Why do a lot of people think the federation can win?

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2006-07-25 03:15pm

Darth Wong wrote:
EnterpriseSovereign wrote:Star chamber style? Forgive my ignorance, what does that entail?
There was a movie in the 1980s called "The Star Chamber" about a bunch of judges who ran a secret court, where they tried and convicted suspects in absentia with no public knowledge, and then hired hitmen to quietly execute sentence.

That wasn't a movie with Michael Douglas?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-07-25 03:21pm

FTeik wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
EnterpriseSovereign wrote:Star chamber style? Forgive my ignorance, what does that entail?
There was a movie in the 1980s called "The Star Chamber" about a bunch of judges who ran a secret court, where they tried and convicted suspects in absentia with no public knowledge, and then hired hitmen to quietly execute sentence.
That wasn't a movie with Michael Douglas?

Same one.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2006-07-25 05:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:
EnterpriseSovereign wrote:Star chamber style? Forgive my ignorance, what does that entail?
There was a movie in the 1980s called "The Star Chamber" about a bunch of judges who ran a secret court, where they tried and convicted suspects in absentia with no public knowledge, and then hired hitmen to quietly execute sentence.

The phrase and the title of the movie are actually from an English court (The Star Chamber) that was notorious for abuse of power and secrecy under the Stuart Kings.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2006-07-25 09:42pm

Darth Servo wrote:I believe Wayne's hatemail page had a quote something along the lines of, 'before the internet, Trekkies would sit in the lobbies of hotel conventions convincing themselfes Trek was superior to every other sci-fi franchise.'

Yup, I witnessed it myself.

Star-Blighter · Post by **Star-Blighter** » 2006-07-26 01:07pm

Lord Poe wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:I believe Wayne's hatemail page had a quote something along the lines of, 'before the internet, Trekkies would sit in the lobbies of hotel conventions convincing themselfes Trek was superior to every other sci-fi franchise.'
Yup, I witnessed it myself.

My god.

That revealation actually makes me want to try and "heal" those poor deluded souls. Not just because they are so mindnumbingly wrong, but because the agony such twisted minds must be going through is difficult to believe for me.

Anyways...

I grew up with TNG and the original SW trilogy, and comparing the two never crossed my mind once until I stumbled across this site. I just don't have an interest in the pissing contest. For me a vs debate boils down to observation of effects. The side I'd "like" to win isn't too much of an agenda to get worked up about. After all these are seperate universes so they never would actually confront eachother. The borg are the (mindless) bad-asses of trek, and the Empire is the (stupidly arogant) curbstomper of SW. Nothing will change this and the Feds are completly fucked regardless, so I'm happy.

I don't need to wank (much...) about my personal favorites, although the humor potential is very tempting...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-07-26 02:11pm

I never attended Trek conventions so I wouldn't know, but it's no secret that hardcore Trekkies treat the show more like a religion than a piece of entertainment. And we know how people love to say that their religion is responsible for all the good in the world, and better than everyone else's religion, etc.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2006-07-26 02:26pm

Before I found this site (in 1999 or thereabouts), I had given SWvST about as much thought as I'd given paper vs. plastic in the grocery store. I assumed that Star Trek was superior, mostly based on visuals, but didn't really give it any thought - I certainly didn't give it any critical thought. It was sort of along the lines of "Trek has transporters and pretty ships, therefore they're superior. Wars is ugly and the video games make their ships suck, therefore they're inferior." 5 Minutes on this site changed my mind - all it really took was for me to sit down and think about it critically, and I said "Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense actually. What a dumbass..."

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2006-07-26 02:28pm

I preferred Wars actually, mainly from discovering SWTC early on. I didn't really think about firepower figures, though-- like most people I gave them some parity, but when I noticed the distinct lack of an organized military to Trek that pretty much tipped the balance to SW.

I wonder just how many people came to similar conclusions after finding SWTC early on...?

Jadetear · Post by **Jadetear** » 2006-07-31 06:59am

Elheru Aran wrote:I preferred Wars actually, mainly from discovering SWTC early on. I didn't really think about firepower figures, though-- like most people I gave them some parity, but when I noticed the distinct lack of an organized military to Trek that pretty much tipped the balance to SW.

I wonder just how many people came to similar conclusions after finding SWTC early on...?

That has always been one of the problems with I have had with Trek. I mean everyone is an officer for the most part.... and my favorite example... okay we are going to be sending a team into a hostile area where it is possible to be killed.... okay we are going to send the captain, the chief engineer, the head of security, our main helmsman, our head doctor, and this one nameless security guy.

That makes no sense to me.... it should be we are sending 10 nameless security guys.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-07-31 10:19am

Jadetear wrote:That has always been one of the problems with I have had with Trek. I mean everyone is an officer for the most part.... and my favorite example... okay we are going to be sending a team into a hostile area where it is possible to be killed.... okay we are going to send the captain, the chief engineer, the head of security, our main helmsman, our head doctor, and this one nameless security guy.

That makes no sense to me.... it should be we are sending 10 nameless security guys.

The original Star Trek was a blatant rip-off of the 1950s sci-fi classic "Forbidden Planet", and that particular convention was copied straight from the story of "Forbidden Planet". Seriously, if you've never watched "Forbidden Planet", pick up a copy. It's painfully obvious when you watch it that Star Trek basically stole most of its conventions from the film. It has everything that you associate with TOS; the captain exploring with his doctor and XO, the mysterious girl who is attracted to the captain, the mysterious host who turns out to be hiding a secret, a message about the nature of mankind, rayguns that make objects disappear, one character who gets drunk for comic relief, etc.

Jadetear · Post by **Jadetear** » 2006-07-31 08:16pm

The original Star Trek was a blatant rip-off of the 1950s sci-fi classic "Forbidden Planet", and that particular convention was copied straight from the story of "Forbidden Planet". Seriously, if you've never watched "Forbidden Planet", pick up a copy. It's painfully obvious when you watch it that Star Trek basically stole most of its conventions from the film. It has everything that you associate with TOS; the captain exploring with his doctor and XO, the mysterious girl who is attracted to the captain, the mysterious host who turns out to be hiding a secret, a message about the nature of mankind, rayguns that make objects disappear, one character who gets drunk for comic relief, etc.

Thanks for the recommendation; I will definitely have to watch it.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2006-07-31 09:37pm

It comes on Turner Classic Movies on a regular basis. It puts all Trek, Galactica, Babylon 5, Dr. Who and almost all other sci-fi to shame. The Black Hole is another rip-off of The Forbidden Planet.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-08-01 09:20am

I personally didn't find Forbidden Planet that entertaining. Sure I can see where some of the sci fi conventions / cliches come from, and Leslie Nielsen wasn't a bad actor. However I generally felt TOS handled it better.

And I personally can't see how Forbidden Planet puts Doctor Who to shame since DW tends to tell different types of stories compared to Forbidden Planet or TOS.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-08-01 12:00pm

I just heard an argument of why the Federation would win, and I can't find a way to refute it.

It goes like this: If any ST forces attempt to invade the SW galaxy, they're fucked. But if SW forces attempt to invade the ST galaxy, they will make no progress because there is no hyperspace in ST, therefore the SW ships will be restricted to sublight speeds and take years to get anywhere.

I know this is bullshit, but I can't come up with a convincing rebuttal.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-08-01 12:12pm

OmegaGuy wrote:I just heard an argument of why the Federation would win, and I can't find a way to refute it.

It goes like this: If any ST forces attempt to invade the SW galaxy, they're fucked. But if SW forces attempt to invade the ST galaxy, they will make no progress because there is no hyperspace in ST, therefore the SW ships will be restricted to sublight speeds and take years to get anywhere.

I know this is bullshit, but I can't come up with a convincing rebuttal.

Do they also believe that ST ships will instantly explode the moment they enter the SW universe, because their subspace-based technologies stop working?

A prerequisite of any cross-universe encounter is that their technology works and the laws of physics are compatible. They're just trying to stack the deck.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-08-01 02:18pm

OmegaGuy wrote:It goes like this: If any ST forces attempt to invade the SW galaxy, they're fucked. But if SW forces attempt to invade the ST galaxy, they will make no progress because there is no hyperspace in ST, therefore the SW ships will be restricted to sublight speeds and take years to get anywhere.

I know this is bullshit, but I can't come up with a convincing rebuttal.

Why does hyperspace not exist? Not only are they trying to stack the deck, they're ignoring what hyperspace is. The universe doesn't change when you're in a different galaxy; therefore, hyperspace shouldn't, either.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-08-01 02:19pm

Well they did say that ST ships would have no chance of invading the SW universe, but they didn't elaborate on it.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-08-01 03:46pm

Elfdart wrote:The Black Hole is another rip-off of The Forbidden Planet.

Since I haven't seen either in years, please elaborate.

Patrick Ogaard · Post by **Patrick Ogaard** » 2006-08-01 04:11pm

OmegaGuy wrote:I just heard an argument of why the Federation would win, and I can't find a way to refute it.

It goes like this: If any ST forces attempt to invade the SW galaxy, they're fucked. But if SW forces attempt to invade the ST galaxy, they will make no progress because there is no hyperspace in ST, therefore the SW ships will be restricted to sublight speeds and take years to get anywhere.

I know this is bullshit, but I can't come up with a convincing rebuttal.

While it might not be particularly helpful, there is the fact that hyperspace--of whatever sort it may be--as a concept is familiar enough in the ST:TNG setting for it to be used in the punchline of a joke.

Specifically:

Geordi: "So the guy staggers to his feet and goes back to the girl. She smiles, looks him straight in the eyes and says: "Just try that in hyperspace!". (TNG: "Conspiracy")

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2006-08-02 11:03pm

Because all that has to happen is Captain "Reverse the Polarity" Kirk just has to reverse the polarity, and he will cure cancer or beat star wars or whatever.

SW wins by a long shot, even without EU canon. Admittedly, EU canon is a bit wanked in some aspects here and there.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-08-03 04:26am

I must ask, again, why anyone would bother debating one of the intellectual pygmies on CBR. They're a pack of raving morons. Even some of the worst vs debaters in normal circles at least understand the basic rules. Where do you think that puts those dumbasses?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-08-03 08:47am

Vympel wrote:I must ask, again, why anyone would bother debating one of the intellectual pygmies on CBR. They're a pack of raving morons. Even some of the worst vs debaters in normal circles at least understand the basic rules. Where do you think that puts those dumbasses?

Lower then dirt. They haven't changed in years and they never will. And their idea of debating is majority rules. That alone places anyone who thinks it's challenging or fun to engage these retards as either insane or masochistic.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2006-08-03 09:26pm

When I was researching the "Talifan" hoopla, CBR had an article on it, and the forums were abuzz with what a known psycopath I am because I wrote that Darkstar fiction, too. Gee, I wonder where that came from...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-08-03 09:38pm

As a general rule, anyone whose definition of "reasonable" is basically "whatever feels right to me" is an idiot and is not worth debating, because his method of deriving conclusions is immune to logic or facts.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-08-04 02:39am

Also, CBR routinely relies on false information, and it becomes so oft - quoted there that they take it as gospel and ignore any evidence against it.

For example, they often mention scenes from an anime that were completely different in the original manga (the highest canon) as proof, and even use scenes that never existed in the first place just because they heard someone else make them up a long time ago and took their word for it.