| Subject: Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser |
Author:
capn hayes
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 00:45:48 09/11/02 Wed
Author Host/IP: NoHost/207.14.48.2
In reply to:
The Divine Shadow
's message, "Re: Turbolaser vs. Phaser" on 22:53:03 09/10/02 Tue
>>Getting hung up on the technobabble seems to cloud the
>>issue. As does getting hung up on the word laser.
>
>Truly you are an enlightened fellow.
>Hail to thee!
Thank you for your praise, now it is I, who am honored. I've tried also to explain this point about star wars lasers, but trekkies are so close minded. I just finishede re-reading the novelization of ROTJ and am now convinced more than ever that treklings have it wrong about a lot of things concerning Star Wars. The main problem is that because of all those stupid Star Trek novels that came out in the eighties and early ninties before the first ST:TNG TM came out in '91. Like "Mister Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" for example, is a bunch of conterdictory BS! Because of thar book and a bunch of others Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry and producer Rick Berman decided to set a few ground rules, to try and clear up all the contradictions with Star Trek. This is the basis for all this what is "cannon" BS, as far as Trek is concerned. But what Treklings don't realize is that just because Star Trerk is full of contradictory holes, doesn't mean that all the other Sci Fi universe's have made the same mistake. But they apply Star Trek's main flaws to Star Wars, mainly only when it seems only to make Star Trek seem better. Now I'm not a phyisics expert and cannot explain Star Wars technology in as realistic detail as some Star Trek fans would like, they have neither explained Trek technology any better, because the constantly fall back on only what's ahown on screen is real, while refusing to except any other source of information because Trek law says so. Now when George Lucas created Star Wars 30 years ago, I seriously doubt he was thinking "This stuff is going to be way tougher than Star Trek!" No he was creating something unique and special. the technological details took a back seat to the story telling. After the movies were made Star Wars was put in limbo until '87 when West End Games produced the Star Wars RPG, and in '91 when Timothy Zahn wrote the "Heir to the Empire" trilogy suddenly new books were being written and new source material intoduced. But unlike Star Trek there are no contradictions with star wars. Geaorge Lucas stated that nothing will be published unless Lucas Licensing okays it, so that no contradictions occur. So whether it is seen in the "Essentials Guide" series or a Dark Horse comic book, they are all considered offical. But because of Star Treks confused contradictory "Trek"nobabble and visual effects they claim to be able to know that Star Trek is so much better than Star Wars. Although I'm sure it was not intentional Star Wars out classes Star Trek in many ways. Both in real life and in fictional technology. Consider these points, in order for the ships to be able to make even interplanetary journeys as we know they can they would have to have sub-light engines at least as capable as anything in Star Trek. In order for them to be able to engineering marvels like the Death Star or the Executer or planet cities like Coruscant they must have engineering skills that surpass Starfleet's. Those are only some of the more obvious examples, I could go on and on. I know to Star Wars fans this is all abit redundant, but I grow tired of listening to Trekling trekno-nonsense. While they see warpdrive as some kind of advantage, simple sub-space jamming, or a gravity well projector could eliminate that tactic from being feasible. I would imagine thats why it is not employed in trek in the firt place. Its not like Star wars creaters are tring to out do star trek, they just do. But trekkies can't seem to except that little reality.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
