1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Which is better: Star Trek or Star Wars?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by The Condor, Dec 31, 2005.

?

Which is better?

  1. Star Trek

    27.3%
  2. Star Wars

    58.0%
  3. I don't like either of them.

    5.6%
  4. This is probably the dumbest poll of yours yet Condor!

    9.1%
  1. Rambuchan

    Rambuchan The Funky President

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,560
    Location:
    London, England
    Voted Star Wars.
     
  2. Neomega

    Neomega Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    11,261
    agreed

    Disagree. A major part of it's storyline, (much to the critic's chagrin), was th epolitical environment leading to the collapse of the republic.

    Not even. It talks about how living a life of fear and pessimism can drive one to do things that are irrational, and hurtful.

    B.S. If you watched the making of episode III, you would see how much work Lucas put into the movie, and put into fulfilling his vision in the little space of a 90 minute movie.
     
  3. CrazyScientist

    CrazyScientist Those crazy scientists...

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2001
    Messages:
    637
    Location:
    VA, USA
    I'm a fan of both, and while before the prequels I would have said Star Wars is better entertainment than Star Trek, the sheer crappiness of the prequels smeared Star Wars's good name far more than Enterprise and a couple of fairly crappy movies smeared Star Trek's. Therefore I had to vote Star Trek.

    That said, I feel I have to weigh in on the Federation vs. Empire nerd-off. Even when I preferred Star Wars to Star Trek, I had to concede that Star Trek military technology was superior. This is based on three factors.

    1) Travelling speed: No matter what the technical manuals (which less face it, are just bull-crap made up by fans) say, dialogue from the movies themselves clearly indicate that Star Trek ships are faster. I base this mainly on the Millenium Falcon, which is described as; "The fastest ship in the fleet", "The fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy", and "can out run Imperial Starships, not the local bulk cruisers mind you, I'm talkin' about the big Corellian ships now." Now to be fair these were all said by the ship's owners or former owners who have reason to brag about it, but I think that most SW fans would concede that as SW ships go, the Millenium Falcon is at least reasonably fast. So how fast can she go? According to Han in Episode IV, "She'll make 0.5 past light speed." I don't see how that could mean anything other than 1.5c. High warp speeds on the other hand, have been described as many hundreds of times the speed of light. However, this does leave us with an apparent contradiction. When the Empire is hunting the Falcon in Episode V, Admiral Piette claims "If the Millenium Falcon got into light speed, she could be on the other side of the galaxy by now." Clearly, 1.5c will not get you across an entire galaxy that fast. There are two possible explanations. 1) Piette was exaggerating. 2)The Star Wars galaxy is vastly smaller than our own. Both explanation have their merits and flaws, but each makes more sense than assuming that "point five past light speed" means something other than 1.5c. Even if we ignore all this, and assume that travel through hyperspace is approximately equivalent to warp speed, Star Trek still has two mobility advantages to consider. First, they can go to warp on a moments notice, while Star Wars ships must fly in a straight line for minutes on end while they make the calculations. And second, Star Trek ships can fight while at warp, while Star Wars ships cannot fight in hyper space.

    2) Weapon & Defensive power. This is a tough one, because typically, whenever Star Wars weapons are used, they are pitted against Star Wars defences, and the same is true for Star Trek. One universe could have vastly more powerful weapons, but yet do about as much damage due to facing vastly more powerful shields. The best thing to do therefore is to fire weapons against a defenseless object, such as a planet to test their power. The Death Star is obviously king here, but let's not forget that there is only one death star, that they take years to build, that they can only fire their super laser in one direction and have essentially zero tactical mobility. The more important consideration is what the regular fleet ships could do to a planet. Fortunately, we are presented with estimates of this ability from both series. In an episode of Star Trek: DS9, a combined fleet of about 20 ships estimates that it could destroy the crust of a planet in one hour, and the mantle in an additional five hours. That's not bad. In Star Wars however, it is clear that the destruction of a planet prior to the death star is not so routine an operation. First, Alderaan's destruction cause a "great disturbance in the force", affecting jedi hours away at light speed. If the Empire could blow up planets in 5 hours with its regular fleet, then presumably this wouldn't have come as such a shock. Second, when told that the empire has destroyed Alderaan, Han says "The entire Star Fleet couldn't destroy the whole planet, it'd take a thousand ships with more firepower than...." So we have Star Wars: the destruction of a planet is a laughable feat, impossible even with the combined naval power of the empire. Star Trek: the destruction of a planet is something that a small fleet can accomplish in less than half a day. Ergo, excluding the Death Star super laser, Star Trek weapons are substantially more potent than Star Wars weapons.

    3) Weapon Accuracy. Star Wars: hitting a target 2 meters wide at point blank range with a small fighter is nearly impossible, and requires a Jedi using the force to accomplish. Small, fast targets are so hard to hit that the only defense for a capital ship is to volley hundreds of laser bursts in the air to little effect. Star Trek: Phasers can be locked onto tiny targets moving at near light speed and rapidly fire at them. Alternatively, photon torpedoes can be fired into the center of a fighter formation and detonated. Both tactics have been demonstrated in episodes of Star Trek the Next Generation.

    I'll stop there, as that's already way to much nerd stuff for one morning.
     
  4. Yuri2356

    Yuri2356 Test Screening

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Location:
    Great White North
    '0.5 past lightspeed' is given as a number alone, without any sort of unit, and as such is no basis for making any judgement about speed. The same way that saying '0 to 60 in 2 seconds', though it makes sense to us, is worthless to someone who doesn't know that it refers to miles per hour. At best, the mentioning of lightspeed shows that he's talking about the speed of his ship's FTL engines, as opposed to sub-lights.
    For info about Hyperspace speeds, take a look here.

    Note that the Death Star reduced Alderaan to a rapidly expanding cloud of dust and rocks with an impact that lasted less than a second, while the Trek ships in question were breaking/melting the crust over the course of hours. (A feat which the Empire can also achive, Known as Base Delta Zero. Scroll about 1/4 down the page)


    No comments about your notes on Accuracy, though IIRC it's adressed somewhere on the site I've linked to.
     
  5. Darth_Pugwash

    Darth_Pugwash wobble wobble

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,872
    Wow, this thread has certainly brought the nerds out in force! Pun intended! ;)

    This is a good point; if Episodes 1-3 were nothing more than a cash cow to Lucas he would undoubtably had taken a much smaller role in their production. As it is alot of time and effort went into making his vision a reality.

    Not to mention the fact that Lucas was not exactly pressed for cash before the prequels either.
     
  6. Darth_Pugwash

    Darth_Pugwash wobble wobble

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,872
    Double post

    (well, sorta, I was typing up an edit to the post above in the quick reply box and accidentally posted it, sorry)
     
  7. IronMan2055

    IronMan2055 Korra 2011

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,874
    Location:
    MA
    well theres two and also the super star destroyer plus when he said fleet thats one based on the size of the star wars universe hundreds of thousands of solar sysetems i'd say there was many a thousand fleets also across the galaxy isn't all of star wars star wars happens in mainly an entire universe so it wouldn't be the other side of star wars existance
     
  8. CrazyScientist

    CrazyScientist Those crazy scientists...

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2001
    Messages:
    637
    Location:
    VA, USA
    I have to disagree with you here. You are correct in saying that zero to sixty is meaningless unless you know that you that the unit is miles per hour, but the same does not apply to Han's statement. The key is in the way he phrases it. Let's suppose, for instance that 0.5 refers to some unit that is 1000 times lightspeed (lets call it a Kc). Why then would he even mention lightspeed at all? It's such an insignificant fraction of the speed he's talking about, that just saying, "she'll make 0.5Kc" would suffice. No one would brag about their airplane by saying, "she'll fly at 500mph past walking speed". I therefore maintain that the most likely meaning of 0.5 past lightspeed is 1.5c. While we're on the subject though, not knowing the unit can slice both ways. For all we know, he could mean 0.5 mph past light speed too. I don't happen to think so, but it's technically possible.

    Well the Death Star is the Death Star, but as I mentioned before, there's only one (at a time anyway), and it still has to point that superlaser in the right direction to hit anything. That site may claim that star destroyers can do what those Star Trek ships did (couldn't find the Base Delta Zero reference), but I never saw them do anything of the kind in the movies. Why would anyone claim that "the entire starfleet couldn't destroy a whole planet" if it was known that a few star destroyers could do just that in a matter of hours?
    That whole scene gave the definite sense that a planet's destruction was something wholely unprecedented. It wasn't a feeling of "holy crap, how did they blow up a planet so fast?", it was a feeling of "holy crap, how in heck could they manage to blow up an entire planet?".
     
  9. StackofDOOM

    StackofDOOM Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    30
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    The Enterprise would definitely need sheild to counter the Death Star.
    I think both Star Trek and Star Wars are fun to watch, but episode III outranks Star Trek 10 to 1. But remember what happened to your tanks when they faced a lone spearman....

    :spear:
     
  10. Yuri2356

    Yuri2356 Test Screening

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Location:
    Great White North
    Simple, because melting and/or vaporizing the surface is nowhere near as insane and reducing the planet to a rapidly expanding dust cloud. The same way the singing the trees off an island isn't as ipressive as reducing it to a dark hole in the ocean.
     
  11. CrazyScientist

    CrazyScientist Those crazy scientists...

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2001
    Messages:
    637
    Location:
    VA, USA
    The fleet in Star Trek wasn't just talking about destroying the surface. They said they would destroy the crust of the planet within one hour, and the mantle within another five. If you've destroyed the crust and the mantle of a planet, that's the vast majority of it's mass. We're not talking about a planet with it's surface slagged, we're talking about floating rubble, no different than what the death star left behind.
     

    Attached Files:

  12. Princeps

    Princeps More bombs than God

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,265
    Actually half of it is a pathetic love story. Not that I wouldn't like romance, which I do... its very important part of stories, IMHO. But, EP2 the love story is just so... poorly written, and the acting is so crappy... :shakehead

    Ep1 is rather good, it creates that Star wars magic, in some ways successfully. I just love the action in it...

    But, the lack of Han Solo character, the cynical scroundrel, just hurts it so badly. There is no good humour in it... The droids are pathetic, they're not imposing like the stormtroopers, they're just ridicolous. The lightsaber match with Maul is beautiful piece of action, and the music great.
     

Share This Page