• 105 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by frankfartmouth (1016 posts) -

I think Star Wars might be more technologically advanced but culturally inferior. Everybody's at war with one another and the major governing body is mostly concerned with blowing up planets to keep people cowering in fear, and the only good guys are an under-equipped gaggle of cowboys, deposed royalty, and squid-like freaks who all dress raggedy and fly in unpolished transport ships.

But it seems like they have a wider diversity of technology at their disposal, with the exception of the crappy holograms, which I suppose could be sort of explained away by the fact that their ships may be at far greater distances from one another owing to their superior ship speed (?)

In Star Trek, everything looks so fresh and nice. Everybody wears color-coordinated, well-fitting uniforms. The Enterprise looks like a new medical device, and the major governing body in the galaxy is a peaceful, science-minded, European-style democracy. Sure, they have their run-ins with various unsavory folks, but it seems like peace and exploration is the norm, not wanton genocide. It doesn't seem like they have as much tech, and few areas where their tech seems more impressive. But they're a lot prettier and more organized.

#52 Edited by huser (1076 posts) -

@MonkeyKing1969 said:

Both are worthless, because either even makes much sense. They have super advanced tech in some areas and stunningly primitive tech in other areas.

Picard's artificial heart comes to mind, especially in light of Bones' regrow kidneys in 15 minute pills. Though generally with Trek it appears to be a weird combination of being neoluddites and being blase about tech. They've seen the singularity, found it not all that, and went back to reading books when they aren't endangering their lives on the holodeck. Seems that's where most of the posthumanism issues lie as well (cybernetics, genetic modifications, artificial brains, etc). They're pushing humanity to be better, humans as a group haven't even achieved that with what they're born with, why bother with high end car parts on a commuter clunker I guess.

#53 Posted by The_Ruiner (1040 posts) -

Depends on which tech you are talking about. Star Trek has mastered the process of transforming matter into energy and back which is what all their best technology is based on (Holodeck, Transporters, Replicators). But the Star Wars universe has had space travel for thousands of years to the point where Han Solo and his crew can walk in vacuum environment with nothing but a face mask. And While Data is the most advanced AI in the entire Star Trek Universe, he can't really master emotions. While C3PO and the most basic droids experience fear, happiness, anger and everything in between...

#54 Posted by super2j (1666 posts) -

People constantly talk about the tech from Star trek, and I know this because I have heard the ipad compared to something from the show. Aside from light sabers, nothing from Star wars is very tech-ie. Vote for Star trek.

#55 Posted by vikingdeath1 (953 posts) -

@McGhee said:

@vikingdeath1 said:

But I think A Star Wars could beat a Star Trek in a fist fight.

BUUULLLSHHHIIIIIIIIIT

Okay.... He dodged that rock Preeeeetty good.

I rescind my earlier statement.

#56 Posted by MikkaQ (10283 posts) -

Trek obviously. Replicators and holodecks are much more advanced than any technology in Star Wars. But Star Wars has the force and I would take that over a holodeck any day, so yeah it's a strange debate.

#57 Posted by Jay_Ray (1078 posts) -

@huser: Fair enough, but without knowing what the power is in an average ship mounted laser I would have to believe that the Enterprise-D could destroy a Star Destroyer rather easily when you factor in torpedo strength. Any boarding party would favor Starfleet officers over Storm troopers since a phaser rifle is far superior to a laser rifle. This is not to mention matter to energy conversion, force fields, and cloaking tech which has not even been discovered in Star Wars.

#58 Posted by huser (1076 posts) -

@Jay_Ray: I'd generally agree though to be fair as bad as Stormtroopers can be, Trek doesn't exactly amaze with it's boarding actions.

That said, again for me comes down to what is technologically more advanced, super engineers or super scientists? Star Wars can't do the esoteric one off stuff nearly as well, but what they DO is large and in charge. Trek however has the weirdo sci-fi stuff hands down.

#59 Posted by Red12b (9084 posts) -

fucking death star.

#60 Posted by Patman99 (1578 posts) -

I like to imagine the Star Wars universe is in a sort of "Dark Ages." Essentially they are using old technology and science. That kind of explains the sometimes janky nature of the technology in Star Wars.

#61 Posted by Carryboy (644 posts) -

@DarthOrange said:

Doesn't Star Wars take place in the past? I would hope Star Trek would be more advanced.

Fuck me, its only just dawned on me that star wars takes place in the past.

My mind is fucking blown.

#62 Posted by Jay_Ray (1078 posts) -

@huser: The Russians also did the large and in charge route during the Cold War, didn't work out for them. Nazi Germany also did that with the Panzer tank. I would take 100 ships each with 1/100 power of the Death Star over a single station any day. Also, Starfleet has super massive Starbases as well, at a tech stand point I do not see SW having any advantage other then the prevalence of robots.

#63 Posted by IzzyGraze (850 posts) -

@huser said:

@IzzyGraze said:

I would say Star Trek but I'm a Star Trek fan. We also have to consider the alien races in Star Trek. People are saying that Star Wars folks can move faster than Star Trek. I don't know if that's true for the federation but it's defnitely not true for some of the alien races. I've been watching a lot of TNG recently and there was an episode where an alien race remotely reprogrammed a human mind to heights of crazy intelligence which allowed him to do some crazy technology shit which allowed him to transport the Enterprise from their current point to the center of the universe in a few minutes! Also, on voyager the whole premise of the show is that a piece of alien technology slingshotted their ship to the other side of the galaxy in seconds!

Then as everyone has said: replicators, holo-decks(not shitty "your my last hope" holo tech), transporters. I'll add: sonic showers and crazy healing tech(Oh you reattached an arm? That was Star trek's Tuesday. Try growing a spine and replacing the current broken one.).

I'm pretty sure that Barclay episode involved travel to the center of the Milky Way, not the universe which doesn't even make sense as the universe doesn't have a center.

Just looked it up and you're right. At the time it didn't make sense to me either but I figured that in the Star Trek universe they had a center somehow, like in Futurama. The Voyager one is true though. I looked that one up.

#64 Posted by development (2240 posts) -

midichlorians > amino acids

space magic > space science

universe-wide travel > galaxy-wide travel

nonsense > sense

#65 Edited by huser (1076 posts) -

@Jay_Ray: Large on the difference of scale between Trek and Wars is not 100 ton tanks vs Shermans. It's a Supertanker vs a caravel. It denotes a legit and tangible difference in engineering prowess that requires whole branches of tech the other doesn't show. One can not simply handwave that away. The argument also breaks down because those super weapons bankrupted their respective nations. Greatest generation or whatever, it's not exactly a surprise in hindsight the three largest nations on Earth (the US, the British Empire, the Soviet Union) won WWII. In this case, the Empire was building ANOTHER Death Star within years of the first one's destruction with no appreciable loss in capacity elsewhere. Their engineering scale is off the charts.

Stardock is a huge structure in Trek about 5 miles long in the TNG era...that can safely orbit a planet. The Death Star is the size of a small moon and can travel through the galaxy at speeds unheard of but for one offs in Trek.

#66 Edited by Levio (1784 posts) -

Star wars has like a million droids while star trek has like 2, so I'm gonna have to vote Star Wars. What better metric is there than artificial intelligence which can do the scientific research for you?

EDIT: Actually, Data is like 1 million times better than any star wars droid, so eh.

#67 Posted by Venatio (4491 posts) -
@phrosnite said:

Stargate

This^^ Seriously no joke, as a massive Stargate nerd I have to say that the ancients technology is ridiculously advanced, I mean the Stargate itself is pretty crazy
Stargate franchise is so underrated, SG-1 is my favorite show. But I better not get started on that
#68 Posted by Puddlesworth (59 posts) -

@huser said:

@Jay_Ray: I'd generally agree though to be fair as bad as Stormtroopers can be, Trek doesn't exactly amaze with it's boarding actions.

That said, again for me comes down to what is technologically more advanced, super engineers or super scientists? Star Wars can't do the esoteric one off stuff nearly as well, but what they DO is large and in charge. Trek however has the weirdo sci-fi stuff hands down.

I'm not sure what your distinction is between engineers and scientists. Or why Star Wars would be more engineer focused and Star Wars would be more scientist focused.

#69 Posted by Jay_Ray (1078 posts) -

@huser: That is very true, a Death Star does not equal a Starbase in size or capability nor did the Death Star seem to negatively affect the Empire. It would have been easy enough to shift over the construction modules to build the second Death Star after the first was completed and then destroyed therefore would not effect the Empires regular production schedule that much. Also since the Empire has shown lack of "human" rights I would say it would be easy for them to enslave millions and force them to work 24/7 to build anything the emperor wanted. Also the main Star Trek universe (not including species like the Q or Borg) has shown the ability to mass produce ships in a very quick manner when war is imminent or declared as shown during the Dominion Wars, yes not on the same scale as the Death Star but still significant.

#70 Posted by TooWalrus (13161 posts) -

@DoctorDanger99 said:

a long time ago could be a hundred years. it could be 1,000 years. it could be last week depending on your percetion of time.

Or, like, a billion years. You're thinking too small. Also:

@phrosnite said:

Stargate

I'm glad they can travel the universe instantaneously, but still use silly staff weapons. No seriously, I love Stargate.

#71 Edited by huser (1076 posts) -

@Puddlesworth said:

@huser said:

@Jay_Ray: I'd generally agree though to be fair as bad as Stormtroopers can be, Trek doesn't exactly amaze with it's boarding actions.

That said, again for me comes down to what is technologically more advanced, super engineers or super scientists? Star Wars can't do the esoteric one off stuff nearly as well, but what they DO is large and in charge. Trek however has the weirdo sci-fi stuff hands down.

I'm not sure what your distinction is between engineers and scientists. Or why Star Wars would be more engineer focused and Star Wars would be more scientist focused.

Reductively, engineers are needed to maximize what you got. Scientists expand that frontier outwards. Star Wars build bigger, faster, more numerous. Their ships are bigger, more numerous and travel the galaxy in days or hours. Star Trek build more esoteric stuff and are mad scientists with one off gadgets. They can beat just about any problem of the day, but good luck getting even 1% of those things to trickle down to mass usage.

I'm REALLY hoping a new Trek series might one day canonize Slipstream or Transwarp. Seemed to me they let a relatively scientifically illiterate person (ie Gene) get cold feet and slow Warp down cause it made the galaxy too small. Never mind that even when TNG was being put together millions of galaxies was a thing readily on astronomy's radar and it seemed a ship with a "continuing mission", with families, and of the Galaxy class heading to Farpoint Station kinda sorta is pointing to an intergalactic one way trip.

#72 Posted by phrosnite (3518 posts) -

@Venatio said:

@phrosnite said:

Stargate

This^^ Seriously no joke, as a massive Stargate nerd I have to say that the ancients technology is ridiculously advanced, I mean the Stargate itself is pretty crazy Stargate franchise is so underrated, SG-1 is my favorite show. But I better not get started on that

Awww <3 Stargate SG-1 is my favourite show too. High five!

#73 Posted by huser (1076 posts) -

@Jay_Ray said:

@huser: That is very true, a Death Star does not equal a Starbase in size or capability nor did the Death Star seem to negatively affect the Empire. It would have been easy enough to shift over the construction modules to build the second Death Star after the first was completed and then destroyed therefore would not effect the Empires regular production schedule that much. Also since the Empire has shown lack of "human" rights I would say it would be easy for them to enslave millions and force them to work 24/7 to build anything the emperor wanted. Also the main Star Trek universe (not including species like the Q or Borg) has shown the ability to mass produce ships in a very quick manner when war is imminent or declared as shown during the Dominion Wars, yes not on the same scale as the Death Star but still significant.

Sure, as I said elsewhere, it's being reductive. Obviously both universes have an engineering corp and scientific capability. It just goes down to what each does well and which one is more important in terms of technologically advanced. Star Wars can build in numbers and sizes, and these can travel huge distances largely undreamt of by the Fed and its more standard relations (which I stated as the assumption in my first post). Trek can travel through time and dimensions (and fittingly to the slapdash nature of their sciences generally one off at that). Just like Data generally beats the pants off even name droids, but Wars has like 50 billion of them. Is a basically unique lab prototype of amazing technical prowess more a sign of technological achievement than lesser quality but easily purchasable mass market commodities?

As an aside, I'm not sure slave labor in a universe of clone troopers and droids is even necessary, but it's certainly not something I'd want to use in my doomsday supertrump card. If slave labor was all that reliable, the DS II wouldn't have needed Vader to come by and become the overseer. And while the Dominion Wars featured newer ships, many were 100 year old Mirandas/Excelsiors, and even the new ships have debatable origins (Akiras having registries of older dates than even Galaxy classes).

#74 Posted by Jay_Ray (1078 posts) -

@huser: Slave labour would not be used on critical systems but just building the basic blocks needed to construct a ship. We only know of clones being used once in that universe and by the time we get to the original trilogy time period they are no longer being made. And all the SW droids seem very limited in ability, none seem truly intelligent (being sentient in anyway), none appear to be truly strong, and all of them seem to have limited mobility. So I must deduce slave labor is used on massive scales to build these massive ships in any time fame that allows for the second Death Star to be operational in such a short time.

Also how big is the galaxy in Star Wars, we know it is not the Milky Way so travel time is a poor metric to measure speed without knowing the distance. And how many Star Destroyers are there? If there are only 20 then Starfleet easily outclasses them in production ability. I simply do not know these numbers to state that the Star Wars universe has better engineers. So it comes down to me on one on one fights, and I believe the Enterprise-D would beat a Star Destroyer and given the weaponry could take down a large number of them. I would give the advantage for troop ability to Star Trek again because of weaponry tech.

#75 Posted by huser (1076 posts) -

@Jay_Ray said:

@huser: Slave labour would not be used on critical systems but just building the basic blocks needed to construct a ship. We only know of clones being used once in that universe and by the time we get to the original trilogy time period they are no longer being made. And all the SW droids seem very limited in ability, none seem truly intelligent (being sentient in anyway), none appear to be truly strong, and all of them seem to have limited mobility. So I must deduce slave labor is used on massive scales to build these massive ships in any time fame that allows for the second Death Star to be operational in such a short time.

Also how big is the galaxy in Star Wars, we know it is not the Milky Way so travel time is a poor metric to measure speed without knowing the distance. And how many Star Destroyers are there? If there are only 20 then Starfleet easily outclasses them in production ability. I simply do not know these numbers to state that the Star Wars universe has better engineers. So it comes down to me on one on one fights, and I believe the Enterprise-D would beat a Star Destroyer and given the weaponry could take down a large number of them. I would give the advantage for troop ability to Star Trek again because of weaponry tech.

I'd have to look it up, but for it to BE a galaxy it probably has to be a certain size to be gravitationally bound. More to the point unless it's orders of magnitude smaller than the Milky Way no matter how you slice hyperdrive it's faster than warp which extrapolating what Voyager needed would take more than a century to traverse the Milky Way whereas in SW they clearly go from a core world to the edge of their galaxy in a fighter sized craft (ie cannot reasonably be a long trip).

Star Destroyers are not explicitly mentioned in number AFAIK. Given that at Endor there are more than 20 visible and the logic that a galaxy spanning Empire could run on only 20 capital ships. More to the point that the Empire could build a single Death Star let alone another within about 30 years (from the end of Revenge to Return) points to an industrial capacity well beyond anything the Fed has shown. Again it's not a city, impressive civil work, or even space station. It's a moon sized FTL capable WMD.

And it's strange that slave labor is the only answer to building. I mean it's not reliable at all in any technical setting. Why can't the Empire simply have a LOT of factory workers? Note the overseer of the DS II doesn't mention slaves. Their capital planet is covered in a world spanning city thousands of levels high/deep. They clearly can build a huge number of droids (the whole Separatist thing as an example of both number and clear sentience even in mass produced canon fodder).

Look, I'm a Trek fan, I just don't feel the need for Trek to win every aspect of a pissing contest with Wars when it's pretty clear a galaxy spanning entity naturally must enjoy certain advantages over one concerned with the exploration of another (and not expected by a godlike being to even visit a quadrant of their galaxy for another century).

If you feel the need to rebut, fine, but I'm done here.

#76 Posted by mordukai (7150 posts) -

@Wrighteous86 said:

Star Trek, obviously.

This. Mainly because the tech in Star Trek is closer to our reality. Not to mention all the different technology we enjoy today because of star trek.

#77 Edited by PenguinDust (12491 posts) -

Why is this even in question? It's definitely Star Trek. Look at the robots.

#78 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

@phrosnite said:

Stargate

Yeah Stargate. Let's see some of that Asgard tech up in here.

#79 Posted by Cameron (596 posts) -

Star Trek also has aliens with way better tech than the Federation. The Borg Cubes seem to be close to a Death Star and the Borg have hundreds if not thousands of those. Species 8472 is also supposed to be miles ahead of even the Borg in terms of technology. If we take the aliens into account it seems like Star Trek takes it. It's much closer if you just consider the humans in both universes, but I'd take the tech in Star Trek any day.

#80 Posted by lazyturtle (1228 posts) -

I'd say that Star Wars has much stronger military tech. Obviously an Imperial Class Star Destroyer would annihilate the Enterprise..even the Voyager (which was a warship). I mean..oooh..you've got a delta flyer? Thats neat. Heres a squadron of TIE fighters.

Also there are shields in Star Wars. They definitely seem less key to the whole setup than they do in Star Trek though.

Droid technology is far more advanced in Star Wars than Star Trek. Yes..Data..but he is one of a kind. There are many self aware droids in SW.

The speed of travel is faster in SW, but more realistic in ST. Star Wars engines are obviously more efficient since something the size of the Falcon can go across the galaxy, but something the size of the Enterprise cannot.

SW >ST..though ST seems like a much nicer government.

#81 Posted by DoctorDanger99 (686 posts) -
#82 Posted by sins_of_mosin (1556 posts) -

Each universe has pros and cons so this comparison would boil down to each thing individually. Yeah Trek has transporters but Wars has droids. ect ect ect

#83 Posted by Kevin_Cogneto (1038 posts) -

@DoctorDanger99 said:

Yeah but the guy who made this forgot that Star Wars ships fire turbolasers.Turbo! Does the Enterprise have any turbophasers or turbotorpedoes? I don't think so. Issue resolved, you're welcome.

#84 Posted by BestUsernameEver (4825 posts) -

@Wrighteous86 said:

Star Trek, obviously. And I'm a Star Wars fan.
#85 Posted by Veektarius (4768 posts) -

@lazyturtle: The Voyager was a deep space exploration vessel. The only warship in Star Trek is the Defiant, unless you want to count the Future Enterprise from All Good Things.

#86 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

i would say star wars.

#87 Posted by Jolt92 (1551 posts) -

Star Trek of course

#88 Edited by flindip (533 posts) -

I vote neither. They are both fucking fictional things which have crazy inconsistency in their tech representations. The technology largely fluctuates based on the needs of the story. Neither is terribly rooted in reality for it to be a meaningful conversation, though I think Star Trek is more technologically self aware(almost stupidly so).

Although, this corny shit that Star Trek gave us cell phones is some serious nonsense. No, two way radios gave way to cell phones, which preceded the original Star Trek TV series by about 40 years.

If you want to see a film that actually made SOME accurate predictions of ancillary tech, watch 2001. They're Ipads in the damn movie, which was made in late 60's.

#89 Posted by Inkerman (1451 posts) -

@huser said:

@Inkerman said:

Star Trek we see more technology, but I'm a bit skeptical about whether or not they're ahead of Star Wars. In Star Wars small ships (like the Millenium Falcon) can travel across the Galaxy in a matter of days, I'm not sure, but I don't think Star Trek ships can do that. Furthermore, the Death Star actually reveals more than just having a giant laser. The most important thing it has in regards to indicating technology is power. It would take a huge amount of power to fire that laser, let alone move the dam thing at all, let alone interplanetarily. Another thing is the life support systems on the thing must be unfucking believable. Another point to note that while it appeared not many ships had shields, the Death Star did and unlike Federation ships, the thing was effectively impenetrable, the rebels could not just shoot the thing till it overloaded.

I'm gonna say Star Wars. Remember in Star Trek what we see is the height of technology, in Star Wars, particularly the original trilogy, we see only backward places with limited technological access. It would be like going to sub-Saharan Africa and assuming that was the level of technology that the rest of the world had.

Admittedly the Rebels only assaulted the DS with 30 fighters or so. It being designed around taking on a fleet.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the first Death Star had a shield, only the second one did, which the fighters still could not penetrate until the ground team on Endor killed it. Another point is that the rebel base on Hoth had shields which prevented any kind of direct Imperial assault, to my knowledge nothing like that existed in Star Trek.

#90 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

Star Wars has space-magic, but keep in mind that magic is only technology we don't understand yet.

#91 Posted by lazyturtle (1228 posts) -

@Veektarius: Looks like you're right

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Intrepid_class

It would be completely destroyed by a Star Destroyer.

#92 Posted by Veektarius (4768 posts) -

@lazyturtle: Probably. Throughout Voyager, the ship was repeatedly terrorized by warships from technologically inferior races due to its relatively meager defenses. Or at least, that's my recollection. I haven't seen the whole series, and what I did see, I saw when it was new.

#93 Edited by MonkeyKing1969 (2679 posts) -

@huser said:

@MonkeyKing1969 said:

Both are worthless, because either even makes much sense. They have super advanced tech in some areas and stunningly primitive tech in other areas.

Picard's artificial heart comes to mind, especially in light of Bones' regrow kidneys in 15 minute pills. Though generally with Trek it appears to be a weird combination of being neoluddites and being blase about tech. They've seen the singularity, found it not all that, and went back to reading books when they aren't endangering their lives on the holodeck. Seems that's where most of the posthumanism issues lie as well (cybernetics, genetic modifications, artificial brains, etc). They're pushing humanity to be better, humans as a group haven't even achieved that with what they're born with, why bother with high end car parts on a commuter clunker I guess.

You nailed it by calling it neoludditism. Gene Roddenberry seemed to fear technology more then he liked anything. All other tech was to be feared in his mind! Oh, no genetic engineering! Oh, no robots! Oh, no extended human life! Oh, no artificial! intelligence. Oh, no space ships without shag carpeting. That's the biggest problem Star Trek NG and later shows, they stiller were trapped in a 1950s outlook of science and future society. The only thing Trek does right is "optimism".

#94 Posted by StarvingGamer (8135 posts) -

I prefer Wars, but Trek by far.

#95 Posted by Snail (8594 posts) -

I think lightsabers are more technologically advanced than phasers. On the other hand, teleportation seems to be more technologically advanced than holograms. Still, Star Wars has the Death Star. And a bunch of droids. Yeah, I'll go with Star Wars.

You should have totally made this a poll though.

#96 Posted by Phatmac (5725 posts) -

The bat would beat a knife any day.

#97 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (2679 posts) -

The real question is who has the sexier characters. And, you have to admit Trek is full of sexy people wearing less clothing; yet, Star Wars has Princess Leia as a slave girl and Han Solo being F-ing Han Solo.

#98 Posted by NTM (7335 posts) -

@MonkeyKing1969: Star Trek, by and large.

#99 Edited by MrBubbles (764 posts) -

I'm going with Star Wars mostly because of the lightsaber that thing needs some serious technology in it to control and contain the plasma it emits not to mention how it's able to cut through 3 FT thick metal doors but doesn't melt your arms or face off while you're holding it. The death star is a good example too because when was the last time you saw a single ship blow up a planet in Star Trek. On the non-weapon front they have their medical technology which is very impressive especially their prosthetic limbs and Bacta tanks and their ability to keep someone alive who should have died (Darth Vader is a good well known example). Star Wars' technological weakness does seem to be their holograms they are pretty shitty looking no matter what era of the history you're in. But really this topic is like asking who has more money Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark?

#100 Posted by gunninkr (137 posts) -

My brain hurts to even try and think about it too much....