has the advantage of existing logistics and a galaxy still widely unexplored.
I would actually have liked to see a multipolar system in the new canon, maybe even after the Empire fragmented into a small remnant the emerging New Republic couldn't convince the entire galaxy to sign on so numerous governments comprising of a few systems or sectors each sprung up on their own.
The main reason I love Star Trek over Star Wars is it's just better Sci-Fi... And all the Star Wars fans I have met aren't even real Sci-Fi fans. They just like space lasers and light sabers.
I'm in no way stating my opinion here, I love both of these franchises, but the 'bipolarity-multipolarity' thing is kinda... absurd. Sorry. In this case, it's just because these universes are WRITTEN with bipolarity(SW)/multipolarity(ST) in mind. It in no way means that one is better than the other: they're just different. Equally awesome, but different. Once again, this isn't a case of better/worse, these are just different motives.
Oh, you were talking about SW Canon there?
...
Oh
Let me pull an ancient, baroque, master crafted popcorn bucket adorned with a golden double headed Aquila to enjoy a snack while SW and ST fans fight each other
The Emperor Protects!
Stargate is definitely multipolar
i love both of the universes for different reasons myself and i feel that you may have forgotten that there have been other major powers to rival the republic in the starwars universe throughout its history externally as well as plenty going on within the republic as well, let us not forget that while the many factions are under the smae banner there is plenty of political intrigue and back stabbing going on within the republic as well, and im very supprised that the WH40k or Battletech universes never got a mention when talking about Multipolar systems
What about warhammer it has more than two factions constantly fighting with tides changing on every front
I'm sure that in your research and fomenting of your argument you must have considered this, but, as one of the earlier commentators remarked. The reason why Star Wars is unipolar or even bipolar is because of the Force and its inherent bipolarity. The entire saga sees the battle of Light vs Dark, Good vs Evil, Skywalker vs Palpatine. A multipolarity of power in universe would make little sense and, in fact would detract from the overall story of Good wins over Evil, confusing it with shades of gray from multiple different worldviews from multiple different cultures. The story would simply not be the same.
The Star Trek universe does have a multipolar system. And this is due, in part, to the lack of a homogeneous galactic culture. Star Wars is a perfect example of this homogeneous culture and has allowed for the even spread of technology and culture throughout the entire Star Wars galaxy. Because of the slowness of warp speeds as well as antiquated laws like the prime directive, the Star Trek universe has not had the opportunity to spread the cultures of its different factions around nearly as much as the Star Wars universe. And it would be interesting to see what happens to those factions when faster than warp travel is realized by all of them.
I might also add that while the Star Trek Universe does have a multipolarity of political power, that multipolarity fades away as the federation progresses from alliance to massive interstellar faction. The Federation is increasingly seen as the all-powerful behemoth, having sole dominion over all of the Alpha and Beta quadrants without any equal besides maybe the Borg. But the Borg are a non-factor after Voyager so that leaves the Federation the most powerful faction in the galaxy. And this unipolarity increases even further when it is revealed in Enterprise that the Federation is still around in the future and is handily defeating time manipulating beings who reside in fluidic space. This multipolarity has got out the window, so to speak.
I thought Star Wars has a more vast Galactic Bureaucracy .
Warhammer 40k , best universe, and polars are there at the same time, all the time
Ehh but it's not really complicated most majior races would rather just see the other fight and not make allies to spicy the story up can get pretty boring but I still love it (tau being an outlier because they actually do want allies which makes them pretty unique and the horus heresy being a cool change of pace)
this is why i like the honor harrington book series it is not only military but you also have the political intruigue in the back ground and how they react to certain events that happen in the the series, this counts on both sides of the fence 'good' guys and 'bad ' if such a thing even exists.
Yes, I really like this series. Came for the space battles stayed for the politics. Then we bigger space battle. Then bigger politics. And bigger, and bigger, and bigger.
@@earnestbrown6524 another thing i like is how you dont even realise how much character progression happens while you are following the series as it by some of the later books you end up following the characters (on all sides) with baited breath as you have basically followed them in their way to each point it is .... amusing how investing it gets.
Sees title.
This comment section should be interesting.
I dont know what setting is better, i like more SW because its more sandbox universe...
But many people fight, when is better Warp or Hyperdrive and for this case a made a research...
Light Year (AU) - 150 000 000 km / 150m km
Light Speed - 229 793 km/s 1 079 252 848 km/h
Range per second:
ST Voager - Warp 9 Jump per second (9xLight Speed Jump) = 2 068 137 km / 2 Milion Km
Range: Hour is 3600 seconds
SW Venator Class Cruiser - 60 000 AU / Jump = 9 Trilion Km
(9 000 000 000 000)
ST Voager - Warp 9 Jump per hour (9xLight Speed Jump) = 7.4 Bilion Km
(7 445 293 200)
(Voager must travel about 1 208 hours / 50 days to meet one Jump range of Venator)
In Space Station 76, their ships go faster
ST: see a girl's idea of love develop from 14 to 40.
SW: a typical sword n sorcery fantasy story set in WW2 in space.
Technically the Old Republic era was a bi-polar scenario. With the Sith Empire and the Republic acting as equally powerful states throwing massive armadas at each other and even going as far as having them negotiating with independent world's for alliances and trade deals. Especially during the war that the MMO takes place in.
Hey Marc, we've heard you're opinion, now what about Larissa's.
While I do agree that the macro politics of Star trek has definitely got it's merits and makes for an interesting shifting political landscape between nation's. Star wars as the time of the Galatic civil war was more of micro politics. Small shifts between different factions in the same country for individual or planetary rights which did lead to a civil war under a despot star empire. And while there are a few small nation's or powers in the Star wars universe they did play a part in the actual war. The hutts being on example though more of a criminal organization did have some influence same with individual planets. Separate they might not be much but as added up does show case interesting political landscape
I LOVE your channel. But I most certainly don’t want hard sci fi or real world analogues when I escape into my beloved SPACE OPERA!
"Atleast when it comes to space politics"
Star Wars is a Space Opera .
Star Trek is a Soap Opera .
@@filimongalogavros5301 And why
exactly
@@REVERSE-th2bb The stakes are different .
In Star Wars , an evil Empire fights relentlessly with the Rebel Alliance for Galactic Domination .
In Star Trek , the main theme is about the exploration of different worlds and realities .
To boldly go in a quest for knowledge and not war .
@@filimongalogavros5301 yes but still what do you mean by soap opera.
"2 months free trial" and then "Please enter credit card details" ... Yeeah no, hard pass on that. Got me really excited at first.
The Roman Empire unrivaled at its hight? The Han-Emperor would like to express this disagreement using an expeditionary force of 250000 soldiers.
-- and the Parthians between them.
[Binkov Battlegrounds theme starts playing]