Why does ST look stronger?

The Enterpriser · Post by **The Enterpriser** » 2002-12-27 03:37pm

Now, speaking from experience with people I know (sci-fi fans), most seem to claim that (from their perspective) the Star Trek universe seems to be more powerful and that it's "better". So to put a twist on the old argument why is it like that? Of course, these people are just normal fans and they don't analyze and dissect each episode, so what is it?

(p.s. This is my first post on this board, but have been reading it for some time, if this sparks up some rehashed discussions, by all means, shut it down

)

Btw, Nice site Mr.Wong

The Enterpriser · Post by **The Enterpriser** » 2002-12-27 03:40pm

(I forgot to add)

I think it's because of ST's pristine, sterile and (seemingly) more high-tech look. I've talked to some people about the forcefields that appear in the TPM but they still refuse because they claim ST uses it on a more regular basis.

Has there ever been a case an ST environment (ship) environment has been shown like the Millenium Falcon, etc. ?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-12-27 03:47pm

1. Fan devotion.
2. #1 leads them to extrapolate known abilities to infinity.
3. More technobabble.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2002-12-27 03:49pm

I think they don't use force fields as much is because of common sense. Invaders in a ship knock out your power and you lose those forcefields, but once you close your 1 foot thick blast doors they remain closed, power or not.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-12-27 03:49pm

I think it's because of ST's pristine, sterile and (seemingly) more high-tech look. I've talked to some people about the forcefields that appear in the TPM but they still refuse because they claim ST uses it on a more regular basis.

Has there ever been a case an ST environment (ship) environment has been shown like the Millenium Falcon, etc. ?

Yep, the reason's indeed the sterile plastic look, and adding displays with touchscreens to every thing to make it look high-tech, and to appeal to people who take style over substance, which are quite many.

The only Star Trek ship that I can think of that comes close to the
MF-style would be the small pirate vessel in Star Trek III that was destroyed by the BoP after transmitting the Gebnesis data.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2002-12-27 03:50pm

1. Shinier(everything is touchpad and explained technobabbled ad nauseum).

2. Technobabble sounds better than extrapolation from observations.

3. The give very big numbers for small amounts(their use of Watts and Joules is outlandish)

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2002-12-27 03:50pm

But back on topic, ignorance. It's like Fighter from nuklearpower.com, the shinier and sleeker the sci-fi contraption looks, the more advanced the stupid think they are.

The Enterpriser · Post by **The Enterpriser** » 2002-12-27 03:55pm

I also forgot, as funny as it sounds, people think Star Trek is better because they shoot less (being smaller expenditure of projectiles etc.) , the specific case being my father. Now granted he ain't the hotshot Darkstar but I think this is the average (non-fan, just watcher) attitude.

It's probably representative of the whole gig. Funny logic no?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-27 04:09pm

The answer to this question is very similar to the answer to the question: "why do 44% of Americans buy young-Earth creationism?"

People are fucking stupid on this continent, and the education system has utterly failed us. They do not think in a scientific manner; they wholly subscribe to style over substance fallacies, and they judge a book by its cover.

Star Trek seems more advanced to the average idiot because the average idiot is more impressed by the user interface than the guts inside. It's like sitting somebody in front of the world's most powerful supercomputer and having him complain that the GUI isn't as nice as his Windows box at home.

The Enterpriser · Post by **The Enterpriser** » 2002-12-27 04:16pm

Hehe, not to say Europe is anything better, but education has been a wee-bit better here. Not much, but better

Lots of people I speak with who've been to America find the central bit of it terrible and full of village idiots while the east coast and west are more acceptable. Is this more of the "principalian" mentality or is true? I've always thought like that, the best thing to come to mind with south and central US is KKK and rednecks with guns

Back to the point,

One thing we forget is that both The Phantom Menace AND Attack of the Clones shows a mix of touchs screens and buttons, how is THAT for ergonomics

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2002-12-27 05:44pm

Because in ST, ships seems to get destroyed/damage relatively quickly (Port shields are down! Reroute all emergency power!). In SW, the ships usually take quite a few hits. Therefore they assume that both sides have equally durable ships, and that ST has stronger weapons.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2002-12-27 05:52pm

The central, more rural parts of the country suffer from fundies and set-in-their-ways farm-like folk. It's abominable.

The coasts generally educated the population in general better, and you're likely to find a semi-intelligent person to talk to if they're readin the paper in some cafe, but even our intellectuals suffer from some stupid philosophical crap. But generally the metropolitan coast is akin to Europe.

I maintain people are stupid in general.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2002-12-27 08:07pm

Getting back to the original topic, I never thought ST looked stronger, even when I never thought of comparisons. When I did, it wasn't hard to determine their ships were weaker. It's just one big style of substance fallacy to think otherwise.

God Emperor · Post by **God Emperor** » 2002-12-27 08:37pm

I resent being called a red neck or it being said that people in central US are undereducated compared to those on the coast. Although when i look around stupidity seems abound. back on topic they go for look if it looks nice it's better than others.

Morning Star · Post by **Morning Star** » 2002-12-27 09:52pm

Darth Wong wrote:The answer to this question is very similar to the answer to the question: "why do 44% of Americans buy young-Earth creationism?"

People are fucking stupid on this continent, and the education system has utterly failed us. They do not think in a scientific manner; they wholly subscribe to style over substance fallacies, and they judge a book by its cover.

Star Trek seems more advanced to the average idiot because the average idiot is more impressed by the user interface than the guts inside. It's like sitting somebody in front of the world's most powerful supercomputer and having him complain that the GUI isn't as nice as his Windows box at home.

What is young-Earth creationism?

Plus I think it has to do with the sorta sleek, shiny and clean look everything has. I mean, I'd be suprised if you saw a litter bin on a ST ship... as we all know, people from the future don't have litter.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2002-12-27 09:52pm

God Emperor wrote:I resent being called a red neck or it being said that people in central US are undereducated compared to those on the coast. Although when i look around stupidity seems abound. back on topic they go for look if it looks nice it's better than others.

Don't think that this is exclusive to the central USA; we get an assload on the West Coast too.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-12-27 10:14pm

Morning Star wrote:What is young-Earth creationism?

Young earth creationists accept the bible as absolute truth and assert that the world is only 6,000 years old and was created by god as described in genesis.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-27 10:39pm

To be fair, even before I got into versus debating, I was pretty sure that the Empire would trounce the Federation precisely because of their respective design philosophies. I'd always seen the Federation as a namby-pamby, pussified organization that wouldn't be able to stand up to a war machine like the Empire. Whereas Starfleet routinely sent unarmored men into combat, the Empire had stormtroopers to conduct boarding, along with what seemed like a real military. Starfleet doesn't seem like a real military. It seems like semi-disciplined philosophers running around in pajamas.

Hell, at that time, the fact that the Empire had cooler-sounding ship names (Devastator, Executor, Indominable vs. Enterprise, Lollypop all all manner of other pussy-sounding names), cooler uniforms (militaristic green vs. pajamas), more disciplined officers ("obey or die" vs. "obey or don't, you're choice") and actual starfighters, not slow, ugly shuttlecraft. The Star Wars galaxy always seemed like a more real place, to me.

Morning Star · Post by **Morning Star** » 2002-12-27 10:40pm

Enlightenment wrote:
Morning Star wrote:What is young-Earth creationism?
Young earth creationists accept the bible as absolute truth and assert that the world is only 6,000 years old and was created by god as described in genesis.

lol, okay. They know that they're crazy, right? Right?!

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-12-27 10:44pm

Morning Star wrote: lol, okay. They know that they're crazy, right? Right?!

The sad part is that they're quite serious. Go looking in the SLaM and HoS forums and you'll probably find a few (flame-ridden) threads that resulted from creationists wandering into this board.

Also look at the main site for Wong's creationism and hate mail pages.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2002-12-28 05:31am

I think people tend to perceive of ST as stronger because it has William Shatner.

The Enterpriser · Post by **The Enterpriser** » 2002-12-28 05:36am

LOL! Well granted the Shat has been the spotlight of ST

I think that the reason why people are frowned upon from the mid-US area is probably because people remember the bad old days from 1960s and Civil War, and since people believe that, the others won't bother to correct them, sure there are exceptions but I met one from Texas, he's probably got an unofficial IQ of -100, not to mention G. W. Bush Jr.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2002-12-28 06:22am

Enterpriser please refrain from trolling or we will be forced to do you severe mental damage.

Second stop being so fucking dumb. If you spat at a GCS it'd cause a Warp Core Breach and as for the design of the ships, they look like picasso gone bad.

Sure it's easy for the TNG and onwards to make touch screen pannels etc, it was made 20 years after SW's.

The Enterpriser · Post by **The Enterpriser** » 2002-12-28 07:41am

I'm sorry I don't think you made yourself clear enough

I think trolling is not the point of this discussion. If you are in the mood to insult me, feel free to contact me on ICQ, I'm more than happy to oblige. On the other hand the discussion is "Why DOES ST look better" (hint: read the post title), I was neither trolling, I was just discussing the (apparent) tendency of people to side on the side of Star Trek.

If your mind (whatever that may be) cannot comprehend this (rather simple, good nature) discussion, then I suggest you stay out of it.

Sheesh

The Enterpriser · Post by **The Enterpriser** » 2002-12-28 07:52am

Back to discussion,

You're kidding

I read up some on that 6000-year earth theory. I think that Jehovah Witnesses held that belief some time ago, do they still have it?

Funny, while I am religious, the stuff some maniacs will come up with is remarkable... (or how they blatantly ignore all facts to the opposite).

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why does ST look stronger?

Why does ST look stronger?

Logic