Star Wars vs. Star Trek

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I'm not prepared to say that either SW or ST weren't groundbreaking, but that doesn't make them the best. IMO the best stuff is only really attainable through the careful and creative refinement of an art form, not to dismiss ground-breakers. But I can honestly say that I enjoy the movie Babylon AD and Aliens more than I ever did Star Wars (and despite it's short life, Firefly kicks Star Treks ass)

[Fryk]

I go wih Star Wars for one reason and one reason only: The Force. The Sith, The Jedi, lightsabers, all awesome.

In BOTH cases, the later versions have not lived up to the originals. You can pretty much watch the ST prequels with the sound turned off and have a better experience. Everything after TNG turned what was a progressive idea in the Federation and chucked it out the window. My god, they reintroduced currency in DS9 (latinum)! It all collapsed into something much, much more generic.

In Star Trek's case, I can kind of give them a pass, though: Gene Roddenberry helped keep the message and vision going, but when he died, Berman was the one who screwed it all up. Star Wars has no excuse. It was the creator himself who fouled it all up.

[smileyeagle1021]

I'll have to go with Star Wars on this one.
- There is no 'stun setting' and it looks more like a real universe. It's dirty, dangerous and characters die and/or get injured.


Star Trek
- Pushing social issues and acceptance and tolerance is fine, but, honestly, I watch movies and tv shows for escapism and fantasy not social issues and politics.


FireFly
- I love it. Great stories, and good writing... and quotable.
- It too looks like a lived-in universe.
- Too bad it got canceled.

BattleStar Galactica
- I've thus far refused adamantly to watch ever since the 1st episode.
- Starbuck is a woman!??! Hell no! I remember the original series, and there was always that bromance between starbuck and whats-his-face, I just couldn't get over the sex change.
- Cyclons look like people now? Okay, .... but then, everyone's a cylon? WTF!?!?! Whatever.

I'll agree with you when comparing the star wars universe to the star trek universe in that Star Wars is a much grittier lived in universe. That said, for some people the social issues ARE escapist. For people who live in areas where social injustice is common, seeing a universe where those injustices have either been eliminated or at least being worked on being eliminated (unless of course we are talking about the shows done by Rick Berman, but most people here know my beef with him), is quite the escape.

Firefly, amen and amen.

BSG, I never saw the first one... it was way before my time, so I have nothing to compare to. I love the story line, the character interaction, and the fact that the universe is real... they do have to worry about water, fuel, food, religion, politics... I imagine if I had to compare it to something else I might feel differently, but on it's own it's an amazing series.

[Nyoibo]

My god, they reintroduced currency in DS9 (latinum)! It all collapsed into something much, much more generic.

My DS9 isn't very good, but are you sure, I know Quark used it, but I thought it was only the Ferengi, Gold pressed Latinum was used in TNG as well by the Ferengi.

[Fryk]

It started there, but since everyone traded with the ferengi, I think it sort of rubbed of on them.

You guys REALLY want to see a fight? Okay....

Which side would win if they fought? Star Wars or Star Trek?

*Runs for the hills*

[Nyoibo]

Ship Vs. ship or troops Vs. troops?

Either way I think I'm going to have to go with Star Wars though.

[smileyeagle1021]

For a head to head fight... Star Trek has the better equiped ships and weaponry (especially if and aliance is made with the Romulans, they have some amazing weapons)... Star Wars though would have the advantage of numbers...
So really we're looking at a Germany Vs. Russia scenario... Germany had the better weapons, Russian had more manpower... had the Germans not attacked during winter which they were unprepared for it would have been a dead heat.
So really, the battle would come down to who has the best stratagy (which both sides have some brilliant strategists, though I think Star Trek has a slight edge on that one) and luck (which seems to be a bit more in favor of Star Wars).

... long story short, no way to know unless the two actually fought and even then the result could be different each time they fought.

[Fryk]

Ok, I was kidding, but if we're going to do this..... :: )


There's a lot of give and take between the two technologies. I don't think they're evenly matched in anything. I was thinking ship to ship, I'll get to troop to troop in a second.

Speed/manuverability: It depends on whether you're talking FLT or normal flight. FTL, Star Wars wins hands down. They can cross galactic distances in days, where most ST ships take weeks (Except for the Borg). This means that The Empire can send massive amounts of support ships into battle on very short notice, where the Federation would be stuck with whatever they had in-system at the time. However, at normal speeds, the federation has the Empire completely outclassed. Starships can move with the speed and manuverability of a slow fighter from the Star Wars universe. A Star Destroyer might be able to build up speed and move in a straight line as fast as a federation ship, but it will always be outmanuvered.
Numbers. The Empire again. They have trillons of people populating their galactic civilization, where the Fed and friends maybe have like a third of that at best (counting in non-federation cultures). This advantage in manpower could be the deciding factor in the whole thing by itself.
Weapons: Well, that all depends on which weapons you mean. Phasers versus turbolasers are probably the closest thing to balance in any of these categories. I'd probably give the nod to Star Wars on this one, though. It doesn't seem like it take their ships as long to blow something up with them. BUT, then we have guided missile weapons. This is where the Federation comes out on top. Quantum torpedoes (which seem to work on some kind of zero-point energy system) and Photon torpedoes (which annihilate matter and antimatter to generate power) are lightyears ahead of concussion missiles and proton torpedoes.
Shields and hull: I'd give this one to the Star Trek universe. Their shield seem much more resiliant and reconfigurable. This might let the Federation stay in the fight longer against the Empires vastly superior numbers.
Overall, I would have to give it to the Empire in an all out battle. There's no way that the Federation could match up with being outnumbered nearly 100 to 1. EXCEPT.... the Star Trek universe has a secret weapon! The power of... the TECHNOBABBLE!!!!!!! Somehow, the Enterprise, or Voyager, or someone else, would do something like "Created a uniplexing subspace fnorkion field" that would "create an inverse obtuse high cholesterol quantum intravalvular comportment explosion" and save the day!!!!!!!!!!!

On the ground, though, there is only one deciding factor that would cause an all out win for the Star Wars universe. The Sith! Even given the faster-firing weapons of Star Trek, enough force-users would get close to the trek-troops, and it would be all over but the crying.


God, I am a nerd!

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The two universes are basically incompatible, and thus, incomparable. Star Wars is constrained by practicality while Trek isn't.

Space warfare in SW is based on naval warfare, on battleships, carriers, and such forth. Whereas ST is based on aviation, with individual, highly mobile units besting each other in shorter duels on a smaller scale. The problem is that there's no logical way to compare these as there are too many differences to account for.

On the ground, Star Wars for sure. They have numbers and weaponry more than potent enough to kill a human-sized target with one hit. Add in that SW armies are often well versed in military tactics and combined arms operations, and ST's 'send a dozen guys with shooty beams' methodology falls flat.

Basically, there's no way to compare them accurately. While Star Wars exhibits masterful inter-planetary warfare combining all arms of their military forces, Star Trek in it's poorly-written methodology is basically capable of winning anything thanks to dumbass technobabble or magic-super-duper weapons that pwn everything because we say so!!!!1111!!!1!

The question isn't who'd win in a fight, it's who's background is actually in any way practical at all.

[Nyoibo]

Death Star, 'nuff said.

[smileyeagle1021]

The Death Star moves at the speed of smell... it does well against a stationary or near stationary target... all it takes to get an upper hand on it is to be able to move faster than it's main laser (which by the way, would not work in the real world because lasers can't converge without the aide of a lense).

[Fryk]

Genesis torpedo. Nuff said.

[mikoyan29]

Not going to get into a Star Wars Vs. Star Trek tech battle...NOpe...Gah!!!!

First of all, they are not lasers in Star Wars, they are more like particle accelerators or something like that. Hence the term blaster. And given some of the scenes in the movies, they pack quite a wallop, watch a turbolaser hit the Millenium Falcon in the Empire Strikes Back.

As far as the quality. I had very mixed emotions about the prequels until I watched all 6 movies in one day and I was pretty amazed at how well they all fit together. There were a few minor plot holes here and there but for the most part the story fit together. You can barely get one episode of Star Trek to fit together let alone the whole series. Now, I will relent on the dialogue but the story is amazing. And for people who say that Star Wars doesn't have a message...just watch. It's something along the lines of the human spirit triumphing over machinery.

But for as much harping about the prequels, there are tons of visual clues that carry over from the original series. The scene where Anakin takes out Dooku is very much like the scene where Luke and Vader duke it out. Only Anakin makes the choice that Luke didn't. Which made Luke all that more impressive as a character. He could have had the power but he didn't want it.

[Fryk]

My problem (well, one of them) with the prequels is that there are too many 'nods' like that. There are so many coincidences between them that its ridiculous.

Oh wow, you mean Luke destroyed the big bad spaceship/staion when he was just an untrained kid, just like his dad?

Oh wow, you mean Luke squared of against the Sith Apprentice while completely unprepared, and got his right hand cut off, just like his dad?

Oh wow, Luke is too old, yes, too old to begin the training, just like his dad?

And so on and so on. A few of these would have been better. The one you mentioned, Anakin vs Dooku and Luke vs Vader, where they were tempted? Would have had an amazing impact on me if the "parallels" bit wasn't already worn so thin.

[Nyoibo]

I thought the parallels fit fine if Anakin was the "chosen" one to bring balance to the force, through Luke.