What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Shawnster]

My impression: the ships are bigger and faster, weapons pack a bigger punch, but the world of Star Wars is generally low tech compared to Star Trek. Sure, Darth Vader might force toss Commander Riker around, storm troopers might blast up some red shirts, but the Enterprise-D vs. one star destroyer, the Ent-D will take a pounding, but they'll end up tech-ing their way out of it.

Oh, now that is an interesting thought and unexpected twist. Yes, Star Wars computer tech seems to lag behind Trek. Teching the tech might be an area Trek does better.

Except Han says the fleet couldn't destroy an entire planet while TOS seems quite confident in its ability to level a civilization.

Not exactly the same. Alderan was completely blown up. The entire Imperial star fleet might not have enough firepower to explode a planet into tiny pieces.

On the other hand, the Imperial star fleet can definitely lay waste to an entire planet, or turn it's civilization into slag, as we see in the case of Mandalore. This seems to be exactly what you are thinking about and what GO 24 would accomplish.

Plus, all that was established before the revelation of an entire star fleet of Star Destroyers with Death Star style planet killing cannons. Apparently Han was mistaken after all.

 

[Citiprime]

I'd love for the people who know the lore of Star Wars (i.e., "Legends," Knights of the Old Republic, etc.) to chime in, but the feeling I got from the prequels was that the Old Republic was a stagnant society that was using technology probably discovered and developed ages ago.

The fact that the Republic basically allows places like Tatooine with slavery to exist on the edges of its borders speaks to a sort of complacency. They don't explore out beyond certain points on the map, they don't care about what goes on beyond certain points on the map, and because they've settled in to what exists there's no drive to go beyond what exists.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Oh, now that is an interesting thought and unexpected twist. Yes, Star Wars computer tech seems to lag behind Trek. Teching the tech might be an area Trek does better.

It's the same if you do Star Trek vs. Stargate. The SG ships are better armed and faster, but the Trek ships have better overall technology.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

I think except for speed, STAR TREK technology is much more advanced than STAR WARS.

Example: the Death Star. It can destroy a planet in one shot, but it is massive. Like, the size of a moon massive.

The Xindi planet destroyer was pretty big, but it wasn't as large as the Death star.

The ability to do the same kind of damage but requiring less space (and possibly power) to do it makes it more advanced.

I always call it the Xindi Death Star.

 

[The Wormhole]

Plus, all that was established before the revelation of an entire star fleet of Star Destroyers with Death Star style planet killing cannons. Apparently Han was mistaken after all.

He's not mistaken if he doesn't know about technology that won't exist for another thirty plus years.

 

[fireproof78]

, all that was established before the revelation of an entire star fleet of Star Destroyers with Death Star style planet killing cannons. Apparently Han was mistaken after all.

The Death Star weapon was a game changer.

Regardless, that tech is unique. I do not think Star Trek ships are less powerful.

 

[Farscape One]

The Death Star weapon was a game changer.

Regardless, that tech is unique. I do not think Star Trek ships are less powerful.

Agreed.

And STAR WARS has lasers. STAR TREK has phasers. Lasers are FAR less powerful.

In "The Outrageous Okona", Picard mentioned that BOTH ships could fire until their 'lasers were dry and they wouldn't hurt the Enterprise'.

Also, in "The Vengeance Factor", when La Forge was listing things the Gatherers stole while in their camp, one was Artonian lasers. It was part of a collection of junk... meaning the lasers were considered pretty useless.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Beam one single active and armed photon torpedo into a Star Destroyer's core and it's done.

A swarm of Borg Tactical Cubes could probably make easy work of a Death Star.

And one shot from Space Battleship Yamato's Wave Motion Gun (maybe backed up by the Andromeda) could likely reduce the entire battle into molten slag, so...

The whole thing really is apples & oranges.

 

[Phoenix219]

It seems like the Millennium Falcon could get you anywhere in the galaxy within a few days, while Voyager would take a century to fly across it all. Star Trek ships have gotten much faster than Voyager in the 25th and 32nd centuries but they're still not Star Wars speeds. Except for Discovery.

its a galaxy far far away. it could be much, much smaller than the milky way.

 

[Daedalus]

Beam one single active and armed photon torpedo into a Star Destroyer's core and it's done.

A swarm of Borg Tactical Cubes could probably make easy work of a Death Star.

And one shot from Space Battleship Yamato's Wave Motion Gun (maybe backed up by the Andromeda) could likely reduce the entire battle into molten slag, so...

The whole thing really is apples & oranges.

Speaking of Apples and Oranges, I've never really understood the rivalry between Trek and Wars. The only thing they have in common is the word "Star" in the title and they are both largely set in space.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I think the rivalry was mostly a thing in the '80s and early '90s when the other huge space sci-fi hits were things like Close Encounters, E.T. and Aliens, and Star Trek and Star Wars really stood out. They were both action-adventure franchises about a crew of heroes visiting visiting aliens worlds on an iconic ship, they both had multiple movies, action figures, comic runs, video games and cartoons, and they were both very present in people's minds long after shows like Buck Rogers, Blake's 7, Battlestar Galactica and even Doctor Who had faded. Wars and Trek were similar enough to invite comparison, different enough to have their own fan bases, and they both had a claim to being the best science fiction franchise in the world.

But then the '90s gave us something new: other space opera shows that could survive more than 3 seasons, and the choice wasn't just "Trek or Wars or get out" anymore. Plus you had other genre megahits like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings appearing, and the old rivalry started seeming kind of quaint.

That's the impression I got anyway. Personally I always loved both of them.

 

[at Quark's]

Speaking of Apples and Oranges, I've never really understood the rivalry between Trek and Wars. The only thing they have in common is the word "Star" in the title and they are both largely set in space.

Agreed, there's room for both. Mostly a different audience, too.

Neither do I get the this ' our franchise's tech is better than yours!' vibe that you see in some SW vs ST discussions. Tech is only a setting and can be put arbitrarily high or low, depending on the need of the type of stories you want to tell. It's the quality of the stories that matter.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

The only thing where Star Wars definitely beats Star Trek in technological terms is hyperdrive being HUGELY faster than warp drive.

But HyperDrives seem to be limited to traveling along HyperSpace Lanes/Routes.

They can't just go anywhere in space, they seem to be limited to explored / safe paths that are frequently traveled & mapped out.

Warp Drive & most other Trek FTL & Sensors gives you the freedom to navigate and go nearly anywhere you want.

Example: the Death Star. It can destroy a planet in one shot, but it is massive. Like, the size of a moon massive.

The Xindi planet destroyer was pretty big, but it wasn't as large as the Death star.

The ability to do the same kind of damage but requiring less space (and possibly power) to do it makes it more advanced.

From all my estimates of how large the Xindi Weapon was, from my research, it has a diameter in the range of 1.5 km to 4.0 km.

While the DS1 "DeathStar" had a Diameter of 160 km.

So there's a HUGE gap in size between the two "DeathSpheres".

 

[Daedalus]

But HyperDrives seem to be limited to traveling along HyperSpace Lanes/Routes.

They can't just go anywhere in space, they seem to be limited to explored / safe paths that are frequently traveled & mapped out.

A bit like Borg transwarp conduits, they have limitations but are pretty damn quick.

Agreed, there's room for both. Mostly a different audience, too.

Neither do I get the this ' our franchise's tech is better than yours!' vibe that you see in some SW vs ST discussions. Tech is only a setting and can be put arbitrarily high or low, depending on the need of the type of stories you want to tell. It's the quality of the stories that matter.

Yeah , it's like if fans of Jaws had a bitter rivalry with Baywatch fans.

And also, yes, tech is as powerful as the plot allows. Looks aren't always an indicator.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

A bit like Borg transwarp conduits, they have limitations but are pretty damn quick.

But you can also make Transwarp Conduits along any route you want, they aren't liimited to previously explored routes.

 

[Shawnster]

He's not mistaken if he doesn't know about technology that won't exist for another thirty plus years.

See next comment, but my point is he's not a reliable source since it was revealed his knowledge was limited. What he said was true only from a certain point of view.

Agreed.

And STAR WARS has lasers. STAR TREK has phasers. Lasers are FAR less powerful.

In "The Outrageous Okona", Picard mentioned that BOTH ships could fire until their 'lasers were dry and they wouldn't hurt the Enterprise'.

Also, in "The Vengeance Factor", when La Forge was listing things the Gatherers stole while in their camp, one was Artonian lasers. It was part of a collection of junk... meaning the lasers were considered pretty useless.

This is a fallacious argument that is rebutted by Shakespeare's line about a rose by any other name...

Yes, in real life lasers currently aren't that powerful. Yes in the Star Trek universe lasers are not as powerful as phasers. But simply going by name alone isn't any source of comparison. Star Wars calls them turbo lasers and blasters. Turbo sounds more powerful than just laser. Star Wars could call their weapons guns (and they do in ANH) or potatoes or lances. The name is irrelevant, as was meant by the line from Shakespeare.

The only way to show one is as or more powerful than the other is to pick a scene from both series where said weapon is used on a similar or same type of target. Let's do that. Asteroids are common in both universes, so let's do that.

In TOS the Enterprise damages itself in an attempt to destroy an asteroid before it hits Mirimanee's planet. In TNG fires multiple torpedoes to partially destroys an asteroid before it hits Tessen III.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

In contrast, Slave 1 does the same thing pretty quickly and with more destructive force

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

So does a Star Destroyer

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

its a galaxy far far away. it could be much, much smaller than the milky way.

If you want to suggest the Star Wars galaxy is as small as the Star Trek alpha quadrant (or even the much smaller Federation space), be my guest. Star Wars travel still covers that same distance faster than any Federation or Klingon ship.

The journey from Tattoine in the Outer Rim to the core world of Alderaan is literally a few minutes whereas Earth to Vulcan or Q'onos is days and from one side of the galaxy to the other is 70 years

 

[The Wormhole]

See next comment, but my point is he's not a reliable source since it was revealed his knowledge was limited. What he said was true only from a certain point of view.

But at the time of ANH, the statement that an entire fleet of Star Destroyers couldn't destroy an entire planet was true. The fact that such technology was developed at a later date does not negate the truth of that statement in that moment. To suggest otherwise would be like saying Abraham Lincoln was wrong just because he said space travel was impossible.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Spoiler: Resurrected StarShips - Star Wars "Lasers" Explained & Animated!!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

While they're called "Turbo Lasers", the only part about it that is a "LASER" in the traditional sense is that the igniter for the Tibanna Gas uses traditional "LASERS" to ignite the Tibanna Gas into Hot Plasma, before it's accelerated and fired out of the barrel.

In fact, modern Star Wars Turbo Lasers & Blasters are pretty much for all intensive purposes "Plasma Weapons".

So a very familiar weapon in Star Trek considering that's what many Disruptors are based off of, High Energy Plasma.

So it's a very familiar weapon, just very "Range Limited" compared to a Phasers Maximum target-able range of 1 light-second.


The turbolaser armaments of the Imperial I-class Star Destroyer Chimaera had a combat range of less than 1,200 kilometers, and after said distance, they would be unable to penetrate any type of sufficient armoring

 

[137th Gebirg]

Star Wars weapons also seem to have a recoil to them, as if there is a transfer between potential and kinetic energy during the time of discharge. Conventional energy weapons (lasers, phasers) don't do that, so there is some physical projectile aspect to the weapons.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Star Wars weapons also seem to have a recoil to them, as if there is a transfer between potential and kinetic energy during the time of discharge. Conventional energy weapons (lasers, phasers) don't do that, so there is some physical projectile aspect to the weapons.

There is a micro linear accelerator for launching the Plasma that is ignited from the Tibanna Gas.

Even if it's very light weight, there will be some "Minor Recoil".

It's no-where near modern fire-arms level of recoil, but there is some Recoil happening.

The larger issue is thermal management of the weapon given how hot the Blasters get.