Poll: Which universe is more robust: Tolkien, or Star Trek?

[olicon]

From where I stand, the two most robust fictional universes are Tolkien's Middle Earth, and Star Trek's universe. While other universes may have its own lore and beloved characters, not many have most (if not all) of its inhabitants' cultures and geography totally mapped out, from their daily attire to formal dresses, languages, greetings, every nook and crannies of every villages and the deepest crevices on every hill and dale. Heck, even their entertainments and mediums have all the rules clearly laid out!

In your experience, which of the two, or something else entirely, comes up on top as far as being an actual universe.

 

[rossatdi]

I think because of its supposed grounding in science and desire to create a political tension between empires Star Trek seems more robust to me. Its rare in ST to see people or characters acting because 'they're evil' simply motivated in a different way. Tolkien's world has a lot of innate good and evil that is a bit unrealistic and doesn't stand up to me.

Just from the films it seems very unlikely to me that Rohan has the agricultural technology to support the army it does.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Neither, Trek has huge problems with the basics of Teleportation and Replicators. Middle earth fails on the sheer amount of resources that would be needed to support any of their armies.
That's before you go into the basics of Psychology on either Universe. An Earth that has multiple religions but no currency versus an Earth that has historical characters that are still alive?

 

[olicon]

Let me clarify a bit then.
I'm not talking about being able to map the universe onto ours. I'm talking about the fact that they have their own rules that permeate the realm, even if it doesn't quite make sense to us sometimes.

 

[BolognaBaloney]

Tolkien, I've always felt he put so much character into the world he created.

 

[nezroy]

It's kind of an unfair comparison. Star Trek as a whole is more fleshed out, but that's because hundreds of people have been allowed to officially contribute to its universe. In contrast, only Tolkien has ever been allowed to establish canon in his universe. That said, I don't think any single person has ever contributed as much to Star Trek as Tolkien did for Middle Earth.

 

[hermes]

It's kind of an unfair comparison. Star Trek as a whole is more fleshed out, but that's because hundreds of people have been allowed to officially contribute to its universe. In contrast, only Tolkien has ever been allowed to establish canon in his universe. That said, I don't think any single person has ever contributed as much to Star Trek as Tolkien did for Middle Earth.

Actually, Tolkien's son contributed a great deal to the world too, fleshing it out a lot.

But it is still more robust than the Star Trek universe, mostly because of the use of the reset button the series went constantly (specially the earlier series). I mean, how many alien races or energy creatures have we seen that appear in one episode and never again, and they never seem to know each other.

 

[Kelbear]

Star Trek's internal consistency is sabotaged by the many fingers in the pie.

But within it's universe, it works in subtleties to the futuristic societies. A basic component of good sci-fi is a reflection of how our society might react to the circmstances in the story. For example, is Data a "person"? Does he deserve rights as an individual? The series examines these smaller details to add character to the larger society in its universe.

Quite often, the "enemies" in the show have their own perspectives laid out in a sympathetic manner, giving additional context to the conflicts.

 

[high_castle]

It's a tough call. I lean towards Tolkien, even though I may not agree with his views on good and evil (seeing some creatures as inherently one or the other based on species rather than personality). As a whole, Tolkien's world is more consistent, and very richly imagined, especially if you read more than just LOTR. The Silmarillion, for instance, has a wonderful history of the elves and the Valor.

Star Trek tends to have a more nuanced view of good and evil (depending on which series you're watching of course), but the tone of the universe is always in flux, always subject to somebody else's interpretation.

 

[Bat Vader]

I choose other. While both Middle-Earth and Star Trek universes are robust there is most likely other more robust works of fiction out in the world.

 

[peanutch]

Alot of Tolkein's ideas came from him reading robert e. howard

 

[DuplicateValue]

It's a tough call. I lean towards Tolkien, even though I may not agree with his views on good and evil (seeing some creatures as inherently one or the other based on species rather than personality).
*snip*

But if you think back to The Silmarillion, there were many "good" entities that leaned towards evil such as Sauron who was, by the standard of our own world, an angel of sorts (a Maiar).
Also even Manwe (I think it was him, I can't really remember) betrayed Iluvatar (God), by creating the Dwarves before the secondborns (men) had arrived.

Also, the people of Numenor, who were descendants of the brave men that fought alongside the hosts of the Valar, were washed away by the Gods for their evil actions in later years.

 

[DuplicateValue]

I choose other. While both Middle-Earth and Star Trek universes are robust there is most likely other more robust works of fiction out in the world. D

Really? I honestly can't think of any ficticious worlds with more histories than Arda (Middle Earth and Valinor).

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Tolkien. There's so much detail in every aspect of Middle Earth, that fits really well together, from which a whole ream of great books have been written.

 

[Bat Vader]

I choose other. While both Middle-Earth and Star Trek universes are robust there is most likely other more robust works of fiction out in the world. D

Really? I honestly can't think of any ficticious worlds with more histories than Arda (Middle Earth and Valinor).

That is exactly what I mean. Sure Middle-Earth is robust but we can't just sit dead set on saying it is the most robust work of fiction out there. The only real way to settle this is read every work and piece of fiction out there and then we can make a decision. Seeing as that is impossible there can be no real end to this debate than.

 

[Actual]

I love both of these, of the two Star Trek gives the most depth to it's Universe. This is, as has previously been stated, because Tolkein is just one man. Regardless of how gifted he was he couldn't compete with the army of writers that have worked on Star Trek.

I voted other though, because I believe Star War's extended universe slightly beats out Star Trek. That shit be huge.

A smaller contender, if you're looking for detailed fiction universes, is Mechwarrior or Battletech, I can't remember which it is called, but they've put lots of work into the politics of their universe.

 

[Woodsey]

They're not even comparable.

Tolkien's is far more complete.

I'd say the Star Wars universe is much more of a comparison than Star Trek, especially with the expanded universe (obviously just the 6 films would be an unfair comparison as they only follow one story).

 

[Zorg Machine]

Tolkien for reasons stated and due to the elvish language that was invented. and also because I don't like trekkies.

 

[DuplicateValue]

They're not even comparable.

Tolkien's is far more complete.

I'd say the Star Wars universe is much more of a comparison than Star Trek, especially with the expanded universe (obviously just the 6 films would be an unfair comparison as they only follow one story).

What is the extended universe?
Is there books on it?

 

[DuplicateValue]

Tolkien for reasons stated and due to the elvish language that was invented. and also because I don't like trekkies.

Two elvish languages actually.
Quenyan and Sindarin.


I'm such a geek...