Star trek or Star wars? Its time to take sides!

[MrWhereItsAt]

I'm a hopeful Physicist.

[Provost Harrison]

Although saying that, they have managed to time travel in Star Trek, so you can't criticise little bugs that can see into the future...

[MrWhereItsAt]

And don't forget omnipotent, eternal beings. Explain THAT one!

[Provost Harrison]

No

[Kassiopeia]

Star Wars?

Star Trek?

I would probably go for ST, though the choice feels nearly impossible.

But... Babylon 5 beats them both without even breaking sweat. Or well, maybe not quite. I'll put B5 and ST on the same level, with SW somewhat behind.

[Saint Marcus]

Time travel is an essential part of sci fi. The idea has been around for over a century.

Little bugs that can see into the future however only exist in Lucas' head. Original for sure, but a bit stupid.

And don't forget omnipotent, eternal beings. Explain THAT one!

eternal isn't that hard. a creature made up of energy may very well be eternal if the universe continues to exist forever. And superbeings? Read your bible.

[Paul Hanson]

Star Wars or Star Trek?

My vote has to go to: neither of them. They both take themselves far too seriously for my liking, which is why I much prefer Stargate SG-1.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Exactly!

And besides, I've never understood how they manage to deflect those lasers. Another inaccuracy. You can see those laser shots moving. Alas, lasers travel at the speed of light, which is a little faster than they are portrayed!

If they don't look like lasers, sound like lasers, and act like lasers...

Then...they aren't lasers! ( )

They're blasters....and they fire superheated helium (plasma) not lasers. Like the Babylon PPG.


Saint Marcus

Obvously, the force is a bit more than that, otherwise the Jedi would have been able to create more jedi just by "infecting" people.

[Saint Marcus]

it was quite obvious from Phantom Menace that the force in someone is directly linked to the number of myto-somethings in your blood. If you don't have them, the force is weak in you. If you have them, the force is strong in you. Though only training can make you utilize its full potential.

Still, the cannon is clear. More bacteria = stronger force. That's all there is to it. Phantom Menace was quite clear about it.


And it's the worst kind of pseudo-science ever. I liked the force better before I knew it's "scientific" explanation.

[Wraith]

Trek is hardly a homogenous entity. Quite a lot of it has been made after the original creator died. The current people directing the Trek franchise are utter morons, and have been churing out stupendous amounts of crap for a long time. When Roddenberry was still around it was a good series, though.

Star Wars is great, from a certain stand point. It's good space opera, a high-budget B movie. Some of the original Trek clearly surpasses it as science-fiction (Especially The Wrath of Khan), but they've both got their places.
But Star Trek has Nimoy

--"Anybody for Babylon 5?"

Haven't seen the entire series yet (wish those yo-yos hadn't managed to lose the HD masters, then I'd be quite happy about buying the DVDs), but what I saw was good. About the only recent show that actually qualifies as science-fiction.

--"2. Since when did the Federation use fighters?"

It's been around quite a while, but since the focus has been on the Enterprise there wasn't a whole lot of reason for them to show up on screen.

--"Every single Federation ship was different; no wonder they're losing if they have a different design for every ship."

Just like every other fleet, there are different classes for different purposes. The Hood and the Enterprise D (IIRC) were the same class, for instance, so it's only reasonable they'd be very similar.
Star Trek has always been primarily about the Enterprise (or DS9, etc, but about a single ship's crew). Star Wars has been largely about Luke/Vader, etc, but also concerned with the overall Empire vs Rebellion/Republic. It's just a difference in scope.

--"And besides, I've never understood how they manage to deflect those lasers."

They're not lasers, they're "blasters". Dressed up technobabble can make them pretty much anything.
Check out this Lightsabres page and this technical commentaries page for more Star Wars info.

--"I much prefer Stargate SG-1."

I haven't been too fond of that series. Just never clicked for me. The movie's not bad, but also nothing special.

*sigh* Now if only someone would license and subtitle Legend of the Galactic Heroes...

Wraith
"I fail to see what they find so amusing."
-- Spock

[Caesar the Great]

don't make me choose!!!!

trek wins though..... plot is much more interesting

[MrWhereItsAt]

Hang on... does this make the force an STD?

But because of the weird nature of the "infection", instead of physical weakening, the "carriers" get some limited powers and have their personal lives doomed.

Does sound kinds like a nasty virus.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Battlestar Galactica!



[Runs away]

[Kassiopeia]

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
Star Wars or Star Trek?

My vote has to go to: neither of them. They both take themselves far too seriously for my liking, which is why I much prefer Stargate SG-1.

How could of I possibly have forgotten SG-1! Maybe not quite in the level of SW but very close.

[Provost Harrison]

I've never understood why they just don't host themselves in another country...