OK. I concede that sometimes the later parts of a series can be better than the second one. ;-)

But among the three Nolan Batman Movies, the second one is by far the best.

And nobody would argue the Terminator 2 is better than 3, 4 and 5 (and in my opinion even 1).

Star Trek 2 (The Wrath Of Khan) is still one of the best Star Trek movies.

> Die Hard 3 was WAY better than the snooze fest sequel.
> Samuel L. Jackson, man.

Back then I thought that DIe Hard 3 was more part of the Lethal Weapon series than a real Die Hard movie, but after 4 and 5, the majority rule makes it clear that Die Hard and Die Hard 2 are not part of the Die Hard series. ;-)

Your video, Miike Snow - Genghis Khan, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

meh not a patch on Dschinghis Khan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzmI3vAIhbE

ARRRGH!

I think he should have done a Shattner "KHAN!" moment...

"SLIIINKY!!!!"

Considering the dick-waiving that the whole Star Trek vs Star Wars thing always devolves into, I actually enjoyed the light-heartedness of this skit.

That said, the purpose of the stories told by each is meant to be completely different. That Star Wars goes for the simpler, classic hero's journey doesn't make it a lesser work, it just has a more singular focus, and the original trilogy did it well. But when you have a strong foundation like that, you really can't expand on it without losing a lot of the charm of the basic story. That's part of why the sequels were so disappointing. They couldn't retell the hero's journey without being a rehash, and by focusing on the hero's downfall, they had to up the complexity of the plot. But how complex can you make a plot before it just drags the movie down? (The exception was Clone Wars, which was able to circumvent this because it had more space to tell the story.)

This is why I am fairly certain that the new Star Wars movies will be lacking. They can either go the simple route and end up with a rehash, or the complex route, and end up with a similar mess to the prequels. There's a fine line they need to ride in order to make a good set of movies, but there are a lot of things working against them, from the expectations of the Star Wars fans, to the concessions writers have to make to appeal to the mass audience of modern movies. (To say nothing of Abrams, whose insultingly abysmal treatment of Star Trek gives me little confidence.)

Now on the Star Trek end, the stories are meant to be more complex, with commentaries on philosophy, modern politics, and the human condition (as well as showing the unique technological possibilities that the future held). Most of the stories were designed for introspection, and that's a major part of what made the show popular.

But if you lose that introspection and focus on action and special effects, the stories become empty. This is why many of the later movies, which again had to focus on mass appeal, were so lacking. (Movies like Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, Generations, and First Contact avoided this because they were able to draw on the richness of the show to round out the themes they were trying to express, but even still, they weren't quite up to par to the shows when it came to the fundamental concepts of Star Trek.) The same goes for much of Voyager and Enterprise, which often ended up going more for appeal than intellect. (Perhaps the writers ran out of things to say, perhaps the audience just got dumber, who knows.)

So in the end, which one is nerdier? Star Trek, hands down, and as ChaosEngine said, it's a good thing.

Which one is better? That depends on what kind of story you're looking for.

But in the end, there's no denying . . .


Riker is a freaking boss.

Z-Khan has been seconded for banination by kulpims. This account will now be disabled. If you would like to appeal this banination, Z-Khan, you may contact the administrators.

Z-Khan has been nominated for banination by chicchorea. This may be due to abuse or violations of the posting guidelines. If this nomination is seconded, the account will be permanently disabled.

It's not just airtime given to Israeli officials, it's the manner in which these interviews are conducted. Channel 4's Jon Snow didn't have any representative for the Palestinian point of view either, just Mark Regev, Netanyahu's spokesman. But he confronted him on the bullshit he was spewing, he put the atrocities right in his face.

US media, on the other hand, gives them free reign to promote their own point of view without any challenge. What about the intentional attacks on hospitals, schools and mosques? What about the bombings of UNWRA schools? What about the bombing run in Khan Younis that reportedly killed 19 children from the Abu Jami’ family? What about the attacks on Al Jazeera?

Plenty of material to challenge the Israelis on, yet they decide to be a one-sided mouthpiece instead.

reliant vs enterprise "wrath of khan" has been added as a related post - related requested by enoch.

if you want to see how james horners motifs play out:
*related=http://videosift.com/video/reliant-vs-enterprise-wrath-of-khan

Bilbo Baggins just isn't the same without Khan...

Meet the USS Zumwalt, a next-gen ship run by Linux and captained by James Kirk.

If a hacker named Khan assumes control over the ship, do you think it'll mark the emergence of Cthulhu?

@cosmovitelli, I'm still not seeing any hard facts from you. Yes, those are all awful things, but you are alleging that these people are demonstrably worse than Hitler (systematically killed at least 6 million Jews, arguably responsible for the largest conflict the world has ever seen), Stalin (murdered, tortured and deported .... well, no-one knows, but estimates range from 3 to 60 million) and Genghis Khan (killed a sizeable percentage of the worlds population at the time).

Also, you are aggregating the acts of every US president since Truman vs the acts of 3 individuals.

That's an extraordinary claim, and I think you need to provide some facts and figures to back it up.

Reagan, Bush et al were certainly not nice guys, but try to keep a sense of perspective. They are not in anyway comparable to Hitler, Stalin or Genghis Khan.

If you're going to make statements like that, you need to back up your argument with some facts.

Reagan was just the first stooge hired by the remnants of the Nixon administration. (By Bush Snr {his head of the CIA}, Donald Rumsfeld {2nd in command of the CIA} & Dick Cheney {3rd in command of the CIA}).

Literally an actor. And a 3rd rate cowboy actor at that (only for domestic & retarded audiences).

BTW Dubya was next & a gift to these fellas, none of them dumb enough to be the man out front making excuses.

They decided that a few million dead kids was fine if it swelled the family pile by 20%. Vietnam, East Timor, Iran Chile etc etc etc etc
.....Does anyone really know how much bank Cheney made from the slaughter/'rebuilding' in Iraq? A billion? 10 billion? 100 Billion? Will any American ever ask? Guess not.

In the future analysis of this time, these men will be held up worse that than Hitler, Stalin & Genghis Khan for sure. Their crimes are comparable in every way (especially the massive piles of dead kids) but without the personal trauma to explain psychosis. The US government of the last 50 years consists of the richest, fattest, most privileged men ever to live in millions of years of humanity, and yet they've committed the worst crimes of all time. Millions dead, crippled, traumatized, orphaned.
Is it their fault or the fault of those around them who do nothing or worse; cheer?