Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
05-04-2010, 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramp4ge View Post
Vaporizing someone is un-necessary when the effect is the same. They're dead.

Phaser vs Blaster vs M14. First person to get hit dies one way or the other. Method of death is irrelevant.
And yet in the Star Wars universe blasters are cited as being "clumsy or random" How many scenes in Star Wars show massive sprays of blaster shots all over and hitting nothing.

M16A2, bullet drop, humidity, wind, and air pressure affect accuracy.
Blasters, ship, rifle, or pistol, you decorate vast landscapes and never hit your target.
Phasers, have to spool up to fire, no ricochet, slow to refire, but ..
projectile path is 100% straight as a laser and zero recoil.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
05-04-2010, 10:06 PM
Quote:
And yet in the Star Wars universe blasters are cited as being "clumsy or random" How many scenes in Star Wars show massive sprays of blaster shots all over and hitting nothing.
Described as being "clumsy" by Jedi, who prefer manipulation of the Force and a light saber. I can think of any number of occasions where Jedi have been killed by "Clumsy, random" blasters, or saved by them. A modern day "Ninja" will probably also prefer other weapons then a handgun..doesn't take away from the effectiveness..

But anyway, about as many as Star Trek spamming phaser beams and not hitting anyone, except we've never seen a Star Trek ground battle on the scale of, say, Attack of the Clones.

But hey. A Ferengi can apparently dodge a phaser blast from across the E-D's bridge, fired by the ship's chief tactical officer? (TNG: Rascals)

Quote:
M16A2, bullet drop, humidity, wind, and air pressure affect accuracy.
Yet hit someone in the right place, they die.

Quote:
Blasters, ship, rifle, or pistol, you decorate vast landscapes and never hit your target.
Hit someone in the right place, they die.

Quote:
Phasers, have to spool up to fire, no ricochet, slow to refire, but ..[
projectile path is 100% straight as a laser and zero recoil.
Hit someone in the right place, they die.

Phasers (At least the hand-held models) are un-ergonomic, have no practical aiming device, and really, we've never seen one effective over around 20-30 yards. Being "straight as a laser", trying to hit a target at 150-200 yards with no real means of aiming the weapon is...impractical?

Phaser rifles at least have a method of aiming. But again, we've never seen one used at any sort of decent range (Because we've never seen a large-scale Star Trek land battle).

At the end of the day, the enemy is no longer sucking in your air. And that's what matters.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
05-04-2010, 10:19 PM
Hard to compare the two as not only are they completely different, but they've both changed drastically over the years.

I find it easier to separate the two in to sub tiers. From my most liked to least...

Outstanding:
SW: Episode IV, V, VI
Star Trek TNG, Ds9, TOS movies

Ok:
Star Wars: ROTS (Had more of an Empire Strikes back feel to it)
Star Trek: TOS, JJ Movie, TNG movies

Meh:
Star Wars I and II
Star Trek: Voyager, Enterprise

Vomit:
Star Wars Holiday Special
DROIDS
Star Trek Cartoon


They both have their ups and downs. Emperor Palpatine is the tie breaker for me. Star Wars.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
05-04-2010, 10:23 PM
If you can get over Anakin's emo-ness, Episode II's a pretty compelling story.

I'd move Enterprise from Meh to Vomit, myself..Lol.

Otherwise, good summery.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
05-04-2010, 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooso View Post
4. Death Star. Do I really need to say more? Fine. It can destroy a planet, if you can wrap you head around this you will understand.
Only an idiot would build something capable of vaporizing an entire world down to the core. That's over-engineering at its worst. For a fraction of the effort you can sterilize the only part of a planet that's used, the part you're using now, the surface. So much less effort, that human beings are capable of doing it now, and the original NCC-1701 Enterprise was cited as being capable of the same all by itself. The crystal entity did it to several worlds, and it wasn't even a ship, just a random space snowflake.

Death Star=Waste of Effort. Doing something that asinine TWICE, I doubt that Luke Skywalker did 1/100,000 of the damage to the empire as that thing did. The station would cause economic ruin all by itself.

Given that it's space, and nothing stops in space, all you'd need is something able to launch an object of several tons at 90% of the speed of light (which is common in both franchises) straight into a planet. It will impact with a force far greater than that which wiped out the dinosaurs. And it wouldn't have an exhaust port either.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
05-04-2010, 10:32 PM
When you've got the industrial power of a "million worlds", as Tarkin claimed, the Death Star is a relatively minor achievement.

A navy capable of enforcing rule over a galaxy 120,000 lightyears in diameter with a million-plus inhabitable worlds is far more impressive.

The Death Star's planet-busting ability was purely a psychological weapon, as was the fact that it could bust thru a planetary shield, as it did Alderaan's in ANH.

It's like the Executor. Far bigger then it had to be, but when you're the Empire, the question arises:

Why not?

We see a similar attitude in Star Trek with ships like the D'Deridex. It's bigger then it needs to be, most of it's volume is uninhabitable, and the design itself is a huge waste of space. But the Romulans buit a ton of 'em.

And I question some of the things I hear in TOS.

Like the ability of the Enterprise to kill off everything on a planet..

When an entire Breen fleet attacking Earth did some superficial structure damage to San Fransisco..

A Borg Sphere (Whether it was a full-scale sphere is debateable) fires at the ground and throws a guy off a bike, knocks a guy off a roof, and does relatively minor damage to a 21st century Human settlement.

The cast of Enterprise seemed in utter awe at the Xindi weapon's firepower.

The only really significant planetary assault we've seen in Trek was when the combined Romulan/Cardassian fleet assaulted the Dominion homeworld in The Die is Cast where sensors repored "30% of the planet's crust" was destroyed in the opening volly. From 20 ships. And it was later found out that the sensor readings were falsely generated. So we really don't know what the true damage was. And while visuals aren't really reliable, the damage appeared to be relatively localized to the hemisphere they were firing on. That's not exactly "30% of the planet's crust".
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
05-04-2010, 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramp4ge View Post
And I question some of the things I hear in TOS.

...

When an entire Breen fleet attacking Earth did some superficial structure damage to San Fransisco..
...

The cast of Enterprise seemed in utter awe at the Xindi weapon's firepower.
Because Star Trek often hired retarded writers and was produced by people too small to realize the consequences of the world they managed.

If you can make the 200,000 ton USS Enterprise go Warp 7, you can wipe out an entire planet with a 10 ton hunk of iron going less than Warp 1. It's simple physics. Never mind how everyone and their grandmother has buckets of antimatter lying around. Do you have any idea how powerful that stuff is? 2 pounds of antimatter is more powerful than the largest nuclear weapon humanity ever tested (not used in Japan, but one of the bombs 1000's of times more powerful tested during the Cold War (google Tsar Bomba for details)). I'd bet there's a lot more than 2 pounds floating in the Enterprise's warp core.

In fact, it gets to the point, that with all the ships flying around and the speeds they're going at it's harder to keep a planet intact than keeping it undamaged. Literally one ship at warp, off course at the wrong place and time, would destroy a planet with ease. Hell, even impulse power (which tops out at half the speed of light) gives ships unimaginable kinetic energy and therefore destructive power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramp4ge View Post
The Death Star's planet-busting ability was purely a psychological weapon, as was the fact that it could bust thru a planetary shield, as it did Alderaan's in ANH.

It's like the Executor. Far bigger then it had to be, but when you're the Empire, the question arises:

Why not?
Because instead of 1 over-engineered psychological weapon, you could make 10,000. Go tell Skywalker to blow all of THOSE up. Also, nobody would really care about the size of the Death Star. People don't fear size. Nerds fawn over size, the rest of society cares more about ability. They'd fear that they and everything and everyone they know would be dead in an instant if the powers-at-be will it.

As an example, what would scare you more? One giant death ball in the far reaches of the galaxy most of the time, or living in a galaxy where any and every planet with a consequential population has a death machine pointed at it all the time, ready to unleash the apocalypse within seconds.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
05-05-2010, 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klingorion View Post
I say Star Trek because there can't be any more Star Wars movies unless Luke turns evil and knocks up a princess.
Which is better? Pepperoni pizza or apple pie? Dungeons & Dragons or Shadowrun? Curry or parsley? There are things you can't compare. Comparing science fiction and space fantasy doesn't work. You could compare Star Trek with Babylon 5.

If you ask me what I like more: Star Trek TOS to Voyager and the movies I - VI. Star Wars lacks vision (it's a fairytale in space) and has no internal logic since the prequel trilogy was released ("I have no idea how to save your girlfriend, but we can find out together, now go and kill little children." "Yes master.") ENT and the newer movies went too much into the Star Wars direction. Fancy fights, but no respect for what came before.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
05-05-2010, 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Tar
If you ask me what I like more: Star Trek TOS to Voyager and the movies I - VI. Star Wars lacks vision (it's a fairytale in space) and has no internal logic since the prequel trilogy was released ("I have no idea how to save your girlfriend, but we can find out together, now go and kill little children." "Yes master.") ENT and the newer movies went too much into the Star Wars direction. Fancy fights, but no respect for what came before.
/applause.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
05-05-2010, 01:30 AM
star trek is miles better

star wars is fun and i love it but star trek just has so much more going on
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:08 PM.