The Star Trek Thread

[Lord Rahl]

Welcome ladies, gentlemen, and any other transgender species!

Come here to discuss anything and everything about Star Trek. I know there are some of you out there; some of you who enjoy the stories, moments, and sheer brilliance of the series. There characters are unforgettable and the extremely scientific talk in every movie and/or episode is almost Shakespearean. If you watch and care enough the ever present noises of gadgets, engines, doors, transporters, tricorders, holodecks, and yes, even the tribbles become sweet music to your ears. The Federation seeks out the frontiers of the galaxy, the Klingons keep their honor, the Romulans continue to stay covert, The Borg assimilate, The Ferengi just want a profit, the Cardassians you can never figure out, Species 8472 keep to fluid space, Vulcans stay logical, and the Gorn...just look awful.

There have been many seasons and many movies. We have seen countless ensons die and captains insist to go on away missions. Though the series has lost most of its glory there are still those who love everything about it. I am one of those. This is the thread to discuss whatever you wish. The movies, the various series, actors, species, planets, ships, space time distortions, games, you name it!

Here are some links to some great websites with all of the Star Trek information you can download onto your tricorder. Let us just hope we won't have to give anyone here a hypospray of tricordizene (I think that is what it is called).

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_trek
http://members.aol.com/treknexus/
http://www.startrek.nl/index.php?i=0
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.lcars.org.uk/ <--- holy crap
http://www.trekconnection.com/
http://www.trekkieguy.com/index.shtml <--- this site is amazing

and something I think Darth Wong would like,

http://ssdoo.gsfc.nasa.gov/education.../startrek.html :tooth:

Thanks guys! Live long and prosper!



This thread is dedicated to those who love Star Trek. vizigothe and Oldgamer are two such men!

to vizigothe
to Oldgamer

[Rhah]

Good idea for a thread.

Klingons were always my favourite (Next gen/DS9, not original series). They remind me of most of my friends.. basically violent metalheads,yet honourable, and always up for a laugh. The Klingons were definitly the coolest race in Star trek.

I used to be really into it, and even read the Galaxy Class starship technical manual several times (its amazing that pseudo-science could be that convincingly written!), but my interest has wained in recent years. "Enterprise" wasnt a terrible series, but i just couldnt get into it.

[Lord Rahl]

Klingons are like the feudal Japanese. Everything is about honor. Klingons are definitely cool! K'plah!

Enterprise was ok. Some episodes were good and some were just horrible. You know one thing though, the ensons on the ship were actually smart! I remember when they went on an away mission in one episode and one of the security guys with them killed a bunch of bad guys AND found their way out of the mess...without even dying! Big change from the OS. Anybody here play or played any Star Trek games? I've played Star Trek Armada I & II and Star Trek: Klingon Academy (which are all awesome games).



Those images are from Klingon Academy. It is sort of a flight simulator except you go at 20,000 km/s, have anti-matter weapons, and can fight in black holes!

[Darth Wong]

Good idea for a thread.

Klingons were always my favourite (Next gen/DS9, not original series). They remind me of most of my friends.. basically violent metalheads,yet honourable, and always up for a laugh. The Klingons were definitly the coolest race in Star trek.

I used to be really into it, and even read the Galaxy Class starship technical manual several times (its amazing that pseudo-science could be that convincingly written!), but my interest has wained in recent years. "Enterprise" wasnt a terrible series, but i just couldnt get into it.

Funny ... Klingons are my LEAST favourite part of Star Trek. All of that macho posturing nonsense and those hackneyed Space Viking cliches. Could they have been any more obvious with Stovokor? Why didn't they just call it Valhalla and be done with it?

[Lord Rahl]

http://www.kli.org/QQ/

OMG!

[vizi]

rofl! Thanks for the Riker photo and recognition rahl!

Havent watch Star Trek in awhile though.

[Bruticus the Steadfast]

I had always looked down on it until I really started watching it once G4 started putting TNG on. While I *hate* the other ones mostly, I adore TNG. I dont know, maybe I am not mature enought in the Star Wars universe ha.

[Rhah]

Funny ... Klingons are my LEAST favourite part of Star Trek. All of that macho posturing nonsense and those hackneyed Space Viking cliches. Could they have been any more obvious with Stovokor? Why didn't they just call it Valhalla and be done with it?

Bahhh... foolish human P'takh! :tooth:



but the question is... who REALLY would win in a Star wars vs Star trek fight???
Has there been a decisive answer yet? I seem to remember Darth wong had some links to that website before, so perhaps he can let us know.

[Kanaric]

I've watched Star Trek and even watched the ENTIRE series of Enterprise. I really used to LOVE it and many of the movies but everything after DS9 is so horrible that I really can't call myself a "trekkie" anymore.

Funny ... Klingons are my LEAST favourite part of Star Trek. All of that macho posturing nonsense and those hackneyed Space Viking cliches. Could they have been any more obvious with Stovokor? Why didn't they just call it Valhalla and be done with it?

To me Star Trek is usually too ordered and perfect so any group of people that make things more "realistic" or rather chaotic works for me, so I somewhat like them. If it had the character interactions and events like in the new Battlestar Galactica i'd like it a lot more.

I did like DS9 a lot though because its more like that. That was a great series in all respects besides the fact it was made to rip off of Babylon 5, lol.

but the question is... who REALLY would win in a Star wars vs Star trek fight???

Just have 2 people with phasers shoot at a jedi set on kill at two different parts of the body, i bet he couldn't block that. Usually Star Trek characters stick together on missions so their is always at least 2 or 3 around.

Plus since you can so EASILY target any ships shield generator in Star Wars i'm betting that they could easily destroy any of those besides the Death Star. That would just need the Defiant, lol.

The thing though with Star Wars is that the technology is completely different. Its more "low-tech" in some ways.

[Darth Wong]

Bahhh... foolish human P'takh! :tooth:



but the question is... who REALLY would win in a Star wars vs Star trek fight???
Has there been a decisive answer yet? I seem to remember Darth wong had some links to that website before, so perhaps he can let us know.

I have a whole website about that so I won't hash everything out here, but let's just say that SW stuff is rugged, huge, and brute-force powerful, while ST stuff is sleek, slick, and small. Think of an M1 Abrams tank going up against a Mazda Miata.

Besides, the idea of pitting Darth Vader against Captain Picard is just not fair. Even worse, Picard is French.

[Lord Rahl]

Uh oh, I started a thread about this a long time ago. Even before Darth Wong was a member. I have actually just started to write a little essay on this since this came up again to get my points across. Here is the introduction. I don't want anything I have debated upon yet and it still isn't finished.

Star Wars vs. Star Trek

Introduction

The question of whether the Star Trek or Star Wars universe would prevail in a cosmic conflict is one of the most puzzling and most nerdy of all man’s many questions. First off, let me say that the answers to this question can easily vary by the fact of who is a fan of what sci-fi franchise. Trekkies will prefer Star Trek and the wannabe Jedis will prefer Star Wars in their decisions on the infamous question. I like both Star Wars and Star Trek but I do like Star Trek more (perhaps the Star Trek font is a giveaway?). I prefer to take this question “head on” and make my final decisions about advantages and disadvantages mostly on common sense and general knowledge of both universes. This being said, I must admit I know much more about Star Trek in every sense than Star Wars. Keep this in mind when reading. I will try not to make my assumptions on certain points too horrible but I will use as much cognitive prowess as to keep assumptions to a minimum and good debate to a maximum. Now, onto my points and further explanation.

[MoROmeTe]

All I can say I almost find that I am drawn to the Cardassians and the Romulans in Star Trek... mostly the Romulans. They are so obviously Romans gone space age with order as a big priority and the Tal Shiar (Shin Beth, anyone?) coolest of the secret agencies...

The Cardassians were nice until the got their arses handed down to them by the Klingons. Siding with the Dominion almost made them interesting again, until they started going "good guy" on us and switched sides and made the Alpha Quadrant forces win...

So, if anyone has any more info on the Romulans, pass it on. I read everything there was at Memory Alpha and that seemed the most comprehensive list compiled...

PS: Hands down a win for Star Trek... Science over mili-something (pseudo-science)...

[Darth Wong]

PS: Hands down a win for Star Trek... Science over mili-something (pseudo-science)...

In my experience, people who think that Star Trek is scientifically realistic just don't know anything about science. Star Trek is the nerd poser of the sci-fi world; it uses lots of science words, but it doesn't use them properly. It's actually more realistic to not bother explaining how things work (like Star Wars does), as opposed to making up totally meaningless and often scientifically laughable pseudo-explanations of how they work (which is what Star Trek does).

Even the original Star Trek was better in this regard. In the original Star Trek, Scotty would just say the the engines canna take the strain, captain! Now you hear about the quantum dilithium matrix phase variance has been altered by a subspace inversion so the triaxialated subspace warp field geometry is point three microns out of alignment blah blah blah blah. If you actually look at the way the shows were written, the writers would just put TECH wherever they wanted technobabble, and they had special staffers who would just put in pseudoscientific-sounding time-filler dialogue. That's what that kind of dialogue was meant for: time-filler. The original Star Trek may have had cheesy special effects, but the new Star Trek has all sorts of problems of its own, and much less memorable characters.

[Kanaric]

The only "realistic" sci-fis i've seen as far as science go have been the new Battlestar and Babylon 5.

Mostly because they didn't use any made up science. Also Babylon 5 uses wormholes of which their is a lot of REAL science involved. Though they had ships flying around in "hyperspace" which is most likely made up. They didn't describe how it works though. That show was mostly about politics and wars though like DS9, not science.

Like in Star Trek... they have WARP... everything about WARP is completely made up by them every time they describe it. Also they have "subspace" which is something that doesn't exist.

Star Wars is even worse though as far as science goes, its just mostly magic. However its a fantasy more than sci-fi so that doesn't matter.

All I can say I almost find that I am drawn to the Cardassians and the Romulans in Star Trek... mostly the Romulans.

The Romulans are my favorite race because of how ambiguous they are. They are, generally, "good" but they pursue their own goals as an empire. However they treat their enemies badly, especially the Klingons.

I have a whole website about that so I won't hash everything out here, but let's just say that SW stuff is rugged, huge, and brute-force powerful, while ST stuff is sleek, slick, and small. Think of an M1 Abrams tank going up against a Mazda Miata.

One thing, weapons on star wars are slow and ponderous. On star trek they are accurate and instantanious. All they have to do is maneuver shoot phasers and torpedos and the day is over. Like that episode from TNG when it shows how picard killed those Ferengi.

The only thing thats huge and powerful in Star Wars is the empires equipment. Which is too easily destroyed as shown by the Star Wars movies. If a A-Wing crashing into the bridge of the Executer can destroy it then anything in star trek can easily do the job. Also they could destroy the death star as well. Far more accurate technology + photon torpedos (which is what was used on Star Wars) = one dead death star.

Also star destroy = toast from photons to the shield generators. Quickly destroyed soon after.

Tie fighters are easily destroyed due to their having no shields. I could think of countless ways, plus their blasters probably wont even damage the shields on most ships in trek as they are ment for fighters and dont even damage the shield of capital ships on Star Wars.

With Star Wars the rebellion or the death star could put up a good fight. The rebellion because they could use swarms of b-wings and y-wings with torpedos. The death star would probably get a couple of shots off before being destroyed by a defiant or something with torpedos. However i'd bet the fighters would put up a much better fight. Though always accurate phasers would make short work of them since those fighters are very slow. If A-Wings could use torpedos that would be funny. If I remember they can only use missiles.

The original Star Trek may have had cheesy special effects, but the new Star Trek has all sorts of problems of its own, and much less memorable characters.

Idk, i enjoy the new show (being TNG - DS9 + movies) more than 1960s steriotypical bad sci-fi that is the origional series.

However they went completely the wrong direction with it after DS9 and now I can't stand anything new. At least I have Stargate, which is a lot like startrek used to be and Battlestar Galactica which throughly owns both Star Trek and Star Wars as its actually well acted and written and doesn't have the taint of George Lucas or 1960s cheesy fanservice.

[Darth Wong]

The only "realistic" sci-fis i've seen as far as science go have been the new Battlestar and Babylon 5.

Mostly because they didn't use any made up science. Also Babylon 5 uses wormholes of which their is a lot of REAL science involved. Though they had ships flying around in "hyperspace" which is most likely made up. They didn't describe how it works though. That show was mostly about politics and wars though like DS9, not science.

Wormholes are a term taken from real science, but the way they're depicted in sci-fi bears no resemblance to the way they would actually be.

Like in Star Trek... they have WARP... everything about WARP is completely made up by them every time they describe it. Also they have "subspace" which is something that doesn't exist.

Star Wars is even worse though as far as science goes, its just mostly magic. However its a fantasy more than sci-fi so that doesn't matter.

There's nothing in Star Wars which is less realistic than Star Trek. It's all just "ship goes real fast, shoots ray gun". Even the Force isn't as bad as having gods walking around (like Q) or spirit possession, which we've seen numerous times in TNG and DS9. Hell, we even saw demonic possession in DS9.

The Romulans are my favorite race because of how ambiguous they are. They are, generally, "good" but they pursue their own goals as an empire. However they treat their enemies badly, especially the Klingons.

In the original show, the Klingons were meant to be the Russians, the Romulans were meant to be the Chinese, and the Federation was meant to be the USA. I still don't like the way entire species are made out to be one-note caricatures: the Klingons are violent, the Romulans are duplicitous, the Ferengi are greedy.

One thing, weapons on star wars are slow and ponderous. On star trek they are accurate and instantanious. All they have to do is maneuver shoot phasers and torpedos and the day is over. Like that episode from TNG when it shows how picard killed those Ferengi.

Um, in Star Trek they're shooting at other ships which are a half-kilometre long. It's not hard to hit something that's a half-kilometre long, and even in those cases, they can still miss. Against tiny little fighters, those guns are not that accurate; if you watched the DS9 battles they miss all the time.

The only thing thats huge and powerful in Star Wars is the empires equipment. Which is too easily destroyed as shown by the Star Wars movies. If a A-Wing crashing into the bridge of the Executer can destroy it then anything in star trek can easily do the job.

You do realize that the fleets had been exchanging heavy fire for half an hour prior to that collapse, right? No Trek battles last that long; Trek ships don't have that kind of endurance. Sure, one last straw can break the camel's back, but you can't pretend that it did it on its own.

Also they could destroy the death star as well. Far more accurate technology + photon torpedos (which is what was used on Star Wars) = one dead death star.

Watch the DS9 episode "A Call to Arms". Their torpedoes actually miss half-kilometre long Klingon battlecruisers. Since when are they going to be able to hit a 2 metre wide hole from distance, since those big Trek ships are much easier to hit than little fighters and would never get anywhere near the station without being blown up?

Also star destroy = toast from photons to the shield generators. Quickly destroyed soon after.

Again, that tactic only worked because the shields were already at or close to breaking point. Didn't you notice that none of this stuff happened until after the fleets had been pounding away at each other for an extended period of time? Why didn't any of these tactics work at the beginning of the battle?

Tie fighters are easily destroyed due to their having no shields. I could think of countless ways, plus their blasters probably wont even damage the shields on most ships in trek as they are ment for fighters and dont even damage the shield of capital ships on Star Wars.

Incorrect. Their fighters have shields. You can even see the shields activate around a Naboo fighter (made 20 years earlier) in Episode 1. They also mention the shields in Episode 4.

With Star Wars the rebellion or the death star could put up a good fight. The rebellion because they could use swarms of b-wings and y-wings with torpedos. The death star would probably get a couple of shots off before being destroyed by a defiant or something with torpedos. However i'd bet the fighters would put up a much better fight. Though always accurate phasers would make short work of them since those fighters are very slow.

You mean the "always accurate phasers" that Defiant used against Lakota in "Paradise Lost" where they repeatedly missed a 400 metre long ship at ranges of under a mile? :tooth:

Besides, none of your arguments address the question of yield. Even imaginary perfect accuracy is useless if the weapon doesn't have enough punch once it gets through (imagine an IFV with a 20mm autocannon firing at the frontal armour of an M1 tank), and even tiny fighters in Star Wars can carry bombs that shred giant asteroids (see the seismic charges in Episode 2), whereas in the TNG episode "Pegasus", Riker commented that it would take their entire torpedo payload to take out just one large asteroid.

If A-Wings could use torpedos that would be funny. If I remember they can only use missiles.

What are you talking about? Torpedoes and missiles are the same thing in space.

Idk, i enjoy the new show (being TNG - DS9 + movies) more than 1960s steriotypical bad sci-fi that is the origional series.

I feel the opposite way; the new show is nowhere near as innovative, imaginative, or creatively adventurous as the old show was in its time. It suffers from a suffocating atmosphere of political correctness, and ridiculous ideologically driven lines like Captain Picard insisting that the Enterprise shouldn't perform battle drills because tactical skills are not important for Starfleet (in the episode "Peak Performance").

However they went completely the wrong direction with it after DS9 and now I can't stand anything new. At least I have Stargate, which is a lot like startrek used to be and Battlestar Galactica which throughly owns both Star Trek and Star Wars as its actually well acted and written and doesn't have the taint of George Lucas or 1960s cheesy fanservice.

1960s cheesy fanservice? Trek fanservice didn't begin until the new shows and movies started. In the 1960s, Trek was a cult show. As for Battlestar Galactica, it tries way too hard to be serious and dramatic. I like my sci-fi to be more light-hearted, which Stargate is better at achieving (along with Star Wars and the better parts of Star Trek).

[krazykarl]

I love TOS, TNG and DS9 Voyager had the odd good episode, but i found it to be generally lacking in quality, enterprise was just bad, I cant really bring myself to watch it. I loved all the movies except nemisis, guh. I think they should now take rick berman and throw him out an airlock so he cant wreck startrek anymore. They need to make a series based on klingons, now that would be entertaining.

[Ardeur]

I'm a huge fan of the Next Generation. I recall being so excited about getting my Klingon Dictionary for Christmas, and then trying to explain to my siblings why it was cool. Ahhh.... memories.

Can't wait for Star Trek: Legacy.

[Darth Wong]

I love TOS, TNG and DS9 Voyager had the odd good episode, but i found it to be generally lacking in quality, enterprise was just bad, I cant really bring myself to watch it. I loved all the movies except nemisis, guh. I think they should now take rick berman and throw him out an airlock so he cant wreck startrek anymore. They need to make a series based on klingons, now that would be entertaining.

Speaking of Nemesis, I did a tongue-in-cheek pictorial plot synopsis of that film on my personal website:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Nemesis/Pictorial.html

Just pointing out some of the flaws in the writing.

[Cluny the Scourge]

http://www.kontraband.com/show/show....ating=nsfw_sfw

One thing, weapons on star wars are slow and ponderous. On star trek they are accurate and instantanious. All they have to do is maneuver shoot phasers and torpedos and the day is over. Like that episode from TNG when it shows how picard killed those Ferengi.

The only thing thats huge and powerful in Star Wars is the empires equipment. Which is too easily destroyed as shown by the Star Wars movies. If a A-Wing crashing into the bridge of the Executer can destroy it then anything in star trek can easily do the job. Also they could destroy the death star as well. Far more accurate technology + photon torpedos (which is what was used on Star Wars) = one dead death star.

Also star destroy = toast from photons to the shield generators. Quickly destroyed soon after.

Tie fighters are easily destroyed due to their having no shields. I could think of countless ways, plus their blasters probably wont even damage the shields on most ships in trek as they are ment for fighters and dont even damage the shield of capital ships on Star Wars.

With Star Wars the rebellion or the death star could put up a good fight. The rebellion because they could use swarms of b-wings and y-wings with torpedos. The death star would probably get a couple of shots off before being destroyed by a defiant or something with torpedos. However i'd bet the fighters would put up a much better fight. Though always accurate phasers would make short work of them since those fighters are very slow. If A-Wings could use torpedos that would be funny. If I remember they can only use missiles.

[Lord Rahl]

I'm still writing my little essay on SW vs ST. It is taking awhile. I'm trying not to think so much about exacting the technologies of both sides. Mine is more about logic of strategies, tactics, and logic of what would happen.

Anyone see this TNG?