Difference between Star Trek and Star Wars

[dwell]

Star Trek: "The door is locked. I am going to attempt a sub-phase array bypass on the trilithium crystal molecules themselves using a photon particle wave generator I constructed."

Star Wars: "The door is locked" <shoots door control with blaster> "Let's move!"

Also, every Star Trek vs Star Wars debate ends with one Trek dude saying, in all seriousness, "But. But. Star Trek is real!"

 

[DaveSimmons]

> Also, every Star Trek vs Star Wars debate ends with one Trek dude saying, in all seriousness, "But. But. Star Trek is real!"

Star Trek is fake science, Star Wars is fantasy in space. Trek makes at least a half-hearted attempt to come up with plausible technobabble, while Star Wars just uses The Force.

 

[RbSX]

I love both for completely different reasons.

 

[techs]

Gene Roddenberry vs. George Lucus

 

[Fingolfin269]

Trek makes at least a half-hearted attempt to come up with plausible technobabble, while Star Wars just uses The Force.

Midi-chlorians, duh!

 

[mmntech]

> Also, every Star Trek vs Star Wars debate ends with one Trek dude saying, in all seriousness, "But. But. Star Trek is real!"

Star Trek is fake science, Star Wars is fantasy in space. Trek makes at least a half-hearted attempt to come up with plausible technobabble, while Star Wars just uses The Force.

Star Wars is a tribute to the old Flash Gordon serials of the 1930s. Never has been true science fiction. It's a space opera. Trek was the same in the beginning. The technobabble only started with TNG and got worse from there.

 

[BladeVenom]

Midi-chlorians, duh!

Exactly. The force was explained.

 

[mmntech]

Exactly. The force was explained.

If the Force is created by microscopic organisms inhabiting our cells, wouldn't it be possible to create a virus that kills them. You'd completely wipe out both Jedi and Sith. Seems like that would solve a lot of problems in the Star Wars universe.

 

[NFS4]

I love both for completely different reasons.

THIS

/thread

 

[dwell]

Midi-chlorians, duh!

There were only three Star Wars movies. Dunno what you're talking about.

 

[SSSnail]

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

 

[techs]

I find your lack of science... disturbing.

ftfy

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

 

[blankslate]

Star Trek is fake science, Star Wars is fantasy in space

^this

 

[SSSnail]

How do you know it's "fake science"? Why can't it be science-fiction?

Jules Verne once wrote a bunch of fake science books, and look where we are now?

I'm pretty sure that given the time, a lot of the stuff in Star Trek could become reality. Heck, a lot of what was in Star Trek is already reality.

 

[IronWing]

Gene Roddenberry vs. George Lucus

George will kick Gene's ashes all the way to Pluto.

 

[shortylickens]

 

[dighn]

How do you know it's "fake science"? Why can't it be science-fiction?

Jules Verne once wrote a bunch of fake science books, and look where we are now?

I'm pretty sure that given the time, a lot of the stuff in Star Trek could become reality. Heck, a lot of what was in Star Trek is already reality.

science fiction can have varying degrees of "realism" and star trek ranks pretty low on that. it's called "technobabble" because the explanations really make no sense. it doesn't have to be that way; many sci-fi authors do make an effort to portray futuristic technology in a way that is somewhat scientifically sound and consistent.

 

[DaveSimmons]

How do you know it's "fake science"? Why can't it be science-fiction?

Jules Verne once wrote a bunch of fake science books, and look where we are now?

I'm pretty sure that given the time, a lot of the stuff in Star Trek could become reality. Heck, a lot of what was in Star Trek is already reality.

Star Trek usually didn't try hard enough to be worthy of being called science fiction, despite TOS adapting a few scripts from real SF writers.

Robert Forward, Greg Bear, David Brin = science fiction. Reversing the polarity and sprinkling the body with crackiton particles = fake science.

I'll admit you could probably find 5-10 SF episodes in TNG, and at a least dozen good space opera stories. (And I do like both Trek and Wars.)

 

[SSSnail]

science fiction can have varying degrees of "realism" and star trek ranks pretty low on that. it's called "technobabble" because the explanations really make no sense. it doesn't have to be that way; many sci-fi authors do make an effort to portray futuristic technology in a way that is somewhat scientifically sound and consistent.

For something that ranks pretty low on "realism" (which pretty funny, considering it's the work of science fiction), it has a lot of real products and technologies that are being used today.

Star Trek usually didn't try hard enough to be worthy of being called science fiction, despite TOS adapting a few scripts from real SF writers.

Robert Forward, Greg Bear, David Brin = science fiction. Reversing the polarity and sprinkling the body with crackiton particles = fake science.

I'll admit you could probably find 5-10 SF episodes in TNG, and at a least dozen good space opera stories. (And I do like both Trek and Wars.)

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure the idea of teleportation is not at all farfetched. Since no one has done it before, they added that for special effects. It's not fake, it's fiction.

 

[DaveSimmons]

For something that ranks pretty low on "realism" (which pretty funny, considering it's the work of science fiction), it has a lot of real products and technologies that are being used today.

TOS tried harder than TNG, and they hadn't invented lazywriterton particles or inverting the reversed polarity of the deflector stream yet.

TOS is what gave us the cell phone, data pad, tricorder. TNG gave us some good drama.

 

[dighn]

For something that ranks pretty low on "realism" (which pretty funny, considering it's the work of science fiction), it has a lot of real products and technologies that are being used today.

science fiction is no more and no less than fiction with an emphasis on science and technology, and therefore can be just as realistic as a crime story or a romance novel. you don't have to forgo any intellectual thought just because it's "science fiction". you can have star trek level technology and still have relatively hard sci-fi.

star trek may not be very realistic, but it is visionary in many parts. and as far as TV sci-fi goes, it's actually pretty good.