Star Wars Vs. Star Trek, why the hatred?

Discussion in 'FanForce Community' started by data68, Aug 21, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stormtrooper_Shrink Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 11, 2004
    star 4
    Better role-models, Star Wars has.

    But I wouldn't know. I never watch Trek.
  2. VADER9001 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2004
    i do not hate Star Trek But Neither Do I Like IT after all 5 series is too much and what 10 movies give it a break already
  3. DarthArsenal6 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 16, 2001
    star 5
    ..thats 6 movies (1-6)
    the other 4 i don't count !
  4. MasterSpock Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Star Wars has great plot twists, droids, creatures, battles and awesome effects..

    Star Trek gives hope for the real future while using current human knowledge or theories with science.
  5. casual-jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2002
    star 4
    Star Wars definately has better 'costume' possibilities at their premieres. However, Trek is able to go more in depth into it's stories due to the sheer volume of it's incarnations('Enterprise' is pretty bad though).

    I'm right on the fence with this cos I like them both. Non sci-fi people think were all the same anyway, so why have hatred? If anything we should be against those who call us loser geeks right?
  6. crashdown Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2003
    star 4
    Masterspock wrote: "Star Wars has great plot twists, droids, creatures, battles and awesome effects.. Star Trek gives hope for the real future while using current human knowledge or theories with science.

    Good point....I don't know if I would really like to live in a Star Wars universe.....it's kind of dangerous out there. Whereas the Star Trek universe seems more civilized. But on the other hand, WHO WANTS CIVILIZED?.

    P.S. Has anyone noticed that the Jedi Council Forums is being taken over by Trekkies on this April 1st day? Or did I post onto the Star Treck forum?
  7. Jedi_Dajuan Admin: FanForce and Games

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Dec 30, 2002
    star 6
    This reminds me of an debate someone tried to suck me into a while back. What would win, the Death Star or the Borg Cube (I think).

    Star Trek=cheesy diologue, bad special effects
    Star Wars=cheesy diologue, good special effects

    Says it all.
  8. DarthArsenal6 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 16, 2001
    star 5
    Star Trek=cheesy diologue, bad special effects
    Star Wars=cheesy diologue, good special effects



    ..and thats your answer to who will win the battle ..... [face_plain]

    Now come on....




    :p

  9. PatttyB0123 RSA Latin America

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Apr 2, 2003
    star 6
    I do not hate Star Trek, but I think that sometimes Star Treck gets into too much serious and complex topics, plus I am bore of watching the same scenes. Still I like to watch once in a while Star Trek.
  10. Jedi_Dajuan Admin: FanForce and Games

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Dec 30, 2002
    star 6
    ..and thats your answer to who will win the battle .....

    See I don't know enough about this Cube thing to argue that side. I know the Death Star is powerful enough to destroy an entire planet, and has tons of Ties at it's disposal. But how big is this Cube; it is Falcon sized, Star Destroyed sized, or Death Star size. I'd be happy to debate it out with someone.
  11. alpha_red Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2003
    star 5
    The canonical length of a Borg cube is 3036 meters. That makes a tactical fusion cube 6072 meters -- the fusion cube is 8 cubes joined together to make another cube. An Imperial I-class Star Destroyer is 1600 meters long. The shield absorption capacity of the Enterprise-D is 3316 GW, and it takes many shots from the Borg cube to destroy it. Of course, there's some astonishingly bad science in the newer Star Treks, especially Voyager. The old stuff (original, TNG) is classic sci-fi -- it was just more fun, with better characters, and both classic series are among the best on TV. Plus, they had better science when science was required. The maximum output of the D's main phaser array is 3.6 GW, and a full concentrated burst makes a huge dent in the cube.

    The Death Star II is 160,000 meters of pure ownage powered by a hypermatter core, with not only a superlaser powerful enough to destroy a planet (requiring approximately 1E22 megatons of energy, roughly the amount that the Sun has produced since the time of Moses) and it has 20,000 turbolasers, each one with an output in the millions of terawatts.

    The only thing that comes even vaguely close to matching Star Wars weaponry in Star Trek is the transphasic torpedo, which broke apart several Borg cubes in one shot. However, a turbolaser shot from a Star Destroyer is capable of vaporizing 8+ km-radius nickel-iron asteroids in 1/15 of a second with these kinds of power figures. (frame-by-frame analysis.) The maximum power we see Star Destroyers exert is during Base Delta Zero operations, in which the entire surface of the planet is melted into burning slag, vaporizing several layers' worth of crust. As a VERY conservative figure, utilizing Earth's measurements, this would require at LEAST 6E8 TW. Note that this is for Earth's natural materials only -- you could easily tack 3 more zeros onto that figure when you factor in buildings and sophisticated planetary defenses of the Star Wars galaxy, such as the planetary shields employed at Hoth. I quote the guy who spoke to Darth Vader in ESB:

    "ComScan has detected an energy shield protecting an area of the 6th planet of the Hoth system. The field is strong enough to deflect any bombardment."

    Note that they had a Super Star Destroyer with them at the time, and it carries more than 1,000 weapon emplacements. Damned powerful energy shield.
  12. PatttyB0123 RSA Latin America

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Apr 2, 2003
    star 6
    I know the Death Star is powerful enough to destroy an entire planet I do not know if I should make a thread about this. I am new in the fan force area, but why the Death Star was always fragil in the middle? They blowed both Death Stars by getting in the middle of the them.
  13. crashdown Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2003
    star 4
    What we need is for the Star Wars and Star Trek technologies to come together.

    Yes, the Death Stars (I and II, and for EU fans III) have always been fragile in the middle. But they had the ultimate gun. While the Borg Cubes were not nearly as powerful, but you could shoot at them all day and they just kept growing back.

    Now a "Death Star Cube" would be a cool weapon indeed.
  14. anthonymaul Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2004
    star 4
    star wars,star trek is a lost cause
  15. Jedi_Orion Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 2
    Agreed.

    I don' love ST because of: bad dialogue, bad camera, effects, bad actors(Stewart, Brooks and a couple more excluded), and all the (god damn) races look like humans!!! They really should spend more money on face masks! Also, that all Federation-is-a-paradise thing! I don't buy that utopia crap. But i still watch it because it's the only SF based serie on TV.
  16. VadeyFan2002 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 30, 2002
    star 4
    Ok, my two cents, I'm just in the mood for it.

    First off, I like both and both have their good and bad sides.

    Just to say it once clearly, SW is no science fiction, but fantasy, no matter that everyone sorts it under science fiction. For me it is the main reason you can't honestly compare them to each other. Especially not the used technics.

    ST (forget about the last 5-4 years) is very serious about the used technics and tries to explain them as good as possible. Scientists from NASA are and were working with them to make sure they don't go against physical laws. ( And no, Warp doesn't contardict Einstein's laws. The velosity isn't higher than lightspeed. With the warptechnology they short the distance they have to travell between point A and B, resulting in 'travelling' faster than light.)

    George Lucas on the other hand didn't give a dime (or is it damn?) about astrological messurements, physical laws or how the technic should function. And there was no need to do so. He began to tell a ferry tale with Ep.6, he could affort to just make 'em up as he went.
    SW tells a colorful tale about a family through the passing of time, the Skywalkers. Lucas added every mythos and religious believes he likes and added powerful Characters. SW has Kings and Queens, Wizards good and bad(jedi/Sith), great, mighty 'kingdoms' at war with each other. The old fight of good against bad and even that in the end, when almost everything seems already lost, faith and love win were mere weapons could not. X-Wing against Death Star I? Ever heard of David and Goliat?(I'm sure I wrote it wrong) ;)
    It is a ferry tale, a beautiful one. The begining is a dead giveaway; A long, long time ago, in a far far away...(Galaxy/ County/ Kingdom ...?).

    Comparing weapons and ships of SW to ST is like comparing apples with ..., Not even other fruits but some thing entirely else, a table e.g..

    Btw, it's no use to compare powerlevels of weapons or the size of ships. By those the Rebellion/ Alliance never could have won against the Death Stars, nor the Enterprise or Voyager against the Borgs, or who else they battled against all possible odds.

    End of rant.

    Vadey
  17. VadeyFan2002 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 30, 2002
    star 4
    I'm sorry, I mixed ferry with fairy.
    Of course it is fairy tale. Shame on me! [face_blush]

    Vadey
  18. DARTH-ICE-C Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2004
    star 1
    Good question data68. I admit also that I'm a Trek fan. All the series and movies. I like just about all sci-fi stuff. I've never understood why people take it so seriously. Don't get me wrong now. I'm a huge Star Wars fan, but aren't we all sci-fi fans? Trek is part of our sci-fi world. Trek has kept me satisfied with it's tv shows and movies during the LONG waits between SW movies. Yes some of Trek is not so good, but it was there week after week. I think instead of wondering which is better, we should be thankfull that we have as many sci-fi options that we do now. Just giving my $.02 Thanks.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.