Star Wars vs. Star Trek [Archive]

rdp78

01-17-2009, 10:28 PM

Which of these well-known sci-fi franchises do you think is the best and why? I mean one is takes place long ago in a glaxay far way and other one takes place in this glaxay starting a few hundred years in the future. They both have unique characters and aliens as well as spacecrafts and planets. I think they are both interesting but I haven't seen all the Star Trek movies however I have seen several episodes of almost all of the TV shows except the for the last two if I remember. Now I have seen all six Star Wars movies but you hasn't. I'm kind of nertual on both and they both are very much part of pop cultural. I mean even if you are not into sci-fi you still know something about each one. Not to mention each one is worth billions of dollars I mean George Lucas himself is a billionaire.

However I know some people prefer one over the other. So do you prefer one or the other? Or are you like me can't really decide? I mean Star Trek could prossibly be real one day (okay, maybe with different aliens) but Star Wars has this mystic about it.

lordlundar

01-18-2009, 12:25 AM

Woah no, not this one. There has been no good outcome from this discussion in the past, so I am not even wading into it.:D

AFPheonix

01-19-2009, 05:30 AM

I like both, although Star Wars has really gone downhill since the 80's. Damn you Luca$. The original movies are still good, although cheesy at points.
I took a Star Trek class for giggles in college. It was actually pretty interesting. There was really a lot of social commentary in the original version and TNG. I didn't really get into later ones, but they are a good vehicle for telling stories, and I can't wait for the new movie :)

Boozy

01-19-2009, 12:53 PM

I don't particularly like the genre, so take this with a grain of salt:

I have watched the Star Wars movies (all 6) and spent the entire time cringing at the bad dialogue and terrrible acting throughout. If there is something else there to enjoy, I haven't been able to discover it, so hackneyed is the writing.

I have watched several episodes of Star Trek (The Next Generation) as well as two of the movies and found myself entertained and pleasantly surprised at some of the philosophical issues they tackled. It's never going to be my favourite franchise, but I can see the appeal.

The only sci-fi show I've ever gotten into is Battlestar Galactica. Tremendous writing and cast.

Slytovhand

01-20-2009, 06:09 AM

I should go along with LordLundar on this... especially with 1 comment on here already :D

I'm more Star Wars... probably due to the 'mystic' element you mentioned. It fits in with my personal beliefs, so I see it as a 'possibility'.

Star Trek and BG (since it's been brought up) have 2 things that really shit me in a series... immortality and omniscience. How come, almost no matter what (other than contract changes with the actors), they come through everything??? The standard Trek joke is true..it's the guys in the red shirts that get killed - no-one else does! And, the other one.. every away mission has a head-honcho or 2... "Ooh - new alien race that is extremely violent and likely to kill a few team members - let the captain go down!" Rubbish! Same in BG (or was, for what I saw)... Starbuck is the only person out of the thousands who is capable of conducting an interview of a prisoner.. not anyone in security - oh no... got to be her!

You get my drift... there's an entire shipload of people, but only the top 3 or 4 are actually capable of doing anything useful! (which, I suppose is handy, given that they can't die or get too badly hurt....)

Jaden

01-20-2009, 06:15 AM

Shouldn't this go in the religion section? :D

Flyndaran

01-20-2009, 11:13 AM

Sci fi fantasy with magic vs. sci fi fantasy with magic, both with glaring unashamed plot holes the size of buicks treating human life with less care than that of ants.
The both irritate me with their preachy bad science.

Bloodsoul

01-20-2009, 09:40 PM

I think I have to side with Star Wars 'cause I saw it first and actually have action figures for it (save for that one Bird of Prey modelkit I put together). I do love the original Star Trek and TNG, though; not a lot of experience with any of the others. Hell, my only reason to even watch Enterprise would've been for Scott Bakula (though I'm still wondering where Al is).

This thread is making me miss Babylon 5, though.

Greenday

01-20-2009, 09:53 PM

I love Star Wars. I love the movies. I love the books. They are all really kickass.

Star Trek is just boring to me. I can't get into it at all.

So, how about Firefly?

Sylvia727

01-21-2009, 12:09 AM

I was going to say that Star Wars wins (the original Star Wars. Yes, I'm a snob), since Star Wars tells a better story. Sure, it's over the top, but that's part of its charm. And the Force has fewer plot holes than tachyon particles. I grew up on the original Star Wars and the original Star Trek show. Kirk was a womanizing, ethnocentric, arrogant SOB. The whiny farmboy at least has some redeeming character traits. When I rewatched the original trilogy as an adult, I was apalled at how bad the acting is, and how corny the dialouge sounds, but to me it still tells a better story than Star Trek's preachy "Humanity is always right and will always triumph" blah.

However, Firefly beats both of them cold. Engaging story, realistic characters with flaws and strengths, natural dialouge, humor, fast plot, great mixing of thematic elements, a full spectrum of emotions, betrayal, redemption, and a dash of Waif Fu.

Boozy

01-21-2009, 12:18 AM

Evandril

01-22-2009, 04:55 AM

Personally, I loved Firefly, for the reasons given and one more...they were *not* the biggest or baddest out there...and they knew that running was often a good idea on occasion.

SimplyAnother

01-29-2009, 05:47 AM

Hi, it's me, poster on old threads!

Enterprise would've been for Scott Bakula (though I'm still wondering where Al is).

Back home, with Sams wife.

Or something.

Right now, I'm experiencing Star Wars through my kids eyes, which is like it's a whole new thing. He's really into the villains though, and I haven't got a freakin clue, because beyond the bit with Liam Neeson--I haven't watched any of the more recent films.

He does not think Star Trek is cool, and refused to watch TNG with me when I had it on the other day. He's a brat.

I try not to compare ST to SW. Both are appealing and crappy in their own little ways.

Based on my eight year old I'd have to pick Star Wars. Because we certainly don't have any Captian Picard action figures around the house, but the kid has about 12 different Anakin Skywalker action figures. (But we only have 4 light sabers. That's not a lot, right? Oh, that means my kids are spoiled, doesn't it?

But Star Trek totally explains why I like John de Lancie (I don't know).

Okay, I'll stop now.

Flyndaran

01-30-2009, 10:03 AM

I didn't particularly care for Firefly, even though I'm general a big Joss Whedon fan. I didn't not like it, but it never really grabbed me.

I agree that Star Wars is a good (if somewhat trite) story, but I maintain that the execution was appalling.

I hated the wanton disregard for life the main "heroes" showed at every turn.
It's this attitude that made so many actually laugh at the fellowship of the ring heroes showing sorrow for their lost comrades and horror for armies of "monsters".
I wouldn't let impressionable children watch Star Wars, but I might let them watch the One Ring trilogy.

depechemodefan

03-03-2009, 11:21 PM

Star Trek and BG (since it's been brought up) have 2 things that really shit me in a series... immortality and omniscience. How come, almost no matter what (other than contract changes with the actors), they come through everything??? The standard Trek joke is true..it's the guys in the red shirts that get killed - no-one else does! And, the other one.. every away mission has a head-honcho or 2... "Ooh - new alien race that is extremely violent and likely to kill a few team members - let the captain go down!" Rubbish! Same in BG (or was, for what I saw)... Starbuck is the only person out of the thousands who is capable of conducting an interview of a prisoner.. not anyone in security - oh no... got to be her!

You get my drift... there's an entire shipload of people, but only the top 3 or 4 are actually capable of doing anything useful! (which, I suppose is handy, given that they can't die or get too badly hurt....)

Yeah, that annoyed me. I get that the producers can't just kill main char. because either/or 1) fans get mad 2)have to hire new actors.
The only reason Tasha Yar died was because Denise wanted out. And she couldn't even been killed interrestingly. Granted, she died like a red (gold in this series) shirt. Though I think she was the only crew member where anyone tried to save her, instead of looking appallingly at then forget right away.

I like TNG. Great stories. PS was fun to watch, and I like Data.

I like the OS, like Voyager, but I couldn't get into DS-9 or Enterprise.

But I LOVE Star Wars. ANH came out when I was 5, but the first SW movie I saw of TESB, where the dialouge from Gone with the Wind was ripped off of. Anyway, I love all 6 movies. I even love the ewoks (granted, I was 11 when RotJ came out). Maybe it's the whole Jedi Knight thing-maybe AG was able to sell that in such a way it just opened up a new vista for people. The whole series looked real. Like GL (or maybe someone else, and GL stole the phrase) the Star Wars universe looks like a used universe. It looks like people live there, that it isn't a squicky-clean set. You can see yourself or other real people living there.

I like firefly. I havn't watched the BG.

Plaidman

03-05-2009, 11:10 PM

I like both, though in different ways. I like the fact that the different races in SW, you know, look like different races, and not like humans, but with a slightly different nose, or freckles, or different colored skin, (Different then white!) that Star Trek Had.

Star Wars was bloodier, and deadler. If I was in Star Trek, I'd hook my self in with the Holodek with a food replicator. Perfect world all the customers that are idiots can be beaten, and I get a raise for doing that.

I mean seriously on that note. I'm suprise the whole universe just didn't do that. Klingons get their entire lives devoted to nonstop war. Humans can explore everything peacefully. Vulcans can study and learn. Meanwhile the Borg are secretly assimlating them through holodek and repilcator technogy. Borg win.

But I perfer Star Wars world, but alot of the stories I liked are in Star Trek.

Amethyst Hunter

03-09-2009, 05:58 AM

I hate them both.

You may now commence with the rabid fan-attacks. :D

Flyndaran

03-09-2009, 07:40 PM

I hate them both.

You may now commence with the rabid fan-attacks. :D

I loved them both as a kid. But as an adult, I find them both FAR to blase about life and killing.

depechemodefan

03-12-2009, 02:17 PM

I really like Dune, the book. I read that maybe 2x a year. But the other books arn't as good. I was trying to read Dune Messiah recently, and I jsut kind of coudlnt' get into it. I was rooting for Irulan.

The original Dune was written well, had interresting char. I didn't know exactly where it was heading (though I can imagine Paul would win). Though if I'm not reading the book I remember Baron Harkonnen as a wonder villian, then I read and find him kind of hysterical.

Pagan

03-19-2009, 01:53 AM

I love them both. For me, it really is an apples and oranges comparison.

Although I love George Lucas, I freely admit that the man should not be allowed to write dialogue!

Sylvia727 - All 6 of the SW movies are the originals. They are all the collective brainchild of George Lucas. After all, the story arc is about Anakin, not Luke.

Slytovhand - Were you speaking of the real Battlestar Galactica, or that horrible show that's masquerading as BG?

depechmodefan - Is there something in particular that's hanging you up with Messiah? It's been a while since I read the books (Dune through Chapterhouse). I've gotten a bit behind with the others....and I have the added distraction of the "Sword of Truth" series.... :p

Sylvia727

03-20-2009, 06:15 AM

Slytovhand

03-20-2009, 02:14 PM

lytovhand - Were you speaking of the real Battlestar Galactica, or that horrible show that's masquerading as BG?

I presume you're referring to the latest installment of it? With a female Starbuck? Yes, I would be as well... but, it's still true of most series... only a handful of main characters who do everything (well - except clean up or go to the toilet :p ... or die). So, no, not Lorne Greene (not that it mattered... still the same things happening).

And yes, I do remember that one :)

(Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, anyone??? hehehe)

Slytovhand

03-20-2009, 02:29 PM

Pagan - meh. Episodes IV - VI have a very different feel to them than Episodes I - III. I much prefer the older trilogy, which I've always heard referred to as the "original" trilogy. The story arc about Anakin just doesn't interest me. Luke's story, while not particularly original, holds my attention a lot longer. And really, I didn't get the impression that the stories in Ep IV- VI had much to do with Vader at all. It's only in Ep VI that he becomes more than a foil for Luke's development.

I agree. I like the visuals on the latest installments, probably the dialogue was better (but perhaps not :p), but I think the first 3 sort of made more sense. That's why I liked the remastered versions. (and sheesh, woudl I liked to have smacked Anakin... and Obi Wan... around the head a couple of times...but that's just scripting!)

Who wouldn't turn to the Dark Side with everyone calling you 'Anny' all the time :p

Btw - Syliva, they used lightsabres, not foils... :p

Sylvia727

03-20-2009, 03:48 PM

"A lightsabre for Luke's development" sounds like it would help Luke develop clear out of this life and into the afterlife....

Evandril

03-20-2009, 08:36 PM

A story going around before they finally made I-III was there would be 9 movies, overall...and it basically tracked the droids as, not the 'focus', but what went on around them. How true it was, I've no clue, but it sounded more interesting than anny ;)

AFPheonix

03-21-2009, 04:58 AM

Meh. We all know Lucas was pulling this out of his ass as he went. He can claim and protest all he wants that he had his over-arching plan all laid out before ep. IV but it's painfully obvious by simply watching the movies that he didn't at all.

Slytovhand

03-21-2009, 01:00 PM

Actually, I'd say he did have it all in his head, but wasn't sure if he'd be able to pull it off. Thus, compromise had to be made, and perhaps things went in a way that would wrap things up rather than let some things hang.

Also, just because you've got the wide view, doesn't mean you've thrashed out the close-up.

There is a book around about what happened to Luke, Leia, Han etc after VI. I haven't read it though :(

Sylvia727

03-21-2009, 03:56 PM

There are a lot of Star Wars books about what happened to the main cast, with varying degrees of skill and authenticity. I recommend starting with The Thrawn Trilogy by Timothy Zahn- Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising, and Last Command. If you lived in my city, I'd loan them to you.

Evandril

03-24-2009, 01:09 AM

Though, if you read them...When you have the urge to go "The author did WHAT!?!? I'll kill him!", it was in his contract, he didn't have a choice in the matter. (Yes, that will make sense if you've read it ;) )

depechemodefan

03-24-2009, 09:57 PM

Although I love George Lucas, I freely admit that the man should not be allowed to write dialogue! Yeah, though a lot of IV is quotable "These are not the droids you are looking for". HF did have it right when he said "You can't right shit, George" or something like that.

depechmodefan - Is there something in particular that's hanging you up with Messiah? It's been a while since I read the books (Dune through Chapterhouse). I've gotten a bit behind with the others....and I have the added distraction of the "Sword of Truth" series.... :p

I read the beggining of Dune and it's interresting. Kind of a mystery with who is the Reverand Mother and what will she do with Paul. And why Jessica is afraid. And the Gom Jabor (sp). And then the other chars are introduced but right away you know Yueh will betray them and you just want to know how and when and you hope Leto will escape, but he doesn't. And it just draws me in. With Messiah, it opens up with the plotters and you know Paul will mess them up. He sees the future, duh. Yeah, there are some people introduced (I forgot their names) and you want to know why one guy kills the old man and the blind son and takes the gf of the blind dude, but I can tell Paul will bet them all.

I remember Heretics and Chapterhouse as "a tripod government is the most unstable of all governments" etc. And Shianna (sp) who can control the worms...what was the point of that? How that happen? So she is a decendant of Leto, but???

telecom_goddess

05-07-2009, 04:43 PM

I have to say that it's Star Trek all the way for me. Especially the original series.....although I have watched episodes of most of the other ones and have watched a lot of the movies as well. To me it seems more realistic...they had a lot of stuff on the original show that didn't seem possible back then but are a reality now. The communicator? hello nextel walkie talkie...it's here. The episode with the little shiny discs showing clips of different areas of time to get through the time portal? Looks like a DVD to me. The Transporter we haven't created yet...oh if only ;). I would love to transport to work and home, no commute whatsoever. Once we have that and a holodeck life will be great!!

AFPheonix

05-08-2009, 01:24 AM

Well....except for those occasional nasty teleporter accidents like in the opening of Star Trek: The Motion Picture ;)

telecom_goddess

05-08-2009, 03:26 PM

Well....except for those occasional nasty teleporter accidents like in the opening of Star Trek: The Motion Picture ;)

:D True a malfunctioning transporter could leave one in a mess......and you couldn't do a thing with yourself.:eek:

Slytovhand

05-09-2009, 04:08 PM

I loved ST:Enterprise... except for that horrendous final episode!!!!

And I watched B5:Legend of the Rangers the other night, too. Bad acting, especially in the beginning, but the series would have had some hope... too bad it didn't take off (with better actors!)

Evandril

05-13-2009, 04:08 AM

Go see the Star Trek movie...ST wins, hands down ;)

AFPheonix

05-13-2009, 04:31 PM

:( I wanna see the Star Trek movie.......

smileyeagle1021

05-13-2009, 11:42 PM

One thing I will add in favor of Star Trek, Gene Rodenberry has gone to great lengths to use his art to promote progress towards more social liberty (look at how he was one of the first to have prominent colored characters and had the first interracial kiss). RIck Berman didn't live up to Gene Rodenberry's standards, but many actors who were involved protested that fact.
George Lucas, while still a good man and an excellent cinema artist, made movies to entertain... he never really used his movies to push progress.

And one totally unrelated note... can we stop comparing cell phones to communicators... cell phones are nothing like communicators... a communicator can get crystal clear reception from one unit to another hundreds if not thousands of miles away without cell towers on the ground or satellites in space... my cell phone drops calls and there's a cell tower a mile away from where I live... case closed.

Greenday

05-14-2009, 12:09 AM

One thing I will add in favor of Star Trek, Gene Rodenberry has gone to great lengths to use his art to promote progress towards more social liberty (look at how he was one of the first to have prominent colored characters and had the first interracial kiss). RIck Berman didn't live up to Gene Rodenberry's standards, but many actors who were involved protested that fact.
George Lucas, while still a good man and an excellent cinema artist, made movies to entertain... he never really used his movies to push progress.

I'm going to go there and compare races in the real world to different species in Star Wars. The Rebel Alliance was all about inter species relations. One of the reasons they detested the Empire was because they were xenophobic.

Evandril

05-14-2009, 12:17 AM

And one totally unrelated note... can we stop comparing cell phones to communicators... cell phones are nothing like communicators... a communicator can get crystal clear reception from one unit to another hundreds if not thousands of miles away without cell towers on the ground or satellites in space... my cell phone drops calls and there's a cell tower a mile away from where I live... case closed.

Comparing cells to communicators is like comparing the shuttle to a starship...Same idea, *slightly* better tech ;)

SG15Z

05-21-2009, 03:11 AM

smileyeagle1021

05-21-2009, 08:45 AM

just to submit it here, to lighten the mood
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892

The two are the same :p

Vagabond

02-13-2010, 11:01 PM

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.
- Yes, there's a lot of nostalgia for me.
Negatives - yeah, bad writing and 1 ecosystem worlds.
I counter with - you know a Star Wars quote when you hear it. and if someone mentions tattoine or dagobah - you know what they're talking about.

Star Trek
- It was great for it's time, but that time passed a loong time ago.
- 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.
- There was nostalgia for me... until the multitude of spin-offs happened.
- Star Trek the original tv show was good. the Movies were good (until Kirk got fat and they had a whole movie about 'saving the whales' - WTF!?!?)
- And now there's a total of what 11 movies, and 5 spin-offs? Tell me that's not a cash-cow!

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.

Nyoibo

02-14-2010, 01:01 AM

There was a stun setting in Star Wars, that's what they shot Leia with at the start of the first movie. :p

Vagabond

02-14-2010, 01:03 AM

My bad. I forgot about that.
The rest of the time, they shot to kill... granted the stormtroopers rarely hit anything, but that's another matter.

XCashier

02-14-2010, 05:58 AM

Yeah, though a lot of IV is quotable "These are not the droids you are looking for". HF did have it right when he said "You can't right shit, George" or something like that.
I believe Ford said, "George, you can write this shit, but you can't say it." Yeah, he can write a great story, but the dialogue...sheesh!

Both Star Trek and Star Wars were groundbreakers in many ways, but there have been other sci-fi series that I liked better. Babylon 5, Doctor Who and Blake's 7 are three good ones (though I haven't been happy with DW lately). If you like comedy with your sci-fi, try Red Dwarf or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the original BBC series).

Wingates_Hellsing

02-14-2010, 06:12 AM

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

02-14-2010, 03:13 PM

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

02-14-2010, 03:17 PM

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

02-15-2010, 01:32 AM

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

02-15-2010, 06:38 PM

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

02-15-2010, 11:19 PM

Ship Vs. ship or troops Vs. troops?

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

smileyeagle1021

02-16-2010, 04:34 PM

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

02-16-2010, 06:33 PM

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

02-16-2010, 08:09 PM

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

02-17-2010, 02:21 AM

Death Star, 'nuff said.

smileyeagle1021

02-17-2010, 03:03 AM

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

02-18-2010, 02:55 AM

Genesis torpedo. Nuff said.

mikoyan29

02-18-2010, 06:14 AM

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

02-18-2010, 02:46 PM

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

02-18-2010, 03:38 PM

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

pssorens

02-19-2010, 01:02 AM

If you follow the strict cannon for Star Trek, the original series, TNG, DS9, Voyager and all the movies except the JJ Abrahms Movie all are invalid, because the time line changed. Leaving the latest movie and Enterprise as the only valid points of cannon. not much of a franchise.

Nyoibo

02-19-2010, 02:43 AM

That movie wasn't canon though was it?

Fryk

02-19-2010, 05:28 AM

Actually, the way it was stated in the movie, the previous timeline still exists somewhere, we were just watching a different one.

Rapscallion

02-24-2010, 09:55 AM

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

Think about it. Luke couldn't bring balance - it was Vader who was able to kill the emperor and redeem himself. Luke was just a victim for that scene.

Rapscallion

Bloodsoul

02-24-2010, 08:34 PM

Ah, but if it weren't for Leia putting the plans into R2, Luke never would've even met Vader, would he?

Fryk

02-24-2010, 09:07 PM

That actually proves my theory...

R2D2 was the chosen one. If he hadn't fixed the hyperdrive in TPM, they wouldn't have even FOUND Anakin!

All must worship the holy droid!

Vagabond

02-26-2010, 05:31 PM

Anakin *did* bring balance to the Force.
There are only ever 2 Sith (dark)
There were bunches of Jedi (light)

After Anakin slaughtered the younglings and Order 66 was executed, there was only the 2 Sith (Lord Vader nee Anakin & Emperor) and 2 Jedi (Yoda and Ben Kenobi). Is that not balance?

Wingates_Hellsing

02-26-2010, 07:43 PM

Numeric balance, yes. But the intent was probably to de-polarize it. Or at least make it so each side had equal sway (the 2 Sith had much more power than the 2 jedi in that situation)

Vagabond

02-27-2010, 07:36 AM

More sway? What political or military might sway? I don't think the 'force' would be concerned with that. But, I don't have a midi-chlorian measure-er handy, but it's possible that the force was balanced. Yoda equal to Emporer and Kenobi equal to Vader, no?
De-polarization doesn't equate to balance.

Wingates_Hellsing

02-27-2010, 08:16 AM

The only way to be completely balanced would be to have neither posetive or negative portions at all, depolarized.

Moreover, if the force really is 'in everything', the fact that the Emperor and Vader controlled incalculably vast armies and resources through which they could influence far more than 2 jedi in hiding has to count at least a little.

Anyway, Anakin and Luke were both 'chosen ones' in that Anakin dealt the final blow, but only due to the actions of Luke. And it's obvious that it was R2D2's manufacturer's decision to include secure information carrying viewable at the discretion of R2 that allowed Leia to leave the message and for it to be found by precisely the right person. This man/woman is where it all began!

Vagabond

02-27-2010, 08:29 AM

I don't remember luke being called 'chosen' but then I haven't watched the Original Trilogy in awhile.

Nah... it all began with a greedy old man (Palpatine) and a horny teenage jedi (Anakin).

Fryk

02-27-2010, 04:20 PM

And some nameless tech at a droid factory. Sir Integra is right!

Wingates_Hellsing

02-27-2010, 04:34 PM

And some nameless tech at a droid factory. Sir Integra is right!

Why thank you :p

I recommend that from now on the tech in question be referred to as 'Bubba' who fixed R2 before shipping him because his CPU was 'burnt slap up'.

Fryk

02-28-2010, 05:30 AM

He needs a lucasy last name. I propose he be called Bubba Hotsolder :: )

Pagan

04-22-2010, 07:50 PM

But Star Trek totally explains why I like John de Lancie (I don't know).

I had problems with Q for a while because all I could remember was John de Lancie's character on "Days of Our Lives"!

There are a lot of Star Wars books about what happened to the main cast, with varying degrees of skill and authenticity. I recommend starting with The Thrawn Trilogy by Timothy Zahn- Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising, and Last Command. If you lived in my city, I'd loan them to you.

I had been reading them and quit for two reasons. One - the order they came out in was chronologically jacked-up and B - I didn't want to read the one where Chewie was killed. Stupid, stupid, dumb move.

I remember Heretics and Chapterhouse as "a tripod government is the most unstable of all governments" etc. And Shianna (sp) who can control the worms...what was the point of that? How that happen? So she is a decendant of Leto, but???

I've got the next two after Chapterhouse but haven't read them yet. I've heard several people that think that Arrakis is Earth, but the fact is that all of this takes place about 10,000 years after Earth is destroyed.

Uh Starbuck died! :p

No he didn't.

I counter with - you know a Star Wars quote when you hear it. and if someone mentions tattoine or dagobah - you know what they're talking about.

Yeah, but if someone says "Live long and prosper" or mentions Vulcan or talks about Klingons, you know what they're talking about, too. (They even got some of that into "Boston Legal".)

- 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.

I know. Although it still doesn't set well with me that they left him stranded on planet with only a Cylon for company.

- Cyclons look like people now? Okay, .... but then, everyone's a cylon? WTF!?!?! Whatever.

And that is why I don't like the one now. They messed with their own mythology. The Cylon were a reptilian race that created the centurions to serve them. The Cylons died out, but the centurions continued.

I believe Ford said, "George, you can write this shit, but you can't say it." Yeah, he can write a great story, but the dialogue...sheesh!

As much as I love the movies, they should never let George Lucas write dialogue. There was one line in particular in AOTC that my friend and I almost fell out of our chairs laughing at.

Ship Vs. ship or troops Vs. troops?

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

Did you ever notice though, until one season in DS9 that you never saw fighters in any Star Trek?

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).

Or one single fighter and an unguarded access tube. Or not making sure that the open superstructure has it's own shielding and not relying on just the one generated from the moon.

smileyeagle1021

04-23-2010, 04:56 PM

Did you ever notice though, until one season in DS9 that you never saw fighters in any Star Trek?
.

If you think about it though, in a space battle, fighters wouldn't be that useful. They lack firepower (relative to larger battleships) and lack shielding, all they have going for them is maneuverability, which in the vacuum of space, you don't necessarily need to be small, defenseless, and without major firepower to achieve that.

Pagan

04-23-2010, 09:00 PM

If you think about it though, in a space battle, fighters wouldn't be that useful. They lack firepower (relative to larger battleships) and lack shielding, all they have going for them is maneuverability, which in the vacuum of space, you don't necessarily need to be small, defenseless, and without major firepower to achieve that.

Which just makes it all the more curious that they're used so much.... :confused:

jackfaire

04-23-2010, 09:21 PM

The original Star Wars wasn't science fiction it was fantasy. It was once defined, no I have no reference just memory, that science fiction can explain the technology they use with science even if made up for that universe. The original Star Wars didn't seem to care about Science.

For example never slipping into any sort of environmental suits when landing in an asteroid that they had no idea if it contained breathable air.

Plaidman

04-24-2010, 09:33 AM

Batman could beat both of them up. Blindfolded.

lordlundar

04-24-2010, 02:33 PM

Which just makes it all the more curious that they're used so much.... :confused:

A lot of people underestimate fighters, particularly in Star Trek where there's a total reliance on shields for defense in almost every ship and no point defense system. The shields aren't a kinetic barrier, but instead are energy dispersion systems. Once a fighter get's inside the shields, they'll find the hull is simply there for atmospheric integrity, and could have a field day in there. Ship phasers can't score a hit because they're not designed to work in close quarters like that and you can't use torpedoes because they have to leave the shield to start tracking, and your shield then becomes the fighters.

Don't forget the navy forces in the world have replaced all their large scale battleships with carriers (the largest gun suited ships currently are frigates) because the fighter planes are more effective in more roles than a salvo from a battleship. And those fighters are going up against point defense systems (AA guns, flak, SAMs, etc)

smileyeagle1021

04-24-2010, 06:42 PM

A lot of people underestimate fighters, particularly in Star Trek where there's a total reliance on shields for defense in almost every ship and no point defense system. The shields aren't a kinetic barrier, but instead are energy dispersion systems. Once a fighter get's inside the shields, they'll find the hull is simply there for atmospheric integrity,

Not entirely true, the shield do also act as a kinetic barrier (hence them having to lower shields to allow a shuttle to land). Also the phasers can be used up close as a point defense system. There have been multiple episodes where the phasers have been used against targets even attached the the hull. The hull itself has defenses too. The plating can be energized and polarized to dissipate energy weapons and it has been established that while the hull cannot take too many direct hits, it can take at least some hits before a breach occurs, which is long enough to maneuver the ship out of harms way or do a counter attack (which if you have a skilled gun crew, it's been established in the star wars universe that typically it takes only one shot to destroy a fighter) that will neutralize the immediate threat.