Now lets see what happens when you're driving with the OTHER guy's brake pads.
Last Updated: May 3, 2012
Star Trek vs. Star Wars?
| Welcome to the How It Should Have Ended Forum. |
| You will have to register before you can post: click the Register/Sign In link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
Submitted by Guy on Fri, 05/28/2010 - 10:03
Forums:
I personally think Star Trek would win.What do you guys think?
Comments:
We actually have several
We actually have several forum topics based on this. I would rather not see another discussion from the very beginning. Here's a very good thread if you're interested: http://www.howitshouldhaveended.com/forum/galactic-empire-star-wars-vs-borg-star-trek
Good, then you don't need to
> We actually have several forum topics based on this. I would rather not see another discussion from the very beginning.Well, take care.Ok, for the rest of us:Star Wars fans clearly like to doctor the figures, to add up to trillions of times what is clearly shown on screen-- so let's just STICK WITH THE MOVIES, and possibly the novelizations OF the movies.Ok, let's look at the facts: TIE fighters are SOLAR-POWERED, the other ships use fusion. Star Trek: ANTI-MATTER, of a type which is so powerful that just an OUNCE can rip away half a planet's atmosphere.ALL the Star Wars ships have ROCKETS for slower-than-light speed. Star Trek uses a type of space-bending technology for ALL travel.Star Wars needs hyperdrive to travel in a different dimension where no combat takes place, while Star Trek can travel in normal space at thousands of times lightspeed-- and engage in BATTLE at the same time.Star Wars weapons are LASERS, and ships and weapons travel SLOWER than light at short range, while one ship can barely even blow up a few asteroids, and can only engage in combat from a few thousand miles at most; Trek weapons and ships travel FASTER than light, while one ship can lay waste to an entire planet's surface, or destroy other ships from hundreds of thousands of miles away. In order to destroy a planet, Star Wars need a ship that's 75 miles in DIAMETER, and from a few thousands of miles away; Trek weapons can destroy an entire SOLAR SYSTEM using a man-sized rocket, from tens of MILLIONS of miles away.Star Wars needs man-sized robots to translate languages: Star Trek can do it with a little thing that fits in your ear.Telekinesis: Star Wars has telekinesis that can choke one person or electrocute one person, or levitate a one-man ship-- all at close range only; Star Trek's can control several people's every move, see through their eyes, and levitate 1000-foot long starships-- all from thousands of miles away.Star Wars: telepathy that can sense a billion people being killed, and someone in pain, or fool the weak-minded; Star Trek can sense 400 people being killed, and can read a person's every thought, and dictate their beliefs. Star Wars: little laser-rifles that can kill a few people if they're outnumbered, and little laser-swords; Star Trek has little pistols that can kill thousands by making them disappear, while 100 of their rifles can defeat an entire 20th century world's armed forces.Transportation: Star Wars has shuttles, while Star Trek can just BEAM people thousands of miles or more.Sensors: Star Wars sensors aren't even as good as the naked eye, while Star Trek's sensors can tell a Vulcan from a Romulan inside a starship.Shields: Star Wars shields can't even protect a ship from a beam that can temporarily damage an R2-D2 unit, but a Star Destroye's shieds can't even stop a small ship from LANDING on it, or from being disabled by an ion-cannon. Meanwhile Star Trek shields can protect the ship from a beam that can cut up a planet.Star Wars has powers that can predict the future: Star trek can TRAVEL into the PAST and change history.Star Wars has cloking-devices that only work on large ships; Star Trek has SHUTTLES that can be cloaked.Star Wars missiles aren't even accurate at close range, using standard technology; Star Trek's missiles have pinpoint accuracy from hundreds of thousands of miles.Star Wars ships can't fight faster than lightspeed (mainly because their weapons don't even go that fast); meanwhile Star Trek ships can fight while moving THOUSANDS of times lightspeed.Conclusion:WINNER: STAR TREK!The BIG question: COULD a Star Trek planetary-defense sytem protect the Earth against the Death Star?I say yes. In "Whom Gods Destroy," even a second-rate planetary-defense system could stop the Enterprise from doing anything to it, while the Earth's defense-system even stopped the Borg and V'Ger from harming the Earth; only unknown technologies were capable of breaking through it.In contrast, the Death Star's "Superlaser" planet-destroying beam isn't even a real weapon, so much as an entropy-field that simply allows the planet's own heat to flow into cold space--taking the planet's mass along with it.Therefore, I think that the Earth's planetary-defense system could handle it, since it would stop the beam from reaching the atmosphere.As for how this would work in a HISHE cartoon: probably something really goofy :-D
dont be a doochebag, man.
dont be a doochebag, man. there are a lot of topic on this and this whole thread shiould be thrown away. if you want your opinion heard, post elswhere.
Wow, I never saw an
Wow, I never saw an illiterate enema-bottle before!Before YOU, that is.
like I said, don't be a
like I said, don't be a doochebag. I'm sure there is another place on the internet were you can be a jerk
> like I said, don't be a
> like I said, don't be a doochebag.Yeah we get it, you're repeating youself like a retarded parakeet.Enema-bottles can't call other people "doochebags;" get a spell-check you turd-brained crapsack abortion-eater." downt bee uh doocooohe bag a-duh, a-duh." fricking retarded-ass moron trailer-trash mommy's basement homo >I'm sure there is another place on the internet were you can be a jerkI'm sure you would, seeing as how that's EVERYPLACE you are on the internet (watch THAT one go over his flat little pea-noggin).
>Yeah we get it, you're
>Yeah we get it, you're repeating youself like a retarded parakeet.your still being a doochebag>get a spell-checkfirefox has spell check built in but the text isn't recognised and spell check doesn't work>I'm sure you would, seeing as how that's EVERYPLACE you are on the internetim not being a jerk, you are by ignoring the forums rules "Double topics are always frustrating"also you seem to forget that the rules are there, you clearly havn't read them. they are why being a jerk is not aloud. regardless you shouldn't act annoyingly anywherematthew 7:12 "whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them"
Yeah, what do the rules say
Yeah, what do the rules say about being a complete flamer? Flames aren't allowed, but you seem to ignore that. >matthew 7:12 "whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them"So you want me to call you a jerk and a "doochbag?" Happy to oblige!
the whole point of the
the whole point of the gospel is that ALL HUMANS are sinners and deserve eternity in hell and need jesus to save them. i never said i was perfect or i follow all the rules, i said that we should follow as many rules as we can.
No, that's not the point of
No, that's not the point of the gospel, but I digress.However Jesus DID say something like "don't tell your neighbor 'here's your sign,' while ignoring the 80-foot billboard sticking out of your own ass."(Or that's what he WOULD tell the "here's your sign" guy... take a hint from that).
One more thing. I re
One more thing. I really believe that there are several travel insurance websites of reliable companies that allow you enter holiday details and have you the prices. You can also purchase the particular international travel cover policy online by using your own credit card. All you should do will be to enter all your travel particulars and you can be aware of the plans side-by-side. Merely find the program that suits your financial budget and needs and use your bank credit card to buy the item. Travel insurance on the internet is a good way to start looking for a reputable company to get international holiday insurance. Thanks for giving your ideas.
mattson
cafetiere espresso
Despite the title, this
Despite the title, this thread actually has nothing to do with Star Wars or Star Trek
Star Wars
I loved the Star Trek movie, and I liked the series, but there's a problem. The Star Wars saga is AMAZINGLY deep, and filled with symbolism, and trials, and memorable characters. Star Trek is really good, but that's where it lacks. I love Star Trek, but I love Star Wars a lot more.
Sure, deep with
Sure, deep with laser-swords and talking green hand-puppets. Spock was much deeper than Yoda, and his ears were pointier-- Star Wars is simply more simple and basic, and so it has more appeal to the general public who can't understand the original Star Trek's appeal. But it still shows a future where the whole galaxy is populated and organized, but still it's subject to takeover by a single tyrannical puppetmaster who abuses his super-powers and breeds evil messiahs according to ancient half-assed prophecies-- it's more nostalgic than relevant, basically claiming that nothing ever improves-- it just repeats according to the same principles.Star Trek, meanwhile, gives us a future not only with ray-guns and space-ships, but where dictators no longer HAVE any power-- not because humans themselves have changed, because mankind has grown BEYOND them as a society. It's a future with HOPE, while Star Wars has coping-strategies for inescapable suckiness.This type of hope and evolution, was the moral of "Space Seed"-- at least, before the idiots at Paramount changed Khan into the Trek-version of Darth Vader, complete with holding people up by the neck. Originally, Khan simply believed that humankind had failed, and he wanted to SAVE everyone by continuing human evolution via superior genetics; but NO ONE WOULD FOLLOW HIM, and he just couldn't understand it.The Prime Directive is also relevant-- proven by the Star Wars galaxy, which was a pre-warp civilization that was given super-warp transportation by some advanced civilization, leading to the stagnation of all planetary development in the galaxy-- as well as a mass-dependency on magic and mysticism (i.e. just "The Force" rather than some type of collective bio-energy etc), which left the entire galaxy subject to parasitic infestation ala "Operation: Annhilate!" via the midichlorian parasitic superorganism. Meanwhile, the Federation dealt with these infestations on multiple occasions.In the meantime, Star Wars technology had likewise stagnated for thousands of years, while Star Trek's grew by leaps and bounds over a matter of DECADES. Even the first and second seasons of Star Trek showed various improvements, such as photon torpedoes, bridge-operable beam-phasers, and vastly improved food-processors.Star Wars is vastly better-made, however, and better-developed; Roddenberry wasn't as much the one-man ensemble as everyone gives him credit for, since the original series was more of a team-effort among others like Gene Coon, who made vast improvements. However, this failed to carry over into the Third Season and the movies, wherea Roddenberry's nutty ideas ruined the first film, and the producer of the second one hadn't even SEEN a single Star Trek episode. In contrast, George Lucas was front and center of EVERY Star Wars movie-- and it showed, big time, making them FAR superior to the Trek movies in every way.
Both
I didn't read all posts but here's what i think:The problem with grading this two is that Star Wars is a fantasy and Star Trek is a sci-fi (with minot fantasy stuff).Why isn't Star Wars a sci-fi you might ask... Great question, excellent question! Sure it goes out of its way to show us LAZERS! And SPACESHIPS! Even WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CHRAGIN' THEIR LAZORZ!... But its still not a sci-fi.Though most people forget, sci-fi and futurism is not the same thing. Sci-fi implies that it actually offers us scientific thinking, which Star Wars lacks completely.Here! Since this is about both Star Trek and Star Wars I'm going to list out three mayor sci-fi elements and we'll see how they show in this two franchise. One: Limits of technology, showing that in all their advancedness they still aren't all powerful (yet).In Star Trek the perfect example is (i think) the Voyager series alltogether. Getting dwarn by a more advanced being form the alpha quadrant to the other corenr of the galaxy would have meant 70 years of travel for the ship if they don't find upgrades and wormholes. We can see how they try to expand their own limit in order to see their homes once more.In Star Wars there is many example to bring up as it lacks this thinking. i could point out the ridicoulous power of the Death Star for example but instead i use a more matching example. Remember how Luke had a vision of a "City in the Clouds"? Well in what seems hardly more than a day or two he managed to find the plantet which he had no idea where is or what its name is and get there. this means he had to have some super computer on his x-wing that found out that there is one "Cloud City" named mining platform on a planet called Bespin and his fighter plane was fast enough to do the trip in the already mention short period of time.You could argue that the Republic was already 20 thausend years old at this point (or would have been). While in Star Trek its only a couple hundred years since the reached hyperspace. But the doesn save for the fact that this element of sci-fi is non-present. Two: Controll over creation. Showing that our technology can sometimes turn on us.In Star Trek the best example i can think of is in the first or 'the' motion picture. One of the Voyager satalites gets sucked in a worm hole only to find it self in the past near a planet of machines who would later form the infamous borg (as we can know from Star Trek: Legacy, and possibly elsewhere too). It gets pipmped with technology that would make the creators of the Death Star have nightmares for the rest of their lives and starts its long journey back to earth to deliver every bit of info it found to its creator as his programming said. However upon arrival he can't belive that the humans could have created me and nearly destroys earth (which is ofcourse stopped by the always heroic crew of the Enterprise).In Star Wars... Actually if we don't only take the movies this one is present in Star Wars. If you played KotOR you know how HK-47 managed to 'accedenatally' terminate all his masters while only following orders at some examples. However in the movies the closest we get to 'own technology betraying the creator' is when Luke takes out the Death Star thanks to a poorly placed ventilation shaft. But that is more of a bad design than an actual misuse of technology. Three: Ultimate Power. Showing what is beyond infinte power.In Star Trek we have the Q for a good example. A race that achieved godhood trough technology, and with it, placed itself in limbo. Once you can do anyything, there is no real point to doing anything unless you need it. But being imortal leaves you with very low needs. The only Q (Q) that we every see actually doing something (not counting his son Q). Then again he only acts to challange mortals tasks of which's completiton he can then spectate to ease his boredom.In Star Wars the man who gets closest to ultimate (or how he likes to call it: Unlimited) Power, is of course the Emperor but even with the Death Star and the Galactic Empire at his feet and a lightsabre wielding bloodhound on his leash he is still pretty far from having ultimate power seeing how out favorite Vader can just throw him into a pit. There are many other examples that could be brought up, but i didn't find any that would show up in Star Wars in a fulfiling way. A sci-fi movie needs to make point about technology that make us think or rethink our view upon our future. Showing off flashy stuff is not the same. It is incredibly awesome and mixed with the proper fantasy elements can make a wonderful classic but it doesn't make it a sci-fi.In my eyes both franchises are in lead of their of genre but are two completely different things that should never be graded against each other.P.S.: Sorry for wall of text, hope your eyes will heal fast.P.S.S.: Since the Death Star was mentioned... Anyone else finds it wierd that it took about two decades to build the first Death Star (it being part built at the end of Episode 3) but they managed to build the second one in what? Three years perhaps? And that's even more than it probably took. (I also thought of that they perhaps started building it earlyer but then again: Why would they need two? And why wouldn't anyone mention it from the Empire? Tarkin did say "fear of THIS space station" not 'these'.)P.S.S.: @GreengoDingo. Firstly: thank you, most amuzing forum fight i ever read. Secondly: As i believe quatation from the bible is wasted on the Internet, i instead point you in the direction of the third pharagraph of "The Ballad of the Hobbit" from the Hobbit (naturally). "The man who's a dreamer and never takes leave; who thinks of a world what's just make belive: Will never know passion. Will never know pain. Who sits by a window will one day see rain." You can down grade Star Wars based on scinence but that doesn't really matter because of what i already stated. All i ask is try and understand the emotions of the franchises for that is what Star Wars always tried to show, as did Wrath of Khan. And i'm not only talking abount that one famous yell.
Wow. This is *deep*.
Wow. This conversation is getting deep. There's always someone out there having a worse day than yours...
It Goes Both Ways
Star Wars had more culteral influence, if the non geekiest know a lot of Star Wars information.In just about every other category, Star Trek wins. It has succeeded in games, movies and tv. It is better written. It is able to branch out DS9, Next Gen, Voyager, Corps of Engineers.All around Star Trek wins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdtjGNomHx4Unless you are talking about tech versus tech, then its all Star Wars http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPEJ8-4jV-Y