Star Trek vs. Star Wars

[Max Darkness]

(05-23-2009 02:54 PM)jacoby746 Wrote:  

(05-22-2009 04:00 PM)Max Darkness Wrote:  Star Trek had a bad couple of seasons (Voyager and Enterprise), but Deep Space Nine was very good as it revolved around a war.
Also, Star Trek is more (relatively) believable because it is set in our own galaxy (for the most part), just in the future.
The later original series movies were terrible I'll admit, but Picard's movies brought the whole series back on the level. And of course, the new Star Trek film was epic beyond compare.
I've always had a problem with Star Wars because they did them the wrong way round. As soon as I saw Episode I (with its apalling storyline), I knew Obi-Wan and Anakin would survive, but Padme and Windu would be killed off in the 2nd or 3rd movie. That spoiled the surprise.
Also, the force. An arcane energy that cannot be explained... Yeah, takes the edge of what is meant to be science-fiction; turning it into science-fantasy...something Star Trek never did.
Therefore, I would have to go with Star Trek.

Fiction is fantasy. Science-Fiction it doesn't have to be real as long as it has something to do with science; witch Star Wars does.

Fiction is VERY different to fantasy. World of Warcraft is fantasy...Pride and Prejudice is fiction. Fantasy is a form of fiction where the normal rules of fiction don't apply.
Fiction can be very believable...most films are fiction and are completely acceptable. However, fantasy is NOT believable. That is what makes it fantasy. Since when has someone looked at Pokemon or Digimon and said: "That's completely accurate and possible!" Never, that's when.
Star Trek can be believed as it expands modern theory and technology (especially in "Enterprise"). For example, parts of NX-01 are made from a Tungsten-Titanium alloy, something we aren't able to do yet, but could well do in the future.
The main fuel source in Star Trek is Di-Lithium, which presumably is an isotope of normal Lithium. Again possible. In "The Next Generation", the Anti-Time theory is mentioned. This is where Anti-Matter, the opposite of normal matter; is governed by Anti-Time, the opposite of normal Time.
The problem with Star Wars is that the main alloy that they use is 'Duranium', which itself is made up of non-existant metals. Their blasters use 'Tibanna Gas', which apperently can be extracted from certain atmospheres. Also, they use anti-gravity 'Repulsorlifts', which are quite far-fetched.
Star Trek uses retro rockets to slow descent into an atmosphere, and impulse engines are a form of ion engine (which are in development).

Science-Fiction doesn't have to be real, but it DOES have to be believable, something the Star Wars never was, and Star Trek was always.

[Ezio]

Star Wars.
It just pwns.

(05-23-2009 04:45 PM)Max Darkness Wrote:  Science-Fiction doesn't have to be real, but it DOES have to be believable, something the Star Wars never was.

SO your saying it's not possible that:
'A long time ago in a galaxy far far away...'
Star Wars could've happened?

[Max Darkness]

(05-23-2009 04:53 PM)DarkAnarchist Wrote:  

Star Wars.
It just pwns.

(05-23-2009 04:45 PM)Max Darkness Wrote:  Science-Fiction doesn't have to be real, but it DOES have to be believable, something the Star Wars never was.

SO your saying it's not possible that:
'A long time ago in a galaxy far far away...'
Star Wars could've happened?

No, I'm not saying that. You can't say that either Star Wars happened or Star Trek will happen. But the 'A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away' makes Star Wars unbelievable because it sounds like the modified intro to an RPG. Having it take place in the past and in another part of the universe means we cannot 'connect' as well with it as much as Star Trek, which takes place in our future, in our galaxy.
Star Wars is less believable than Star Trek because it is displaced from us...and there are numerous inconsistances and plot-holes, something Star Trek has thankfully less of.

[Ezio]

I see your points.
However because Star Trek is supposed to be our future and our galaxy that makes it less believable IMO.
Simply because Star Wars is more 'displaced' as you put it, IMO makes it more believable, think about it. Star Wars is saying this happened far far away, in a distant galaxy. However Star Trek says this is the future, which, seems unrealistic.

[Max Darkness]

I can see your point, but I'll always have a problem with Star Wars' technology, which I think isn't explained as well as Star Trek's. I guess that's what it boils down to as I like a show billed as science-fiction to be able to explain it's technology. And I always found Star Wars never truly explained all their technology...something that Star Trek tried to do through the technical manuals and books.
Don't get me wrong, if you read the Star Wars books, you can see how the technology functions, but because it is based on things such as 'Duranium', and Lightsabre Crystals, I could never truly believe it as you couldn't see it as an extension of modern science, which mostly you can with Star Trek technology.

[Prada]

(05-22-2009 04:07 PM)SpartanGio Wrote:  Star Wars can be explained in a scientific way, but does it really matter? Yes. Unless you're a dumb ass and wouldn't be able to understand it, which I assume you wouldn't.
The best movies, shows, and video games are complete fiction and can never happen. The Star Trek earth could very well be what the real earth will become in the future.
Star Wars is better, nuff said. Lol.

[007bond00555]

Star Trek pwns.

[Evil Hero Neos]

Star Wars is crushing Star Trek by18 votes!!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! (\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") See Even Mr.Bunny Agrees with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Ok I'll stop now

[Max Darkness]

(05-24-2009 06:14 AM)okdude action Wrote:  Star Wars is crushing Star Trek by18 votes!!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! (\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") See Even Mr.Bunny Agrees with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Ok I'll stop now

Yes, but it seems at least half the people who voted for Star Wars have never seen (or seen very little of) Star Trek; while everyone who voted for Star Trek HAS seen all the Star Wars movies.
The result is a little decieving in that matter, as it does not show a balanced viewpoint.

[Prada]

(05-24-2009 06:21 AM)Max Darkness Wrote:  

(05-24-2009 06:14 AM)okdude action Wrote:  Star Wars is crushing Star Trek by18 votes!!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! (\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") See Even Mr.Bunny Agrees with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Ok I'll stop now

Yes, but it seems at least half the people who voted for Star Wars have never seen (or seen very little of) Star Trek; while everyone who voted for Star Trek HAS seen all the Star Wars movies.
The result is a little decieving in that matter, as it does not show a balanced viewpoint.

This guy is a slice of win.

[.Traveler]

(05-24-2009 11:41 AM)raiN Wrote:  

(05-24-2009 06:21 AM)Max Darkness Wrote:  

(05-24-2009 06:14 AM)okdude action Wrote:  Star Wars is crushing Star Trek by18 votes!!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! (\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") See Even Mr.Bunny Agrees with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Ok I'll stop now

Yes, but it seems at least half the people who voted for Star Wars have never seen (or seen very little of) Star Trek; while everyone who voted for Star Trek HAS seen all the Star Wars movies.
The result is a little decieving in that matter, as it does not show a balanced viewpoint.

This guy is a slice of win.

Agreed.

Though, I'm one of the many who haven't,
Seen enough trek to make a complete Comparison.
I do want to watch previous movies and series.
To develop a proper and concise comparison.

[Shradow]

(05-23-2009 06:22 PM)Max Darkness Wrote:  I can see your point, but I'll always have a problem with Star Wars' technology, which I think isn't explained as well as Star Trek's. I guess that's what it boils down to as I like a show billed as science-fiction to be able to explain it's technology. And I always found Star Wars never truly explained all their technology...something that Star Trek tried to do through the technical manuals and books.
Don't get me wrong, if you read the Star Wars books, you can see how the technology functions, but because it is based on things such as 'Duranium', and Lightsabre Crystals, I could never truly believe it as you couldn't see it as an extension of modern science, which mostly you can with Star Trek technology.

Some scientists in some part of the world have some Star Wars tech actually. You know those starship hangars with the laser forcefield looking things that act as an air lock? There is a large room filled with supercomputers somewhere that has that forcefield air lock about the size of a quarter. It's small, but it's a start.

The fact that we have that on Earth makes Star Wars tech slightly more likely.

[Max Darkness]

(05-29-2009 03:45 PM)ҒØRŁØRN §ĦAÐØW Wrote:  Some scientists in some part of the world have some Star Wars tech actually. You know those starship hangars with the laser forcefield looking things that act as an air lock? There is a large room filled with supercomputers somewhere that has that forcefield air lock about the size of a quarter. It's small, but it's a start.

The fact that we have that on Earth makes Star Wars tech slightly more likely.

Where? As far as I can tell, forcefields are still theoretical as we haven't yet managed to figure out the technology to contain atomic matter with energy.
Are you sure you're not thinking about a Forced Airlock (which sounds similar), in which air pressure on either side of the gap is balanced in such a way an area of non-moving air that acts as an airlock is formed.
I'd like to know where you found your information because I find it highly unlikely that the science behind forcefields has been solved so quickly, given that we can only contain matter with energy on a sub-atomic level: with magnetic fields holding protons and electrons in place.
Plus, Star Trek has forcefields. The most prominent one is in "Star Trek: Nemesis" where the Enterprise-E's viewscreen is blown out during the fight with the Remans and a forcefield activates to seal the area.

[avatar1234]

OK I have to say Star Wars wins! ok!

[Max Darkness]

(06-02-2009 03:00 PM)avatar1234 Wrote:  OK I have to say Star Wars wins! ok!

Why? Or are you one of the many who haven't even seen Star Trek and therefore votes for Star Wars?

[baseball98]

I here star trek sucks and I kind of like stear wars so I vote star wars!!!

[Max Darkness]

(06-06-2009 09:36 PM)baseball98 Wrote:  I here star trek sucks and I kind of like stear wars so I vote star wars!!!

From who? Star Trek's storylines are usually a lot more believable than anything Star Wars ever came up with.
The Star Wars movies are centred around one character (Anakin Skywalker), and his descent into the darkness and then atonement...all the other characters are there for is to keep the plot moving.
Star Trek has several major plotlines that link into the other series. For example there are many links drawn with "Enterprise" and "TNG"; and with "TOS" and "DS9".
I don't like it when people form an opinion on what they've heard from others and haven't experienced it for themselves.

[Revolver Amethyst]

I believe this pertains slightly to the topic

The new star trek uses a plot shockingly similar to original star wars now that I think about it.

[Řå¶ţøŗ §łąšħ]

i must say star wars is most epic winz!

[baseball98]

Well from most of the people I now who has seen the star trek movie thinks it is pretty nerdy and i agree it is nerdy i think star wars is much better!!!