A debate with a friend that could have huge ramifications

[Col. Stele]

I was debating a friend of mine in a Star Trek versus Star Wars debate. He said that the bigger and more powerful Trek ships, such as a Galaxy, Akira, Defiant, D’deredix, Vor’cha, etc. could defeat an ISD II in a one on one fight. I said that he was full of shit. I then proceeded to point out the E2: ICS and the calculations for SW turbolasers. My friend then said that the E2: ICS was not canon. I responded by pointing out the Insider#68 quote, that I just happened to have in my hand. My friend then said that the quote only mentions the first two ICS’s, those by David West Reynolds, that the E2: ICS was left out of the quote. He then said that even if we do accept the E2: ICS then we should also accept the calculations from DS9’s “The Die is Cast.” I pointed out that visuals contradict dialogue so the TDiC calcs should not be accepted. He then said that in his debate circle, dialogue is considered to be greater than visuals, especially in Sci-fi debates because visuals can be wrong and because dialogue contains the writer’s intent. I then said that the E2: ICS has been accepted in practically every debate and that TDiC is not. He then laughed and said, and this is a direct quote, “The yields in Episode II contradict the yields presented in the E2: ICS. Which is higher? The movie. There may have been a reason for the Republic to hold back, but there was no reason for the Separatists to hold back. It’s the same double standard that I’ve seen in many Star Trek versus Star Wars debates. You are very willing to accept the E2: ICS despite its flaws. Yet when a Trekkie brings in yields that match or exceed those found in the E2: ICS and they are supported by canon, which is the case with ‘The Die is Cast’ you go and look for every possible excuse as to why ‘The Die is Cast’ should not be accepted. And to tell you the truth, none of them hold water. Just so you know, I am a neutral debator. I used to like both Star Trek and Star Wars equally. But now, seeing how these debates are going, my enjoyment of Star Wars is decreasing rapidly.”

This got me thinking. Could he be right? And if he was right, what would the ramifications be for the Star Trek versus Star Wars debates? Whatever they would be, though, they would be great. I’m not trying to troll here, I need all the help I can get to counter his claims.

[Ghost Rider]

I was debating a friend of mine in a Star Trek versus Star Wars debate. He said that the bigger and more powerful Trek ships, such as a Galaxy, Akira, Defiant, D’deredix, Vor’cha, etc. could defeat an ISD II in a one on one fight. I said that he was full of shit. I then proceeded to point out the E2: ICS and the calculations for SW turbolasers. My friend then said that the E2: ICS was not canon. I responded by pointing out the Insider#68 quote, that I just happened to have in my hand. My friend then said that the quote only mentions the first two ICS’s, those by David West Reynolds, that the E2: ICS was left out of the quote.

He still has to show why it's not consider canon.

He still has to demonstrate that why if not, they aren't consider offical.

He then said that even if we do accept the E2: ICS then we should also accept the calculations from DS9’s “The Die is Cast.” I pointed out that visuals contradict dialogue so the TDiC calcs should not be accepted. He then said that in his debate circle, dialogue is considered to be greater than visuals, especially in Sci-fi debates because visuals can be wrong and because dialogue contains the writer’s intent.

He's full of shit.

Visuals are always the most objective piece of evidence in the Sci-Fi world. If we believe dialogue then the ENT-D can barely do a TeraWatt of power.

I then said that the E2: ICS has been accepted in practically every debate and that TDiC is not. He then laughed and said, and this is a direct quote, “The yields in Episode II contradict the yields presented in the E2: ICS. Which is higher? The movie. There may have been a reason for the Republic to hold back, but there was no reason for the Separatists to hold back. It’s the same double standard that I’ve seen in many Star Trek versus Star Wars debates. You are very willing to accept the E2: ICS despite its flaws. Yet when a Trekkie brings in yields that match or exceed those found in the E2: ICS and they are supported by canon, which is the case with ‘The Die is Cast’ you go and look for every possible excuse as to why ‘The Die is Cast’ should not be accepted. And to tell you the truth, none of them hold water. Just so you know, I am a neutral debator. I used to like both Star Trek and Star Wars equally. But now, seeing how these debates are going, my enjoyment of Star Wars is decreasing rapidly.”

Then he's being a dipshit with nothing to back himself up except to bitch and moan.

This got me thinking. Could he be right? And if he was right, what would the ramifications be for the Star Trek versus Star Wars debates? Whatever they would be, though, they would be great. I’m not trying to troll here, I need all the help I can get to counter his claims.

He has virtually nothing and using hand waving technique to further his claims...sounds a lot like he's been reading too much of Robert Anderson's site.

[BabelHuber]

He then said that in his debate circle, dialogue is considered to be greater than visuals, especially in Sci-fi debates because visuals can be wrong and because dialogue contains the writer’s intent.

Imagine that you would be standing on the bridge of this ship: Someone states that the planet is utterly destroyed, yet when you look out of the window, you see that this is just not true. What would you think?

Would you think that the visuals are wrong, or would you think that this person just doesn't tell the truth?

If we see things happen and people talking in an episode, we must act as if we would have seen it with our own eyes.

The writer's intent can be interpreted in many ways, if we take it into account we have a completely different level of discussion. You cannot take calculations as face value anymore. Who nows exactly what Gerge Lucas intended with the explosion of Alderaan?

If you want to discuss seriously, meaning in a way that you can objectively disinguish the truth from BS, you have to throw the author's intend out of the window and stick to what you see in an episode:

The planet was not as destroyed as the dialogue states, so somebody isn't telling the truth. It's as simple as that.

[Warspite]

Your friend is using a double standard, dialogue for TDIC (didn't see that coming! ) and visuals for SW.
Even so, it hurts is "logic", since analisys for SW always provides a lower limit, while for most ST it provides an upper limit.

[Col. Stele]

I said exactly what BabelHuber said to my friend. My friend said that there are exceptions, such as someone saying that the planet was destroyed when it was not. He says that one must take the situation into consideration. Everyone could see the screen, but they still measured 30% of the crust being destroyed. They weren’t saying, “Uh oh, the sensors say that the crust is destroyed, but the screen says otherwise. Let’s do a diagnostic on the sensors.” He says that the their ship’s sensor readings weren’t contradicted by the others. In fact, they were confirmed, as far as the lifeform readings go, but if there was a discrepency in the amount of crust destruction, it would have been stated. He then says that there were 150 fighters stated to be present, yet we saw maybe a dozen or two at most at any one time. My friend also says that the seeming contradiction isn’t that great, and we also didn’t see all of the ships fire. He also says that Photon torpedoes are DET weapons so that even if disruptor yields can’t be found, the torpedo yields can, and from the torpedo yields we can guess the disruptor yields. He then goes on to say that maybe the studio didn’t have the money to make the SFX just as they wanted, or that the SFX guys weren’t physicists so they didn’t know that there should be ejecta from the planet. He says that these are some things to consider and this is why he and his friends view dialogue as higher than the visuals in this case.

[Robert Walper]

Honestly,I don't see this thread as having anything remotely close to "huge ramifications".

It's nothing more than a rehash of the old "visuals versus dialogue" arguement. If your friend insists upon utilizing the infamous method of "dialogue overrules visuals", he most certainly may. He just needs to be prepared to accept that logically, his method is completely flawed.

[BabelHuber]

He then goes on to say that maybe the studio didn’t have the money to make the SFX just as they wanted, or that the SFX guys weren’t physicists so they didn’t know that there should be ejecta from the planet.

Now this doesn't sound like a discussion to me. It seems to me that your friend just wants Star Trek to be military competitive to the Galactic Empire, and tries to pull arguments out of his ass.

Let's take that single episode away. What else is there to show us that ST vessels are as powerfull as SW vessels? None! ST FTL travel is ridiculously slow compared to SW FTL travel, so the Empire could strike at will, with no possibility for the federation to guard all of their planets or to intercep Imperial fleets. Slave-1 in AOTC really kicks ass in firepower compared to ST ships, even when compared to capital ships like the Galaxy class.

Back to 'The Die is Cast’: What you see is what you get! I cannot understand that this is questionable. Your friend doesn't know shit about what the script writers and FX designers thought, or how big their budget was. Or why they did what they did in general. Every assumption can as well be seen in the opposite direction. What if the FX guys were right about the original intention, and the dialoguewriter was not? This is as possible as the utterly stupid claim of your friend, and neither one can be proven or disproven.

That's why such BS doesn't count. In the end, we act as if everything we see and hear in the shows and movies is exactly what happened. And of course when I have seen something I know more about it than when I hear somebody speak of it.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Besides, if the effects for TDiC were erronious, wouldn't someone from the production have said something about it by now? In my experiance, when something like that goes wrong, they typically say something.

But then again, your friend is probably the type not to listen to them when they have said that an effect or such is erronious as long as it goes in the favour of their argument...

[XaLEv]

Ask him to produce the TDiC calculations. Ask him how the attributes of the planet required to make those calculations were determined. Ask him to define 'destroy'. Tell us what happens.

[Lord Poe]

Tell your pal to read this about the canonicity of the AOTC:IS and its canon status:

http://h4h.com/louis/sources.html

[Ender]

Honestly,I don't see this thread as having anything remotely close to "huge ramifications".

Ditto, unless he means that this is some kind of heated argument and could have reprocussions on their friendship (and even that is streching it)

[Robert Walper]

Honestly,I don't see this thread as having anything remotely close to "huge ramifications".

Ditto, unless he means that this is some kind of heated argument and could have reprocussions on their friendship (and even that is streching it)

I took the "ramifications" implication as obviously applying to the Star Trek Versus Star Wars debate itself.

If it were about ramifications to the friendship itself(as you said, a stretch to say the least), I'd say lose the friend. Any friend who'd suggest your friendship is going to depend upon(or even be affected in any meaningful way) conflicting views about trivial and unimportant fictional realities is a friend you best lose anyway.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I use to argue the old dialogue vs. visuals and I used TDIC as well. This is what made me take a step back and evaluate my logic.

First off nobody knows what the writers intent is, and the dialogue in TDIC isn't that specific. They say destroy, not vaporize for example, so the dialogue and the visual haven't really been contradicting each other in the first place.

Basically most of the quotes regarding ST firepower are all so vague you really couldn't put them above visuals.

[Alyeska]

He's full of shit.

Visuals are always the most objective piece of evidence in the Sci-Fi world. If we believe dialogue then the ENT-D can barely do a TeraWatt of power.

No, you are full of shit. There are repeated examples in Trek where visuals contradict the quoted dialogue when it comes to range. This isn't the only example, but the range issue is one of the biggest. When it comes to TDIC, dialogue clearly takes presidence over visuals unless you can come up with a compelling argument.

[Alyeska]

Honestly,I don't see this thread as having anything remotely close to "huge ramifications".

It's nothing more than a rehash of the old "visuals versus dialogue" arguement. If your friend insists upon utilizing the infamous method of "dialogue overrules visuals", he most certainly may. He just needs to be prepared to accept that logically, his method is completely flawed.

Flawed? Dialogue gives you the clearest example of information in Trek. Especialy with known issues. Your logic tells us the Enterprise can fire phasers from its torpedo launchers. Furthermore your logic tells us the crews of the ships are so incompetent that can't read range. Of course if this were true the ship would have blown up when someone didn't read the saftey parameters on the warp core correctly.

[Ender]

He's full of shit.

Visuals are always the most objective piece of evidence in the Sci-Fi world. If we believe dialogue then the ENT-D can barely do a TeraWatt of power.

No, you are full of shit. There are repeated examples in Trek where visuals contradict the quoted dialogue when it comes to range. This isn't the only example, but the range issue is one of the biggest.

Scene cuts have time laspes in them in which the ships close to what we see on screen. Tadaa!

When it comes to TDIC, dialogue clearly takes presidence over visuals unless you can come up with a compelling argument.

If the dialogue was correct (despite the fact that they have been infiltrated by a spy and we know they are recieveing false data), then they have massive weapons yields, which flies straight in the face of a large number of other episodes including Relics, Rise, Pegesus, Q who, Conundrum, etc which all show low MT level weaponry and shields.

So in other words, there is a literal mountain of episodes showing TDIC dialogue is wrong.

[Ender]

Honestly,I don't see this thread as having anything remotely close to "huge ramifications".

It's nothing more than a rehash of the old "visuals versus dialogue" arguement. If your friend insists upon utilizing the infamous method of "dialogue overrules visuals", he most certainly may. He just needs to be prepared to accept that logically, his method is completely flawed.

Flawed? Dialogue gives you the clearest example of information in Trek. Especialy with known issues. Your logic tells us the Enterprise can fire phasers from its torpedo launchers. Furthermore your logic tells us the crews of the ships are so incompetent that can't read range. Of course if this were true the ship would have blown up when someone didn't read the saftey parameters on the warp core correctly.

Alyeska, I laid this out to E1701, the biggest proponent of Dialogue over visuals I've yet to encounter, ~ a year ago and he couldn't come up with anything close to a counter argument. Perhaps you can do better:

Potential problems with Visuals:
SFX mistakes

Potential problems with Dialogue:
Characters could be lying
Characters could be using hyperbole
Characters could be flat out wrong
Characters could be reading mistaken instruments
Characters could mis-speak

Now, given the two, which is more likely to have an error in it?
Therefore, which is more objective, more accurate, and thus the better source?

[Alyeska]

Scene cuts have time laspes in them in which the ships close to what we see on screen. Tadaa!

Doesn't cut it. In TWOK Chekov states they are 4,000km from the Reliant and then several seconds later they are within visual range. In a TNG episode Riker specificaly states to close to 30km from a Miranda class ship. The visuals show both ships in the same shot. In Yesterdays Enterprise Picard wants to close back with the Enterprise-C and orders they stay within 200km. Imediately afterwards it shows both ships in range.

If the dialogue was correct (despite the fact that they have been infiltrated by a spy and we know they are recieveing false data), then they have massive weapons yields, which flies straight in the face of a large number of other episodes including Relics, Rise, Pegesus, Q who, Conundrum, etc which all show low MT level weaponry and shields.

So in other words, there is a literal mountain of episodes showing TDIC dialogue is wrong.

Ah, but you already hit the correct argument that ties everything together. The spy on the ship. Though you forgot the sensor distortion from the planet. So you can accept the dialogue because it must be looked at in comparison to known facts.

What pisses me off is when people automaticaly write off dialogue for no logical reason. Dialogue has precedence over visuals. If you claim otherwise you better have a good reason. Incompetence isn't one of them. In TDiC there is a good reason why dialogue isn't accurate because of the spy. The dialogue itself isn't automaticaly invalid.

[Alyeska]

Alyeska, I laid this out to E1701, the biggest proponent of Dialogue over visuals I've yet to encounter, ~ a year ago and he couldn't come up with anything close to a counter argument. Perhaps you can do better:

Potential problems with Visuals:
SFX mistakes

Potential problems with Dialogue:
Characters could be lying
Characters could be using hyperbole
Characters could be flat out wrong
Characters could be reading mistaken instruments
Characters could mis-speak

Now, given the two, which is more likely to have an error in it?
Therefore, which is more objective, more accurate, and thus the better source?

Hard factual statements can not be so easily thrown out. You can not rationaly state that the person is lying, is reading bad instruments, compeltely stated the wrong number, or was flatout wrong. You are claiming gross incompetence and that doesn't fly because your argument would have to be applied EVERYWHERE and for this to be real SF ships wouldn't exist because the crews would have blown them up.

VFX errors can occur for a variety of reasons you never bothered to acknowledge.

[Ender]

Hard factual statements can not be so easily thrown out. You can not rationaly state that the person is lying, is reading bad instruments, compeltely stated the wrong number, or was flatout wrong. You are claiming gross incompetence and that doesn't fly because your argument would have to be applied EVERYWHERE and for this to be real SF ships wouldn't exist because the crews would have blown them up.

I'm not saying that one should be taken while the other always dismissed Alyeska, I'm saying why one should have precedence over the other.

VFX errors can occur for a variety of reasons you never bothered to acknowledge.

Plese list them and with them an explanation as to why the same reasons for those errors don't also apply to script writers.

[Alyeska]

I'm not saying that one should be taken while the other always dismissed Alyeska, I'm saying why one should have precedence over the other.

If one has precedence the other is ALWAYS ignored when in conflict. You just had to dodge the issue because you've been forced to accept visuals can have glaring errors. Furthermore you have to apply your reasons for an error to dialogue. You need to PROVE there is an error in the dialogue. You can't automaticaly toss it or say its unreliable without proving that.

Plese list them and with them an explanation as to why the same reasons for those errors don't also apply to script writers.

Artistic liscense, lack of series technical knowledge explained to the VFX creators, lack of communications between VFX creators and the writers, lack of funds for VFX making.

[Ender]

I'm not saying that one should be taken while the other always dismissed Alyeska, I'm saying why one should have precedence over the other.

If one has precedence the other is ALWAYS ignored when in conflict. You just had to dodge the issue because you've been forced to accept visuals can have glaring errors. Furthermore you have to apply your reasons for an error to dialogue. You need to PROVE there is an error in the dialogue. You can't automaticaly toss it or say its unreliable without proving that.

You would also need to prove that the visuals are the ones in error or you are guilty of doing the exact same thing in reverse.

Plese list them and with them an explanation as to why the same reasons for those errors don't also apply to script writers.

I boldened that part, sicne you forgot it and it shows in your reasons.

Artistic liscense,

Which appears in scripts in the form of character hyperbole.

lack of series technical knowledge explained to the VFX creators,

Same goes for writers

lack of communications between VFX creators and the writers,

Same applies to writers

lack of funds for VFX making.

Closest thing you've come up with, but still doesn't cut it; I've studied SFX as a possible career back when I was in college, you can do a lot on a shoestring budget, especially when alot of it is reusng previously shot footage.

[Alyeska]

You would also need to prove that the visuals are the ones in error or you are guilty of doing the exact same thing in reverse.

I can prove the visuals wrong with dialogue. You have to prove the dialogue wrong and show why the dialogue is in error with the visuals. You haven't done that.

Which appears in scripts in the form of character hyperbole.

This isn't a novel. The characters are stating factual information as far as we are concerned.

Same goes for writers

VFX team gets their cues from the writers. If the writers make a mistake and it gets into an episode it becomes fact. Its not the writers fault when the VFX teams makes a mistake. On the other hand can you show me how the VFX can do something BEFORE the writers create it and hence the writers are in error?

Same applies to writers

In this instance its one way. VFX gets their cues from the writers.

Closest thing you've come up with, but still doesn't cut it; I've studied SFX as a possible career back when I was in college, you can do a lot on a shoestring budget, especially when alot of it is reusng previously shot footage.

And what does sound effects have to do with visuam effects?

SFX=sound
VFX=Visual

Interestingly enough, I can tell you exactly why VFX might be in error. Now please show me where a writer has accidently put wrong data while the VFX team used correct data? Its hard because the VFX team gets their cues on the writers. And now why would a writer have their character give wrong information that conflicts with the visuals but NOT EXPAND UPON THIS. If the errors exist as you claim, we would see Riker, Sisko, and Kirk yelling at their crew for incompetence left and right. Your cited examples require gross incomptence and when you figure that into everything, it doesn't compute.

[Connor MacLeod]

The discussion might be more simpler if one side or the other would chose either a "literary" approach or Suspension of disbelief approach and stick to it, rather than acting as if the two actually mix interchangably.

[Robert Walper]

Actually, to help Alyeska out, I do have a pretty good idea what he means.

Borg cubes are canonly known to be 28 cubic kilometers in volume, which is over 3 kilometers per side. This is of course based solely upon dialogue stated in STVOY "Dark Frontier".

SFX has sometimes shown cubes fluxuate is size significantly. One example off the top of my head is in BoBW where the Enterpise D's width is almost the same width as the "massive" cube, even though the Enterprise is far in the background. We know the Enterprise D is much smaller than the cube. So far as I know, the size of a Borg cube is not disputed and generally accepted at these dimensions.

Naturally, I easily dismiss these "size comparisons" as simply visual errors.

But I'd still submit that is the exception rather then the rule.