Which of the Four "star" franchises is best? (Inc BSG now)

Film is my feeling and so getting 7 years out of 1 story or 6 films out of another is an easy choice.

The third entity i want to include in the debate, which i feel fully deserves to be considered an equal, is "StarGATE" This is a very original series, it doesn't go with the tried and cliched "Space ships = sci fi" route Instead it gives us a more scientific approach. A device which creates worm holes connecting planets millions of light years apart. It is set in the NOW and not hundreds of years in our future where anything is possible, nor is it set in a galaxy far away where you can make up all your own rules.
Stargate is better for this as the characters have all the weaknesses we actually would have, and all the strengths we actually do have etc. It deals with our first interactions with alien life, it doesn't take us to an already alien world, or a world where aliens have coexisted with us for decades. It is all new, every technological advancement is hard fought and created out of a need to survive in a world we have no experience with. Being a military based program there is far more room for scope too. The Americans not only have to deal with knowing all the threats we are faced throughout the galaxy, but also having the Russians and other countries breathing down their backs.
The main focus of the story is earths travels through the gate, exploring new planets and searching for new races with which to trade technology. More often than not they have to solve some form of catastrophe along the way, and there is also the overbearing fact that they are quite quickly at war with a very powerful and not to mention evil race, and that war drives the need for finding new technology and allies with which to defeat them.

One of the most superb aspects of the aliens they come across throughout the show is their historical influences on earth. They are at first mainly themed along the Egyptian mythology although Mayan and Aztec religion makes a feature as well as Arthurian and many many others. This show deals with the idea that perhaps life on earth could have been seeded by Aliens at some point. That a lot of what the ancient religions referred to as Gods, could actually have been very powerful beings from other worlds. This is not a new concept or perspective on religion, but no other show has taken this route when making a science fiction story.

As to not lay all my cards on the table at once, il finish with the characters. In Star Trek they are always the same. The captain and their team of staff, their number 1, their pilot, their engineer, security officer doctor and 1 or 2 others. The same core crew members in each episode, going to new worlds or being attacked etc on their ship. Theres always the character who is not human, but aspires to be. There is always the philosophical alien characters, the angry characters and generally it feels like they fill the same rolls in each series from a Star Trek template.
In Star Wars, i to conceed that the characters are quite extraordinary in places, although C3P0 is a knob jockey, and off the top of my head i only have respect for the bounty hunters, R2D2, Hans Solo, Chewbaca, Yoda and i would of added Vader but for his end of Episode 3 "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo" which destroyed a super villain in one foul swoop. In fact, i would have probably had a little more respect for the entire series if they had not made episodes 1-3, since they were extremely over hyped and it just seemed doomed to failure.

On the other hand, i find the characters of the Stargate Universe brilliant. The original, SG1 comprises of a militant leader whos wise cracking, tough and does what he has to do, a philosopher who specializes in ancient history, languages and understanding new races etc. A brilliant scientist who raises the intelligence of the show quite well in my opinion, and then the resident Alien whos main role is one of freeing his race from oppression under the rule of the main antagonists. There are many other characters to the show who have their importances, much like there are in ST and SW, but i think the fact that the characters in this show managed to continue things over 10 years of Television and so far 2 dvd films, plus 1 spin off running into its 5th season currently, plus another planned spin off and the prospects of even more DVD released films, it seems to me that the characters in any given Star Trek or Star Wars story could not have lasted this long. Granted the lead in SG1 (Richard Dean Anderson) left and was replaced by another, but that was after 8 years and he is still very much a part of the rest of the show since leaving.

I know this kind of comes from nowhere, i was reading a debate on another site about star wars and star trek, and thought Listal could do with a similar debate, but im throwing Stargate into the mix because in my opinion it exceeds the other 2 by far. Its track record and longevity speaks for itself, there is still scope for plenty more Stargate related media where as Trek and Wars have been done to the death and have been found wanting. I do not deny both are spectacular franchises either by the way, i dont give Star wars the respect it probably deserves, but this is only because i am incapable of seeing its appeal i guess. It is like seeing a classic car that everyone is raving about being wonderful and thinking it looks kind of ordinary because it is old.

Since iv edited this, i have to add a note, iv never watched Battlestar Gallactica (sp?) so i have absolutely no opinion on it at all, though i do intend on watching some day, and debate upon it might help me reach that day.

Well, what about Battlestar Galactica? It has star somewhere in the title.

I've seen random episodes of various seasons of Star Trek and to be honest it wasn't my cup of tea. I've seen the Stargate movie though and I thought it was fun, though I haven't seen any episodes of the series. So I guess I'll have to go with Star Wars. Yey!

Chibiyusa, you are more than welcome to debate BSG too :) Im gonna add a note at the top to clarify that, and to also say DO NOT TAKE THE STARGATE FILM AS ANY KIND OF VIEW ON THE SHOW AS IT IS A PILE OF SHIT IN COMPARISON!! Hehehe. If you have never seen SG1 I recommend checking it out from season 1 but baring in mind that like with all shows the budget improves dramatically as it goes along. By season 10 it was so expensive to make Sci fi were kind of thinking "shit, we can pull in ratings for a lot cheaper than this!" so they dumped it and replaced it with Eureka! Still MGM have given some hefty lumps of cash to make the DVD films, the 2nd one is budgeted at around 7-8 million which aint bad.

Every body with an opinion is biased! Thats how you debate for and against things, i have no natural bias against Star Wars, i just think it is far too over hyped and not at all worthy of the love it gets. I dont think an opinion opposing yours is corrupt, although there is definitely something wrong with peoples adoration of Star Wars, i didnt feel anything for them when i watched them.

Jack O'Neill is extreamly militant. His roll of the team is that he is the only one of the 4 who is a proper soldier, his entire career has been as an air force fighter pilot. Carter could be considered military too as she is, but her main roll is the science side, which Jack doesn't understand, he also doesn't understand Jacksons work, and is nothing to do with Tealcs race. I couldn't think of much more to him really than this, except that he is the next step in human evolution?

Anyway on a sad note Chelsea just scored :( it will be a travesty if they get into the CL final.

Stargate is hilarious over-the-top cheese, barely worth the time of day with the grandad action star 'O'Neill' and the cock with a £2 coin on his head.

Star Wars is pioneering, although RB6k could've wrote a better script and dazzled us all with better special effects back in the seventies, and although it doesn't matter that Star Wars was made before - and probably inspired these big money shows, it's still an institution. In ten years time, nobody will remember who bit part characters like £2 coin head are and that knobsack Starbuck. In fact, when they realise that the original series' are so bad they have to make them again, that's always a giveaway!

I grow so tired of listening to the argument that "Star wars was pioneering" is a reason why the others aren't better. I wasn't around in the 70's so i was lucky enough to not be so starved of science fiction anything could have done it for me. I dont abide by the view that anything pioneering has to be respected, yes it was good, yes it sparked a revolution in science fiction material, but it had no competition, if everything since then was a decline then why would anybody bother watching the new things?
Yes for its time the special effects were good, but the special effects now days are better because technology is better, i can think "they did pretty well" without thinking it is better than something which is clearly a marked improvement. Special effects didnt make up for the fact the latest 3 installments were wank did they?
In its time the story was also good, but the stories now are better too. Nothing i watch has been in any way similar to the plot of Star Wars, and i would say when writing Stargate they did as much as possible to make it different to Star Trek, and they succeeded.

As a matter of fact i do believe that since the Stargate story spanned a decade of television and is still going strong with its spin offs and dvd's people will remember the characters in ten years time. I accept that if the entire world was asked more people would know the Star wars characters, or the Star Trek characters than the Stargate ones, but they have been around an exceptionally long time and at their peaks they were the only big money science fiction shows. Now days Stargate has to compete with a whole host of different science fiction shows, and it comes out on top. The BSG revival was riding on on being shown alongside Stargate for a good while when it first got remade, i presume its that which your last line is referring to because its the only one of the 4 being remade? (I dont know the starbuck reference either is that BSG too?)

With all the above mentioned, i can also safely assume you have never watched more than a few minutes worth of any Stargate show except the film. Having a gold circle on your head must mean your a shit character and the entire program is shit despite its success.

Note, i dont think Star wars is shit at all! It is just over hyped as i keep saying, everyones responses to me act as if i am saying it is the worst sci fi of all time. I am merely saying that gate and trek are better, but to be fair it is to be expected when there are only 6 films to SW vs 32 seasons and a lot of films to ST and 15 seasons + 3 films so far for SG. The part of that which i admire SW for is the fact it can even be considered along the same par. (I havnt counted any of the animations for all 3 of which there are plenty, and i know nothing of BSG so again no comment.)

I don't know why you're comparing the films to three TV shows anyway? Just because they contain the word 'Star'? THE LATEST STAR WARS FILMS WERE CRAP GUYS BUT IGNORE THE STARGATE FILM WHICH WAS ALSO SHIT THAT DOESN'T COUNT.

I've watched around 10-15 episodes of Stargate, the stargate film and about 3 episodes of BSG (many more of the original series). All I can say of Stargate is that it is covered in the glossy american sheen that surrounds all the shows you seem to like, which involves giving characters who have lame comic moments the benefit of the doubt. The guy with a coin on is head can't act and was clearly cast for his build, that's why he's a poor character, maybe if you weren't so blinded by Jack's hilarious quips you'd see that!

You wouldn't have been immune to Star Wars back in the day, that's so disrespectful. If what you love nowadays is anything to go by, you'd have been lapping it up just like everyone else. There were a lot of science fiction films in the 70's. There were also lots of absolute classics that came out before Star Wars, and just afterwards. Saying it was unrivalled is absolute bullshit... and irrelevant! What Sci-Fi classics are Star Trek, BSG and Stargate up against these days then?

The stories were 'good at the time' but now they're better? Like the story somehow got worse over time? Having an episodic TV show with a few reoccurring themes is obviously going to have a more varied selection of stories and writers, but as a result, they're not going to stand out as much as one universal story. That's why Star Wars shouldn't even be compared to these three shows!

The reason i compared them was because it was being compared on another site i frequent and iv heard Starwars and Star Trek be compared countless times, so i thought i would refresh the debate with todays sci fi, considering ST hasn't been at its peak for some time and Starwars has just enjoyed a relapse in popularity.

The reason why im saying ignore the film is because it is nothing like the rest of the star gate media. It was alright but pales in comparison. Those 2 hours are a small blip on the whole thing, where as the first 3 parts of the starwars films are half the story!!!!

The "guy with the coin in his head" was cast in a roll much line Arnie is akin to in his films, he can act quite well, the fact he is written to only say about 12 lines a series and doesn't move much in action less episodes does not make him a poor actor. There is no glossy American sheen to this show, you just like to think that because someone like me enjoys it it must be the next buffy/angel/firefly alternative. I know the exact sheen you refer to.

I stand by the feeling that i would have been immune to Star Wars because it is not what i look for in a film/tv show. What draws me to Stargate is the mythical side of it, the ancient history etc. Star trek voyager is about the closest thing iv watched properly to Star wars, iv seen the Next gen movies and many episodes but i couldn't give you a story arc from the original ST or DS9, and Enterprise i started to watch but gave up when i knew it had been canned.
Firefly is probably closer to star wars than voyager was, and i did enjoy what little of that there was.

In relation to your point about classics before and after star wars, how exactly is it pioneering if it is not the first of its kind and has competition all around it?! It leapt out as the main contender because nothing else was on par with it. My point is now days better things are coming out thick and fast, and therefore one cant rely on being "the best of a bad bunch" (probably a bad way of putting it, but it was the best there was because everything else was substandard) It set the bar, and other things have surpassed it. My line about the story being good at the time but now stories are better was meaning that yes, the story from starwars is good, and at the time it was the best story out. But since then the story has been beaten, it hasn't gotten worse over time its just not top of the heap anymore.

I make the exact point you make right at the end about tv's varied themes vs 1 theme in the film etc and you are right that it perhaps shouldn't be compared to these 3 shows. But a lot of sci fi fanatics do it all the time hence me seeing this thread (Although i saw it on a football website oddly enough!) If you look at the overall stories summarized in brief i prefer the story of Stargate though thats my point. If we forget the characters from all of them (you may dislike £2 coin head and O Niel etc who i personally really like considering iv seen every episode, but i think C3P0 is a prick! Luke and Laea too, anakin, jar jar binks the list goes on quite far with Star wars, it is full of characters you just wish would die!!) and look at the overall stories of the entire shows/films the story for SG is the better one.

I think the Americanism is the most clear on two seperate shows: CSI and NCIS. NCIS is dreadful, giving its characters personality through off-beat humour and contrived moments of intensity, whereas CSI, although sometimes sensationalist, is generally much more human and doesn't try to force such character-driven episodes. Buffy and Stargate are two shows that I instantly noticed this method of programme making and it makes me so angry that people buy it!

The black guy is cast to play an emotionless battle-ready character, but he even messes that up. He doesn't even have to show an emotional range and he can't manage it! He delivers his lines as if he has just learned to read and he's pulling them off hesitantly from an Autocue.

Stories don't just degrade over time! They're either good, you enjoy them and you like them or you don't. The only time I can think of when you might change your opinion on a story if when growing from a child into an adult. But they are not like computer processors, you can't just replace them with newer better stories.

Star Wars is pioneering in its method of storytelling and special effects. The huge orchestral soundtracks that are seamlessly interwoven from the opening scene, songs that you could hum off by heart today despite your disinterest in the franchise. Star Wars stood out from the crowd - brace yourself - because it was a GOOD FILM! It combined a lot of different things into one movie. Space had been done before, love, the battle between good and evil, it's all old hat by now, so that means SW did something right to warrant the popularity it gained! Star Wars cost about a fifth of the price to make than Stargate the film did (Using that film as an example), so what did SW do differently on such a small budget? I don't remember any space-epics coming out around the same time as Stargate, why wasn't it a world-wide smash!?

Not everyone is as impulsive as to wish characters dead all the time. A running joke is that C3PO is a panicking robot that nobody can bear to be around. There's nothing wrong with Luke or Leia, you just hate them because you're impulsive and counter-culture!

There aren't newer things coming out today 'thick and fast'. Like I said, those space-orientated shows are all we have, the amount of shit on TV that gets cancelled after one or two seasons is piling up all the time. So much for newer, greater shows and more compelling stories!

Your trying to tell me CSI does not have a cheesy American gloss to it?! Seriously?? I dont know where to begin with that series!

Stargate is hardly character driven, there are character related stories as with everything, but it wouldn't be possible to drag out 4 characters for 10 years! The plot is driven by an ongoing war and the need to defend earth from attack. It is focussed on the American air force exploring the galaxy, forming alliances, saving worlds all with the aim of defeating an alien race who has managed to convince the majority of the worlds SG1 visit, that they are not aliens but Gods. The spin off is about earth fortifying a position in another galaxy on an abandoned outpost, becoming stranded with no resources and no contact with home and forced to fend for themselves. That makes it even better because they are instantly at war with and outnumbered by a relentless species called the wraith.
Buffy was incredibly character driven because it was a coming of age show, it was meant for young teens who could connect, and they grew up with the show, what with Buffy starting off in high school and making her way to adulthood. You are comparing a show for a 13-17 demographic about growing up, to a show meant for (i would say) 16+ (but it could be higher). About exploring our galaxy and fighting an alien race (alongside other more religious themes)
The reason there is that gloss in Buffy is it is about a teenager who saves the world... Someone our age should not take that kind of thing seriously, and i cant watch it anymore because its something iv grown out of since it finished. (Like i and most fans should have)

The black guy in SG1 is supposed to be more like a monk than an emotionless battle ready character. His lines are delivered precisely how they should be, in episodes where he actually has to speak more than 2 or 3 words he is great. Even you know he spends 99% of the show saying the odd word like "Indeed" and delivering lines in a monotone 2 dimensional Michael Owen kind of way "Thanks Mum" Thats who he is supposed to be, most of the lines he says are meant to be lines he has just learned! Because he is not from earth, for example its a bit of a cheesy line, but one i like, he delivers perfectly the phrase "Things are not likely to calm down Daniel Jackson, they will most definitely calm up" now i am probably destroying my case with that line (i dont think i have written it right anyway in all honesty, but the calm down/up gist is right) but the way he delivers things like this is spot on, as he is supposed to be someone who hears our phrases etc, doesn't understand them and then i guess the joke they liked to use sometimes is he would use it in the wrong context (they never used it often mind you!) Another would be "Undomesticated equines could not keep me away" His character is quite probably the hardest character to act in that show, much like Data would be in Star Trek, and i think he does a brilliant job. You've just not seen him in his element.

I have never said Starwars has degraded over time, you are completely missing what i am saying. I am saying that when star wars was written it would have been the best thing out, but it has not remained the best because other things have been made since which are better. Im not saying peoples opinions have changed, but the only way i can describe it is if you hear a song and decide its the best song ever made, that title is only going to be held until you hear a song which is better right? It doesn't make the original song any less good, but it does mean that song is no longer the best. My point is that has happened with Starwars since the 70s. Now days sci fi shows about entire galaxy's and worlds etc are commonplace, and so there is more of a market for them. If starwars was released tomorrow for the first time with no prior information on it, it is my opinion that it would only rise to the relative fame of other shows like ST and SG have due to being big fish in a big sea of sci fi, to starwars being a big fish in a pond. If Stargate had been created in the 70s it would be bigger because there was less of a market, much like DR Who was bigger then than now. Dr Who has been re released and if you watch the old episodes they are sometimes unbearable to watch yet at the time they were considered wonderful, and now die hard fans are up in arms when the new shows are actually doing the story justice.

The fact starwars cost a fifth of the cost of Stargate is purely relative to the times, the same way bread costs more now than it did 2 decades ago. Actors etc demand more money, special effects cost more. As i keep trying to point out the stargate film is not a patch on the series. If we were comparing the SW 6 or even 1 of the 6 vs the SG 1 film, SW would win hands down! Yes it pioneered its method of storytelling but since it got the ball rolling the standard has been set and so SW becomes a minimum requirement to succeed within media. To be worth watching, any media has to be as good as or better than what else has passed, it would be ridiculously conservative to say that no science fiction has ever excelled itself and our peak was met during the 70s with starwars. That is bull! Everything starwars has done, has been outdone by something else, much like a record being broken.
C3P0 was an intolerable character throughout the series, as was jar jar in the first episode, so bad they hid him in the next two. Luke Skywalker is a joke, a regular Tidus from FFX! It has nothing to do with my impulses, i have a genuine dislike for both Luke and Leia. She is the wet blanket of the series IMO. C3P0 seems intentional, which can be forgiven if your "not supposed to *like* him" etc but the rest are meant to be liked and i cant.

There are plenty of newer things coming out thick and fast, the amount of space shows released since Starwars has been huge, the amount that have came out and succeeded and the amount that have that have flopped are purely down to how it is delivered each time. The star treks are great, no denying that, i say better than Star Wars, they had the bar there to gauge themselves by, which has benefited them, as perhaps without that goal to shoot for they might have been half as good? But they definitely surpassed it.

Off the top of my head i can think of the following shows that have been on in the past few years purely dedicated to Space.

Farscape, BSG, Enterprise, Voyager, DS9, Dr who, Firefly, babylon 5, Stargate, Stargate Atlantis, Andromeda,

There are bound to be more than those 11 (9 if we cant include SG)

Not to mention other sci fi like - Heroes, Eureka, The 4400, Roswell, Lost (if it counts?) Kyle XY, Jake 2.0, Mutant X, Even buffy and Angel if they count too?

All of these sci fi shows have probably in some way been influenced by SW and ST theres no denying that, and because of this some of them are bound to surpass it! But, because there are 11 different tv shows, which appeal to 11 different types of people, 100% of people are never going to agree that 1 is the best of the lot. Its unlikely that 30% would agree properly. That doesn't mean that one is not better, it just means that there is so much variety that the popularity is going to be diluted. The only way i can gauge that Stargate was the victor is the fact it has lasted 10 seasons and another 5 in spin off form to date. The only other sci fi show to do as well in history is Dr who, but its seasons and episodes were shorter, and churned out like a war machine, so its unlikely anything will pass it in the near future. Each of the star treks finished at 7 seasons, people are already moaning after 4 seasons of lost and 1.5 of heroes. There are thousands upon thousands of different television shows now, enough for everyone to form their own cult favorites etc so no one has to watch whats on etc. At the time of SW it was the only fore runner in its class, the one everyone talked about, now it would take something a lot lot bigger to make the same kind of impact because everything is delivered that big, you get one group talking about one thing and another talking about another and so on and so forth, you can find forums online for any of these shows, all with hardcore fans swearing this is the be all and end all etc. I know im just a fanboy, but thats exactly what it is with SW too i guess?

Both CSI and NCIS are American shows, but one smothers itself in a thick layer of cheese, while the other manages to let the plot do the talking most of the time. Characters actions, and not their artificial gags are what makes you interested in them. You say the formula for Star Trek was the same throughout each series, but the format of every Stargate episode I've seen is the same with the end of the show being used to 'wind-down' with some wise-jokes about the black guys failure to grasp something or Jack's age. It's not a comedy show! We're just going to have to agree to disagree on his acting.

You're missing the point that Star Wars was NOT the only Sci-fi film to be released at the time! It came after HUGE sci-fi films, withstood the test of time and spawned a massive expanded universe of literature and further films. Whether you liked the last three Star Wars films or not, they were a massive box office success. You can produce a horrible film that people will flock to see because of the brand, but can you fool them twice? Or three times!? Unlikely. Even if people are seeing a film because of the brand, they must want to know what happens because they're so intrigued by the story. They love the Star Wars Universe. The same couldn't be said for Star Trek fans and Enterprise, which was axed, even though ST has a huge fan base.

You hate Leia and Luke, I don't, that's not an argument, it's a matter of personal taste. Jar Jar is annoying as he's thrown in as comic relief, but I thought you loved that kind of gimmick!!!

All your argument about these Sci-fi shows having SW to 'gauge' themselves on is just wrong. I take it you're ignoring the fact that Star Trek came out before Star Wars? Or did they just call up a very young Lucas for ideas? How do these TV shows 'surpass' the films!? I just don't know what you're measuring this on considering you've already admitted they shouldn't be compared in the same way!

Those shows that are supposed to offer opposition to Space Franchises, the Star Treks and Star Gates don't count, as they're part of the argument, whereas Farscape was axed, Dr. Who is cringe worthy and BBC-produced, so it pretty much offers no competition to anyone, I've never even heard of Andromeda, why not toss in Lexx too! If anything it shows that Space is a winning formula, I'm sure TV schedules don't operate on a congestion basis, if there are a bunch of good Space shows, channels like the Sci-fi channel will pick them up and screen them all day long.

I'm not too fussed about Star Wars as being the ultimate space franchise, I'm not even a die hard fan of the films, I just think it's disrespectful to compare it to Stargate and Battlestar Gallactica and on some imaginary criteria say that it's worse than both of those programmes!