axka Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 here you go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordicmania Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 these two have nothing in common, except both are sci-fi, not enough to start comparing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IroquoisPliskin Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Oh look, that debate that has been done to death just on this forum, never mind outside of it. and for all this talk of how much more realistic and scientific Star Trek is, if you actually pay attention to some of the crap they have come out with, it's no more realistic than Star Wars. Yes it is. Don't kid yourself. It was made to be that way. When they started Ion drives didn't exist now they do thanks to that show. Are you going to sit there and tell me that an X wing is more possible then Deep space 1 and 2. Because those where made. The tech form star trek is being made now or is extremely inspired by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olf-chan Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html In a battle Star Wars crushes Star Trek under its boot. It's just a matter of maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayla_Felana Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Yes it is. Don't kid yourself. It was made to be that way. When they started Ion drives didn't exist now they do thanks to that show. Are you going to sit there and tell me that an X wing is more possible then Deep space 1 and 2. Because those where made. The tech form star trek is being made now or is extremely inspired by. So because technology has been made from inspirations in Star Trek that belies the absolutely unreal aspects of Star Trek? please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfninjajedi Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Pliskin, some tech is also inspiring from Star Wars. Both franchises have given inspirations in the way of technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IroquoisPliskin Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 So because technology has been made from inspirations in Star Trek that belies the absolutely unreal aspects of Star Trek? please. There is a difference between rooted in fact and completely off the wall. Want me to believe you what is a reactor how dose it work? And how dose there FTL drive work? You can't answer that because they don't even try. They just say oh advanced technology. You know how the engines in star trek work matter antimatter reaction. When matter and antimatter touch they destroy themselves releasing pure energy. That's not technobabble that's science. That's how our world works. Show me one, just one, instance of Star wars having anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayla_Felana Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 There is a difference between rooted in fact and completely off the wall. Want me to believe you what is a reactor how dose it work? And how dose there FTL drive work? You can't answer that because they don't even try. They just say oh advanced technology. You know how the engines in star trek work matter antimatter reaction. When matter and antimatter touch they destroy themselves releasing pure energy. That's not technobabble that's science. That's how our world works. Show me one, just one, instance of Star wars having anything like that. You are arguing off of the idea that because Star Trek has scientifically proven technologies in it, it is the most realistic between the two, then Stargate is the most realistic of all, by your logic, despite having some of the most off the wall stuff in Sci-fi, it is exactly the same with Star Trek, they shoved in science to look real then they came out with things like the Q and god knows how many other completely imaginary things and completely defeated the reasons to include science in the first place. Star Wars just doesn't pretend to be something feasible, and stays true to the Star Wars feel, Star Trek smashed both together, yet people claim it is more realistic even though there is clear evidence to the contrary. It is all science fiction/fantasy whatever you would like to categorize it as, no more scientifically truthful than another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfninjajedi Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 They actually do explain Star Wars Tech....BUT they explain it using the universe's logic, not by going to real life logic and using it for a completely different world. IE: Reactor Cores, they could use nuclear fission to hypermatter annihilation. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Reactor_core http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Hypermatter Its Star Wars logic on Star Wars logic, its not Star Wars Logic and Real Life Logic unlike what Star Trek does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IroquoisPliskin Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) You are arguing off of the idea that because Star Trek has scientifically proven technologies in it, it is the most realistic between the two No, I said it was based in some realm of fact. And yes people are going to say realistic instead of based on fact. On that note bye!!!!! Edited February 28, 2012 by IroquoisPliskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html In a battle Star Wars crushes Star Trek under its boot. It's just a matter of maths. his math is wrong and based on inaccurate information. it's already been disproved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajinEddie Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) I would have to say most of you dont know anything about startrek if you think sw would even give them a good fight. Besides not even wormhole createing papaltine could beat cap kirk in a fight. Everyone knows that. Edited February 28, 2012 by MajinEddie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STD_Skindancer Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Also, way to make the assumption that Star Wars lasers are anything like lasers in our universe, when in-fact the title laser was just pulled out of Lucas' ***, whilst writing the script. did you just claim George Lucas invented the acronym "Laser"? to anyone that was complaining about STO being bad. STO has great space combat, ground combat sucks. Swtor has good ground combat and space blows...damn they could combine and make a mega game! OP, awesome pic. im a fan of both SW and ST. its a thread about a funny pic, not really a debate on which one is better. some of you guys need to take a trip outside for a bit. BTW, Kirk owns all because he is a Shaman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyUNDbo2KMU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayla_Felana Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 did you just claim George Lucas invented the acronym "Laser"? No, I am stating he picked that name out of scripting necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemra Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Loved the Star Trek franchise, especially later seasons of Voyager and DS9, not so much Enterprise. But for gaming I love Star Wars, played a lot of SWG and loving SWTOR, just wish we could name our ships on TOR.. had the Defiant and Kobayashi on SWG As for who would win in ST vs SW.. Trek for sure! Quantum torpedo's 4tw! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenjaminminU Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 The Truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nover Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) I love Star Wars:), My borther love's Star Trek:mad:, How we'er going to sort out which one's best ? "F I G H T" Edited February 29, 2012 by Nover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sly_swg Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Tbh, when it comes to quality Sci-Fi neither holds a candle to eg. The Culture-universe of Iain M. Banks the "Enderverse" of Orson Scott Card The Confederation Universe and Commonwealth Universe of Peter F Hamilton etc... once you get into these you REALLY start to notice how unimaginative and simple the sci-fi of SW/ST really are (whilest you grew up thinking they were the pinnacle of sci-fi Just my 2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nover Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Tbh, when it comes to quality Sci-Fi neither holds a candle to eg. whats eg???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sly_swg Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 whats eg???? the abbreviation for "example given" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nover Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 the abbreviation for "example given" you should of said for not to lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nover Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Nothing will stand up to your own mind, writers only place the words its your own imagination that dose the work. You read a book then watch the film the book will always be better. ps. Have any of the writers had a film made or even a game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sly_swg Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 one culture novel is being made into a film... to make a film of the Peter F hamilton series would mean a lord of the rings like operation, as both saga's are WELL over 6000 pages in total, even split up you still get a minimum of 3600 pages for the 1st part (3 books) of each saga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel_of_Cain Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 As a fan of both I must say that this question can never be answered. A conflict of this magnitude would end all reality as we know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroCaptMaximus Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 his math is wrong and based on inaccurate information. it's already been disproved. Provide evidence to support your assertion please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts