movies/tv Star Wars vs Star Trek

[Sidral Mundet 1,666]

You know what? I am sick of hearing this debate time and time again and people bashing each other over trivial things. So I will just say that I won't vote because there is no option to pick both....

Both option added. Probably should have added that earlier. My bad 

[Denim&Venöm 18,760]

Star trek is the better of the wto for me. Actual science and a focus on character development. It holds my intrigue more than star wars. 

 

But both both pale in comparison to the best Sci-Fi show to ever grace TV. 

[CaptainDoubloon 856]

I've always liked Star Wars better. However, my brother used to watch Star Trek The Next Generation and I used to watch it with him. It wasn't bad.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

Why not both...?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3h_vMyay6k

 

I can't just pick one. I can't.

I think there is an age were you should watch Star Trek, which is more about a diplomatic and thought provoking stories. I am not saying star wars is not thought provoking, far from it, It just Star Trek is more scientific and has actual science to back it up AND has attributed more to the world then Star War which is science fiction. Star Trek is more so Science Fact.

 

I'll agree that Star Trek is more meant for an adult audience, but... that's not because it's science fact. That's complete BS. Neither Star Trek nor Star Wars are any more or less scientific than Futurama.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Admiral Regulus

[Banul 3,831]

 That's complete BS. Neither Star Trek nor Star Wars are any more or less scientific than Futurama.

 

That's not true. I'm sure real scientists reverse the polarity on their gravometric relays all the time!

[Buck Testa 5,505]

Gimme that Star Trek baby. R.I.P Spock T.T

 

Also between the two shows Star TREK had the biggest impact on the technological world. All those gadgets that seemed so fantastic and mysterious are pretty much around today, even the more outlandish ones like replicators are not all that beyond our abilities now a days (3d printers anyone?)

 

Hell the only thing star trek didn't predict was Texting, though that would of been funny if they did

 

"We are receiving a text from the Klingon vessel Captain"

"What does it say Spock?"

"It reads as follows; 'prepare to be boarded, lulz :3' "

Edited March 29, 2015 by Buck Testa

[The Crimson Cross 7,532]

What!? Star Trek is currently losing in the polls?!

Come on people! Where is your love for the classics? 

 

They're both pretty good in my opinion, but the reason I voted Trek over Wars is because the series has given me many more hours of entertainment, and well, it was a pioneer in the fields of Sci-Fi so it deserves a special mention.

I must admit some of the older episodes are "harder" to watch, but every bit of the show is worth it in my opinion. Plus! Who doesn't love those interesting characters? 

[nx9100 1,013]

Neither Star Trek nor Star Wars are any more or less scientific than Futurama

 

 

*sigh*, alright, where to begin....

 

Star Wars is a FANTASY story.  The only reason it is called Sci-Fi is because it takes place in space.  But if you really look at it, it's fantasy.  almost Lord of the Rings in space.  It isn't supposed to be scientific!

 

Star Trek, on the other hand, has many elements and plotlines based on real science (or science from the 60-90's).  Yes, alot is made up since it's suposed to be the future, but they used elements of real things to build upon.  One example:  the ships are powered by anti-matter.  That is a real substance!  current science just doesn't have the ability to harness or contain it, but we know it is real.  The method of faster-then-light travel is really being researched by NASA.  When designing the original Enterprise back in the 60's, the production crew really did consult NASA and other aerospace experts to find a design that was plausible, if still fictional.  There are many articles and interviews with the various star trek production crews where they tried to use real-world influences as the basis for ships, sets, props, etc.  much of the 'science' in star trek CAN be linked to real world science.  That was the point.  to show one path we can take into the future, and by using real science they were able to make the show that much more realistic compared to other science-fiction works.  If you really doubt this, I can go out to the web and find all the proof you need.

Edited March 29, 2015 by nx9100

[ArcusPluviusIncitus 45]

  Much of the 'science' in star trek CAN be linked to real world science.  That was the point.  to show one path we can take into the future, and by using real science they were able to make the show that much more realistic compared to other science-fiction works.

 

I agree with this statement, Star Trek is indeed fairly scientific. I can't see why many disagree such as this guy.

 

'll agree that Star Trek is more meant for an adult audience, but... that's not because it's science fact. That's complete BS. Neither Star Trek nor Star Wars are any more or less scientific than Futurama.

 

I am sure he is really cool and all, he did agree with me to an extend  

However Star Trek is more influential and is based on real science! Well in all honestly is was all BS but people actually made it into real science in the 1970's and 19780's. 

 

prior to mobile phones, they were big clunky massive things that could only be mobile thanks to being in the back of your boot! It was only accessible to a few channels and was really shitty really...

However in 1973 a man called Martin Cooper was watching an episode of the original series and saw captain Kirk took out a communicator which is equal to a flip phone. He brought the Idea in to his company Motorola and on the 3rd of april he made the first mobile phone! Funny enough the first phone call on it was to his rival saying basically "Hey buddy, I am more awesome then you." 

 

Star trek also helped the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's. 

In a interview, Nichelle Nichols said that she was thinking of leaving the original series during the middle of the second or third season. When she was told a fan wanted to see her she was reluctant, but then agreed. That fan was Martin Luther King Jr. 

She was so shocked and began talking to him when she mentioned leaving the show. Martian Luther King Jr was then himself shocked and convinced her to stay saying that coloured people were always portrayed on TV as Maids, servants and lower class citizens, which they were treated at the time, but that Lieutenant Uhura gave him and many blacks hope that things would improve and that she is a massive role model for young kids everywhere. After this she stayed. 

(Don't forget that first interracial kiss ever shown on TV, it was in an episode of star trek  between Uhura and captain  Kirk! )

 

Star Trek also inspired young people to peruse scientific jobs in NASA. 

 

Star trek is more influential  and Scientific then Star Wars.  

 

However this doesn't mean I don't like Star Wars, It is really entertaining and fun. But when in competition between how Scientific and real and influential Star Trek and Star Wars are.....Star Trek always wins. 

[nx9100 1,013]

further evidence of Star Trek's cultural significance.  The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum (the most visited museum in the world), is remodeling its Milestones of Flight hall.  This hall features the original Spirit of St. Lewis, the X-1 rocket plane, Space Ship One, Neil Armstrong's command module, and more of the most famous aircraft and spacecraft from early aviation history.  These are the actual craft, NOT replicas!!!  and in honor of its role in inspiring generations of new pilots, scientists, engineers, etc, the museum is going to display the ORIGINAL filming model of the 1960's Enterprise and display it alongside these famous craft.  That's right, the Enterprise will be given a place with the world's most famous aircraft!  There is no higher honor that can be given to it, nor any other greater proof of how much Star Trek has influenced our world...

 

Full Story Here

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

*sigh*, alright, where to begin....

 

Star Wars is a FANTASY story.  The only reason it is called Sci-Fi is because it takes place in space.  But if you really look at it, it's fantasy.  almost Lord of the Rings in space.  It isn't supposed to be scientific!

 

Star Trek isn't supposed to be scientific, either. It's science fiction! That, by very definition, means it isn't science.

 

One example:  the ships are powered by anti-matter.  That is a real substance!  current science just doesn't have the ability to harness or contain it, but we know it is real.

 

 

Antimatter is real, yes. It is extremely powerful, yes. We *can* produce small amounts of it, yes. We can't produce large quantities of it, we can't store it safely, and we can't use it as a viable fuel source. Maybe in the future, though.

 

 

The method of faster-then-light travel is really being researched by NASA.

 

Show me a working prototype and I'll believe you.

 

Heck, just show me the theoretical framework on which the platform is based and I'll believe you.

 

As we know it, the theory of relativity holds true. We have no way around it. Even in a perfectly idealized world, we can't break the speed of light. We can sit here and hypothesize of tachyons and exotic matter all day, but we're still not a step closer to making it a reality. Almost any science fiction franchise ignores this.

 

 

When designing the original Enterprise back in the 60's, the production crew really did consult NASA and other aerospace experts to find a design that was plausible, if still fictional.

 

Oh please. The Enterprise doesn't even have a center of mass along the same line of action as the thrust vector. The two antimatter engines—presuming they work—would create a moment and make the ship rotate downward.

 

 

There are many articles and interviews with the various star trek production crews where they tried to use real-world influences as the basis for ships, sets, props, etc.  much of the 'science' in star trek CAN be linked to real world science.  That was the point.  to show one path we can take into the future, and by using real science they were able to make the show that much more realistic compared to other science-fiction works.  If you really doubt this, I can go out to the web and find all the proof you need.

 

Of course it's taken from the real world! So is MLP. Look, it has horses in it. Real, actual horses! They have manes and walk on four legs and everything, just like in real life!

 

All joking aside, yeah, that kinda goes without saying. Well, what else are they going to use to base their work from?

 

---

 

Now, as for the original point I was trying to make. I'm not saying parts of Star Trek aren't scientific. Of course some of it is. What I'm saying is that Star Wars and Star Trek both take significant liberties in their approach to science—equally so.

 

The communicator in Star Trek is a good example of something that is pretty feasible. Likewise, the TIE fighter from Star Wars is pretty feasible as well. Star Trek has photon torpedoes, Star Wars has proton torpedoes. Star Trek has warp drive, Star Wars has the hyperdrive. Star Trek has phasers, Star Wars has blasters and lightsabers. They both have holograms, droids, and cloaking devices. All in all, it's fiction.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Admiral Regulus

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Both I like both and think they are great cultural standpoints.

 

I will say that I lean just a tad more in the direction of Star Wars for a couple of reasons that are more personal than critical.

 

For instance Star Trek always looked at religion and any concept similar to it as inherently negative wherein Star Wars the Jedi are some of the universe's biggest heroes and the Force is seen as a way to great wisdom and contentment. Being a man of faith myself, it's easy to see which I'd identify with more.

 

That being said I do love Star Trek's and especially Captain Picard's belief in the human race. Misanthropy gets beamed down to a Class D planet and left in the wake of our Starships.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Steel Accord

[1Bit 1,531]

Never watched Star Trek. Looks alright, but not that interested. Only enjoyed the Star Wars prequel films (Yep, you can kill me if you want  ) and the Clone Wars TV series.

[Overdrive 5,366]

I've seen both of them. My only thing is, I believe beyond being the same genre, there's very little subject matter that's similar. Because of that, I can't honestly compare them. They both have qualities that make them favorable.

[Taviscratch 453]

Star Trek: TOS is my favourite. I also love Star Wars but only episodes 4 and 6 (5 was a pacing mess). The best part of Star Wars is the extended universe but that is being washed away with episode 7. Thanks J.J. first you ruin Star Trek and now Star Wars. Are you quite done with shitting on my childhood?

[Twilight Dirac 721]

 

 

Thanks J.J. first you ruin Star Trek and now Star Wars. Are you quite done with shitting on my childhood?

 

To be fair, both the TNG and Star Wars movies were run into the ground without Abrams' help.  All four of the TNG movies were action flicks with Picard as the action hero.  I love Patrick Stewart's acting, but he is not Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone.  Nobody liked Captain's Holiday or its follow up, so why were they so dog gone insistent on making every TNG movie Die Hard in space?  At least Abrams employed actors suited to the role of big dumb action movie hero.  As for Star Wars, I don't think I even need to explain that the prequels were a train wreck.

[Technous285 40]

Star Wars = Space Opera. it's always BEEN a Space opera, and the only "science" in it was really introduced with the Prequel Trilogy.
Star Trek = Science Fiction. It has always been rooted in some form with real-world science at-time-of-production and extrapolated towards future advancements.
 
Cell/Mobile phones? Star Trek: TOS-Era Communicators.

Tablet Computers (iPad, Nexus 7, Galaxy Note, etc, etc...)? Star Trek: PADDs (Personal Access Display Device), existed in TOS-Era, prominent in TNG/DS9/VOY-Era, shown in ENT-Era.

Warp Drive? We're currently working on a way to actually build something to move us upto and possibly past the speed of light, but some of the major hurdles are making sure we don't permanently turn into energy, get killed by radiation of various types at those speeds, or wipe out a solar system of life when we manage to stop the damn ship.

 

Until the Prequel Trilogy, nobody gave a damn about how Lightsabers worked. "Swords of some kind of energy? cool!" was the general train of thought about them. Now we're trying to figure out how they could work as beams of plasma contained in an electromagnetic field so they only extend to the length one sets in the emitter unit and not become a infinitely-long beam of death that lasts as long as the power source does... "Thanks a bunch, Lucas!" </snark>

[nx9100 1,013]

@@Admiral Regulus,  alright, where to begin....   (note, i'm only doing this cause it's fun! hehe   )

 

 

 

Star Trek isn't supposed to be scientific, either. It's science fiction! That, by very definition, means it isn't science.

 

 

Yes, it is fiction.  that much is obvious.  The point is it is fiction BASED on fact.  that means they used real science as a starting point, then used imagination to advance it a few hundred years.  That's what Science-Fiction means, fiction based on real science.  as in, it COULD be possible, we just don't know yet.  rooting it in real science makes the series seem that much more realistic.  The whole point of Star Trek was that the creator, Gene Roddenberry, wanted to show what the future COULD be like if we put aside our differences and worked together for a better future.  And to show how science and technology could improve our world in POSITIVE ways.

 

 

 

Show me a working prototype and I'll believe you.   Heck, just show me the theoretical framework on which the platform is based and I'll believe you.

 

 

A NASA physicist is leading a team working on a possible space-warping drive.  Granted this is still decades or century before we can build anything.  They are working on the actual concept of how it would work, not really building it.  But the point is the same.  This COULD work, and while not exactly the same way as shown in Star Trek, it is similar.  CLICK HERE for the article 

 

 

 

Oh please. The Enterprise doesn't even have a center of mass along the same line of action as the thrust vector. The two antimatter engines—presuming they work—would create a moment and make the ship rotate downward.

 

Ok, let me explain how the ship works.  When moving at sublight speeds (less then the speed of light), the ship is propelled by the impulse thrusters, which on the original Enterprise are located on the back edge of the saucer, at the top of the neck, pretty much right in the middle of the central mass.  I know it's not exactly, but according to the Star Trek Technical Manual, the impulse engine can be thrust-vectored, which also helps change direction.  The two large engine nacelles are ONLY used for faster-then-light (warp) speeds.  unlike their depiction in the new movies (which is incorrect), they do NOT produce direct thrust.  The two nacelles produce a warp-bubble, or field, which surrounds the ship, distorting space time in front and in back, similar the the NASA theory mentioned above.  This way, they do not need to be center-of-mass, since they do not produce direct thrust.  (again, the new movie depicts the ends of the nacelles wrong). 

 

Also on this:  Matt Jefferies was the original designer of the Enterprise for the first Star Trek show.  It was not an easy process, since they did not want anything that looked like a Buck Rogers-style rocket ship, since that would date the design too much.  Having an aviation background, Matt tried to come up with a design that seemed sensible and plausible, while working with what Gene Reddenberry wanted.  Having the two nacelles spaced far away from the hull on long struts was his idea, since he assumed that powerfull space-warping engines would need to be moved away from the crew.  Also, remember that the Enterprise isn't designed to operate in atmosphere (although it can for short times).  This means the design doesn't have to conform to rules of aerodynamics and gravity.  CLICK HERE for some background on the design process.

 

Conclusion:  yes, both Wars and Trek are fiction.  But remember the #1 difference.  George Lucas just wanted to have a space-themed fantasy series.  it's a fun adventure, but nothing more.  Gene Roddenberry wanted Star Trek to become a possible road map for our future, by showing us what we can accomplish as a species.  Other big difference, Star Trek ATTEMPTS to root itself in real science, as I said.  for example, they try to explain (in the shows and in books) how the ships actually work.  TO the best of my knowledge, there is NO technical manual for anything from Star Wars (correct me if wrong).  Why?  because no one really cares how a hyperdrive works!  It's just a fun adventure movie.  But we want to know how the warp drive works, because we might be able to really build it!

 

hope this clears a few things up.  i'd love to continue if you want!  

 

EDIT:  David Batchelor from NASA wrote this article about Star Trek Science.  Here are his final thoughts:

"So, the bottom line is: Star Trek science is an entertaining combination of real science, imaginary science gathered from lots of earlier stories, and stuff the writers make up week-by-week to give each new episode novelty. The real science is an effort to be faithful to humanity's greatest achievements, and the fanciful science is the playing field for a game that expands the mind as it entertains. The Star Trek series are the only science fiction series crafted with such respect for real science and intelligent writing. That's why it's the only science fiction series that many scientists watch regularly . . . like me."

David Allen Batchelor

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

 

 

*mic drop

Edited March 30, 2015 by nx9100

[BritishBrony2012 797]

I pefer Star Wars, but do like Star Trek, do watch alot of them. Captain Pichard is my favorite Captain.

[DATA EXPUNGED 324]

At least this is not a thread comparing the Imperial Class I Star Destroyer and the USS Prometheus (Which the Star Destroyer would stomp btw), but that is another thread for another day. On the topic of Star Wars vs Star Trek, I have to side with Star-Wars mainly because of the ridiculous amount of depth and complexity that makes up the entirety of the EU. Don't get me wrong, I am a Trekkie, and proud of it (watching the saga since TNG), but I just love Star Wars more (wanted to join the 501st for a while now). 

Edited March 31, 2015 by DATA EXPUNGED

[nx9100 1,013]

 

 

At least this is not a thread comparing the Imperial Class I Star Destroyer and the USS Prometheus (Which the Star Destroyer would stomp btw),  

 

ohhh..... careful... you almost awakened the ubergeek in me....   (Prometheus of course, hehe)   but as you said, that's for another day.  (totally willing to do it if you want to!!!!!)

 

oh, and i hate to mention (since I LOVE the Thrawn Trilogy), but the EU is null-and-void now, thanks to Disney....   sucks, they should have just made the Thrawn books into the next movies!

[Film Reel 75]

I got to say both I love TNG DS9 and Voyager and I love the Star Wars universe from the beginning right up untill the end of Episode 3 the stuff after is just lacking in lightsaber fights.

[Brony Number 42 10,069]

Star Trek inspires people to become scientists and explorers. Star Wars inspires people to wear bath robes and swing a broom handle. Star Trek requires thought an sparks discussion about social and scientific topics. Star Wars is action, with not much in the way of substance. People have added a lot in the extended world, but just looking at the movies there isn't much there. Most people hate the prequels. So basically, even the fans don't like 50% of Star Wars.

 

Also, the Star Wars Christmas special is canon. Ha!

Edited March 31, 2015 by BronyNumber42

[DATA EXPUNGED 324]

ohhh..... careful... you almost awakened the ubergeek in me....   (Prometheus of course, hehe)   but as you said, that's for another day.  (totally willing to do it if you want to!!!!!)   oh, and i hate to mention (since I LOVE the Thrawn Trilogy), but the EU is null-and-void now, thanks to Disney....   sucks, they should have just made the Thrawn books into the next movies!

 

I.. I ca... can't resist.... must ... co ..must controll .s ..s... self. Ahh I can't, OF COURSE I WANT TOO!!!!

Since you suggested it, I'll let you decide the rules and let you start.

Edited March 31, 2015 by DATA EXPUNGED

[nx9100 1,013]

@@DATA EXPUNGED,   GEEK FIGHT!!!!!

 

Well, you claim that an Imperial Class I Star Destroyer would defeat a Star Fleet Prometheus-class starship.  Please, feel free to elaborate....

 

(fyi mods:, we;re just having some fun here....)