The Star Trek Thread

[MrMofo]

Well there was that hemaphrodite chick who had a crush on riker too.

And i'm pretty sure i saw some girl on girl action near the nassals. But I may be thinking of a different movie.

(also that was incredibly insensitive of me, but i think it's funny so it's okay)

[Lord Rahl]

There's an episode of the original series which shocked ... shocked, mind you ... the 1960's audience. Kirk has another one of his dalliances with a beautiful gal, and in the next scene, she's still in the room, and his uniform is on. However, he's putting on his boots! He must have done the nasty!

Luckily for Kirk it seems alien...vagina is highly compatible with human penis! How many illegitimate babies do you think Kirk had over his five year mission? Good thing money doesn't exist because he'd have to be paying a lot of it for child support!

By the way, Oldgamer, this picture is for you!



It's Reagan on the set of TNG.

TV just didn't do that kind of thing in the 60's, along with the multiracial kiss, and all that sort of thing. But by DS9, Worf is regularly bedding Dax (both of them!) ... inter-species nooky, no less!

I've always wondered if women that I know find Worf attractive at all. I'll ask them right now! I've got two who say they find his character attractive but not his physical appearance. However, my mother says his height is attractive.

Anyone for inter-species nooky with Counselor Troi?

I don't think any man in his right mind would turn down Deanna!

Oh i would **** Counselor Troi But really, i havn't seen a lot of homesexuality in ST and i have seen a lot of ST...

Sure, there isn't a lot of homosexuality highlighted in ST.

Well there was that hemaphrodite chick who had a crush on riker too.

Yes, that was an episode that came to mind.

And i'm pretty sure i saw some girl on girl action near the nassals. But I may be thinking of a different movie.

Which movie/episode was that?!

While we're on the subject of hot women in Star Trek, I think it's best that I highlight some notable hotties from TNG. Perhaps sometime in the future I will write out an entire article about Star Trek's hotties (in every show and movie).

Here we go!

Spoiler for TNG Hotties: 

Teri Hatcher in "The Outrageous Okona"


Famke Janssen in "The Perfect Mate". Get her, Riker!

Spoiler for By the way...: 

Check out Riker's face when he first sees her!

Olivia d'Abo in "True Q". Most should know her from being in Conan the Destroyer.


Rosalyn Landor in "Up The Long Ladder" as a mega-hot Irish-type alien chick. I remember even as a kid seeing this episode, seeing her, and knowing I wanted her! I'll wash your feet baby!


Jaime Hubbard (on the right) and Mädchen Amick in "The Dauphin". Interestingly, Wesley Crusher had his first kiss in this episode where he kisses Salia (Hubbard) but she is a full ten years older than him, in real life! I bet Wil Wheaton had some good memories of that!

There are a lot more but those are what I came up with off the top of my head. Feel free to add your own!

On Facebook I've got a photo album dedicated to the Hotties of Star Trek: The Original Series.

[Cyrus the Virus]

Jaime Hubbard (on the right) and Mädchen Amick in "The Dauphin". Interestingly, Wesley Crusher had his first kiss in this episode where he kisses Salia (Hubbard) but she is a full ten years older than him, in real life! I bet Wil Wheaton had some good memories of that!

Sounds nice Number One..

[Rolling Thunder]

What bothers me about Star Trek is the blithe lack of tactical training and aggression shown by the Enterprise. Especially one episode of Enterprise (the latest series) I watched, where they ambush six Klingon pirates on the ground and instead of just gunning them down at range, connive to lure them into a horribly convoluted and expensive trap of flames and then let them leave unmolested.

Why not just kill them?

Or better yet, just vaporise their ship in orbit?

[Oldgamer]

@Rahl

Thanks for the Reagan picture!

['Gunny]

My latest project in Minecraft has me building starfleet. Im starting with a Daedilus class, since its the smallest, smallest being still very large

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

It is really odd that homoexuality has never really been delt with at all in Trek, although I'm sure a gay character was supposed to be in TNG, but for some reason was dropped, for a show that prides its self on addressing social issues and in many ways breaking down current social barriers, it is stranged that homosexuality has been ignored for so long. I'd hope that any future trek would at least discuss the issue.

[pchalk]

maybe it was cured

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

i kid of course

[Lord Rahl]

I'd like to let everyone know that the latest issue of the Helios is out, Helios 57 - Forever Delayed, and it includes a section of my latest Star Wars vs Star Trek article. The article is so huge that Jom has decided to separate it into several parts, I'm guessing four. Anyway, I go into a lot of detail about the differences between Star Wars and Star Trek, and attempt to explain which franchise has the advantage. Here is the first section as published.

If you wish to read the whole thing then open the following spoiler:

Spoiler for Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part IV: 

Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part IV

Finally! Finally I have come to the last Star Wars vs Star Trek piece. I'm sure even all five of my readers have become bored with my ramblings on the subject but hopefully this article will have a bit more spice to it. This time I'll actually be talking about Star Wars vs Star Trek. As a fan of either franchise it is almost impossible to avoid some sort of discussion or debate about which one is better. I think we can all guess which franchise I think is the best! If you guessed Star Trek then congratulations. You have at least the intelligence of a five year old.

Most of my Star Wars versus Star Trek arguments were done in high school...and when I was student teaching at a high school. Odd? This makes sense because while I was in high school is when the Star Wars prequels came out and consequently everyone thought that the movies were...*deep breath* so awesomely cool and like so good because the special effects were awesome and Darth Maul had like a double-ended light saber and the droids looked like so cool...etc. That was a run-on sentence on purpose, by the way. What was happening with the Star Trek franchise at the time? Voyager, and later Enterprise, as well as the various TNG movies were on TV or in theaters. So, whereas the Star Wars franchise was being reinvigorated, the Star Trek franchise, while still producing entertainment, was beginning its slow death. For example, 1998's Star Trek: Insurrection grossed around 113 million dollars worldwide while 1999's Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace grossed over 924 million. It should be noted that the "heart" of the Star Trek franchise is in the various television series and Star Wars' is in the movies. Considering that it makes it more understandable Star Wars movies would gross more than Star Trek movies but it is common knowledge that the Star Trek franchise for years was slowly "dying". Sure, Trekkies from all around the world still loved the franchise and the characters more than anyone else, but if the movies or shows aren't good then people won't spend their money willingly. I remember even as a junior high and high school kid the Star Trek movies not being so good. I didn't think much of the Star Wars prequels either.

More recently I again became involved with defending Star Trek because I was student teaching at a high school. It didn't take long for me to have the students know I am a Trekkie and for them to start making accusations against Star Trek or explain to me how Star Wars is better (in their infinite high school wisdom ). But enough of the back story. It is time to dive into one of the most heated rivalries of all time: Star Wars versus Star Trek!

As I stated in Part I of this series of articles about much of the same thing,

For years Star Wars fans and Trekkies have argued which franchise is better, what starship is cooler, which villain is better, etc. Personally, I’ve had many arguments that fall under the subject “Star Wars vs Star Trek.” Such arguments are inevitable if Star Wars fans and Trekkies are allowed to be in close quarters with each other for an extended amount of time. ... I’m a fan of Star Wars as well but Star Trek is what I have a special place in my heart for. The majority of my Star Wars vs Star Trek arguments occurred during high school, when my friends considered me liking Star Trek as nerdy and not cool, and when I was student teaching in a high school where the young students knew almost nothing about Star Trek, what they thought to be everything about Star Wars, and thought Star Trek to be nerdy as well. I’ve come to a general conclusion that most people who argue against Star Trek are the ill-informed about the franchise. They have seen the Star Wars movies multiple times but haven’t seen any significant amount of Star Trek.

I stand by these statements. After all, most Star Wars fans just have six films to base their arguments on while Trekkies have, now, eleven movies and five television series (hundreds of episodes) to base their arguments on. These are the only sources that should be used in argument because they're considered canon (although even with using them the debate is still difficult). The nerdy rivalry of Star Wars versus Star Trek is known by both Star Wars fans and Trekkies/Trekkers alike. I mean, look at this thread! It currently has 1,126 pages of responses! That's unbelievable! Hell, the debate even has a Wikipedia page! Most general sci-fi fans that have enough fervor will be interested by the debate in some ways and both Star Wars fans and Trekkies will have such a devotion to their franchise that any sort of argument made will incite a rebuttal (and most likely reveal the true extent of their nerdiness!). It's easy enough to figure out someone is a fan of a franchise but it's another to see them make arguments based on their extensive knowledge of said subject. If someone challenges you to a Star Wars versus Star Trek debate then you should make sure your friends aren't around (unless they're as nerdy as you) because you might not want to embarrass yourself with your nerd knowledge!

Before I begin the debate, though, I wish to make one thing very clear: The Star Wars and Star Trek franchises and their canonical technologies are based on SCIENCE FICTION and as such the validity of any and all statements I make hereafter are purely hypothetical. I'm quite aware that the legendary debate that I'm about to dive into is more about dick-waving for our favorite franchise rather than any sort of fact. I also wish to make it known I will be omitting many arguments so that I can keep this article relatively short and so I do not bog myself down with minute details and base my arguments too much on the science fiction of the franchises instead of using common sense. For example, an old a somewhat legendary member of TWC who has unfortunately not been around for years, Darth Wong, maintains a website, stardestroyer.net, where he posted a semi-short essay titled Star Wars vs Star Trek in Five Minutes where he makes some good points...but in my opinion doesn't actually answer the true questions. Certainly assuming someone saying, "Star Wars versus Star Trek," actually means, "The Galactic Empire versus the Federation," is where the arguments should be based is a bit ridiculous since the United Federation of Planets only controls perhaps a quarter of the Milky Way in the Star Trek franchise while the Empire in Star Wars is a power that truly spans the entire galaxy...far far away (whatever galaxy it is). ATTENTION: This article (better identified as an essay considering its length) will be split into three parts so as to save any reader's sanity. Anyway, I've delayed too much. Time to get into it!

_____________________________

I should state first that I will be arguing for Star Trek in this, mostly, since I am a Trekkie but I will submit to some obvious advantages Star Wars does have. Also, before I make more specific arguments there are some points I wish to make to more clearly define the inherent differences between the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises that should be taken into account before considering everything else.

1) As stated previously, both franchises are science fiction and therefore any and all relevant canonical information from them should be considered as fiction. We all know what is in the franchises is not real, however, we should further understand that the information about the franchises' technologies are also made up. Whether or not the technology is based on real science, pseudo-science, or purely science fiction is almost irrelevant because it was imagined for an imaginary universe.

2) The Star Wars universe is purely imaginary while having many similarities to our own while the Star Trek universe is imaginary but based on our own with real locations, technologies, and culture. Because of this we must understand that comparing the two universes may be inherently incompatible and/or incomparable. Units of speed, power, etc could be completely different from each other between the two franchises. This is one reason why I wish to base my arguments more on common sense rather than by the numbers.

3) The Star Wars franchise has always had a focus on the military power in its universe, land armies, and the incredible power of the Empire. Star Trek has always focused on single starships and their crews with minimal attention given towards actual wars and battles. This is another inherent difference between the franchises. In Star Wars we constantly see the huge and seemingly limitless armies of the Empire, their gigantic fleets, etc (as well as the clone and droid armies from the prequels). This fits with the story to tell of the scale of the conflicts (as well as the universe and budgets of the movies) to show how powerful the Empire is. In Star Trek we hardly ever see fleets, let alone armies, as each episode (and movies too) usually centers around the Enterprise, its crew, and perhaps some aliens in a dilemma with a ship (maybe). If the episode showed more than two ships then that's when things got really serious! Also, if people or starships had to use force then it meant things didn't turn out for the better and so this rarely happened (as in an all-out battle). In Star Wars battle and shootouts happened constantly. The point is that in Star Wars you see the huge fleets and armies. In Star Trek you do not so already comparing the two franchises is difficult since you never have a true understanding of the militaries in the Star Trek universe.

4) Again, as stated previously, any and all statements I make are my opinions based entirely on science fiction and my common sense and as such everything I say is equally as hypothetically correct and incorrect. I'll make arguments but they can be just as easily thrown out the window by someone else who has "better" knowledge of information (based on science fiction).

5. Since there is so much information that the franchises have for me to research I will miss something. Seriously, I'm about as big of a Trekkie as you'll meet (unless you know someone who goes to conventions [I haven't done that yet!]), but I don't have the time or want to make the effort to research every single episode and movie so that my arguments are perfect. No argument will be perfect since a perfect comparison between the franchises can't be done but I will try my best. If I leave something out then let me know. Just don't get mad when I make a mistake.

And so it begins...

Ah... Now we get to the good part where I make my case. I believe, in many ways, that Star Trek as a universe is better than the Star Wars universe and I am prepared to point out why. Actually, I guess I won't necessarily be saying Star Trek is definitely "better" than Star Wars, but I will definitely have a pro-Star Trek stance. Keep that in mind. My arguments will be split into different categories, each explaining why I think Star Trek has(/may have) the upper hand, as well as trying to compare the technicalities and specifics of the franchises so that there is a better understanding of my argument(s), all the while concentrating on using common sense as my reasoning.

The Franchises

The Star Wars and Star Trek franchises, while similar in being both science fiction universes, have inherent differences that I wish to address. I've already stated that both franchises are science fiction. That is obvious. But what must be understood is what the franchises are based on, as in if they have any basis on the real world or not.

With Star Trek the franchise is based partially on our real universe. There is Earth, Alpha Centauri (not inhabited by Na'vi [or omitted from mention {hopefully}]), and many other known stars, nebulae, etc. Gene Roddenberry, the creator of the Star Trek franchise, wanted the universe to be set in our future. Because of this many of Star Trek's technologies is based on real science or pseudo-science, although some is simply pure imaginary "science". I've made many references to the link between Star Trek and our technological advances before, most recently in the last edition of the Helios, so I don't need to repeat that. But even with Star Trek's pseudo-science, much of it is actually based on logic, mathematics, physics, etc. Take how Star Trek handles warp speed, known as "warp factor" in the show, for example. The speed is based on mathematical equations and in later shows they modified the equations to make more sense! All units of measure in the show are either what we use in the real world or are made up but based on real world units of measure too. For example, starship power levels are measured in joules or watts. As we can see, Star Trek, even though it is science fiction, is very much based on science fact or at least tries to stay within some realm of reality.

With Star Wars it is my opinion that is is much more science fiction fantasy. After all, the franchise is set "a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away..." I'm not saying that Star Wars being much more fantasy-oriented makes it worse, but if we're trying to compare the two franchises and whether one would have the upper hand in a conflict then science or pseudo-science is much better to argue with rather than fantasy. But fantasy does work with the Star Wars franchise. It is more about an epic story of good versus evil, of the Jedi versus the Sith, than about science (until Lucas ruined the mythology of Star Wars when he added midi-chlorians). Technobabble is rarely used in any of the Star Wars films. And then you have Star Trek where the shows seemed to increasingly use science and/or technobabble in the story. I wrote about that in Helios 56 as well. Yes, a blaster shoots lasers but the movies never attempt to explain how they function. The engines in Star Wars allow them to go FTL speeds but we don't know how this is achieved. I can tell anyone with relative accuracy how the engines in Star Trek function just by watching enough episodes. In the technical manual it will show you its parts and such but none of the information is, or should, be considered canon. With Star Trek the people who helped maintain scientific accuracy, realism, and consistency from show to show also worked on the Star Trek technical manuals, so rest assured what you read in them actually has a real relation to the show or movies and is based on science or pseudo-science. I'm not the best expert on Star Wars knowledge but the only technical consistency I know of with regard to starships, weapons, etc in the franchise has to do with starship dimensions. All other facts aren't supported by anything else.

Even NASA needs LeVar Burton, who played "Geordi La Forge" in TNG, to help with their engineering problems!

I think it is obvious that Star Trek, at least for argument's sake, can actually be used in arguments that require canonical facts. Star Trek is already based on science and pseudo-science and its technical publications echo that. Again, this doesn't mean Star Wars is a lesser just because it is based more on fantasy, scientific realism was never a goal of the franchise, but if we're debating Star Wars versus Star Trek then Star Trek clearly wins in terms of relevant canonical information to be used.

The Starships

Explaining the starships of both franchises is such a big issue that I've split it up into more specific topics.

General Design and Purpose

Too often in a Star Wars vs Star Trek debate people will put one ship against another. This is a simple way of deciding the outcome of the debate but it is hardly a proper way to steer the debate. The purpose and design of the countless starships seen in Star Wars and Star Trek are very different and I think that desperately needs to be taken into consideration.

Let's discuss Star Wars ships first. There seem to be two types of ships that dominate the SW universe: carriers and fighters. The carriers, like the Star Destroyer and Trade Federation Battleship, are truly massive ships, each being over a kilometer in length (or in the case of the Battleship, diameter), carrying thousands of personnel and hundreds of fighters. These can barely be called carriers, however, since they have huge armaments with dozens and dozens of laser cannons. The immensity of the capital ships in SW is evident with the Executor-Class Super Star Destroyer (over 17km long!) that mirrors the epic scale of the franchise and what George Lucas imagined. Basically every single starship seen in Star Wars movies is a military ship (except for the few diplomatic ships and transports). They're meant for one thing: to kick ass. This makes sense since the movies focus on the wars. Fighters are also shown a lot. We all know what TIE Fighters and X-Wings look like and most of the main characters get in a fighter at least once. We also see smaller ships like the Corellian corvette (in Ep. IV) and the iconic Millennium Falcon but the heavily armed carriers and fighters are the focus in the movies.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We get it, George. It's ing big!

In the ST universe 99% of the ships are less than a kilometer in length. Take, for example, the USS Enterprise-D, it is one of the bigger starships (outside of Borg vessels) and is 642 meters in length. So it is about 40% of the Star Destroyers length. I'll use this as an example of the relative size difference of SW ships versus ST ships (and if you're more interested in the size comparisons then check out this handy visual aid). It's not surprising that ST ships are much smaller on average than SW ships. While size is a huge difference, so is the purpose of the ships. In the ST universe there is not a huge galaxy-wide war (for the most part). The various alien races have many different types of ships that they use like cargo freighters, science vessels, etc. I know SW has them too but they're definitely not a common occurrence and are not seen nearly as much as in ST. Most Federation starships are meant for deep-space exploration rather than combat, although they do have significant weaponry available. I'm making a generalization here but the conclusion I've come to to is that SW = warfare and ST = exploration. Rarely do we see fighters in ST. But let's not take note that ST ships do have firepower. Most every ship is equipped with either a disruptor or phaser weapons system and a type of torpedo weapon. I guess ST ships could be considered to be like frigates, destroyers, cruisers, or battleships (in some ways). They are large ships with multiple weapons and defense systems, and are all similar in design and purpose yet have varying sizes depending on class.

A Federation fleet in formation.

There are three conclusions I've come to here and I hope you agree with: 1) SW ships are substantially larger in general than ST ships. 2) SW ships are mostly (heavily armed) carriers or fighters while ST ships are like destroyers/battleships (in some ways). 3) SW ships (at least those that are focused on) are purely military in use while ST ships are more for exploration. That's a general overview of SW and ST ships as well as going over their design and purpose.

But wait!!! There is one glaring subject I wish to give notice, and that is of the seemingly idiotic design of Star Destroyers, and more specifically their shield domes/towers. I mean seriously, why would you put the things that are one of the most important parts of your ship on the outside of the hull in big towers for all to see? Those huge white balls are just asking to get shot up! If I was an enemy commander I'd see those shield domes and think of the Star Destroyers like an dumb guy bent over with his balls waiting to meet my foot with a hard kick. In Ep. VI we see fighters take out a dome and thus take down the bridge deflector shields of the Super Star Destroyer. All it took to take it down was a single A-Wing hitting the bridge. Hey Star Destroyer designers, how about putting the shield domes, or whatever makes the shields, inside the hull so they aren't such vulnerable and obvious targets?

Weapons and Defenses

I touched on the weapons and defenses of SW and ST ships a bit above, but since this debate requires discussion of a supposed conflict between the two universes, more attention is needed. I have a very good understanding of ST weapons and defenses and an adequate understanding of the same with SW so hopefully I do this well. This is where making educated comparisons becomes more difficult.

SW ships primarily use lasers as their weapon of choice. The capital ships have dozens, if not thousands, of turbolasers at their disposal. It seems that the larger the laser weapon the bigger the target it is supposed to be fired at, like a battleship's main guns are for ship-to-ship combat while the machine guns are for taking out fighters. The large guns are used to bombard other capital ships while the smaller guns are for fighters. Other known weapons are ion cannons and proton torpedoes. I do not know for certain the power of these weapons, although Darth Wong does post some staggering numbers for their power on his site. If these numbers are to be considered entirely accurate and to be compared with his ST numbers without hesitation then it is clear SW wins hands down...yet as I've explained making such black and white comparisons does not make much sense. I'll explain further on that and more later.

The laser weapons seemed to be human-controlled for the most part. The only example I know of where a computer was used was in A New Hope when the Rebel pilots used the computer to target the Death Star's exhaust port (and failed). It seems the Force is better at aiming than a computer! The torpedoes (or missile weapons) I've seen have always been controlled by a computer (as far as targeting), except for the case just explained. So, with SW weapons we have both directed energy weapons (turbolasers) and missile weapons (torpedoes). Firing arcs of most laser turrets in the SW films seem to be pretty limited but it's made up for with the sheer number of turrets. What are the ranges of SW weapons? It seems that, other than the Death Star's main weapon, every single shot fired in the movies was always done within close (relative) visual range. In Ep. III the capital ships are firing devastating barrages of their huge turbolasers at extremely close range. Example: Battle of Coruscant. Most of the shots fired don't seem to be further than a few ship's lengths apart (~2,500 m) at most. I do understand, however, that this was done for cinematic purposes rather than showing what space combat in the SW universe may truly be like. I will touch on this point later. I would also like to point out that the turbolaser turrets on the SW capital ships seem to be very limited in their ability to move. This makes sense since the main targets for the capital ships are other barely maneuverable capital ships. There is no real need to have their gun turrets be able to move around quickly. That's what the smaller, less powerful, anti-fighter turrets are for. The same goes for fighter-to-fighter combat. The fighters never seem to be more than ten lengths apart.

SW starship defenses are (deflector) shields. They seem to be (nearly) invisible. In Ep. III you can see laser hits on what looks to be shields instead of hull. I believe the shields also "hug" against the hull of ships because we never see a shield bubble like in ST. Unlike ST, it is difficult to judge how strong the shields are because we rarely hear of the shields being depleted gradually. It always seems as if the shields are either up and holding or down. As far as armor is concerned for the hull, I don't have any clue. I read the X-Wing has titanium armor though.

Quad turbolaser turrets and a Star Destroyers' destroyed shield tower and burning command tower.

Fortunately for ST there is much more source material to understand the weapon and defense systems on starships in the universe. Like SW, ST's main weapons used are directed energy weapons like disruptors and phasers. It is interesting to note that in the ST universe lasers are an old and obsolete weapon. The Enterprise-D in one episode is fired upon with lasers and the crew finds humor in the situation even though the other ship had just fired on them. Anyway, these weapons can fire in either pulse or beam settings and to varying power levels. ST directed energy weapons can target by either a computer or be manned. The vast majority of shots taken are very accurate. In space battles individual areas of an enemy vessel will be targeted such as engines, weapon systems, etc. Directed energy weapons are often fired along with missile-like weapons such as photon torpedoes (not to be confused with SW's proton torpedoes). Torpedoes are very accurate as well and follow their targets. Firing arcs of the DEWs are generally more than 90 degrees (and on many Federation ships it comes close to 180 degrees) but multiple weapons arrays are on each ship, usually having any starship with firing arcs covering the entire ship. Torpedo firing arcs have less coverage but there are usually two torpedo launchers, one bow and one stern, meaning the ship can fire in both directions. The majority of starships can fire in all six (bow, stern, port, starboard, ventral, and dorsal) directions. As far as range, I know ST ships can fire over 10 km but most every episode we see starships much closer than that, perhaps at around 2 km away from each other. This, just like I explained with SW, is due more to keeping the action in the camera shot than anything else. Also, since ST is mostly TV episodes the budget didn't allow for elaborate space battles.

Defensive systems in ST come in three categories: shields, armor (hull plating), and cloaking technology (although this could be considered offensive too). Unlike SW where shield generators are placed in overly exposed and vulnerable positions, in ST (deflector [isn't it odd how both franchises have very similar or identical names for technologies?]) shield generators are almost always located inside of the starship. Neither matter nor energy can pass through the shields. While shields are up they also prevent enemy boarding. If the enemy does board the ship, however, it is possible to put up shields inside to trap them. Starship hull armor is made up of many different made up metals, and is undoubtedly stronger than titanium (as they can withstand explosions of multiple megatons and maintain integrity). There is not much to expand on there. As for cloaking technology, that is something absent from SW canon but very prevalent in ST canon. Even if you know what to look for when an enemy is cloaked it is still difficult to find them. In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country a Klingon Bird-of-Prey could fire while cloaked and in Star Trek: Nemesis the Scimitar had a virtual perfect cloak. This technology would be very useful if say...you needed to shoot some explosive torpedoes down an exhaust port. Here is a good video of ST weapons in action (although it seems like every ship except the Defiant has its shields offline! )

A Cardassian Galor-class firing two of its phaser banks simultaneously and the Enterprise-D's phaser beam impacting a Klingon BoP's shields.

So, where does the advantage lie regarding weapons and defenses? If we're talking sheer numbers then SW wins. Since their starships are much larger than those of ST they have much more weaponry. Whereas the Enterprise-E may have eight weapons arrays, a Star Destroyer will have dozens. The number of guns doesn't necessarily mean the advantage is with the numbers, however. Using what we can see on TV and in the theater from both of the franchises, there is no obvious advantage in the power of the weapons. Even Han Solo's minuscule Millennium Falcon was able to withstand multiple hits from Star Destroyer turbolasers (I'm assuming they were turbolasers) and the Rebel X-Wings involved in the Battle of Yavin were able to withstand many turbolaser bursts from the Death Star(!!!). Lasers seem to be the dominant weapon system in the SW universe while the only ships that use torpedoes or missile-type weapons are fighters. ST uses both DEWs and missile-type weapons almost equally.

While ST ships do not have the sheer number of weapon systems that SW ships do, does that equate to SW weapons being overwhelmingly superior as well? I don't think so. As I said, there is nothing I've seen that supports that. If one takes Darth Wong's calculations of weapon power from both franchises correctly, that means everything in SW is severely overpowered compared to ST. But that really makes no sense. How could Bobba Fett's Slave I be more powerful than the Enterprise-D? The Enterprise is much larger and seems far more capable. In Ep. III Anakin fires lasers at Obi Wan's fighter (that aren't overly smaller than Slave I and indeed we see another of Obi Wan's fighters get shot at by the Slave I in Ep. II) to shoot off the buzz droids and the fighter survives a couple or a few laser bursts. If SW ships are so insanely overpowered, why didn't Obi Wan's fighter simply disintegrate? This is why I take "official" SW technical information with a grain of salt. This is where common sense trumps fantasy "facts". I am sort of split on this argument. SW wins in numbers, which is expected, but I think ST wins when it comes to other points like targeting and use of weapons. In SW there seems to be no real purpose of shooting other than to...shoot. In ST there is actually strategy to it, but I'll expand on strategy and tactics later.

And then there is defense. This is even more difficult to judge than weapons since shields or armor in SW is more often referenced in passing rather than us getting to see how it all works and understand it better. On one hand I know ST ships have shields that can withstand a lot of damage (if the combating ships are comparable in strength) and the ships can orientate themselves to have a different section of shields facing the enemy so that the weakened area of shields can gain its strength back (more on that later as well). In countless ST scenes we watch as the shields are weakened so we get an understanding of how much they can take and what they mean for the ship(s). The same goes for the hull. ST often references hull plating and hull integrity. But in SW there's barely any mention of hull armor and it seems as if either the deflector shields are up or down. We have no scenes to gauge the relative strength of the hull or shields and it seems that once shields are down the ship is screwed. I can assume SW ships have better armor and shields simply because they're bigger but that is not a well-founded assumption And is it one that makes sense to attribute to other unknowns of SW? I think not.

Again, I don't wish to knock SW for not having enough emphasis on the technicalities of its ships, weapons, etc., but if we're arguing SW vs ST it difficult to give the advantage towards SW if there is so little to base arguments on and the official publications remain equally as unfounded. Here is a website that deals a lot with SW vs ST but is an obvious pro-ST site whereas Darth Wong's is obviously pro-SW.

Space Combat (Strategy and Tactics)

If you've viewed enough hours of SW and ST you'll quickly understand there are striking differences between the strategies and tactics in space combat of the franchises. I've already touched on this subject above so this shouldn't take too long to explain.

It's not too hard to understand what happens during SW space battles. Every movie has massive capital ships slugging it out with their massive and countless turbolasers while fighters are launched and battle each other. As previously stated, capital ship combat does not seem to be overly intellectual. It seems more like a ships of the line slugging it out. Basically you've got overly massive and barely maneuverable ships shooting as much as they can at each other. I doubt any sort of tactics are involved since sub-light speed and maneuverability seem to not have any effect on combat effectiveness. Heck, Han Solo made two Star Destroyers run into each other! How dumb are those commanders! That was a cool scene though.

I'm not sure what fighter tactics are. In fact, I don't know why fighters exist because it seems as if capital ships are absolutely impervious to most anything fighters can throw at them. Fighters are good for taking out Death Stars though. I don't know what more to say about SW space battle strategies or tactics. We see a lot of battles but basically nothing to explain how they are done. This isn't necessarily a fault of the movies, as they didn't focus on the "whats" and "hows" of their ships and space combat, but it certainly doesn't help SW's (I guess that should actually be without the "s" but then that'd look weird) case for having superior war strategy and battle tactics.

ST, on the other hands, has countless examples of strategy and tactics. In ST the captain is highlighted and is often the one who is the reason why their ship survived and the other didn't. Granted, ST often involves only two ships, and rarely more than that, in a battle but at least we get to see the intelligence, courage, and cunning of captains (and their crew). I can provide many examples. In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Spock figures out how to fire upon a cloaked Bird of Prey, in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Khan is as cunning as ever but Kirk delays Khan while they figure out how to take down the Reliant's shields and later they have a great battle in the Mutara Nebula where a three dimensional maneuvering is key, there is Picard's...Picard Maneuver (getting bested by Data is nothing to be ashamed about), the Riker Maneuver (don't ask me why the idiot who posted the video dubbed his own idiotic voice for the dialogue [and just don't pay attention to the obvious video game joystick Riker uses to manually steer the Enterprise ]), and many more examples. Needless to say, space combat in ST at least shows that the captains and their crews are very intelligent and use their intelligence to live for one more day.

The Picard Maneuver? Oh, oops. Wrong one!

Perhaps the best example of space combat tactics in ST is seen in Star Trek: Nemesis where the Enterprise (and later two Romulan Warbirds) has(have) to fight against a much more formidable ship that has a virtually perfect cloak. Here is a video that's the best I can find of the battle that shows what happens, including: using phasers to hit the cloaked ship and then firing torpedoes according to the phaser hits, flipping the Enterprise so that the ventral shields can take hits because the dorsal shields were failing, and showing the ship crews, including captains, understand a three dimensional battlefield (as well as ramming when all else fails ). I also stated before that in ST ships can target specific areas or parts of an enemy ship. For example, perhaps you wish to capture the enemy, so you take out their engines and weapons instead of simply destroying the ship. This is something lost in SW, or at least it's not shown at all. Add to this the maneuverability of ST ships. They're big starships themselves, most of them being a few or several hundred meters long, and yet they are also like giant fighters that are constantly maneuvering at hundreds or thousands of kilometers per hour. This makes one wonder if SW capital ships could adequately target and hit ST ships because of the superior maneuverability of ST ships compared to SW ships and their turbolaser turrets.

As far as space battle strategy and tactics are concerned, ST ends up on top. SW may have a gargantuan advantage when it comes to ship numbers, size, and firepower, but the franchise lacks entirely in other areas where ST excels such as crew and commander competency, battle creativity, ship maneuverability, and inherent tactical possibilities because of ship design.

That about sums up starships and space battles! PHEW!

Ground Combat

This is another difficult area to compare and argue simply because SW is rife with land battles whereas ST hardly shows any sort of large scale land battles throughout the entirety of the franchise, and I do mean the entirety. There are certainly huge and devastating wars (in space and on land) but the biggest number of combatants on land I've ever seen in an episode or movie was never more than a few dozen. In SW we see hundreds and thousands of troops and huge land battles, especially in the prequels. I am not too certain but my best guess is that SW's numbers for armies and their power is greater than that of ST. After all, the Empire controls most of their entire galaxy so they must have billions upon billions, and probably trillion, of troops. So automatically SW wins as far as land battles are concerned...

The clone army kicking butt on Geonosis.

...except for this: Ewoks! Now, I understand pretty much everyone who likes SW, including myself, loathes seeing stupid fur balls taking out what the Emperor himself deems, "An entire legion of my best troops," but the fact remains that the movie has it and it can't be ignored. Maybe the forest got to the troops, maybe they were dressed poorly for combat in a forest (walking around in shiny white armor isn't the most inconspicuous way of marching around), or maybe the Ewoks took some crazy drugs before they attacked, but that's no excuse for an elite fighting force (of 10,000?) that is touted by the Emperor himself and is part of a military force that has conquered most of the galaxy to be defeated by Han Solo, Leia, Chewbacca, and hundreds(?) of Ewoks. I don't care if there were a billion Ewoks. The legion should have turned them all into foul-smelling lumps of burning fur.

One minor note about troop weapons: In SW there is no explanation or presentation of how powerful blasters or blaster rifles or...whatever are. In Ep. IV a stormtrooper uses the stun setting to disable Princess Leia. In ST phasers have multiple settings that range from stun to kill to "maximum setting" which can incinerate targets. They can also be used to warm rocks for warmth in the wilderness or can be overloaded to create a large explosion.

There isn't much more to say here. The SW franchise clearly dominates as far as land power is concerned, even though ST hardly touches on the subject in any significance and there being a case where an Imperial legion is defeated by a pre-industrial race of furry mammals. Beating an obvious dead horse? Yeah...I know I am.

The Fantastic

I've now gone over what I think is the "meat" of the SW vs. ST debate. So what's left? We've got the fantastic, as in things in both universes that is more fantasy than science fiction. After all, this epic nerd debate is so "big" that it'd be ridiculous not to include the fantastic...no matter how ridiculous it is.

The most obvious example is the Force. Over the six movies we've all seen various uses of the force like telekinesis, the ability to have a non-corporeal self after death, enhanced physical abilities, choking someone without physical contact, and shooting lightning out of the body, among other abilities. Certainly this makes some SW individuals very powerful. That is why many SW fans will use the existence of the Force as an argument to say SW could/would best ST. I will admit that ST does not have the Force, or at least there is no mention of it whatsoever.

Emperor Palpatine using force lightning, much to his evil pleasure.

But does ST not having Jedi or Sith mean that SW has the advantage? That's a difficult judgment. Why? Well, there is one glaring question that must be asked. Does the Force even exist in ST? There is no mention of any similar force or power in all of ST. The Force is never directly referred to nor is anything resembling the Force. And to be more specific, and I hate to use this example, the Force is supposedly related to midi-chlorian count in the body. We see constantly the incredibly advanced medical devices in ST that can detect the most minute and incredible variety of micro-organisms in a human or alien body and yet midi-chlorians are never detected. So if the Force does exist in ST it is virtually undetected by known science as well as...anything else. If the Force does not exist in the ST universe then that certainly means the Force can't be of use in the ST universe (the Milky Way galaxy).

Picard has no patience for the Force on his bridge.

So, if you're a Star Wars fan and wish to use the Force in the SW vs. ST debate then they have two problems to consider: 1) If the Force exists in SW does it also exist in ST? 2) If it does exist in ST then is it exclusive to only SW characters? In my opinion SW fans can't have a "yes" for the first question and a "yes" to the second question as well. It's one thing to point out obvious advantages of SW but it is another to use SW-exclusive powers and restrict it from ST even though it technically does not exist in ST.

But for argument's sake, I'll accept the Force does exist in ST. If that is to be assumed then I will also assume the Force exists in different ways. My point is that the Force is SW's fantasy power but ST has its own examples of fantasy powers itself. So, if the Force is allowed in SW vs. ST then so should fantastic ST examples. Force-like powers or abilities of ST races include mental telepathy of Betazoids, shape-shifting of Changelings, using illusion via mental powers of Talosians, the ability to heal someone or bring them back to life of Zalkonians, as well as many other examples of telekinesis and telepathy, among other abilities. With all of these examples I think it is safe to say that, while ST may not have the Force in its universe, there are many powers or abilities in ST that are comparable.

But if we're talking about things fantastic, there is one thing that is the most glaring...to a Trekkie/Trekker: Q. He is an omnipotent being, actually a member of a race of omnipotent beings, who one day decided that he would mess with humanity because he thought humans had progressed beyond their limits. I talked a bit about him in Helios 55. Some would say that Q wouldn't interfere with a SW/ST clash but I differ in opinion. If Q had enough interest or curiosity to interfere with humanity just because he thought they had progressed too much then certainly the entire galaxy at war with another would be more interesting to him. What are Q's powers? Basically he can do anything he wishes. He can manipulate both time and space, matter...anything. So, if the SW universe was at war with the ST universe then Q could decide to wipe out all of SW....if he wanted to (and if the Q Continuum agreed as well [I think]). If there is one trump card Trekkies wish to pull it is that of Q.

Q as God.

The Verdict

There is a Vulcan ritual called the "Kolinahr" where a Vulcan's emotions are entirely purged from the mind and only logic is left. Well, I'll admit that I will not be relying on only logic in my final decision even though I tried to use as much as possible when comparing the two franchises. But as I've said, I am a Trekkie. I can't help it. I love the franchise, and while I like Star Wars a lot, Star Trek will always have a place in my heart. Needless to say, my verdict will not be purged of all emotion.

For story's sake, let us imagine Q again interfering in mortal beings' affairs. He believes the races in the ST universe have progressed to far and decides to launch the SW and ST universes in one great clash. Let us also say Q wishes to let the two universes decide the victor themselves. SW and ST are left to their own devices. But who wins?

Lucas vs. Abrams!

If you've read the lengthy explanations and comparisons I've written above, and good for you if you've done that (or maybe you need help? ), then you should have a better understanding of the differences between the two universes. SW can be considered more science fiction fantasy than true science fiction like ST. It's scale is truly epic in every way. The ships, armies, populations, and stories are all incredibly gigantic. In ST everything can be considered more realistic because, rather than basing everything on a fantastic concept like SW does, much of it is based on true science or pseudo-science. Because of these differences ST can be a much more reliable source for technical information about itself since it tries to maintain some sort of scientific believability whereas the vast majority of SW information is based on logical conjecture. SW does try to be relatable but not necessarily scientifically believable.

If you wish to then base arguments on a franchise then ST is a better choice since it has some sort of a technical continuity. With SW the continuity is in its story and art. Do you wish to base your arguments on a franchise very fantastical and with technical information taken from books about the movies...or would you rather base your arguments on a franchise known for its (somewhat) scientific credibility and with technical information taken directly from the shows and/or movies? I think any reasonable person would choose the latter.

Since much of SW and ST is set in space and in starships it is only natural that comparing the starships would be a huge part, and probably the most important part, of the SW vs. ST debate.

Before I write out my final thoughts on this subject, I wish for one thing to be understood: Much of what we see in SW and ST can't be said to be entirely the truth of what the creators/directors/writers/visual effects people wanted to be shown. For example, do we honestly believe George Lucas wanted to have the number of capital ships or fighters shown in Return of the Jedi? No. He wanted a lot more and he wanted to show a lot more but the technology and budget he had back then did not allow him to show everything he wanted. The same goes for ST. Many of the space battles in the ST shows and movies seem very slow and two-dimensional, not because that is how everyone wanted them to look like, but because that is what they were able to show with the effects and budget they had. So let's understand many assertions, comparisons, and arguments made by myself and many others who have tackled the SW vs. ST debate should be considered with what I've just explained in mind. This is why I said I would take on this debate and use common sense and logic as my guide rather than sticking too much to specifics and details. For example, in one of the best TNG episodes "Best of Both Worlds" (it's a two-parter) it doesn't make sense for the Enterprise-D to be so damn close to the Borg Cube but because of the SFX technology, budget, and other factors it was shown so close to it.

Best presentation (back then in those circumstances) ≠ Best representation of what was envisioned. GOT IT?!

And now back to the verdict...

SW ships are overly numerous and massive. The capital ships are designed to simply slug it out with other capital ships, while their fighters have their dogfights (why there are fighters...I'm not really sure), and have an incredible number of guns on them. They certainly aren't built for maneuverability either. They're basically massive jackhammers flying through space. They also seem to have particular design flaws or are poorly designed, at least for the Star Destroyers, with shield domes exposed outside of the ship and the engines creating what should be a giant blind spot for weapons behind the ship. My guess is that the purpose of the SW capital ship is to be much more of a planetary or star system power rather than a ship designed for wide open space combat. Limited maneuverability makes little sense in a battle"field" that is nearly infinite in its dimensions.

ST ships are less numerous and massive. This does not mean they have an inherent disadvantage, in my opinion. ST capital ships are all significantly large, though not nearly as large as SW capital ships, and are designed more for maneuverability and tactical usage than simply trying to outgun the enemy. Although the number of weapons may be significantly less than that of SW ships, ST ships are capable of precision strikes and can fire (for most ships) at any angle. Also take into account the tactics used by various ST commanders. I provided numerous examples, and there are many more not mentioned, that highlight the intelligence and cunning of ST commanders. This is something not represented in any significance in the SW movies, not to say SW commanders are completely lacking in that area.

Overall I'd give the edge slightly to ST here in the long run. SW fleets, ships, and weapon numbers are overwhelming but strategically and tactically speaking they appear to me to be far inferior to ST. Firepower isn't everything and that seems to be the only thing SW ship designers care about. Has anyone seen a hawk being attacked by a group of smaller birds? This is how I imagine ST ships fighting a SW ship.

O RLY?

The easy win for SW goes to ground combat. We don't see or hear of ground combat hardly at all in ST while in the SW prequels it is a highlight. Because I don't have enough information about ST ground combat, because ST itself does not present enough, I will forfeit this specific part of the argument and give SW the advantage.

Let's be honest about the fantastic aspects of SW and ST. Do we honestly think that Jedi or Sith would give SW a significant advantage over ST, or that the many alien races with superhuman abilities would give ST a significant advantage? No. I will say that in SW the Force has much more of an impact on the story, destiny and all that, but what really wins the battles and the wars (despite both the Death Stars having insanely flawed designs that were easy to exploit)? Their massive fleets and armies. In ST, aliens with superhuman abilities are a common occurrence but rarely do their abilities have an impact that decides the fate of everyone. At the end of the episode or movie, I'm talking about ST, it is the intelligence, ingenuity, and cunning of the characters that has them able to live for another day.

And the winner of Star Wars versus Star Trek is...

Oh Kirk, what a scoundrel!

I love Star Trek!!!



Seriously, I know I most likely won't be swaying anyone's opinions on this debate. Star Wars fans will stick with Star Wars and Trekkies will stick to Star Trek. It's obvious I come out being pro-Trek and I admit that with no shame. I do, however, hope I enlightened a few with this long essay and made them think more about how their science fiction universe works.

May the Force be with you and Live long and prosper!

By the way, here are some interesting links:

Star Trek info: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Portal:Main
Star Wars info: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Pro-Trek SW vs. ST site: http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWhi2.html
Pro-Wars SW vs. ST site: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/
Great SW vs. ST video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgHhUZt8j98

Also, here's an interesting article: http://io9.com/#!5747318/10-reasons-...till-isnt-done

[Cyrus the Virus]

Hey my old sig is in there (Picard slapping Vader)!

[Lord Rahl]

There's no way you read all of it!

By the way, it's approximately 9,000 words and when I put it in Word it was over 20 pages long!

[Oldgamer]

As a Trekkie, but someone who loves both franchises, I simply must say ...

Rahl Rocks!

Very good work, sir. A+

[Gaidin]

Rahl:

How are the movies the only legitimate source for star wars? There's long been an official level of canon for every medium of Star Wars material. If a higher level of canon doesn't contradict it, it stands. This in mind, there's damn well as much material backing claims regarding star wars as there is star trek.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Rahl:

How are the movies the only legitimate source for star wars? There's long been an official level of canon for every medium of Star Wars material. If a higher level of canon doesn't contradict it, it stands. This in mind, there's damn well as much material backing claims regarding star wars as there is star trek.

The Star Wars EU is very, very large, and ranges from well written novels to third-rate glorified fan fic. Also It has a huge tendency to contradict itself.

[Gaidin]

The Star Wars EU is very, very large, and ranges from well written novels to third-rate glorified fan fic. Also It has a huge tendency to contradict itself.

Read my post again. Better yet, read it for the first time. Different mediums have different priorities. Contradictions are handled. He provides no logical reason for the EU to be ignored just because its in a different medium especially when he insists on using both Star Trek movies AND tv shows. If he wants to use the two biggest star trek mediums for which to make his case then he's going to have to accept at the minimum all the written books in the Star Wars universe.

As for 'third rate glorified fan fic', don't get me started on that odd episode in every season where you can't help but wonder what the hell the writer's were smoking when they came up with it.

The truth of the matter is, and he will one day have to admit this, Star Wars vs Star Trek makes absolutely no sense. At all. The universes are so wildly different as to make comparisons utterly useless. One is in perpetual war as far as most of the material is concerned, after all, civil war properly written on a galactic scale will last decades. It is utterly reasonable to have ships that have no design methodology to them other than pure and utter destruction and/or intimidation. His complaints about the Star Destroyers make no sense in that respect. Their lack of exploratory ships as a matter of general use also makes perfect sense given how little of their galaxy they have left to explore. In this state Star Wars is millenia ahead of Star Trek and, sad to say, the lack of focus on such technology is also reasonable.

Of course, this is assuming he can be reasonable and not attempt to cut out 90% of the canon in an effort to cut one universe's legs out from under it in attempt to rig a debate(and thus, his argument) in his favor.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Read my post again. Better yet, read it for the first time. Different mediums have different priorities. Contradictions are handled. He provides no logical reason for the EU to be ignored just because its in a different medium especially when he insists on using both Star Trek movies AND tv shows. If he wants to use the two biggest star trek mediums for which to make his case then he's going to have to accept at the minimum all the written books in the Star Wars universe.

As for 'third rate glorified fan fic', don't get me started on that odd episode in every season where you can't help but wonder what the hell the writer's were smoking when they came up with it.

The EU contradicts itself a huge amout, and seems to have a fixation with doomsday devices, it's hard to get a grasp on a universe that covers thousands of years of history, and has wildly changing standards. The ever increasing power of Force users is something to note.

[Gaidin]

The EU contradicts itself a huge amout, and seems to have a fixation with doomsday devices, it's hard to get a grasp on a universe that covers thousands of years of history, and has wildly changing standards. The ever increasing power of Force users is something to note.

Start listing some contradictions and the material they originate from or drop your claim. Make sure you actually have a contradiction before you list it.

As for the doomsday devices, that has been well established as one of the Emperor's general hobbies. He's was never going to stop at the death star and there is no reason for him to try to not come up with more. Given the established research facilities, they're not going to stop just because he died. Just like the Galactic Civil War didn't end until 20 years after his death. Hell, the Empire didn't even lose the strategic initiative until three years after Return of the Jedi, at minimum.

The ever increasing power of force users is a misnomer as there have only ever been five EU force users on a level with Luke Skywalker. And two of them died before they could even have a shot at hitting their stride. I suggest you learn more about the universe you're arguing against.

As for the thousands of years of history, also a misnomer as any debated material focuses on a fifty year time span at the absolute most. A half a generation with the average lifespan of the races in Star Wars. Funny that when all the Star Trek material takes place over two generations.

[Lord Rahl]

Rahl:

How are the movies the only legitimate source for star wars? There's long been an official level of canon for every medium of Star Wars material. If a higher level of canon doesn't contradict it, it stands. This in mind, there's damn well as much material backing claims regarding star wars as there is star trek.

Why? Mostly because using what I did made things much easier for me to understand and draw conclusions from. For practical purposes, because I didn't want to do days and days researching the overwhelming resources of each universe, I chose to stick to what I know. What I know are the Star Wars movies and the Star Trek series and movies. If anything, these sources are going to be the most canonical. Excluding some sources also helps the majority of people who read what I wrote understand what I'm trying to argue. Basically every Star Wars fan has seen every movie. After that they might have played Star Wars games, seen the Clone Wars cartoon, or less likely, read a SW book. Most every Trekkie I know has seen most of the movies and either most TOS or TNG episodes.

The more I expand accepted sources of information the more work I'd have to do to write what I did, and it's already several thousands of words in length, and the more vague my arguments would be. I could have used other sources. I've played many SW games, watched the Clone Wars cartoons, and have read several SW books (including starship books, character books, and two novels). I've also played several ST games and many ST books (including technical manuals and novels). Now, I could have used all of that to make arguments, but I didn't wish to include information that the vast majority of those who might read my article would not have any knowledge of. Besides, what is SW canon is much more of a debate with what is ST canon. In the least, basically everyone considers SW canon to be the movies and ST canon to be the series and movies.

Also, I stated in the article, "5. Since there is so much information that the franchises have for me to research I will miss something. Seriously, I'm about as big of a Trekkie as you'll meet (unless you know someone who goes to conventions [I haven't done that yet!]), but I don't have the time or want to make the effort to research every single episode and movie so that my arguments are perfect. No argument will be perfect since a perfect comparison between the franchises can't be done but I will try my best. If I leave something out then let me know. Just don't get mad when I make a mistake."

He provides no logical reason for the EU to be ignored just because its in a different medium

Mostly because of what I explained above but also because I don't take into account any of what would be considered "expanded universe" resources in ST. You have to understand that the EU in SW strays more from what Lucas' vision of what the SW universe is the same way that comparable ST "expanded universe" material would stray from Roddenberry's vision. I don't think Lucas cares so much about consistency in the SW universe, good or bad. I know that Roddenberry did. In fact, Roddenberry didn't like most of the movies. So forgive me if I chose to be selective of sources considered more canonical than apocryphal. You could use some SW dude I've never heard of that could kill an entire planet with the Force from a SW novel and I could use a ST race you've never heard of that exists in a separate universe with what we know as dark matter and can control us using love from a ST book written by Shatner as arguments, but what would that do? What's the use in me arguing with support from something you've never heard of? This is why I stuck to the most well-known sources of information. So, you want a logical reason for me not including EU stuff (from both franchises)? I have given you several reasons.

especially when he insists on using both Star Trek movies AND tv shows. If he wants to use the two biggest star trek mediums for which to make his case then he's going to have to accept at the minimum all the written books in the Star Wars universe.

Hell, I could exclude the ST movies if you want and leave the series or I could do the opposite and leave the movies. It doesn't matter that much with what I'm arguing. There's a reason why Mr. Plinkett, who you no doubt know, doesn't consider any of the EU stuff in his criticisms of the SW prequels. No body gives a about the EU. The same goes with ST outside of the series and movies. No one gives a about the ST novels, video games, etc. when it comes to what's the true ST.

As for 'third rate glorified fan fic', don't get me started on that odd episode in every season where you can't help but wonder what the hell the writer's were smoking when they came up with it.

This is a good point. Some ST episodes, especially in Voyager, are completely idiotic. However, when it comes to truly stupefying ST episodes, they rarely deal with anything I am arguing here. It usually involves some ridiculous plot that is eye-roll worthy instead of something more technical like the starships, weapons, etc. that I have highlighted in the article. If you have a specific qualm with something I wrote then feel free to bring it up. I knew writing it would jostle someone. There's no way a Star Wars fan will agree with my conclusions!

The truth of the matter is, and he will one day have to admit this, Star Wars vs Star Trek makes absolutely no sense. At all. The universes are so wildly different as to make comparisons utterly useless.

I believe I explained substantially that the universes are very different from each other, that comparisons are difficult, and that anything I say is pure speculation, etc. I'll provide my own quotes dealing with what you've addressed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"most Star Wars fans just have six films to base their arguments on while Trekkies have, now, eleven movies and five television series (hundreds of episodes) to base their arguments on. These are the only sources that should be used in argument because they're considered canon (although even with using them the debate is still difficult)."

"Before I begin the debate, though, I wish to make one thing very clear: The Star Wars and Star Trek franchises and their canonical technologies are based on SCIENCE FICTION and as such the validity of any and all statements I make hereafter are purely hypothetical. I'm quite aware that the legendary debate that I'm about to dive into is more about dick-waving for our favorite franchise rather than any sort of fact. I also wish to make it known I will be omitting many arguments so that I can keep this article relatively short and so I do not bog myself down with minute details and base my arguments too much on the science fiction of the franchises instead of using common sense."

"1) As stated previously, both franchises are science fiction and therefore any and all relevant canonical information from them should be considered as fiction. We all know what is in the franchises is not real, however, we should further understand that the information about the franchises' technologies are also made up. Whether or not the technology is based on real science, pseudo-science, or purely science fiction is almost irrelevant because it was imagined for an imaginary universe.

"2) The Star Wars universe is purely imaginary while having many similarities to our own while the Star Trek universe is imaginary but based on our own with real locations, technologies, and culture. Because of this we must understand that comparing the two universes may be inherently incompatible and/or incomparable. Units of speed, power, etc could be completely different from each other between the two franchises. This is one reason why I wish to base my arguments more on common sense rather than by the numbers."

"4) Again, as stated previously, any and all statements I make are my opinions based entirely on science fiction and my common sense and as such everything I say is equally as hypothetically correct and incorrect. I'll make arguments but they can be just as easily thrown out the window by someone else who has "better" knowledge of information (based on science fiction)."

"5. Since there is so much information that the franchises have for me to research I will miss something. Seriously, I'm about as big of a Trekkie as you'll meet (unless you know someone who goes to conventions [I haven't done that yet!]), but I don't have the time or want to make the effort to research every single episode and movie so that my arguments are perfect. No argument will be perfect since a perfect comparison between the franchises can't be done but I will try my best. If I leave something out then let me know. Just don't get mad when I make a mistake."

Also read the first section of my argument titled "The Franchises". I explain the inherent differences between the franchises. So yes, I understand completely that the Star Wars vs Star Trek debate is ridiculous...but that's not the point. The debate is still something that is always brought up. Trekkies will talk about how cool Captain Kirk is and Star Wars fans will confess their obsession with everything Sith. I don't have to admit anything in the future. I've already admitted it.

One is in perpetual war as far as most of the material is concerned, after all, civil war properly written on a galactic scale will last decades. It is utterly reasonable to have ships that have no design methodology to them other than pure and utter destruction and/or intimidation. His complaints about the Star Destroyers make no sense in that respect.

I did touch on why the SW capital ships are designed the way they are. Hyperspeed space travel in SW is something incredibly quick so that could be a reason why the capital ships are not designed for maneuverability. They simply jump from one system to the other, shoot the out of things, and then make another jump. But that doesn't excuse my points. I'm comparing them to ST ships. It's not like I said Star Destroyers suck. They are obviously very powerful and capable. I explained how they're massive ships that far exceed the size of the average ST capital ship and how they also have many more weapons.

Their lack of exploratory ships as a matter of general use also makes perfect sense given how little of their galaxy they have left to explore. In this state Star Wars is millenia ahead of Star Trek and, sad to say, the lack of focus on such technology is also reasonable.

Well, of course SW won't have a lot of exploration ships. This isn't something I left out. Lack of focus on technology? Like what? Overall SW and ST tech is comparable. It's not like there is some glaring difference between the firearms used in SW and those in ST. The most obvious difference between SW and ST tech to me is the FTL capabilities...and for some reason I didn't touch on it enough. In SW they can go from one side of the galaxy to the other in days. In VOY the Voyager gets placed on the other side of the galaxy and it would take the ship hundreds (I don't know for sure if that's right but I do know it was such time length the crew thought of it as a death sentence) of years to get back to Earth (by just using their FTL engines). This is an obvious advantage of SW FTL capabilities. I'm actually baffled why I didn't include that originally in my article, however, when writing so much it's easy to forget things. In some ways SW is ahead of ST in technology but in other ways it is not. For example, SW has no transporters, a seeming lack of sensor tech on their starships, and what seems to be, in general, more inaccurate weapons and targeting systems. Not to mention the only tech weapon Jedi or Sith seem to use is the lightsaber. I mean, it's a completely useless weapon unless you're in close quarters combat if you really think about it if there are enough enemies against them. But I did explain how technology in ST is something that's very apparent, is talked about constantly, and is something the viewer can actually come to understand if they watch it enough. I can watch the SW movies repeatedly day after day and never know how a hyperdrive works, for example. In contrast, there are plenty of ST episodes that deal with how the warp engines function.

Of course, this is assuming he can be reasonable and not attempt to cut out 90% of the canon in an effort to cut one universe's legs out from under it in attempt to rig a debate(and thus, his argument) in his favor.

Like I said, I used the only canon that is well known and understood. I already acknowledged ST has more information to back it up my claims. I even admitted my bias toward ST in the article. But understand I didn't intentionally disallow SW resources because I wanted to undermine SW's side. In fact, I would be willing to restrict my ST resources to six movies or six episodes (or a mix). I would still have the same opinion.

As for the thousands of years of history, also a misnomer as any debated material focuses on a fifty year time span at the absolute most. A half a generation with the average lifespan of the races in Star Wars. Funny that when all the Star Trek material takes place over two generations.

Actually, that's incorrect. I'll take two well-known ST characters to prove it. Jonathan Archer was captain of the Enterprise in the mid-22nd century (born in 2112 OMFG!) and Kathryn Janeway was captain of the Voyager in the late 24th century. That's several generations (by human standards).

In the end whichever franchise you like most is the one you'll side with.

[Oldgamer]

Rahl, the SW Star Destroyers are going to have to hit their targets more often, if they're to take on the Federation. In the SW movies, I see lots of firing, but very little hitting.

[Gaidin]

Rahl, the SW Star Destroyers are going to have to hit their targets more often, if they're to take on the Federation. In the SW movies, I see lots of firing, but very little hitting.

The Star Destroyers also have enough weapons that generally they set up a point defense and single weapon accuracy generally isn't something they worry about. When you have, on average, four noticeable torpedo launchers and on average two generally noticeable phasor batteries, single weapon accuracy becomes a much bigger thing. Another thing to take note of is that in the Original Trilogy often they were trying to capture the targets or had orders to prevent them from escaping. The prequel trilogy had plenty of examples of capital ships blowing the everloving crap out of each other.

Rahl, for our discussion I'm viewing it as more of a discussion on what is canon and what isn't, as this is a Star Trek thread. I'll be replying later.