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

[Clashero]

Star Trek has its own language.


THAT PEOPLE MOTHERFUCKING SPEAK!!!


But Middle Earth may have that, I just don't know.

Quenya and Sindarin. Some people know dwarven as well, I believe.

See, spoke to soon.


Oh well.

No problem. I will admit that more people know about Klingon than about Quenya (hell, most people just call it Elven like it's only one language)

 

[oliveira8]

I think the poll should be changed to Arda rather than just Middle-Earth. There's a lot of stuff going on at Valinor as well.

Tolkien alone, in a little over half a century, equalled the creative output of an entire country. Plus, he only has one planet to work in. Trek has an entire universe.

No excuse. xP

Frank Herbert managed to create a solid universe and most of the time you just in one planet. Yet theres the illusion that alot of shit is going around in the Universe that affects life on Dune, without going to see it.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

From the two here I would say Tolkien but I think that another VERY robust world is Pratchett's Discworld. There's nothing in the Discworld that isn't explanied in some book or another.

I'm fully with you. What's more, the world Pratchett has created is still evolving, still adapting, while the Trek universe is pretty much, well, over, and Middle Earth has been rampaged over for quite some time by every group on that paradoxically analogous continent. The Discworld still has opportunity to change and grow, to create new chances.

 

[Mr Wednesday]

Neither both are horrendously flawed biologically & logically.

You've not quite got a full grasp on this whole "fiction" thing, have you?

 

[skywalkerlion]

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.

I voted Tolken too, but too bad that the Silmarillion made me want to shoot my self trying to force me to read it. It's so..god...awful...long. Not only that but some of the words had me spittering trying to understand it.

 

[olicon]

Wow.. this goes to show just how little I know about both of the main fictional universe. I didn't realized they are so detailed.

Oh, and I definitely have to look more into this Discworld.

 

[Kimarous]

Tolkien, definately. Star Trek, while robust in it's own right, suffers from various inconsistencies and reimaginings. Take, for example, the Klingons; their appearance and ideals in the Original Series were radically different from everything since. Furthermore, the rules concerning time travel greatly vary from story to story.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Tolkein's is more complete, but Star Trek is a damn sight more expansive, regardless of who could and could not contribute.

 

[Mr Wednesday]

Neither both are horrendously flawed biologically & logically.

You've not quite got a full grasp on this whole "fiction" thing, have you?

& you sir havent grasped this slippy thing we all good consistent fiction.

Durr hurr pointy eared gerbils with swords Durhey. Hook the EPS conduit up to the Deflector dish to not die Wheeeeeee. Seriuosly Suspension of disbelief at that level borders on pathetic.

So, a work of fiction doesn't meet your silly rules, and it's not "consistent"? A consistent work of fiction has more to do with narrative and plot structure than whether nor not the warp drive would actually bloody work.

 

[Cody211282]

I like both but middle earth seemed a bit better to me, mostly because the planets in ST just seem like if you were to go to a diffrent city then another world, middle earth seems a bit uncompleate but mostly because the world was all mapped and it worked a bit more for the setting

 

[NeutralDrow]

I was going to give the Nasuverse as an answer, but a lot of it is still basically Earth, just with a lot of myth and legend happening to be true (in various forms), Gaia itself as a living being, along with the Aristoteles, Alaya, and the Akasha, as well as the supernaturals under them (the True Ancestors and Dead Apostles...so, fantasy Earth.

I think I'ma go with Tolkien for purposes of the poll. To anyone who objects, baruk Khazâd ai-mênu.

 

[piez13]

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.

Actually, the dwarves were created by Aule. But yeah, anyone saying Tolkien created card-board cut-outs of good and evil, haven't looked into either Boromir, Gollum, or even Turin.

Hell, I don't think even Melkor was evil right from the get-go. Didn't he just want to create different music at the beginning?

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

This has got to be one of the geekiest arguments I've ever encountered, and I'm a regular poster here on this VIDEO GAME forum.

Personally, Tolkien's work seems more internally consistent, but I think that may be due to lack of outside collaborators mucking things up.

 

[thiosk]

I have to vote trek-- not because i like it more, but it can still evolve. Tolkein's is set-- he wrote it all up, fleshed it out-- but star trek can be added to and redone and re imagined...

 

[saxist01]

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.

Actually, the dwarves were created by Aule. But yeah, anyone saying Tolkien created card-board cut-outs of good and evil, haven't looked into either Boromir, Gollum, or even Turin.

Hell, I don't think even Melkor was evil right from the get-go. Didn't he just want to create different music at the beginning?

Well, he created discordant music because he was selfish and wanted to create things under his own image. By the time they had all entered Arda (Middle Earth) he was becoming more and more evil, destroying everything everyone else created. So, maybe not evil in the beginning, but definitely misguided, and slipping quickly.

 

[Clyde]

Star Trek is shallow. Most new planets have exactly one problem and the citizens have one or two ideologies centered entirely on that problem. The best example off the top off my head is when they encounter the Natve Americans who have relocated to another planet after being guided their by spirits, but due to galactic negotions the crew must force the Native Americans off their new planet.