Star trek Versus Star Wars...which is better & why?

[Fist and Faith]

True enough. And it's glaringly obvious at times. Just as it's possible for a scientist to not be educated in writing screenplays, novels, or whatever. In all cases, we hope for the best.

And the aspect that I rate most important might not be the same as any other particular person. For me, maybe the concept is more important than the scientific accuracy or the construction of the story. Maybe the whole idea highlights on a philosophical thought that I find fascinating. Maybe someone else doesn't like it, because they need the story to follow some particular model of storytelling. And a third might not be able to watch/read it at all because the science is inaccurate.

[Loredoctor]

True enough. And it's glaringly obvious at times. Just as it's possible for a scientist to not be educated in writing screenplays, novels, or whatever. In all cases, we hope for the best.

And the aspect that I rate most important might not be the same as any other particular person. For me, maybe the concept is more important than the scientific accuracy or the construction of the story. Maybe the whole idea highlights on a philosophical thought that I find fascinating. Maybe someone else doesn't like it, because they need the story to follow some particular model of storytelling. And a third might not be able to watch/read it at all because the science is inaccurate.

True. And I am the first to admit the Gap sequence has some inaccuracies. However, I'm just stating another flaw of ST. I'm just stunned it has the following it has, I guess. Whether I lack the faculties to appreciate it, or that my standards are too high. I think the latter.

[Fist and Faith]

To be sure, I don't watch Trek for the science. I've loved TOS since it was first on, and I love TNG as much. But for other reasons.

[Loredoctor]

To be sure, I don't watch Trek for the science. I've loved TOS since it was first on, and I love TNG as much. But for other reasons.

Therein lies the crux of the issue. We each have our own reasons.

[Avatar]

And the aspect that I rate most important might not be the same as any other particular person. For me, maybe the concept is more important than the scientific accuracy or the construction of the story. Maybe the whole idea highlights on a philosophical thought that I find fascinating.

Well said Fist. Feel the same way myself.

--A

[A Gunslinger]

As do I. If we all got caught up in scientific accuracy as the predictor for liking any Sci-fi, we'd never see any. The writers couldn't produce it. and b0 most of the audience would need 4 years of college, and then some to get it.

Give me time conundrums and positronic nueral pathways aplenty!

[matrixman]

I agree, Gunslinger. You need just enough science to make the premise credible. If complete scientific accuracy is an absolute must, then I suppose one could do as Stanley Kubrick did for 2001: A Space Odyssey in conducting intensive research on his own. But even 2001 wasn't good enough for some.

Terrific defense of Star Trek, Fist.

And, yeah, the Jedi are cool. They are at the heart of Star Wars. I remember as a kid mentally debating who was more awesome, Superman or the Jedi (i.e. Luke Skywalker).

Trek didn't really have an equivalent "super-powered" hero for me to play around with in my mind, but of course Spock was supercool in his own way.

[Fist and Faith]

Terrific defense of Star Trek, Fist.

Thanks. Heh. Looking back at it, I see a lot more typos than I hope I usually have. I had tooth #30 (second molar from the back on the bottom right) extracted a couple hours earlier, and I'm blaming that.

[dlbpharmd]

I agree, Gunslinger. You need just enough science to make the premise credible. If complete scientific accuracy is an absolute must, then I suppose one could do as Stanley Kubrick did for 2001: A Space Odyssey in conducting intensive research on his own. But even 2001 wasn't good enough for some.

2010 was really cool, though!

I agree, just enough science to keep the story interesting. Even Firefly and Battlestar Galactica have to have something like ST's inertial dampners, or else everyone would end up being a greasy spot on the wall whenever the command "full stop!" is given.

[Avatar]

Agreed, except about 2001. The science doesn't have to be accurate, just credible.

Anyway, I though ST did have fairly decent science...seem to remember something about them keeping people around just to check it...dunno how true that is though.

To divert briefly, saw something recently about how we actually know in thoery how to do all sorts of amazing thing, just materials tech hasn't caught up yet.

Back on topic..MM, obviously the Jedi are cooler. Superman was an alien...naturally like that...the Jedi are the products of training and philosophy. (And they had lightsabres damnit. )

--A

[TIC TAC]

What I think would be very cool is to have some enterprising young CGI artitst create a fan flick that pits Star Wars craft against that of the Federation. Something about the way weapons are handled in each universe suggest to me that Star Trek may have an advantage (sans the Death Star of course. I don't see too many mobile space stations in Star Trek destoying entire planets) It just seems to me that Federation Star Ships are better protected with shields and have more effective offensive weapons (phasers, photon torpedoes and anti matter torpedoes as apposed to blasters and ion cannons etc. HOWEVER. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force. Even the vulcan's mind meld can't compare to the throat crushing terror that is wielded by the Sith.

[Avatar]

Agreed.

Still, I think the SW ships were more...I dunno...realistic. Not pristine, magnificently engineered masterpieces, but shaky, rickety buckets of bolts. And the guys going out in X-wings reminded me of WWI fighter pilots.

The ships are cramped and functional...no frills.

(That said, I love the ships of both stories...best ones out there IMO. )

--A

[Loredoctor]

As do I. If we all got caught up in scientific accuracy as the predictor for liking any Sci-fi, we'd never see any. The writers couldn't produce it. and b0 most of the audience would need 4 years of college, and then some to get it.

Give me time conundrums and positronic nueral pathways aplenty!

Yes, but being scientifically accurate doesn't preclude good story telling. If it suits the story, fine. But ST has a reputation for being scientifically accurate when it's not (psychic powers???).

[Avatar]

I wouldn't consider psychic powers to be part of the "science" of ST. It's reputation comes from the plausibility of the actual physics and technology, surely?

At the very least, I wouldn't call it scientifically inaccurate just becasue it has "psychic powers."

Some elements are just for the story.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Perhaps Loremaster is suggesting that psychic powers are the explanation for Trek's undeserved reputation for scientific accuracy? Maybe Gene Roddenberry had powers of mind-control, and had the media say that it was all top-notch stuff?

As for the science... I don't know enough about any of it to judge. Certainly, certainly, the episode I mentioned with Geordi and Ro was idiotic. But the science part of its science fiction was likely valid. Who's to say we can't cloak and phase? Not much in the way of actual science is ever offered.

What about the times the original Enterprise used the "slingshot effect" to travel back in time? Is that scientifically valid?

In an episode of Voyager, they passed through a "divergence field." This caused spatial scission. That is, every particle of matter (mass, energy output, bio-signatures, everything) on the ship was duplicated in the instant they passed through the field. Two Voyagers. Anything to that?

Loremaster, I'd be interested to know about times the science they spouted was dead wrong!

[A Gunslinger]

I must admit that I have not seen the "science of ST" or whatever that program was called. The idea behind the post was to compare ST and SW and determine what we though was the better franchise.

IS SW any more scientifically valid than ST?

[matrixman]

Pointing out the scientific inaccuracies of ST and SW is important, yes, as it helps keep the writers honest (when they bother to listen to fans at all, that is). We do love to nitpick over the technical faults of SW and ST, though Trek especially. But one of the (many) positive things about both ST and SW is that they have inspired a fair number of their respective fans to enter a career in science. Some of those people have come back full circle to write popular books discussing the science of ST and SW. I have read at least one of them (The Science of Star Wars). As an example, according to the author, a number of leading researchers today in the field of advanced robotics and AI were directly inspired by what they saw in Star Wars. Specifically, the character of C3PO inspired them to ask a question like: how would one go about building an "emotional" robot like C3PO? Which led to the broader notion that the development of emotional intelligence in machines is critical if we are to create a truly human-like robot -- one that any average person on the street could actually relate to, as opposed to a program or whatever in a lab environment.

Yes, there is a lot of far-fetched stuff in SW, and it is fashionable now to dump on it. But there is more to SW than it seems, not less (contrary to the disparaging remarks of some guy named Donaldson, ahem.)

Sorry, guess I was in a fightin' mood with this post. (Bah, no more Mr. Nice Mod.)

[Loredoctor]

Loremaster, I'd be interested to know about times the science they spouted was dead wrong!

Where to begin? (from BadAstronomy)

Bad: Well, it's Trek. That means we hear sounds in space.

Good: Sound doesn't travel through space, ordinarily. Space is a vacuum, and sound needs some sort of medium through which to travel. In a vacuum, there is nothing to vibrate, and therefore nothing to carry the sound.


Bad: We see stars in the sky when looking out windows on board the Enterprise, and in outside shots looking back on the sunlit Earth from space.

Good: This is another minor one. It's difficult or impossible to see stars out a window from inside a lit room. Go ahead and try it some clear night! Internal reflections make it difficult; the bright light is reflected back to you from the glass. An astronaut friend of mine said that seeing stars from inside the Space Shuttle was difficult for just that reason; the internal lights, even when dimmed, made seeing the stars very hard.

The same situation applies in long shots showing the Earth. The planet is so bright it drowns out the much fainter stars. If this sounds familiar, it's basically the same argument I use to show why the Apollo Moon missions were real!



Bad: In the beginning of the show, the captain and one of his crew are talking about the ship. Captain Archer says it can go to Neptune and back in just six minutes at warp 4.5. Later in the show, Archer mentions that warp 4.4 is 30 million kilometers per second.

Good: Sometimes this Good/Bad format fails me. Those numbers work out! Neptune is about 4.4 billion kilometers from the Earth. Getting there and back in six minutes means moving at about 80 times the speed of light, or 24 million kilometers per second. The difference between that number and 30 million is negligible, given that Captain Archer may have been using a rough number. They aren't equal, but neither are they off by much. Again, this is pretty close.

Having said that, there was a misstep later in the show. It was said that the Klingon home world is four days travel away. That comes out to about 8 trillion kilometers (just less than one light year) away from Earth at 80 times lightspeed. The nearest known star to us, Proxima Centauri, is about 40 trillion kilometers away (more than 4 light years), or 20 days travel time. I'm not sure how this inconsistency slipped past the Trek writers, to be honest, but late rewrites are usually the culprit. Again, I'll note that while this is an error, it's not a terribly big one. I would be remiss to ignore it though.

However, I should also note that in several scenes, we see stars streaming past the window as the Enterprise warps past them. If it takes 20 days to get to the nearest star, then it should take roughly that long on average for just one star to flash by. I have heard some fans say that those aren't stars we see going past, but pieces of space dust. That explanation doesn't work; when the ship slow to subwarp, the streaks of light clearly coalesce into stars. So really, we should see the stars something like we do now: not streaking past, but moving verrrry sloooowly, like distant mountains on a long drive.

Larsen chides one episode of the original Star Trek Voyager series ironically titled "The Scientific Method," in which atoms feature surfaces on which barcodes can be stamped. "I'll let them slide with transporters, but when we're talking about something where we possess the technology, such inaccuracies aren't acceptable," says Larsen.

[Lord Mhoram]

So, you actually think that the presentation of stars and the like in a television drama science fiction show takes away from the quality of the show (keeping in mind that it is a drama)?

[Loredoctor]

So, you actually think that the presentation of stars and the like in a television drama science fiction show takes away from the quality of the show (keeping in mind that it is a drama)?

Do I have to repost what I wrote above?

Yes, but being scientifically accurate doesn't preclude good story telling. If it suits the story, fine. But ST has a reputation for being scientifically accurate when it's not (psychic powers???).

Some of my favourite shows and movies are scientifically inaccurate (Dr Who is a prime example). All I am saying is that i'm sick of hearing how scientific ST is. It's not.