NewBJedi Posted April 27, 2002 Share Posted April 27, 2002 http://www.time-scape.com/jolene/htm/htm-image/tpolimage003.htm http://www.7of9.com/graphics/voy97101.jpg Nuff said . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogerwilco2002 Posted April 27, 2002 Share Posted April 27, 2002 Originally posted by tempest8008 Okay. We respect your opinion. We just don't agree with it. But don't think we're not going to defend our OWN opinions... As to yours: Uh, hello? Anyone remember "The Final Frontier" ? Where they meet GOD? Ugh...the only movie I ever walked out on was "Congo", but that one came close. Highlander 2 was a close second (I'll still deny they made that one, they went straight on to #3) Right, I'll just fire up my digestive-index manipulator and charge it with super-dense anti-protonic gravitons. We can multiplex the deflector array with sheets of bi-aluminum ceramic polymer and that will destabilize the ionic covalent di-atomic bonds of the trilithium oxide that we're using as a catalyst. For some reason, this will restabilize the warp field so we can escape and finish the show in the next 5 minutes. I'll concede, VERY imaginative. I'll just go suspend my disbelief with this crane over here.... Technically that's true. Star Wars happened a long time ago, and if current theory is accurate the Universe IS expanding. If, however, you are referring to the volume of space that is played with, there are actually hundreds or thousands of planets involved. We only get to see a few because those are the ones the events revolve around. If you want proof of that, take a look at the scenes of the Galactic senate. There are races from EVERY species in the Galaxy there. There is no Alpha or Delta quadrant or any quadrant, the entire Galaxy is involved. AND, it's not even OUR Galaxy... Purile. Infantile. Sexist. Stupid. Offensive Farfetched. For a moment there, I got mad. Nothing is hotter than Carrie Fisher in a metal bikini! Or Natalie Portman in her ceremonial dress at the end of Ep1! But I digress. I will wholeheartedly support your assertion that this forum is biased. It's a LucasArts Forum, after all. Both series have their merits, but if you don't want people to criticize your opinions, don't publicize them. Which is true. Which is also the reazon I will now criticize your opinions. First of all thank you for naming the only truly bad Star Trek film and failing to mention the others which were all enjoyable to anyone that isn't a tight ass(which may say something of you dependent on your own attitude). I am not wanting to point the finger of blame but if anyone is to be offensive because of sheer stupidity then I am pointing my finger in your direction. Which brings me to the question...do you call everyone with an opinion infantile?(basically what you did to me) If so then you just insulted everyone alive. I am appauled by your lack of perspective and I hope that one day you are no longer blinded by your childish temperament. I feel that Star Trek is better in every field. That isn't saying that SW is not good, just that ST to me is much better. And you know for a moment there I got mad as well. In fact I am still mad that you made assumptions of me based on my personal opinion. If you want to really debate I'll take you on in a real atmosphere called the Real world where we are given real voices rather than being able to 'hide' behind screen names and avatars. The real place to debate is behind a podium with voices that aren't given to us by keyboards and the internet. bring on the fire buddy, this Trekky is mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Omega Posted April 27, 2002 Share Posted April 27, 2002 Waves hand to every fanatic on the board. You will not discuss this topic anymore. You will all agree it is pointless and going nowhere. You must entertain me with squabbles if you wish to argue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No$killZ Posted April 27, 2002 Share Posted April 27, 2002 You should all be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyalGuard Posted April 27, 2002 Share Posted April 27, 2002 You should all be killed Damn, the forum muppets are invading... Waves hand to every fanatic on the board. What you a think you a doing, waving your hand around like some kind a Jedi? I feel that Star Trek is better in every field You are of course entitled to your opinion (In no post have I said that you weren't, I just try to correct people when they're wrong IMO...) but most critics and indeed people (myself included) would disagree. The only ST films worth watching IMO (for future reference, assume that I stick IMO after every statement, that's what everyone else worth debating with in forums assumes...) were 2, 6 and 8. The rest were pretty terrible in terms of direction, story, character interaction and development (possibly the only exception to this being Search for Spock, when Kirk's son, found in Wrath of Khan, is killed by a klingon). To those not interested in ST even these good films are a chore to watch. Conversely Star Wars films are among the highest grocing films of all time and are generally accessible to all. In general the SW books are better written, being authored by people other than William Shatner and reguarly place on the NY Times Bestseller list. That suggests that your opinions might need to be re-adjusted... that isn't a tight ass credibility plunging... In JO a lot the level design was downright asinine. In fact, it's the only game I know where the developers posted help to on a message board when it came out. And I've seen "Stuck in JK2!" topics on every board I visit. The developers can't be held accountable for lame gamers... I found the maps challenging but didn't get stuck once. (took me half an hour to do that b****** of puzzle in the Artus Mine though). I'm not exactly an FPS master. My point was more directed at the lack of innovation. For me the EF maps (SP and MP) were dull. Only disintergrating enemies with the phaser rifle made it in anyway enjoyable (a nice effect and didn't leave a body for wandering sentries to find.) Sure a fan of what, 5 movies, would say that. Star Wars doesn't have 400+ hours of screen time. True, but establishing continuity has been accomplished by several other Sci-Fi series (Farscape, Bab 5, Lexx etc.) If they can do it, and SW can do it, why can't the Trek writers do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amorpheus Posted April 27, 2002 Share Posted April 27, 2002 Originally posted by RoyalGuard The developers can't be held accountable for lame gamers... True, but establishing continuity has been accomplished by several other Sci-Fi series. If they can do it, and SW can do it, why can't the Trek writers do it? Lame gamers? I say lame map designers. I don't want to have to try if a crate is destroyable, or search a map for a hardly visible underwater passage. Neither camp out in front of a usually useless monitor to get a glance at a pipe that extends for no apparent reason. And don't get me started on the "stealth" mission. Just drop the nitpicking. So what if two phase-shifted crewmen can walk around the ship for plot reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogerwilco2002 Posted April 27, 2002 Share Posted April 27, 2002 Originally posted by RoyalGuard Damn, the forum muppets are invading... What you a think you a doing, waving your hand around like some kind a Jedi? You are of course entitled to your opinion (In no post have I said that you weren't, I just try to correct people when they're wrong IMO...) but most critics and indeed people (myself included) would disagree. The only ST films worth watching IMO (for future reference, assume that I stick IMO after every statement, that's what everyone else worth debating with in forums assumes...) were 2, 6 and 8. The rest were pretty terrible in terms of direction, story, character interaction and development (possibly the only exception to this being Search for Spock, when Kirk's son, found in Wrath of Khan, is killed by a klingon). To those not interested in ST even these good films are a chore to watch. Conversely Star Wars films are among the highest grocing films of all time and are generally accessible to all. In general the SW books are better written, being authored by people other than William Shatner and reguarly place on the NY Times Bestseller list. That suggests that your opinions might need to be re-adjusted... credibility plunging... The developers can't be held accountable for lame gamers... I found the maps challenging but didn't get stuck once. (took me half an hour to do that b****** of puzzle in the Artus Mine though). I'm not exactly an FPS master. My point was more directed at the lack of innovation. For me the EF maps (SP and MP) were dull. Only disintergrating enemies with the phaser rifle made it in anyway enjoyable (a nice effect and didn't leave a body for wandering sentries to find.) True, but establishing continuity has been accomplished by several other Sci-Fi series (Farscape, Bab 5, Lexx etc.) If they can do it, and SW can do it, why can't the Trek writers do it? More so than my credibilty plunging is my patience. The William Shatner books were bad, but those aren't even the ones I read. It isn't like William Shatner is the only one in the entire world that writes for Star Trek so don't subjugate the books for one author. Secondly you say my credibilty is plunging but I want you to tell how you feel after someone calls you and your opinions infantile, sexist, and stupid. I am not going to lie to you, I absolutely hate being made fun of. It isn't fun to be made fun of by anyone on any level. I am sorry if Tight Ass offends you, next time I'll use Anal retentive instead. Of course my credibility with you is the least of my concerns. Because frankly it doesn't matter to me how someone that could be halfway across the planet thinks of me. What matters to me Mr. Royalguard is to enlighten you on some interesting ideals. First think of this. Is the majority always right? The answer is no. Just because the majority of people say Star Wars is better and the majority of critics say Star Wars is better, doesn't mean that it is, so why even bring that topic into play? We all have seen critics give great movies terrible scores and give horrible movies excellent scores. The only opinion you should be presenting is of your own and not that of the critics who I highly doubt you have met and talked to personally. Don't take this the wrong way, I just simply feel that in expressing your own opinion there isn't a need to bring people in it that you haven't even met. I could say that there are half a billion Trek fans that would disagree with you but I doubt half a billion people would like me to speak for them. And finally my opinions are not up for any readjustment. Seeing as how nothing has changed and the books I have read are still excellent reading material. You also seem to hint that I am not worth debating with. I don't know if this is true or not but if it is I must ask you then why are you debating with me? Why do you choose to reply to me if I am not worth debating with. And you are in fact debating with me so don't be childish and say something like you are only trying to set me straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ae0N Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 I need not prove, nor disprove mine or anyone else's opinions, for they are mine and mine alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NyghtWalker Posted April 28, 2002 Share Posted April 28, 2002 Ok, sorry if someone's already said this but after 3 pages I got really tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again. Star Wars is great, I like all the SW movies although I do have some reservations about EP1 as well as reading most of the books. I have seen all of the ST series, I have all of enterprise to date on video and I've read all of the "official" ST books over the years. Each in their own right are great and both Lucas and the late Rodenberry have given the entire world a tremendous story and a huge fan base for their respective works. Jedi vs. Borg, depending on the number of Jedi and Borg would really decide the outcome of the battle. Both sides have their strengths and their weaknesses, yes Jedi can use their enhanced reflexes to block blaster fire but as all of us have seen in the SW stories and especially now in JK2 even a master Jedi can only block so much before being overwhelmed. Borg have an entire civilaztion's experience to draw upon but the power that a Jedi wields is not within the realm of things they have fought before so weither or not they could adapt would be a toss up. SW Ships vs ST Ships I'am sorry but the Defiant isnt all that previous others have made it out to be, yes it is a extremely powerfull ship for it's size but the Sovereign class (Enterprise E from First Contact and Insurrection) far outclasses it. However even the Defiant would have no trouble at all taking out a super star destroyer. Now I'am sure someone will correct me if I'am wrong but from my understanding in the SW universe ships can not track other ships who've made the jump to light speed and you never see battles while ships are at light speed, yes they can plot the escaping ship's probable destination, but they cant physically track it right? If this is correct then they certainly couldnt track the Defiant doing Warp 1 (equivalent of SW's lightspeed travel) and for sure they wouldnt be able to track it doing warp 9 (approximately 200 times the speed of light). Following this line of thinking the SSDs turbolasers would have no hope of hitting such a target since their beams only travel at the speed of light and they are on huge MOUNTED cannons which must swivel in order to aim at a new target, TIE fighters would be like bugs on a windshield. The Defiant CAN and HAS fought many battles at warp speeds therefore proving it's ability to hit targets while it moves at incomprehensible speeds so in essense all it'd have to do is repeatedly strafe the SSD or better yet catch the SSD as it's moving at lightspeed when it's shields are non-functional. Death Star vs. Borg Cube(s) If it were just one or two cubes I'd say Death Star without a doubt. 3+ Cubes? bye bye death star...or rather the borg would be saying "hello death star, how nice of you to join us" Also since we're discussing two completely different universes I feel I should point out that in the ST universe the ability to destroy planets isnt all that special, even the Defiant is carrying enough weaponry to completely annhilate a planet and it's hundreds of times more maneuverable than a Death Star. In closing these are just my thoughts and I apologize if I've simply repeated things everyone else has said but this thread is getting really long... ;-) Later all and hope to see each of you sooner or later when we clash sabers in JK2. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike John Posted April 30, 2002 Share Posted April 30, 2002 Star Trek has made several contributions to science (read "The Physics of Star Trek, 1997), also, Star Trek has some very interesting Social Commentary over the years. I don't understand this mentality, (or lack of mentality) that professes that Star Trek is better than Star Wars, or vice versa. This reminds me of the years old debate between Science Fiction and Sci Fi. Star Trek (Science Fiction) and Star Wars (Sci Fi) are not at all the same thing, although each contains elements of the other. Star Trek is about problem solving, and the advancement of human beings through the use of technology and the human brain. Star Trek, in the tradition of Science Fiction, is based on present day reality (created in the early 1960's) that is extrapolated into a possible future. While there is good science in Star Trek, there is also Sci Fi, such as hearing the ship go by in space, or hearing the phasers fire while in space. Star Wars is an epic story about the struggle of the rebels against the evil empire, using a comparitvely undefined element, the Force, as well as using unexplained technologies to aid them. There are some elements of Science Fiction in Star Wars, but the focus is on the struggle of good vs evil and the characters. The science is secondary to non existant, in the true Sci Fi tradition. I personally love both Star Trek and Star Wars, and since they are both very entertaining in there own way, I cannot understand the jerks who say that one sucks and the other is the greatest thing ever. To those of you who think that way, wake up and smell the out house you are living in. Just because one thing is not to my taste doesen't mean that it isn't good or worth while. Apparently, there are still too few reasionable thinkers like me, and too many narrow minded, my way or die thinkers in this world, like Osama Ben Laden. So how can we compare/contrast ST & SW? We can't say that this would win that would win! And I think if people would watch more ST and stick with it for a while people would have respect for it! Both are good and very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogerwilco2002 Posted April 30, 2002 Share Posted April 30, 2002 I just like Star Trek better. I am not at this point comparing them, but I don't need to compare them to like one more than the other. Have I commited a crime within doing so? At first I thought it fun to try and compare fights from both universes but it turned from simple 'fan ficiton' to excessive criticizing. I mean I was just putting some ficitonal ideas together on ficitional Universes and some people flipped out on me. They called me names even when all I did is simply express my liking for Star Trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted April 30, 2002 Share Posted April 30, 2002 Nothing is hotter than Carrie Fisher in a metal bikini! Or Natalie Portman in her ceremonial dress at the end of Ep1! No... there is something hotter than that... Natalie Portman in a leather corset in SW2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Legolas Posted April 30, 2002 Share Posted April 30, 2002 Am I a jerk for having my own opinion? My own opinion is I love Starwars, but finds Star Trek to be boring and thus I really don't like Star Trek that much. It is a personal preferance which I do not ram down peoples throats or try to make others feel the same way. Does this make me a jerk because I don't share your opinion that both are good? If you say "yes" then I feel that it is you (the people who say "yes" to my question) which are the jerks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyalGuard Posted April 30, 2002 Share Posted April 30, 2002 I am sorry if Tight Ass offends you I was worried less about my personal niceties than I was keeping this a family forum. Such talk doesn't offend me but it might offend other people browsing this thread, so I keep it out of my posts. Your inclusion of such language in your post either indicates that you don't care about offending people (not necessarily a bad thing in the right context) or that you don't think when you post, you just react. Hence the credibility plunging... What matters to me Mr. Royalguard is to enlighten you A laudable objective, no matter how poorly carried out. First think of this. Is the majority always right? The answer is no. Just because the majority of people say Star Wars is better and the majority of critics say Star Wars is better, doesn't mean that it is, so why even bring that topic into play? We all have seen critics give great movies terrible scores and give horrible movies excellent scores. The only opinion you should be presenting is of your own and not that of the critics who I highly doubt you have met and talked to personally. Don't take this the wrong way, I just simply feel that in expressing your own opinion there isn't a need to bring people in it that you haven't even met. I never suggested that the majority was ALWAYS right. I merely pointed out that film critics (who, by the way, make it their job to give their opinions on things and therefore are quite good at it - they even get columns in newspapers and spots on TV shows) rate Star Wars higher in their estimations than Star Trek and this might provide evidence that perhaps Star Wars was better than Star Trek? That's without getting into the whole quality of direction/screenplay/acting etc. I could say that there are half a billion Trek fans that would disagree with you Yes you could say that, but you'd be wrong. (unless a quarter of the population of china are secretly trekkies!) I never intended to suggest that you weren't worth debating with, sorry if that's the impression you got. I was implying that you had room for improvement in terms of researching your facts, and etiquette. I leave you with the thought that a closed mind is like a locked and barred fortress - it is rarely taken by enemies but without supplies it quickly withers and dies. Lame gamers? I say lame map designers. I don't want to have to try if a crate is destroyable, or search a map for a hardly visible underwater passage. Neither camp out in front of a usually useless monitor to get a glance at a pipe that extends for no apparent reason. And don't get me started on the "stealth" mission. Just drop the nitpicking. So what if two phase-shifted crewmen can walk around the ship for plot reasons? Erm, all the destroyable crates were a different type than the others, underwater was the only place you could go, and the passage wasn't hard to find, the 'useless monitors' frequently highlighted puzzle solutions or gave you a valuable insight into what enemies were ahead. Yes the reasons for the stealth mission were flimsy but it was enjoyable in of itself. Especially when you find the broken alarm panel and can unleash some steam. Did we play the same game? That 'nit-picking' is generally the sort of tactics other posters (usually but not exclusively trekkers) use to justify the fact that ST ships would own SW ships (Lasers won't even get through our navigational shields!) Just turning the tables (though it wasn't me who introduced that Geordie/Ro Laren focused episode in the first place.) and BUMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted April 30, 2002 Share Posted April 30, 2002 1) Because it's a TV show. That's the reason the Borg sent only one ship to Earth. Twice. The same reason humans keep winning against them. 2) It is pretty much, isn't it? 3) You know, the problem with that is that Lucas just says "This ISD moves through here and blows up the asteroids as visual gimmick." without putting any thought behind it. And wouldn't those shields do all the work, anyway? I mean, come on, it's just some pathetic asteroids, no? Maybe blowing up asteroids with their guns uses less power than simply standing there and letting the asteroids pound their shields? Maybe they want to conserve power? ; ) 4) The cloak is a side-effect of not being there, actually. The bit you pulled from the SW site about the phase-shifted crewmen still walking around the ship is obviously nitpicking. That he wrote paragraphs about how gravity affects it only because of that is pretty weak, to put it nicely. It's a TV show, you know. They are there, just not in this dimension or this type of space or however you want to put it. The audience sees them, but nobody else does, but they can't affect matter in the "normal" 3 dimensions/space. But let's think about it.. realistically they should have floated through the ship, if nothing else, not been able to walk on solid ground like you and me. It's not nit-picking if you are following the laws of physics. I know, it's a "TV show" so all discussion is impossible, right? ; ) It's the truth. It's like if you saw Picard walking around in the vacuum of space for an episode with no space suit on. What would you say? Would you admit it was not possible, or would you say that it was just a TV show? Half the time trekkies say Star Trek is "realistic" and "scientific" and the other half of the time they dismiss inconsistencies with real science by saying it's fiction. Hey, I know it's fiction, but I don't try to push Trek as being "realistic" anymore than I push Star Wars being realistic. Let me just finish your thoughts for you... It's fictional and so anything goes, no debate is possible. Then why are we here? So Star Wars is a movie series, so who cares if they don't explain how something works (is saying that Hyperdrive works on a "subspace trans-quantuum tachyon-neutrino trans-injector field reaction" or other such scientifically none-sensical mumbo jumbo technobabble any better than just letting it do its job?). Lol If you can just explain away all contradictions and weaknesses in Star Trek by suspending disbelief and saying it's a TV series, then I can do the same with Star Wars, because it's a movie series. But if we want to have a debate about the relative strengths of their military "if they got in a fight" using the onscreen canon events as evidence, then I think we CAN debate it. But using your method it's impossible, but you don't have to participate! ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vestril Posted May 1, 2002 Share Posted May 1, 2002 I have to say, I was reading Kurgans post and it makes a lot of sense to me, most of these debates aren't really purposeful. For example, Star Wars Ships vs Star Trek Ships...They're in two different universes!! For all we know the hulls in Star Wars are made of a material that Star Trek weapons couldn't penetrate, this argument has no point...basically if you like Star Wars, Star Wars ships win, if you like Star Trek, Star Trek ships win--if you like both, whichever is more convincing to you wins. This argument has as much of a point as the 'My dad can beat up your dad' some people had when they were children (I don't mean to say you're acting like children, it just happens to be a good example because you wouldn't know because your dads wouldn't fight!!). So anyway, I agree that its fun to debate these things, but the fact is that this particular argument will always be a stalemate, because there is no real logic to it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogerwilco2002 Posted May 1, 2002 Share Posted May 1, 2002 Originally posted by RoyalGuard I was worried less about my personal niceties than I was keeping this a family forum. Such talk doesn't offend me but it might offend other people browsing this thread, so I keep it out of my posts. Your inclusion of such language in your post either indicates that you don't care about offending people (not necessarily a bad thing in the right context) or that you don't think when you post, you just react. Hence the credibility plunging... A laudable objective, no matter how poorly carried out. Of course 'poorly carried out' is your opinion even though I fail to see your reasoning in calling it poorly carried out. Really I feel you are being too critical on something so simple. This is an argument that doesn't die but only fades. Which to me brings upon the question as to whether it is worth debating upon. Also about the 'billion trek fans' thing. Don't get hung up on the semantics. I was using a hyperbole to show how it isn't really worth it to speak for an ENTIRE community. I am more interested in the opinions of the individual than the majority because when I look towards people I see them as one and not just a mass. And while your analogy with the locked fortress is 'cute' I do not have a closed mind at all. I didn't need to research anything to express my own opinion on trek. I am not going to try and insult your intelligence like you insulted mine by turning it around and saying that you have a closed mind, but I am appauled that you would even suggest it. Maybe the only opinion that needs research is your own towards me. Because if you did in fact know me enough to say I have a closed mind then you would have to do some kind of research to come to some kind of conclusion. I also do not appreciate your shrouded undertone that you use to insult me. Maybe the next time you reply you can simply discuss rather than throw across insulting comments. I must say I respect all people that take part in a debate but you have quickly lost most of my respect with your attitude and debating tactics. I thought it would be fun to put together a 'fan ficiton' type of discussion going on in this thread about Star Trek and Stars War coming together but some of you take all the fun out of it. I just wanted to get some ficitonal ideas down for enjoyment, but now nothing is being enjoyed for me. This thread should now float down the list and not resurface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vestril Posted May 1, 2002 Share Posted May 1, 2002 I thought it would be fun to put together a 'fan ficiton' type of discussion going on in this thread about Star Trek and Stars War coming together but some of you take all the fun out of it. I just wanted to get some ficitonal ideas down for enjoyment, but now nothing is being enjoyed for me. This thread should now float down the list and not resurface. I'm sorry Rogerwilco, but I just made a point of going through all of your posts on this thread, and I saw nothing but a defensive Star Trek fan, I never saw any sort of 'Star Trek and Star Wars universes coming together' discussion. Did I miss a post? if so could you point it out for me? Was it your intention to phase the discussion into something like that? If it was your methodology leaves a little to be desired. I realize that most of the SW fans were being real Smart A$$'s but if its your intention to have an intelligent and calm discussion you have to cater to the intelligent and calm people--you were catering to the smart a$$'s by being more than a little snippity in your posts. Again, I understand that the others were behaving in that way and I understand (believe me) the desire to act the same way back. It's just that I recently learned that in the forums you get what you put out, most of the time. If you present your arguments in a rude, sarcastic, and superior way, people are rude, sarcastic and superior in return; if you present your argument in a calm, rational way, people are calm and rational in return. This isn't always true, obviously, but for the most part it is. Anyway I've actually read some interesting Fan Fiction on this subject and in it the tech was balanced and even, which is the most fun all around. They even tied in Q to the Force and put an interesting spin around that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogerwilco2002 Posted May 1, 2002 Share Posted May 1, 2002 Originally posted by Vestril I'm sorry Rogerwilco, but I just made a point of going through all of your posts on this thread, and I saw nothing but a defensive Star Trek fan, I never saw any sort of 'Star Trek and Star Wars universes coming together' discussion. Did I miss a post? if so could you point it out for me? Was it your intention to phase the discussion into something like that? If it was your methodology leaves a little to be desired. I realize that most of the SW fans were being real Smart A$$'s but if its your intention to have an intelligent and calm discussion you have to cater to the intelligent and calm people--you were catering to the smart a$$'s by being more than a little snippity in your posts. Again, I understand that the others were behaving in that way and I understand (believe me) the desire to act the same way back. It's just that I recently learned that in the forums you get what you put out, most of the time. If you present your arguments in a rude, sarcastic, and superior way, people are rude, sarcastic and superior in return; if you present your argument in a calm, rational way, people are calm and rational in return. This isn't always true, obviously, but for the most part it is. Anyway I've actually read some interesting Fan Fiction on this subject and in it the tech was balanced and even, which is the most fun all around. They even tied in Q to the Force and put an interesting spin around that... I have nothing left to say to anyone in this thread because all I seem to get from this debate is derogatory remarks. It is IMPOSSIBLE to carry on an intelligent conversation when half the time I have defend myself. Of course with current precedent I will get flamed right after this. I shouldn't have catered to those Smart Asses in the first place, but that was my mistake. Thank you for trying talk to me rather than call me infantile and sexist. I am glad to see there is at least one kind person on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vestril Posted May 1, 2002 Share Posted May 1, 2002 I have nothing left to say to anyone in this thread because all I seem to get from this debate is derogatory remarks. It is IMPOSSIBLE to carry on an intelligent conversation when half the time I have defend myself. Of course with current precedent I will get flamed right after this. I shouldn't have catered to those Smart Asses in the first place, but that was my mistake. Thank you for trying talk to me rather than call me infantile and sexist. I am glad to see there is at least one kind person on this forum. I agree with you on your opinion of most of the people here, and I'm glad you see that you should have just ignored them, someone helped me understand that and I hope I helped at least a little in getting you to (if not, oh well, it IS rather obvious, I've just always been dense lol). If you're decide to create a thread of your own on the topic I'll be happy to help keep it somewhat rational Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amorpheus Posted May 1, 2002 Share Posted May 1, 2002 Originally posted by Kurgan Let me just finish your thoughts for you... It's fictional and so anything goes, no debate is possible. But if we want to have a debate about the relative strengths of their military "if they got in a fight" using the onscreen canon events as evidence, then I think we CAN debate it. But using your method it's impossible, but you don't have to participate! ; ) No, thanks. It's just not helpful for the discussion to base arguments on errors on the screen. Do I doubt the intelligence of Imperials because they moved around Yavin for it's moon instead of just blowing it up? No, because it's a movie. Do I doubt the eliteness of supposedly elite troops because they get beaten by teddy bears with pointy sticks? No, because it's a movie. We can - unless people start comparing truly incompatible things (i.e. hard numbers like weapons power output and range) to back up their side it's a fair deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyalGuard Posted May 1, 2002 Share Posted May 1, 2002 Of course 'poorly carried out' is your opinion even though I fail to see your reasoning in calling it poorly carried out And while your analogy with the locked fortress is 'cute' I do not have a closed mind at all Also about the 'billion trek fans' thing I thought it would be fun to put together a 'fan ficiton' type of discussion going on in this thread about Star Trek and Stars War coming together but some of you take all the fun out of it. I just wanted to get some ficitonal ideas down for enjoyment, but now nothing is being enjoyed for me. Enlightenment can only be achieved through reasoning - not merely accepting what people tell you. Therefore you just quoting 'the majority is always right' without trying to justify it, no more enlightens me than anyone spouting rhetoric. Your original post showed a willingness to debate, with you presenting Star Trek's strengths as you saw them, and I have no problem with that, my problems started when you first said Quite frankly though, I don't care what YOU think of Star Trek because to me it is the best thing I have ever seen. To me Star Trek is better than SW like so: The Books are better The Movies are better The Series is awesome The Characters are better The Technology is cooler and more imaginative The Universe is bigger The humor is better The chicks are hotter Such a stance indicates that you have no desire to debate your opinion, haven't bothered to back the opinion up and aren't prepared to accept that your opinion might need readjustment. Hence the 'cute' closed mind analogy. This opinion, like all of mine, can be adjusted by debate... The billion trek fans thing was a joke, hence the Never have you expressed an interest in putting a fan fiction slant to this thread. Unless I missed a page of posts or something. It is IMPOSSIBLE to carry on an intelligent conversation when half the time I have defend myself. So long as you defend yourself intelligently (and I guess are attacked intelligently) then you're having an intelligent conversation No, thanks. It's just not helpful for the discussion to base arguments on errors on the screen. If you don't take what's shown on the screen as a benchmark for what can happen in the universe then there really is nothing to argue around, its just chucking unsubstantiated opinion around. Incidentally the death star didn't blow up Yavin as it's a gas giant, and so many times (for an estimate compare Jupiter with it's moon Io) larger than Yavin 4 it couldn't possibly hope to blow it up. As for the teddy attack theory, check an earlier post (this one is already way too long) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vestril Posted May 1, 2002 Share Posted May 1, 2002 No, thanks. It's just not helpful for the discussion to base arguments on errors on the screen. Do I doubt the intelligence of Imperials because they moved around Yavin for it's moon instead of just blowing it up? No, because it's a movie. Do I doubt the eliteness of supposedly elite troops because they get beaten by teddy bears with pointy sticks? No, because it's a movie. First off it wasn't a moon, it was a Gas Giant, there is a huge difference because the Death Star can destroy a planet, but not a huge mass gas planet. Yavin IV was actually a moon, as I recall. Secondly as Kurgan pointed out in a different post the Ewoks had a lot of natural advantages on the Stormtroopers. First off they're small, and therefore harder to hit, secondly they blend in with the forest MUCH better than stark white, thirdly they know the area and know how to fight on the terrain, and lastly they didn't start winning until Chewie took over a Walker, they were actually getting pretty heavily whupped... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted May 2, 2002 Share Posted May 2, 2002 And maybe you can't produce raw numbers, but you can make estimates. For example, when you see Boba Fett's gun blast hug smoking holes in the walls of Cloud City, you can assume that there's enough energy in those shots to blast holes in whatever it is those walls are made out of, much more so than a regular pistol or shotgun (unless you assume the walls are made out of cardboard or something). Next, if you see the Death Star blow up an earth-sized planet like Alderaan, then you have to assume that the superlaser is at least powerful enough to destroy a planet of that size (with a planetary shield). So you have some upper/lower limits logically in front of you that way. If the Millennium Falcon can leave orbit within a minute, that means its more powerful than today's rockets in terms of sub-light engines. If he can get from Tatooine to Alderaan in less than a day, then its dang faster than anything we have right now! Sure, you can still just say "well it's a movie, etc etc" but like I said, you can't make statements about who would win in a fight, unless you compare somehow, so you can take onscreen facts as evidence and use them (within reason). See my point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted May 7, 2002 Share Posted May 7, 2002 Uh, hello? Anyone remember "The Final Frontier" ? Where they meet GOD? Ugh...the only movie I ever walked out on was "Congo", but that one came close. Highlander 2 was a close second (I'll still deny they made that one, they went straight on to #3) Are you saying Highlader 3 was better than 2? Uggh.. I think you need more therapy! ; p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.