Shamelessly stealing this from a comm
May. 6th, 2008 03:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
webbgirlIt's time for a geek-off. Star Trek or Star Wars and why.
You can only pick one, and I expect real reasoning behind it, not just that you want to bone Natalie Portman or Patrick Stewart (though those could be good reasons now that I think about it). And don't say "neither," because no one likes a party pooper.
You can only pick one, and I expect real reasoning behind it, not just that you want to bone Natalie Portman or Patrick Stewart (though those could be good reasons now that I think about it). And don't say "neither," because no one likes a party pooper.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2008-05-06 10:53 pm (UTC)OOOOH real reasoning? Darth Vader (before Whinakin, that is) is much more fun than Q (not such a great conversationalist, but...). World-building was more complete (and not rampant with Kirk losing his shirt). Of course, there's the difference between film and tv which was a helluva gap 20 years ago. There are only two big 'cons' to SW---Lucas' inability to write a decent script and Jar-Jar. *G*