Metal Lord Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 star trek is sleepy.Arse warts is cool. I'd like to see the enterprise destroy the death star flanked by thousands of star destroyers and a millenium falcon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntar! Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Star Wars. No contest. Star Trek sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prada Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 [spoiler=My answers to some posts.]The new Star Trek is meh.So Star Wars pwns it all the way. All I have to mention is the Star Wars prequels. I'm sure Star Trek was a good tv show. Star Wars' date=' not so much. The movies were excellent [b']Prequels[/b] Star Wars>Star Trek by miles. Idiot. Realize that Star Trek was created more than ten years before Star Wars was even thought about. Gene Roddenberry was a freaking genius. Hyperspace' date=' lightspeed, tractor beams, all the things that Star Wars had used, were concieved by Gene. Lucas even said he had a lot inspiration from Star Trek. There would be NO Star Wars without Star Trek.[/b'] Star Trek was a TV series that had a few movies made based on it.Lolno. Why Star Wars wins: IT's MOTHERF*CKING STAR WARS! Plus it has Yoda AND Darth Vader which alone are more enough to put the epic level over 9000' date=' and then they have the rest of the cast which is also epic. [/topic'] Not topic. My answers to Yoda & Darth Vader? Kirk and Spock. I prefer Bones over Luke any day. To be honest, Han is the only character from Star Wars that is better than most Trek characters. Star Wars. No contest. Star Trek sucks. THERE WOULD BE NO STAR WARS WITHOUT STAR TREK. Another reason why Trek is better than Star Wars? Everything in Star Trek can be explained in a scientific manner to some degree' date=' which means it could actually be the future of earth. Star Wars has the Force. The Force is magic. Fantasy. Could not be explained in a scientific way, and couldn't be real. Star Trek explains the science of what things they encounter. Star Wars? You find no clue how they are able to shoot blasters or travel through space. Star Trek totally gets my vote, and considering the fact that half the people that voted haven't seen Star Trek, their votes shouldn't be counted. On one last note, this would be Kirk's reply to these posts - [img']http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1132/1199659277_d767ffa987.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Phoenix Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 [spoiler=My answers to some posts.]The new Star Trek is meh.So Star Wars pwns it all the way. All I have to mention is the Star Wars prequels. I'm sure Star Trek was a good tv show. Star Wars' date=' not so much. The movies were excellent [b']Prequels[/b] Star Wars>Star Trek by miles. Idiot. Realize that Star Trek was created more than ten years before Star Wars was even thought about. Gene Roddenberry was a freaking genius. Hyperspace' date=' lightspeed, tractor beams, all the things that Star Wars had used, were concieved by Gene. Lucas even said he had a lot inspiration from Star Trek. There would be NO Star Wars without Star Trek.[/b'] Star Trek was a TV series that had a few movies made based on it.Lolno. Why Star Wars wins: IT's MOTHERF*CKING STAR WARS! Plus it has Yoda AND Darth Vader which alone are more enough to put the epic level over 9000' date=' and then they have the rest of the cast which is also epic. [/topic'] Not topic. My answers to Yoda & Darth Vader? Kirk and Spock. I prefer Bones over Luke any day. To be honest, Han is the only character from Star Wars that is better than most Trek characters. Star Wars. No contest. Star Trek sucks. THERE WOULD BE NO STAR WARS WITHOUT STAR TREK. Another reason why Trek is better than Star Wars? Everything in Star Trek can be explained in a scientific manner to some degree' date=' which means it could actually be the future of earth. Star Wars has the Force. The Force is magic. Fantasy. Could not be explained in a scientific way, and couldn't be real. Star Trek explains the science of what things they encounter. Star Wars? You find no clue how they are able to shoot blasters or travel through space. [/b'] Star Trek totally gets my vote, and considering the fact that half the people that voted haven't seen Star Trek, their votes shouldn't be counted. On one last note, this would be Kirk's reply to these posts - You raise some valid points. However the part I have bolded is false. If you were to read the books that explain the technology etc and the expanded universe stories, there is an explanation for everything. Everything, from how the guns fire (it's basically power cells combined with a type of gas referred to as "blaster gas". Others simply use power cells to generate a laser), to how the bombs can fall in space (I forget the specifics of this, but I think it was some kind of device inside the bomb that simulates gravity.) , and even the force (midichlorians, although it is somewhat of a stretch). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kotaro Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Never really seen Star Trek, i have seen all star wars movies/episodes so i vote for Star wars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrekstasy Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Star Wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prada Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 @Amy - True, but I have not read the books. I was stating all that solely from a movie view. The bolded part was mainly against the force, and yes, talking about midochlorians is a bit of a stretch. =P I'm sure the books do explain some, though. =] I don't hate Star Wars, I just think that Star Trek is a far more intelligent series, and more enjoyable at times. It also pisses me off to see people like Kotaro voting for Star Wars when the topic should only be for people who know much about both. As well as Jacoby, who say Star Trek was a bad show. If it's so bad, why has it survived more then 40 years? Are you saying you could do better? You could think up all that Gene Roddenberry thought of? Plus, it was the sixties. A lot of shows in the sixties SUCKED. Star Trek, was not one of those shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Careless Whisper Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I like both Star Trek and Star Wars...but I like Star Wars because of the storyline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adama. Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 This is a tough choice. I like the intellectual side of Star Trek, however, the action is often so corny that it is hard to buy into, whereas Star Wars is much more action packed and the effects are good. However, the storyline of Phantom Menace was atrocious. Empire Strikes Back was deep and had good special effects, same goes for Star Trek: First Contact. It all depends I guess, its not much of an answer, but it's all that I've got ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Zero Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Never really got into Star Trek, but I am a fan of Star Wars. I have seen a couple of episodes but since they were boring ones I lost interest. It's Star Wars for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death Metal Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Star Wars. Mostly because the Exar-Kun storyline is awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Darkness Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpartanGio Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 [spoiler=My answers to some posts.]The new Star Trek is meh.So Star Wars pwns it all the way. All I have to mention is the Star Wars prequels. I'm sure Star Trek was a good tv show. Star Wars' date=' not so much. The movies were excellent [b']Prequels[/b] Star Wars>Star Trek by miles. Idiot. Realize that Star Trek was created more than ten years before Star Wars was even thought about. Gene Roddenberry was a freaking genius. Hyperspace' date=' lightspeed, tractor beams, all the things that Star Wars had used, were concieved by Gene. Lucas even said he had a lot inspiration from Star Trek. There would be NO Star Wars without Star Trek.[/b'] Star Trek was a TV series that had a few movies made based on it.Lolno. Why Star Wars wins: IT's MOTHERF*CKING STAR WARS! Plus it has Yoda AND Darth Vader which alone are more enough to put the epic level over 9000' date=' and then they have the rest of the cast which is also epic. [/topic'] Not topic. My answers to Yoda & Darth Vader? Kirk and Spock. I prefer Bones over Luke any day. To be honest, Han is the only character from Star Wars that is better than most Trek characters. Star Wars. No contest. Star Trek sucks. THERE WOULD BE NO STAR WARS WITHOUT STAR TREK. Another reason why Trek is better than Star Wars? Everything in Star Trek can be explained in a scientific manner to some degree' date=' which means it could actually be the future of earth. Star Wars has the Force. The Force is magic. Fantasy. Could not be explained in a scientific way, and couldn't be real. Star Trek explains the science of what things they encounter. Star Wars? You find no clue how they are able to shoot blasters or travel through space. Star Trek totally gets my vote, and considering the fact that half the people that voted haven't seen Star Trek, their votes shouldn't be counted. On one last note, this would be Kirk's reply to these posts - [img']http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1132/1199659277_d767ffa987.jpg[/img] Star Wars can be explained in a scientific way, but does it really matter? The best movies, shows, and video games are complete fiction and can never happen. Star Wars is better, nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seta Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I'll go with Star Wars... Never seen Star Trek. New movie seems good, thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacoby746 Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Star Trek had a bad couple of seasons (Voyager and Enterprise)' date=' 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 [b']science-fiction[/b]; 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Darkness Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Star Trek had a bad couple of seasons (Voyager and Enterprise)' date=' 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 [b']science-fiction[/b]; 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezio Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 [align=center]Star Wars.It just pwns.[/align] Science-Fiction doesn't have to be real' date=' but it DOES have to be believable, something the Star Wars never was.[/quote'] [align=center]SO your saying it's not possible that:'A long time ago in a galaxy far far away...'Star Wars could've happened?[/align] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Darkness Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 [align=center]Star Wars.It just pwns.[/align] Science-Fiction doesn't have to be real' date=' but it DOES have to be believable, something the Star Wars never was.[/quote'] [align=center]SO your saying it's not possible that:'A long time ago in a galaxy far far away...'Star Wars could've happened?[/align] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezio Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 [align=center]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.[/align] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Darkness Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prada Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Star Wars can be explained in a scientific way' date=' but does it really matter? [b']Yes. Unless you're a dumb ass and wouldn't be able to understand it, which I assume you wouldn't.[/b] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007bond00555 Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Star Trek pwns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EHN. Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Star Wars is crushing Star Trek by18 votes!!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! (\__/) (='.'=) (")_(") See Even Mr.Bunny Agrees with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!Ok I'll stop now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Darkness Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prada Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Star Wars is crushing Star Trek by18 votes!!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! (\__/) (='.'=) (")_(") See Even Mr.Bunny Agrees with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!Ok I'll stop now Yes' date=' 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.[/quote'] This guy is a slice of win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.