Sogna Digital Museum Forum
Non-Sogna/VIPER Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Echelon on June 02, 2006, 11:52:56 am
-
This battle was inevitable!
Are you a woid, or trek?
I've always liked both, but ever since I was 5 years old and watched the entire Star Wars Trilogy in a row, I became obsessed. The New Trilogy was decent, but the old one remains as a classic in my heart, and to this day are still my top favorite movies.
So, what do you guys think?
-
Star Wars gets my vote. I guess it left a greater impression on me since I saw the original trilogy before I even knew what Star Trek was. I liked some of the Star Trek movies and I've liked most of what I've seen of TNG, though I haven't seen much of the other shows. I always thought the ship designs in ST were kind of bland compared to SW.
-
Star Wars definatelty gets my vote. Star Trek, however, is just.... Oi.
-
I like both.
Though i enjoy Star Wars more,I enjoy classic Trek,Next Generation,and i liked what little i saw of DS9 and Voyager.
-
I like both as well and I would love some strange amalgam of the two in the future. Star Trek had better captial ships, but Star Wars had better ground combat weapons. Plus I don't like a commie future.
-
Star Trek had better captial ships....
WATEWUT?
The old tv series/movie-era Enterprise was about 300 meters long and the TNG-era Enterprise is about 600 meters. That's hardly an imposing size compared to a Devestator-class Super Star Destroyer (a whopping 17 kilometers long)
-
come to think of it,maybe Star Wars is partly why i got really got hooked on PSO, having lightsabers and such.But then,the anime style graphics are what got me into Phantasy Star 1-4,so i guess it evens out.
-
i'd have to go with star wars on this one. i've seen all 6 movies, as well as played several video games, and i've only seen bits and pieces of star trek stuff, maybe a movie here or there. star wars seemed to have a lot more action and better storyline, imo. i mean, when darth vader revealed he was luke's father... that's GOTTA be one of the biggest, well-known plot twists in movie history. i believe star wars has been spoofed off of a helluva lot more than star trek too, so that's gotta tell you something about it's popularity as well. i remember my cousin cosplayed as a jedi knight and camped out by the movie theater when episodes I-III were coming out, lol...
i'll give star trek credit though, for having so many different movies and tv series. one of the band directors who used to work at my high school had a TON of different star trek movie posters and collectibles in his house...
-
WATEWUT?
The old tv series/movie-era Enterprise was about 300 meters long and the TNG-era Enterprise is about 600 meters. That's hardly an imposing size compared to a Devestator-class Super Star Destroyer (a whopping 17 kilometers long)
What I mean by my previous statment is that Star Trek has a better armed capitial ship in its class than Star Wars. In Star Wars (I'm talking the movies here, I know they somewhat rectify this in the books) all the capital ships are woefully underarmed for their size. A ship that size should at least have a standoff range weapon (I'm talking something that can reach out touch someone at roughly a light-second away or more so about 300,000 km) as opposed to broadsiding the other ship at ridiculously close range. I'm a fan of gigantic capitial ships, but only if there is a reason why you have a ship that big (i.e. some megaweapon that requires it as a platform).
-
Big doesn't necessarily mean more powerful, anyway. Plus, Star Wars ships make Battletech vessels look long-ranged.
-
Well that is definitely true. But generally if you have a larger ship you will have more room to do something interesting, such as throw in more energy generators, build a bigger gun, put in more fighter bays, etc.
And yes you are right they do make Battletech vessels look long-ranged
-
Well that is definitely true. But generally if you have a larger ship you will have more room to do something interesting, such as throw in more energy generators, build a bigger gun, put in more fighter bays, etc.
And yes you are right they do make Battletech vessels look long-ranged
True enough. While my fav. space Warships are from Honor Harrington and B5, I'd like to get down to something a little more substantial.
While Star Wars tends do action better, Star Trek tends to do Sci-Fi better. Lightsaber duels are cool, but as a sci-fi reader, Star Trek episodes like "Darmok" R0xx0r my B0xx0rs. Thus, Star Trek manages to squeeze ahead and get my vote.
-
Plus, Star Wars ships make Battletech vessels look long-ranged.
I should hope so. A Star Wars ship can cross half the galaxy in a matter of weeks (not sure if thats canon, but they just about prove it in Episode III)
Battletech Jumpships can only hop 30 light years at once, then require WEEKS to recharge their Kearny-Fuchida drives. Even at best speed, it takes eight months to a year to transit between the Inner Sphere and Kerensky Cluster (a distance which is roughly about 5% the width of the galaxy). Better bring some Holovids for the trip.
-
I should hope so. A Star Wars ship can cross half the galaxy in a matter of weeks (not sure if thats canon, but they just about prove it in Episode III)
Battletech Jumpships can only hop 30 light years at once, then require WEEKS to recharge their Kearny-Fuchida drives. Even at best speed, it takes eight months to a year to transit between the Inner Sphere and Kerensky Cluster (a distance which is roughly about 5% the width of the galaxy). Better bring some Holovids for the trip.
Talking about weapons, back there. :)
-
I also haven't seen any Star Trek video games i was interested in.Most of them that i heard about are about flying the Starships,with hardly any exploring a planet on foot,with a Phaser.Are there any good Star Trek games for PS2?
Whereas there's alot of Star Wars game out that i enjoy,my collection of those got bigger(I think i'm at 12 now...),the other day i picked up a Gamecube version of Star Wars Bounty Hunter...it's pretty neat,though Battlefront 2 is still my fave.
-
Talking about weapons, back there. :)
Battletech warships have laser and cannon weapons with ranges of several thousands of miles, and torpedo type weapons that have ranges of several hundreds of thousands of miles. You don't see that in Star Wars or Star Trek.
Then again, Star Trek and Star Wars have shields...
-
Battletech warships have laser and cannon weapons with ranges of several thousands of miles, and torpedo type weapons that have ranges of several hundreds of thousands of miles. You don't see that in Star Wars or Star Trek.
Then again, Star Trek and Star Wars have shields...
They have an outside range of about 800 km, actually.
'Course, you wanna talk long range, then we get into the Honorverse.
-
Then again, Star Trek and Star Wars have shields...
True, but apparently in Star Wars all the crucial functions of the ship are routed through the bridge, and there are no backups for anything. So if the bridge goes down, the entire ship fails. Or at least the is the case with the Imperial Superstar Destroyer (Which brings up a question can a Star Destroyer actually destroy a star).
-
True, but apparently in Star Wars all the crucial functions of the ship are routed through the bridge, and there are no backups for anything. So if the bridge goes down, the entire ship fails. Or at least the is the case with the Imperial Superstar Destroyer (Which brings up a question can a Star Destroyer actually destroy a star).
Apparently, the SSD had a secondary bridge, but that got blown up, too. On the Rebel Cap Ships, they have lots of redundancy.
Once I get the rules for my own space-combat system hashed out, I'll see what I can do for a side-by-side comparison of various sci-fi ships.
-
Apparently, the SSD had a secondary bridge, but that got blown up, too. On the Rebel Cap Ships, they have lots of redundancy.
Really? Because that aspect really never came through in the movies. I now have a little more respect for the Imperial Navy, but not alot as why in the heck would you design a massive object the size of a small moon to have one small but catastrophic flaw.
-
Really? Because that aspect really never came through in the movies. I now have a little more respect for the Imperial Navy, but not alot as why in the heck would you design a massive object the size of a small moon to have one small but catastrophic flaw.
Because the SSD is a command ship. Before the battle of Endor, the rebels never massed a fleet with enough strength to break through the ISD escort of one of those monsters, and they certainly couldn't build for a last-ditch suicide attack from a fighter. It was inconcievable that an SSD would ever actually be engaged in such close quarters.
-
Which I can believe, but I was making more of an allusion to the Death Star.
Still I can't figure out why you would build the SSD, I haven't looked at the specs in a long time but as far as I can remember its only real purpose is to look large and imposing.
-
Which I can believe, but I was making more of an allusion to the Death Star.
Death Star I wasn't built with rebel fighter superiority in mind It was mainly built as a terror weapon, after any rebel ships had already been defeated. Death star II would've actually been more or less indestructible, if completed.
Large and imposing is what the Empire is about. Plus, the emperor took it on himself to make all decisions regarding the Imperial forces.
-
True that. I agree with you there. Logic has no place when an evil meglomanic with a basically infinite money supply is ruling you.
-
Voted Star Wars
Screw the rebellion, the Empire is great as long as you're on thier good side :P ...and don't become a TIE Fighter Pilot.
-
TIE fighters were clearly designed for numerical superiority, not for 1 on 1 dogfights like usually ends up in the movies. They just can't outmaneuver or outgun rebel fighters. Attrition is key - losing several TIEs to bring down a single Reb is well worth it in the Empire's mind.
-
TIE fighters were clearly designed for numerical superiority, not for 1 on 1 dogfights like usually ends up in the movies. They just can't outmaneuver or outgun rebel fighters. Attrition is key - losing several TIEs to bring down a single Reb is well worth it in the Empire's mind.
The generally established kill ratio vs. Rebel fighters was three TIEs for every one... And that was before the Rebellion introduced specialized interceptors, such as the A-Wing and V-wing.
-
Well we know that the Empire definitely didn't scimp on the cash for its massive military industrial complex.
-
Ah the simpler times, couldn't I just go back 4000 years or so during the Mandalorian Conflict?
-
I think both series have had memorable characters.Star Trek had people like Harry Mudd,Kahn,Lore,and others,while Star Wars had Boba Fett,Chewbacca,Darth Maul and others as well.
-
I think both series have had memorable characters.Star Trek had people like Harry Mudd,Kahn,Lore,and others,while Star Wars had Boba Fett,Chewbacca,Darth Maul and others as well.
Kahn?
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHN!!!!!
-
Kahn?
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHN!!!!!
"Kirk?Kirk,you're still alive,my old friend?"
"Yes,I get to live for a few more sequels." ^_^
-
Kahn?
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHN!!!!!
I love Star Trek 2. Best of the Star Trek movies.
"Botany Bay? Botany Bay!?! Oh no...Oh no!"
-
Well we know that the Empire definitely didn't scimp on the cash for its massive military industrial complex.
Well, in the newer EU material, the Pellaeon-class SDs do away with those ridiculous stand-up bridges and water-tower shield generators.
-
Well that's nice. I haven't read the new stuff, however I am happy they learned not to build bridges and shield generators like that.
-
I love Star Trek 2. Best of the Star Trek movies.
"Botany Bay? Botany Bay!?! Oh no...Oh no!"
Yeah,Wrath of Kahn is my fave of the old movies.
"Admiral?Admiral?...Admiral...never told you how...ADMIRAL Kirk...."
lol
Ricardo Montalban kicked ass as Kahn. ^_^
-
Yup and his quotes are awesome:
"Revenge is a dish best served cold, and it is very cold in space."
-
The fact they got Montalban to play the same part he did in the original series was a big thumbs up. I mean, they couldn't even get Kirstie Alley to repeat her role, which undermined the whole point of Search for Spock, as she was major character and all.
2 > 6 > 1 > 3 > 4 > 5
-
Well the common theory is that all the even Star Trek films are good and all the odd ones are crap. This breaks down though when you hit the TNG stuff.
-
Well the common theory is that all the even Star Trek films are good and all the odd ones are crap. This breaks down though when you hit the TNG stuff.
So far,i haven't seen Star Trek Nemesis all the way through (I've seen bits and peices),so i can't really comment on that one...I did think Generations and Insurrection were okay, but my fave of TNG movies was First Contact.I thought the Borg were pretty interesting enemies,even on TNG's tv episodes.
-
So far,i haven't seen Star Trek Nemesis all the way through (I've seen bits and peices),so i can't really comment on that one...I did think Generations and Insurrection were okay, but my fave of TNG movies was First Contact.I thought the Borg were pretty interesting enemies,even on TNG's tv episodes.
While I do like the borg, I felt that First Contact undermined them. The idea of the Borg having anything resembling a leader goes against the grain of everything that had been encounterd up to that point in ST:NG.
-
First Contact is arguably the worst of all ST movies, and clearly the worse of the TNG series. What goes on in the movie doesn't agree very much with established ST canon, even stuff established in TNG shows and material. Until First Contact stunk it up, Zefrem Cochrane was just the top scientist of many working on warp engines, with a big support staff and nearly unlimited budget under direction of the United Nations of Earth. Once Humans got warp technology figured out, they became the first explorers of the charter federation worlds, not Vulcans. Humans travel to Alpha Centauri and meet those folk, then travel to meet the Tellerites I think before they meet the Vulcans. First Contact laid the groundwork for the backwards history that develops in Enterprise, which in turn undermines what happens in all "future" ST series. It's an unending loop of inconsistencies - and alot of it started with First Contact.
-
First Contact is arguably the worst of all ST movies, and clearly the worse of the TNG series. What goes on in the movie doesn't agree very much with established ST canon, even stuff established in TNG shows and material. Until First Contact stunk it up, Zefrem Cochrane was just the top scientist of many working on warp engines, with a big support staff and nearly unlimited budget under direction of the United Nations of Earth. Once Humans got warp technology figured out, they became the first explorers of the charter federation worlds, not Vulcans. Humans travel to Alpha Centauri and meet those folk, then travel to meet the Tellerites I think before they meet the Vulcans. First Contact laid the groundwork for the backwards history that develops in Enterprise, which in turn undermines what happens in all "future" ST series. It's an unending loop of inconsistencies - and alot of it started with First Contact.
ahh...i didn't know that.I really didn't watch Enterprise much,and i've seen some of TNG on tv,but i only have the movies on DVD,so i wasn't aware of how much First Contact messed things up.
-
Well, one thing that ST fans can agree on is that Enterprise entirely ignored the established history of the Federation.
-
That is most definitely true. Still nothing will beat ST 2 for a ST movie.
-
I haven't seen wrath of Kahn yet, but I did see all of the Star Wars movies. There are a few comical moments in Star Wars that will eventually go to All Your Base school and graduate. Go figure.
-
That is most definitely true. Still nothing will beat ST 2 for a ST movie.
last night i was watching the DVD...i've got the 2 disc Wrath of Kahn Direction's Edition,which has more scenes with Scotty and his nephew,plus some other scenes have more dialogue to them,such as when McCoy gives Kirk the glasses and some new lines on Space Lab Regula One.It's a very nice DVD set,and the interviews with Ricardo Montalban,William Shatner,etc., were pretty cool.
-
Nice. I should get my hands on that.
-
Nice. I should get my hands on that.
Seconded on Wrath of Khan. Not only one of the best of Star Trek, but probably one of the best space-based movies out there period.
-
True that. Most of the modern stuff is all scifi horror which I hate. I prefer the scifi action and scifi with a sense of wonder..
-
I`d be with Star Wars. Just the fact I`ve always prefered some sort of Swordsman weapon. I`m a fan of Star Trek to, but I don`t see any future for it since Gene past away.
-
Yeah, Trek has been on a major decline. They could revamp it, but they would need to get some good writers and a good idea for a show.
-
Yeah, Trek has been on a major decline. They could revamp it, but they would need to get some good writers and a good idea for a show.
My fave Treks were the original,and Next Gen,though i did like what i saw of DS9 and Voyager.
-
The original and TNG were great. DS9 and Voyager were good up to a point.
-
Star Wars
-
Yeah, Trek has been on a major decline. They could revamp it, but they would need to get some good writers and a good idea for a show.
Well, there's good news on that front. Rick Berman, one of the architects of the architects of Enterprise has been fired from Paramount.
As far as combat vessels, my favorite sci-fi universe for those would have to be Honor Harrington.
-
Now that one I haven't heard of. What's it like?
-
It's a book series by David Weber. While the books mostly tend to follow a similar structure illustrated in Fig. 1, they're still quite enjoyable.
Fig. 1:
HH= Honor Harrington, main character of the main novels. The best way to describe her to someone who hasn't read the books would be as a She-Kirk.
Bad Guys= Her opponents, political, military, and personal.
HH: Well, we're on station. We need to solve the political crap that's going on.
Bad Guys: Argh, we've been politicked!
HH: Now that's over with, it's time for space battles.
Bad Guys(2): Argh, we've been space battled!
It took me a little while to wrap my head around Honorverse space combat, so I'll give the short form.
Honorverse ships are basically invulnerable from the top and bottom, due to their drive system. This also makes the sides more difficult to attack, so the front and rear are the most vulnerable points on a ship. Missile defense has evolved to the point where it's a practical impossibility to get a direct, contact hit with a missile, so they use "laserhead" missiles, which explode into a burst of bomb-pumped X-ray lasers with 10,000 kilometer radius. Typical launch ranges are about 4-6 million kilometers. Close Range (300-400,000 km) Is fought with lightspeed energy weapons, like lasers and grasers.
There are no fighters, as single-seat craft can't carry weapons strong enough to penetrate warship armor, and the Point-defense lasers could swat them easy, anyway. The smallest warship masses about 15,000 metric tons and has a crew of 20, and the biggest are about 8.5 Million metric tons (Greater than three times the mass of a Borg cube). The books are pretty good reads.
-
Cool, I may have to check that out.
-
Star Trek has better actors (speaking mostly of Next Generation and Deep Space 9 here). Star Wars has more interesting combat. Star Trek is intentionally funny at times (Q and the Ferengi are made of comedy and gold) and has moments where it doesn't take itself seriously.
I like them both. I guess Star Wars wins for being more consistent in its quality, though. The original Star Trek wasn't very good (Kirk fucked everything that moved and the technology at the time wasn't good enough for sci-fi). Next Generation was only good when Riker had a beard and Wesley Crusher wasn't around. Deep Space Nine was good most of the time, though some of the Dominion Wars stuff was really sluggish. I didn't like Voyager or Enterprise. For Star Wars, though, I liked the original trilogy, and the three prequels were mostly good except for Hayden Christensen. I call him "Can't Actakin Skywalker". I am a horrible human being.
-
For Star Wars, though, I liked the original trilogy, and the three prequels were mostly good except for Hayden Christensen. I call him "Can't Actakin Skywalker". I am a horrible human being.
I haven't seen any of Hayden's other movies,so i can only speak of his Star Wars career.
I didn't like him too much in Attack of the Clones,but i think he did alot better in Revenge of the Sith.
-
I hate them both >_>
-
I haven't seen any of Hayden's other movies,so i can only speak of his Star Wars career.
I didn't like him too much in Attack of the Clones,but i think he did alot better in Revenge of the Sith.
I've heard that Hayden is pretty good outside of Star Wars, and Natalie Portman has been good since The Professional. When you put them together, however, bad things happen.