Comments on: Star Wars Vs. Star Trek Infographic Lays Out Each Side Of The Argument

By: Jon Lee Wilson

Jon Lee Wilson — Fri, 03 May 2013 22:21:00 +0000

How the Slave 1 can have those stats verses the Enterprise is beyond me. I LOVE Star Wars, and that match-up doesn’t make sense. Maybe Star Destroyer verses Enterprise, or if your willing, Millenium Falcon. Aside from that, the rest of the infographic seems sound, except for the fact that the Death Star is infinitely larger than the Borg Tactical Cube.

By: Brandon Danger

Brandon Danger — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 16:13:00 +0000

1) The Doomsday Machine: A weapon created by unknown persons wich fires an
Antiproton beam capable of destroying a planet. It then uses the planet
as fuel. It is immune to almost all known weaponry, and was only
defeated by shoving a Constitution class starship down it’s throat and
overloading the Fusion reactors. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Planet_killer

2. Genesis. Commonly believed by fans to be a refinement of the
transporter process, it’s Canon effects include the ‘conversion of life
to lifelessness’. In addition, if used on a world already harboring
life, it will ‘replace’ this life, much like copying random data onto a
report it took you hours to make. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Genesis_Device

3. Phasers are known to be capable of drilling deep into the planets
crust, and from there, it is reasonable to assume that they could then
use a variety of means, mostlikely antimater weapons, to destabalize the
planet enough to depopulate it. The episode evidencing that should be
found here. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Inheritance_(episode)

4. Trilithium can be used to destroy stars. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Trilithium

5. The Krenim Weapon. Through unknown means, it wipes it’s targets from
history, it is difficult to survive this weapons effects, even if not
turned on you. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Krenim_weapon_ship

6. Subspace weapons, capable of ‘ripping a whole in the universe’. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Subspace_weapon

7. Finally, the Xindi weapon, which was seen destroying the earth in an
alternate timeline. Note, the weapon was finished, and destroyed with
only a few moments before it could reach earth, leaving reason to
believe that it’s capabilities are Canon. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Xindi_weapon

8. Tractor Beams. Federation starships are able to pull objects many
times their mass, wich means they could pull asteroids or even comets
into impact trajectories. I can’t find any specific instances easily, so
discount this one as you wish. I think that by now, the point has been
proven.

By: Michael Schachte

Michael Schachte — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 22:18:00 +0000

In these comments, several people have said that the Enterprise can destroy planets. Where does this idea come from? In the original series, the Enterprise could depopulate (kill everyone on) a planet, but I don’t recall seeing anything about them being actually able to destroy a planet like the Death Star can.

By: Ben Adam Sohawon

Ben Adam Sohawon — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 02:14:00 +0000

In this entire, exhaustive and detailed description (good work, by the way), you’ve missed out one major point: as pretty much all SW ships are equipped with lasers, they’re nowhere near capable of “crushing” everything in the Trekverse, as it’s established early on that lasers cannot even penetrate navigational shields, hence why phasers were invented.

By: Ben Adam Sohawon

Ben Adam Sohawon — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 02:11:00 +0000

That’s a load of shite. I’m a science fiction fan, I love the whole lot. That whole “lightsabre beats phaser” thing is bollocks, though, when you read what the science is.

What they need to be focusing on is that Star Trek is more realistic, but Star Wars is much cooler.

By: Ben Adam Sohawon

Ben Adam Sohawon — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 02:07:00 +0000

It’s clearly not – if it was a generic comparison, the Enterprise should be compared to the Super Star Destroyer. Given that it’s established early in TNG, lasers can’t even penetrate starship navigational fields, one could even compare the Enterprise to the Death Star, as it’s been established the Enterprise is capable of destroying planets.

By: Ben Adam Sohawon

Ben Adam Sohawon — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 02:02:00 +0000

Someone is blatantly biased in favour of Star Wars.

You do know that, according to ST physics, the Enterprise is capable of destroying a planet, right? Slave One would have no chance whatsoever.

Wars vs. Trek is a perfectly fine rivalry to have – give credit where it’s due.

By: Nathan Paul Kennedy

Nathan Paul Kennedy — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 00:27:00 +0000

As much of a fan as I am of both franchises, I can only really say one thing: GET A LIFE!!!!!!

By: daniel

daniel — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:10:00 +0000

Definitely! Trekkie goons has a visceral hatred for STAR WARS since its release in 1977!!…it`s a long time rage

By: asdasd

asdasd — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:11:00 +0000

Star Wars fan boy nonsense. Old arguments that have no basis in reality (as far as you can get when talking about science fiction). The SW guys basically pull numbers out of their butts, and where are transporters in all this? Oh that’s right, not accounted for.

By: baby fart mcgeeziaks

baby fart mcgeeziaks — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:16:00 +0000

haha, this was fun to read. Like many others the Enterprise vs Slave I comparison has me scratching my head. The Enterprise is a science/military starship with a crew of hundreds, the Slave I can be operated by one person and was designed (if I remember correctly) as a police vehicle and then heavily modified. This is almost like comparing a really tricked out Police SUV to a Navy battleship- the match up doesn’t really make that much sense. Now I have always dreamed of seeing some sort of dimensional rift causing Picard and friends to end up in the Star Wars universe and helping the rebels in an epic Enterprise vs Star Destroyer battle

By: Daniel A.

Daniel A. — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:31:00 +0000

I will always chose STAR WARS, because the story it`s truly appealing. STAR TREK(though I liked the J.J. Abrams`movie) it`s very boring. It may have science, but it really lacks the heart and poetry of the hero`s journey shown by Lucas` Galactic epic. Only THE LORD OF THE RINGS surpass it as an epic adventure, and yet, you will always get as a popular refference the journey of Luke, Leia, and Han to defeat the Empire

By: Roderick Kutch

Roderick Kutch — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:21:00 +0000

You never saw the Federation get defeated by a bunch of aboriginal Koala Bears. ‘Nuff Said.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:47:00 +0000

Just wanted to point out one thing regarding the AI: Data. Not a common version of ST AI, but a valid one. Much as I adore SW, they have nothing like him.

And for the record, I grew up on both, and could never choose between them.

By: Joshua Hyatt

Joshua Hyatt — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:56:00 +0000

This is the worst friggin’ infographic ever.

First, X-Wings > Tie Fighters every day of the month. X-Wings have shields, hyperdrives, and proton torpedo launchers.

Second, Slave One vs the Enterprise? Ridiculous, but Slave One would probably still win due to it’s speed and maneuverability. That said, where are the friggin’ Star Destroyers? The symbol and might of the Empire incarnate. And the fact that there were 25 000 of them at the height of the Empire.

Second, or third if you’re keeping track, if a lightsaber can deflect a Ssi-Ruuvi Paddle Beam I’m sure it can deflect a Phaser beam.

Fourth, a Borg Tactical Cube as a WMD? No way. It doesn’t stack up against a Death Star. That’s as bad as the Slave One vs Enterprise comparison. And Red Matter? What a joke. Worst. Plot device. Ever.

Fifth… I need a girlfriend.

By: ZodzillA

ZodzillA — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 06:11:00 +0000

Umm, who cares? The Federation has a Teleporter……..

By: Jordan S. C. Thompson

Jordan S. C. Thompson — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:41:00 +0000

The real argument is about realism. Star Wars has none, and Star Trek does. Star Trek has practical uses in modern society (like current research into warp drive) while star wars had one look into Light Sabre’s and realized it was impossible to trap light in a defined space without refraction. It’s really like comparing Lost to Band of Brothers. There is no comparison.

By: Trevor Stove

Trevor Stove — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 20:00:00 +0000

star wars has cloking devices,the falken is to small to have 1, ep 4

By: Henry Rembert

Henry Rembert — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:09:00 +0000

This is totally Trek biased. A phaser cant beat a light saber, how many times have we seen Jedi deflect energy weapons with their sabers? What about Star Destroyers Vs. the Enterprise? How can the Borg cube withstand one shot from the Death Star?

By: James Gates

James Gates — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:55:00 +0000

I agree with several of your points especially that the time frame is vastly different. Think of how powerful the federation might be if they had a couple millennia to advance. Plus in Trek the shields were developed very early on to be impervious to lasers of any kind, that’s why phasers were developed. So I don’t think it would make much of a difference how much power slave 1 has… the warheads would be pretty comparable to torpedoes though.

By: James Gates

James Gates — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:47:00 +0000

um, no it’s not, look at the power output of the slave 1 vs the enterprise. it’s saying the slave 1 has better firepower and speed.

By: Ian Emrys Holdsworth

Ian Emrys Holdsworth — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:35:00 +0000

While lightsabers are undoubtedly one of the coolest weapons ever imagined, blasters are equipped (for the most part) with a “stun” setting & have the ability to destroy heavy masonry (just watch the escape from Mos Eisly in New Hope & see what kind of damage Hans DL-44 was doing to the architecture), which makes them a far more fair comparison for personal weaponry. They may not be equipped with a disintegrate setting, but that’s only relevant if you’re going for an espionage approach & don’t want to leave evidence behind of your murderous activities, other than that, dead is dead. That said, a phaser probably has better longevity as Hans blaster only held enough power for 25 shots (according to the RPG).
For the fighters & vehicles, the TIE may be more maneuverable, but it lacks shields & the target tracking systems of the tac-fighter, not to mention the fact that it is FTL-capable make it a clear winner in any engagement between the two. While the Feds may lack ground vehicles, transporter tech make APCs & the like irrelevant. Should have been a win for Trek there.
On a larger scale, since the Enterprise was the flagship of the federation, wouldn’t a more sensible SW analogue be the Executor, which is going to have even bigger numbers attached to it (apart from sublight speed)?
Finally, superluminal speed is a crucial factor. Since Trek got more precise about travel times*, it was supposed to take Voyager 70 years to travel home, which would be a distance of at least half a galaxy, wheras a class 1 military hyperdrive in SW can cross their entire galaxy in under a week. Even if the SW galaxy is a dwarf galaxy one tenth the size of the Milky Way, that’s still 730 times faster than Trek. Wars vessels would be able to strike across the Federation (& every other Trek civilisation ever mentioned) before any reasonable response could be mobilised. As such, in a straight-up fight, the Empire would crush everything in the Trekverse (apart from Q, Dowds & other god-like beings) in short order.
*In the original series, the Eneterprise reached the edge of the galaxy, then in ST5, they reached the middle. I’m not sure of the cronology, but it wasn’t that many years & they were hardly going in a straight line for all that time.

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 10:14:00 +0000

Q would be slightly amused by the force then put all the Jedi in dresses except the girl Jedi who would be wearing Lederhosen perhaps. Darth would get pretty pink new armor and Yoda would be incapable of talking backwards anymore. Even if Q stayed out of it the Federations temporal agents would not allow any major losses against a star wars galaxy fleet and would do anything to win in order to survive themselves.

By: Rand

Rand — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:48:00 +0000

… You can’t compare the two – what the frell is wrong with you?
Star Trek is in our galaxy 200 to 300 years away, Star Wars was along time ago in a galaxy far far away…
Star Trek was a TV show – Star Wars is a movie!
Star Trek is submarine warfare – Starwars is a Jet fighter dog fight.
Star Trek had researched scientific principles, and theory – Starwars was a fantasy that was inspired by science.
Star Trek was from the 60′s – Starwars was from the 70′s
A much cooler geek war is ‘I Dream of Jeanie’ vs ‘Bewitched’

By: Kaz Alkilani

Kaz Alkilani — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 19:43:00 +0000

This is bullshit, Star Wars is for small children. The Borg would assimilate the shit out of the empire. End of.