Star Trek versus Star Wars: The Debate is Opened

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Past and recent scientific thought is guesswork, no one has ever seen an alien (apart from jacko fans) so any equation, mathematics of evolution (which is after all just a theory anyway) is pointless without the data to input. If you consider the diversity of life on this planet its more probable that alien life could also be diverse, even non carbon based.

I hope we find out sometime, preferably in my life time.

Point remains you have no rational basis to criticise a series for having humanoid aliens. It's scientifically viable.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Past and recent scientific thought is guesswork, no one has ever seen an alien (apart from jacko fans) so any equation, mathematics of evolution (which is after all just a theory anyway) is pointless without the data to input. If you consider the diversity of life on this planet its more probable that alien life could also be diverse, even non carbon based.

I hope we find out sometime, preferably in my life time.

-Kuntz🙂

Originally posted by Fire
Heck I have no idea how fast Warp 9 really is, only that they talk about lightyears like it is peanuts.

Can someone tell me how fast it is in miles or kms?

I'm ready to tell that Warp 9 is about 5 billion kilometers per second. If Solo's hyperdrive is 50% faster than normal hyperdrive is, then normal hyperdrive is about 3,3 billion kilometers per second.

Quad lasers are a variant of turbolasers, but even then, even a quad laser can only fragment fighters, while phasers can vaporize asteroids or ships!

Solo has flown across the Galaxy. That takes a Star Trek ship decades. Star Wars ships are faster.

NERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD! (points at self)

Star Trek Speeds

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Propulsion/Propulsion1.html

this just about sums up the whole debate 😄

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html

Of Course Star Wars is going to have the most effective and destructive weapons than the Star Trek universe. Star Wars is more hostile and more violent. Whereas Star Trek is more diplomatic and far more intellectual than any Jedi council combine.

*hides* 🥷

Originally posted by WindDancer
Of Course Star Wars is going to have the most effective and destructive weapons than the Star Trek universe. Star Wars is more hostile and more violent. Whereas Star Trek is more diplomatic and far more intellectual than any Jedi council combine.

*hides* 🥷

Don't hide WD its true 🙂

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Don't hide WD its true 🙂

You're right...I won't hide.

*runs back to the batcave* batman

Star Wars is just on a crazy-ass scale, that's the point.

startrek has given us the borg, Q, the remans, phasers, transporters, cool little badge communicators, the dysons sphere, the crystaline entity, the weird black stuff that killed tasha yar, holodecks, data dressed up as sherlock holmes, evil god like creatures that can destroy entire species with a single thought, spock, a recognised language (klingon), and tons and tons of other stuff

starwars gave us lightsabres..the jedi and the sith....

starwars still wins

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Star Wars is just on a crazy-ass scale, that's the point.

The speed thing makes scale in Star wars non existant across its whole galaxy. The Star Wars Galaxy holds few suprises for its inhabitants as it is more of a community. As shown by the Jedi Map room. Star Trek has encounters with the new and Q, Dowds etc are on a crazy arse scale, even the force does not match. 😄

Agreed Star Wars still wins if we exclude Q, Dowds etc

But it is all part of the scale. Ships can go across the Galaxy in hours. There are millions of worlds in the Republic, the armies are in countless trillions, the Republic itself dates back a thousand generations (some 25000 years), the Death Star can destroy planets with a single blast...

It is all on an insane, Saturday-morning cinema scale. Trek is trying to ground itself in reality. They are totally different philosophies.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But it is all part of the scale. Ships can go across the Galaxy in hours. There are millions of worlds in the Republic, the armies are in countless trillions, the Republic itself dates back a thousand generations (some 25000 years), the Death Star can destroy planets with a single blast...

It is all on an insane, Saturday-morning cinema scale. Trek is trying to ground itself in reality. They are totally different philosophies.

Star Wars is on this scale but its generally all the same or similar. Where as things like the Borg are far more alien concepts than the basic good v evil of the Star wars universe. Its a simple plot given epic grandeur by scale of numbers (interesting concept like the CGI battles almost every one peripheral is the same) Clone trooper, Storm troopers, rebels etc faceless replicants of each other and two dimensional heroes in the middle of it all. Star Wars is bigger only in numbers.

As for Star Trek grounding itself in reality, upgrade of the week kinda puts paid to that. When they turned the Enterprise and everything after it into a kind of space swiss army knife. Able to solve any situation through rerouting the bullshit capacitor through the main deflector. I think it got silly as silly can be.

But the base of Star Trek is still grounded in reality, the fact that Roddenberry's original idea got trampled to death by increasingly desperate writers over so many episodes is neither here nor there. Star Trek has this lingering legacy of being more 'realistic' whilst Star Wars doesn't give a damn, never did. All the insane treknobabble in the world doesn't stop it being something that attempts to genuinely show what life in the future might be like- a near-Earth based setting- whilst the first thing Wars did was make sure it was nowhere near anything that could ever happen by giving it a fairy tale setting, long ago and far away.

I don't see what Star Wars being 'all the same' has to do with any of it, really. That again is just down to the philosophy of what each series is about.

Thw two are totally different so any comparison is facile. Trek against Babylon 5 makes more sense because they are conceptually similar. Despite being sci-fi, Star Wars isn't really conceptually similar to such series at all.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Star Trek Speeds

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Propulsion/Propulsion1.html

this just about sums up the whole debate 😄

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html

ah, you beat me to that site.

Any Trekkie who things that they stand a chance really should read those links...they shine perspective on everything.

My personal favorite in that site is when the guy proves Slave I can take out the enterprise...

Star Trek and reality is a bit false, It was attempting initially to have moral messages e.g. The Cage its first pilot, the Sci Fi was secondary. In this, as in much of its early imagery and ideas it borrowed from Forbidden Planet. That aside it did some notable things e.g. The first multi racial kiss on T.V. the realness of Star Trek myth is something Trekkie's propagate, it simply isn't true, the design of the ships etc, voyager, defiant, and Enterprises Enterprise are the only ones where the Warp Nacelles would not be torn off as soon as they were switched on. Did you ever see the programme "The Science of Star Trek", you could laugh all the way through it. 🙂

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But the base of Star Trek is still grounded in reality, the fact that Roddenberry's original idea got trampled to death by increasingly desperate writers over so many episodes is neither here nor there. Star Trek has this lingering legacy of being more 'realistic' whilst Star Wars doesn't give a damn, never did. All the insane treknobabble in the world doesn't stop it being something that attempts to genuinely show what life in the future might be like- a near-Earth based setting- whilst the first thing Wars did was make sure it was nowhere near anything that could ever happen by giving it a fairy tale setting, long ago and far away.

I don't see what Star Wars being 'all the same' has to do with any of it, really. That again is just down to the philosophy of what each series is about.

Thw two are totally different so any comparison is facile. Trek against Babylon 5 makes more sense because they are conceptually similar. Despite being sci-fi, Star Wars isn't really conceptually similar to such series at all.

Originally posted by §pearhead
ah, you beat me to that site.

Any Trekkie who things that they stand a chance really should read those links...they shine perspective on everything.

My personal favorite in that site is when the guy proves Slave I can take out the enterprise...

Oh, I know full well that the vaunted realism of Trek is a fake. But even the fake attempt to make it be like that is all part of the basic philosophy behind the series that I talk of.

As opposed to Star Wars which never even tried, and where they chaeerfully call all the nonsense in it "Star Wars science"- as in, it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Oh, I know full well that the vaunted realism of Trek is a fake. But even the fake attempt to make it be like that is all part of the basic philosophy behind the series that I talk of.

As opposed to Star Wars which never even tried, and where they chaeerfully call all the nonsense in it "Star Wars science"- as in, it doesn't matter.

I agree with this, although I don't think the original made these claims, it only seemed to me NG and on tried to claim realism. I mean look at engineering in the original 😂

Oh, well, Roddenberry was keewn on realism. Rumour has it he only added sound in space under pressure.

He always felt betrayed by his writers. He actually tried to disown Star Trek II. And that was a good film as well; just goes to show...