Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Topless Robot)   William Shatner fires a photon torpedo at Carrie Fisher   (toplessrobot.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, William Shatner, Carrie Fisher, photon torpedo  
•       •       •

38164 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Nov 2011 at 6:17 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



358 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-11-30 04:35:51 PM  
What a cock.
 
2011-11-30 04:40:24 PM  
LOL

"Uplift"

Can't wait for Fisher's response.
 
2011-11-30 04:50:22 PM  
Both of them have books coming out soon, don't they?
 
2011-11-30 04:53:00 PM  

2wolves: Both of them have books coming out soon, don't they?


Have books already out, should say. Shatner Rules and Shockaholic. I'm eager to read Fisher's (as it looks like a follow-up to Wishful Drinking). Shatner's--not so much.
 
2011-11-30 05:12:13 PM  
Is that a euphemism for ejaculate?
 
2011-11-30 05:18:40 PM  
He speaks the truth. Her little rant was LAME.
 
2011-11-30 05:31:46 PM  
Wouldn't have minded photon torpedoing her circa 1979.
 
2011-11-30 05:58:04 PM  

mikemoto: Wouldn't have minded photon torpedoing her circa 1979.


Nah, she was already beginning to bloat a little from whatever drugs she was taking (see the 1978 Holiday Special). 1977 for me, thanks.
 
2011-11-30 06:22:33 PM  
Where's Tom Baker when we need him?
 
2011-11-30 06:22:39 PM  
Bill Shatner is a jackass.

A giant, inflated, pompous ego.

He's frequently a visitor to Lexington, KY because he owns some horses on farms around here. A couple of years ago there was a shooting in the parking lot of a pretty upscale shopping center. The Lexington PD had the place cordoned off with police tape.

Shatner's car was in the taped off area since it was too close to the crime scene. He tried to pull the "Do you know who I am?" card with the police demanding to cross the police tape and get in his car and drive it out of the crime scene, apparently thinking he had enough star power to sidestep police procedure and criminal investigations.

The police told him, politely but firmly, to stand by and made no exceptions for him.

Not the only "Shatner is an asshole" story I've got either, he makes a total bombastic fool of himself with his inflated ego walking around this city.
 
2011-11-30 06:24:00 PM  
Meh, I think they are both smart, witty, and likeable. Their little feud smacks of opportunism and no real malice. Also, Firefly was better than either Star Trek or Star Wars.
 
2011-11-30 06:24:03 PM  
i291.photobucket.com
 
2011-11-30 06:24:20 PM  

James!: Is that a euphemism for ejaculate?


I was going to ask if TFH meant a 'money shot', but I see you have it covered. Carry on!
 
2011-11-30 06:24:34 PM  
Broken down has-been fight!!
 
2011-11-30 06:25:00 PM  
I'm am shocked SHOCKED I SAY to discover that some people on the internet are taking this "fight" seriously.
 
2011-11-30 06:26:29 PM  
I was hoping he would call her a KHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNT!
 
2011-11-30 06:26:42 PM  
well, I liked him in Twilight Zone...
 
2011-11-30 06:27:30 PM  

Silverstaff: Bill Shatner is a jackass....


You called him Bill. Burn.
 
2011-11-30 06:29:17 PM  
"I asked you to walk into the sun rise. There's hope there. You don't have any hope, sunset, because you were on Star Wars."

Ummm Billy, the very first movie was called "A New HOPE"
 
2011-11-30 06:29:50 PM  

Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]


*grins* Came for this.
 
2011-11-30 06:30:30 PM  
Up until then, I was completely unaware of this.

I wish I could go back in time.

dtdstudios.com
 
2011-11-30 06:31:15 PM  
Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise
 
2011-11-30 06:32:43 PM  

Surool: Broken down has-been fight!!


What you did there... I saw it.
 
2011-11-30 06:32:57 PM  

Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]


1) Star Destroyers do have shields
2) They don't use actual lasers
3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon as they could have easily done, especially with those Borg ships that let them beam in and out at will

/end geek rant
 
2011-11-30 06:33:17 PM  

BroVinny: mikemoto: Wouldn't have minded photon torpedoing her circa 1979.

Nah, she was already beginning to bloat a little from whatever drugs she was taking (see the 1978 Holiday Special). 1977 for me, thanks.


Because Leia in the bikini didn't happen till 83, I have NO idea what you people are talking about.
 
2011-11-30 06:33:19 PM  
Star Forge > Borg Cube > Death Star

Always.
 
2011-11-30 06:33:34 PM  
As much as I love Shatner, it's only when he realizes and acknowledges with a wink that he's the friggin' punchline. And as well-regarded as he may be as an orator, I don't think he's any match for Carrie Fisher in a battle of words. This is only going to get uglier.

You'd better believe I'm sticking around for the whole fight...
 
2011-11-30 06:36:17 PM  
www.farscapefantasy.com

Cool dude!
 
2011-11-30 06:36:39 PM  
It's like a pair of old hens clucking away.
 
2011-11-30 06:37:34 PM  
Dangit, I always have trouble looking at Carrie Fisher because as heavy, nip/tucked, prematurely jacked-up and surrounded by gay male idolators as she is, she's still Carrie Fisher.

/I would still hit it, because she looks like she'd be racy fun right from hello.

//And because SHE'S CARRIE FARKIN FISHER.
 
2011-11-30 06:37:46 PM  

BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise


Sorry, but the Ori got you all beat...
 
2011-11-30 06:38:41 PM  

Mugato: 3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon


The Klingon Star Empire states that bringing live tribbles onto any Klingon controlled territory is an act of war, and will be treated as such.

/Star Trek compendium c1985
 
2011-11-30 06:39:10 PM  

Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]


BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise


Mugato: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1) Star Destroyers do have shields
2) They don't use actual lasers
3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon as they could have easily done, especially with those Borg ships that let them beam in and out at will

/end geek rant



the Enterprise and the Star Trek Universe uses battleship tactics, Star wars and BSG use Aircraft carrier tactics,


how many battleships can one carrier destroy? lets ask the Japanese from the battle of midway.
 
2011-11-30 06:40:17 PM  

BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise


Trolling
 
2011-11-30 06:41:58 PM  
Shatner couldn't win a war of words with his own hairpiece, let alone with Carrie Fisher. I saw her in Wishful Drinking. She's witty, fast and smart as hell. He's screwed.

And - Mugatu - Voyager beamed a photon torpedo onto the deck of a borg cube in one of their episodes. I forget which.

/Would take bikini Leia over Shatner, too
// And Jeri Ryan over bikini Leia
 
2011-11-30 06:42:07 PM  

Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise

Mugato: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1) Star Destroyers do have shields
2) They don't use actual lasers
3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon as they could have easily done, especially with those Borg ships that let them beam in and out at will

/end geek rant


the Enterprise and the Star Trek Universe uses battleship tactics, Star wars and BSG use Aircraft carrier tactics,


how many battleships can one carrier destroy? lets ask the Japanese from the battle of midway.


ya i wonder if the old enterprise could cope with a tie bomber swarm...

also why don't they EVER transport a bomb or something onto another ship?
 
2011-11-30 06:43:45 PM  

Virulency: also why don't they EVER transport a bomb or something onto another ship?


You mean like the scene from episode "Starship mine" where Picard removes the control rods from the Trialithium Containment vessel just before the terrorists beam out with it, knowing that it would destroy their ship?
 
2011-11-30 06:43:52 PM  

mikemoto: Wouldn't have minded photon torpedoing her circa 1979.


I'd rather protein torpedo her...any version 1977-1984
 
2011-11-30 06:44:40 PM  
Hey Bill, in that episode where you drowned your wife, why were you so fat?

/think that's about the only time they ever pulled a line from a Family Guy episode after broadcast
 
2011-11-30 06:45:16 PM  

ActionJoe: BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise

Trolling


No love for Excalibur? Or the japanese anime it was copied from?
 
2011-11-30 06:45:31 PM  

Shadow Blasko: Virulency: also why don't they EVER transport a bomb or something onto another ship?

You mean like the scene from episode "Starship mine" where Picard removes the control rods from the Trialithium Containment vessel just before the terrorists beam out with it, knowing that it would destroy their ship?


And also "shields"... how do they work?
 
2011-11-30 06:45:32 PM  

James!: Is that a euphemism for ejaculate?


I never realized it until now but they need to make a sex tape. You can almost smell the burning nerd synapses from Want/Do Not Want, Surprised/Not Surprised and Star Trek/Star Wars conflictions already. Plus, we'd still be done in one.
 
2011-11-30 06:45:45 PM  

towatchoverme: And - Mugatu - Voyager beamed a photon torpedo onto the deck of a borg cube in one of their episodes. I forget which.


Well then all the did was elucidate the idiocy of the Enterprise -D.

The transporter is the worst contrivance Trek ever came up with and it's all because they couldn't afford a shuttlecraft in the first season.
 
2011-11-30 06:47:55 PM  
In fairness, the idea that Star Wars ships and the like don't have shields is pretty easy conclusion to come to from watching the movies, because they're either never turned on or they never work. The characters pay lip service to the concept but even with all your shield energy focused behind you, you're still gonna get blown up in one burst from a tailgating asshole in a TIE fighter.

Even if we're allowing for weapons that make shields irrelevant, spacecraft regularly collide with each other with disastrous consequences.

So perhaps it should be amended:

Star destroyers don't have useful shields.
 
2011-11-30 06:47:57 PM  

Virulency: Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

also why don't they EVER transport a bomb or something onto another ship?


For a transporter to work the shields must be down. If the shields are down generally a single photon torpedo will do the trick.
Or they could just beam all the life-forms off the ship and capture it.
 
2011-11-30 06:48:01 PM  

Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise

Mugato: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1) Star Destroyers do have shields
2) They don't use actual lasers
3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon as they could have easily done, especially with those Borg ships that let them beam in and out at will

/end geek rant


the Enterprise and the Star Trek Universe uses battleship tactics, Star wars and BSG use Aircraft carrier tactics,


how many battleships can one carrier destroy? lets ask the Japanese from the battle of midway.


Not always. Aggressor-class Star Destroyers don't even have a star-fighter garrison.

/But, it's one of the few exceptions. Whatever.
 
2011-11-30 06:49:40 PM  
Shatner hits the mark with the plot comments. The first two were mediocre and then the Ewoks just flushed it down the drain.

However he would watch his mouth about the special effects. In Star Trek an alien is a human with a weird forehead growth. Also considering when they were made, SW's guys did some amazing work with the special effects. Turning drivebys with a machine gun into a laser strafing run and things like that.

/I know he's being humorous
 
2011-11-30 06:50:20 PM  

Spartapuss: James!: Is that a euphemism for ejaculate?

I never realized it until now but they need to make a sex tape. You can almost smell the burning nerd synapses from Want/Do Not Want, Surprised/Not Surprised and Star Trek/Star Wars conflictions already. Plus, we'd still be done in one.


That just might bring peace to the Middle East. I like your thinking.
 
2011-11-30 06:50:51 PM  

Mugato: Well then all the did was elucidate the idiocy of the Enterprise -D.


Borg Cube shields are variable threat indicative/enforcement.

It let the crew members through as they were not much to worry about (What's a few drones when we can sample more frequency shifts from their phasers and get our shields that much more effective) but I doubt you could beam a photon torpedo in.

It would not help anyway. In the Enterprise D timeline, the cubes were still amazingly redundant in capacity and ability. You could decimate one, and it would still be a very effective killing machine with better than 10,000 souls aboard.
 
2011-11-30 06:51:03 PM  

towatchoverme: // And Jeri Ryan over as bikini Leia


FTFY
FTFM

Hell FTF every male farker. You know you can imagine that.....
 
2011-11-30 06:51:37 PM  
Shatner - 1, Fisher - 0
 
2011-11-30 06:53:34 PM  
I do have to say, for an eighty year-old, he still has some guns.
 
2011-11-30 06:53:55 PM  
Not to mention retarded tech errors like hand aimed cannon on the MFalcon. "They are moving too fast!" Ya, really?
 
2011-11-30 06:54:20 PM  

Cid_Highwind: In fairness, the idea that Star Wars ships and the like don't have shields is pretty easy conclusion to come to from watching the movies, because they're either never turned on or they never work. The characters pay lip service to the concept but even with all your shield energy focused behind you, you're still gonna get blown up in one burst from a tailgating asshole in a TIE fighter.

Even if we're allowing for weapons that make shields irrelevant, spacecraft regularly collide with each other with disastrous consequences.

So perhaps it should be amended:

Star destroyers don't have useful shields.


It's the whole particle vs "ray" shield concept in Star Wars. Star War's made up physics system says that "ray" (anti laser) shields are really easy to generate. Particle shields (anti torpedo shields and the like) are not. So that is why against a Star Destroyer a fighter can dive in and strafe it. It fires its lasers from inside the ray shielding (since the shielding is projected out like a sphere). Whereas when you have something like a massive planetary shield array (Death Star II) you can generate a really powerful particle shield and keep the snub fighters out.

Also Imperial ships supposedly have shiat shielding since they focus more on offensive firepower. A New Republic Mon Cal or something with its massive amount of shielding might do better versus the Enterprise.

/of course it is all "my made up physics could kick your made up physic's ass"
 
2011-11-30 06:55:07 PM  
Fisher was/is great anytime she's on Craig Fergusons show and Shatners Raw Nerve has it's moments of greatness - though I suspect he's run out of friends and neighbors to interview . . .
Oh and this little bit? Pretty funny.
 
2011-11-30 06:59:45 PM  
Came for sexy pics of coked out 70's Carrie.
/I'll show myself out.
 
2011-11-30 07:03:15 PM  

Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise

Mugato: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1) Star Destroyers do have shields
2) They don't use actual lasers
3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon as they could have easily done, especially with those Borg ships that let them beam in and out at will

/end geek rant


the Enterprise and the Star Trek Universe uses battleship tactics, Star wars and BSG use Aircraft carrier tactics,


how many battleships can one carrier destroy? lets ask the Japanese from the battle of midway.


Um, zero?

Carriers, however, did a lot of sinking in that battle.
 
2011-11-30 07:04:17 PM  

Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise

Mugato: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1) Star Destroyers do have shields
2) They don't use actual lasers
3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon as they could have easily done, especially with those Borg ships that let them beam in and out at will

/end geek rant


the Enterprise and the Star Trek Universe uses battleship tactics, Star wars and BSG use Aircraft carrier tactics,


how many battleships can one carrier destroy? lets ask the Japanese from the battle of midway.


I know I'm being a history nerd in a thread full of sci-fi nerds, but there were no battleships sunk at Midway.
 
2011-11-30 07:05:44 PM  
Sigourney Weaver? I loved her in that movie!
I liked the parts where she repeated every single line that the computer responded with.
 
2011-11-30 07:06:43 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh:
how many battleships can one carrier destroy? lets ask the Japanese from the battle of midway.

Um, zero?

Carriers, however, did a lot of sinking in that battle.


*shakes fist*
 
2011-11-30 07:07:27 PM  

BlueJay206: Sigourney Weaver? I loved her in that movie!
I liked the parts where she repeated every single line that the computer responded with.


Ewe, that's just not right.
 
2011-11-30 07:08:38 PM  
Gotta love autocorrect.
 
2011-11-30 07:10:01 PM  

ha-ha-guy: The first two were mediocre and then the Ewoks just flushed it down the drain


Empire was better than any Trek films and there were at least three Trek films worse than the SW prequels.

He could also acknowledge that there wouldn't be a Star Trek after the animated series if SW didn't hit.
 
2011-11-30 07:12:43 PM  

toraque: Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise

Mugato: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1) Star Destroyers do have shields
2) They don't use actual lasers
3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon as they could have easily done, especially with those Borg ships that let them beam in and out at will

/end geek rant


the Enterprise and the Star Trek Universe uses battleship tactics, Star wars and BSG use Aircraft carrier tactics,


how many battleships can one carrier destroy? lets ask the Japanese from the battle of midway.

I know I'm being a history nerd in a thread full of sci-fi nerds, but there were no battleships sunk at Midway.


HOLY Bat'Leth! Now I gotta post ANOTHER oblig.

i291.photobucket.com

/not really
//flame on
 
2011-11-30 07:14:54 PM  
BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise

BSG > Ent > SD

Only because nBSG was somewhat realistic in what might remotely be possible with future tech (missiles, guns, projectiles, and the need for supply lines). ENT because it's science fiction and somewhat believable for ship that is harnessing the power equivalent of a sun to warp spacetime (super energy shielding, phase radiation weapons, ect).

A star destroyer was eye candy, and from everything we saw in Star wars seemed to just be a oversized troop transport. Freaking meteors were taking those slow, cumbersome things out for gods sake.
 
2011-11-30 07:14:54 PM  

Bagelox-99: Dangit, I always have trouble looking at Carrie Fisher because as heavy, nip/tucked, prematurely jacked-up and surrounded by gay male idolators as she is, she's still Carrie Fisher.

/I would still hit it, because she looks like she'd be racy fun right from hello.

//And because SHE'S CARRIE FARKIN FISHER.


Your newsletter, I wish to subscribe to it.
 
2011-11-30 07:16:36 PM  

Mugato: He could also acknowledge that there wouldn't be a Star Trek after the animated series if SW didn't hit.


Sort of disagree. Star Wars fast-tracked Trek's return, but I think Trek's loyal cadre of fans would've grown over time regardless (thanks to novels, conventions, VHS releases, etc.), until a revival was inevitable.

It's an odd stance you've chosen, considering your screen name.
 
2011-11-30 07:18:45 PM  

Mugato: ha-ha-guy: The first two were mediocre and then the Ewoks just flushed it down the drain

Empire was better than any Trek films and there were at least three Trek films worse than the SW prequels.

He could also acknowledge that there wouldn't be a Star Trek after the animated series if SW didn't hit.


Outside of the original movie and Nemesis, what's the third?
 
2011-11-30 07:20:42 PM  

simplicimus: Outside of the original movie and Nemesis, what's the third?


Insurrection?

/I liked it.
//Apparently, quite the minority there.
 
2011-11-30 07:21:40 PM  
How would a photon torpedo cause damage? Just light up the target? Now protons, that's where it's at.
 
2011-11-30 07:21:47 PM  
Kanemano:
the Enterprise and the Star Trek Universe uses battleship tactics, Star wars and BSG use Aircraft carrier tactics,


how many battleships can one carrier destroy? lets ask the Japanese from the battle of midway.


Problem with Trek is their power source and technology is so far beyond SW that it's not funny. Trek always went with the cinematic, but in reality they're at a level where it just be two ships sitting hundreds of kilometers away from each other trading blows on the magnitude of solar flairs.

But that's not interesting cinematography.

SW is really weird because they wanted it all ways. Hell, they had a indestructible battle station the size of a moon that could destroy planets, but a convenient exhaust port that couldn't be closed off in a emergency.

Why do you need fleets of small, CQC craft when you also posses the power of a star? Just widen out the beam and take out a fleet of battleships, let alone fighter craft...
 
2011-11-30 07:21:55 PM  
How much Viagra and Botox does it take to do that to a human face?
 
2011-11-30 07:21:58 PM  

simplicimus: Mugato: ha-ha-guy: The first two were mediocre and then the Ewoks just flushed it down the drain

Empire was better than any Trek films and there were at least three Trek films worse than the SW prequels.

He could also acknowledge that there wouldn't be a Star Trek after the animated series if SW didn't hit.

Outside of the original movie and Nemesis, what's the third?

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

directed by William Shatner

"Why does God need a starship?"
 
2011-11-30 07:21:58 PM  

toraque: Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise

Mugato: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1) Star Destroyers do have shields
2) They don't use actual lasers
3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon as they could have easily done, especially with those Borg ships that let them beam in and out at will

/end geek rant


the Enterprise and the Star Trek Universe uses battleship tactics, Star wars and BSG use Aircraft carrier tactics,


how many battleships can one carrier destroy? lets ask the Japanese from the battle of midway.

I know I'm being a history nerd in a thread full of sci-fi nerds, but there were no battleships sunk at Midway.


OK maybe the sinking of the Yamato would have been a better example of mighty one battleship vs. tens of small fighters.
 
2011-11-30 07:23:47 PM  

Shadow Blasko: simplicimus: Outside of the original movie and Nemesis, what's the third?

Insurrection?

/I liked it.
//Apparently, quite the minority there.


Hey, I like the save the whales movie, but the why does god need a starship not so much.
 
2011-11-30 07:23:48 PM  

Shadow Blasko: Insurrection?

/I liked it.
//Apparently, quite the minority there.


I actually enjoyed Insurrection too. The hammy performance from F. Murray Abraham was tremendous.
 
2011-11-30 07:24:10 PM  

BroVinny: Mugato: He could also acknowledge that there wouldn't be a Star Trek after the animated series if SW didn't hit.

Sort of disagree. Star Wars fast-tracked Trek's return, but I think Trek's loyal cadre of fans would've grown over time regardless (thanks to novels, conventions, VHS releases, etc.), until a revival was inevitable.

It's an odd stance you've chosen, considering your screen name.


Well, the thing is, there was a second Star Trek series in production circa 1977.

It was called Star Trek: Phase II. A live action series about a second Five Year Mission. The Enterprise has been refitted (and much more modern looking) and they had created some new characters.

When Star Wars became a hit, Phase II was re-tooled into Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The characters of Will Decker and Ilia were originally created for Phase II, as was Xon (a replacement Vulcan, since Leonard Nimoy didn't want to come back).

They had a half-season of episodes sketched out when it was cancelled, and they ended up using some of the more fleshed-out ones for a couple of TNG episodes during the late 80s Writers Guild Strike.

The TNG episodes The Child and Devil's Due were written originally for Star Trek: Phase II.

Star Trek as a movie franchise traces to the success of Star Wars, that would be a far more accurate statement.
 
2011-11-30 07:24:52 PM  

Mugato: towatchoverme: And - Mugatu - Voyager beamed a photon torpedo onto the deck of a borg cube in one of their episodes. I forget which.

Well then all the did was elucidate the idiocy of the Enterprise -D.

The transporter is the worst contrivance Trek ever came up with and it's all because they couldn't afford a shuttlecraft in the first season.


Yeah. And the dumbest part is always worried about being beamed into solid matter like rock. News flash genius: beaming your body into AIR will kill you just as fast as rock. Not to mention the fact that technically you're dying every time you beam somewhere. The thing that arrives at the other end is just a duplicate copy of you.
 
2011-11-30 07:27:08 PM  
Fisher's "rant" had to be heavily edited to make any sort of sense at all and was in addition still lame. Kirk, I mean, Shatner, delivers a perfectly good and amusing rant all in one take.
 
2011-11-30 07:29:33 PM  
I love Carrie and William. They are both has-beens, and they not only know it, they embrace it, with a subtle sense of humor that makes me all warm and fuzzy. Can't you see the humorous chemistry between these two?

Carrie and Bill ought to have a talk show together.
 
2011-11-30 07:30:07 PM  

Kanemano: toraque: Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise

Mugato: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1) Star Destroyers do have shields
2) They don't use actual lasers
3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon as they could have easily done, especially with those Borg ships that let them beam in and out at will

/end geek rant


the Enterprise and the Star Trek Universe uses battleship tactics, Star wars and BSG use Aircraft carrier tactics,


how many battleships can one carrier destroy? lets ask the Japanese from the battle of midway.

I know I'm being a history nerd in a thread full of sci-fi nerds, but there were no battleships sunk at Midway.

OK maybe the sinking of the Yamato would have been a better example of mighty one battleship vs. tens of small fighters.


Not really, as the Yamato was simply thrown at the enemy intending to sacrifice itself in a hopeless battle just to buy time in order to fortify the Japanese mainland. It didn't even carry enough fuel for the return trip.

The Battle of Taranto is probably the best historical match, as it was the first decisive air to ship engagement and heralded the rise of naval aviation over the battleship.

No ewoks were involved in either battle.
 
2011-11-30 07:30:50 PM  
Ouch, I saw Fisher at one of the roasts a few years ago and now she's unrecognizable. I didn't pick her for one to go down the tragic plastic surgery path.
 
2011-11-30 07:31:34 PM  

TyrantII: Kanemano:
the Enterprise and the Star Trek Universe uses battleship tactics, Star wars and BSG use Aircraft carrier tactics,


how many battleships can one carrier destroy? lets ask the Japanese from the battle of midway.

Problem with Trek is their power source and technology is so far beyond SW that it's not funny. Trek always went with the cinematic, but in reality they're at a level where it just be two ships sitting hundreds of kilometers away from each other trading blows on the magnitude of solar flairs.

But that's not interesting cinematography.

SW is really weird because they wanted it all ways. Hell, they had a indestructible battle station the size of a moon that could destroy planets, but a convenient exhaust port that couldn't be closed off in a emergency.

Why do you need fleets of small, CQC craft when you also posses the power of a star? Just widen out the beam and take out a fleet of battleships, let alone fighter craft...


I dont honestly recall any attempt to explain SW-ian physics in terms of tech level. At least not in the movies. They had huge exhaust ports on star destroyers, indicating some pretty serious fuel being burned, but then the deathstar just kind of wafted along with no external engines of any kind.

Star treks techology was just plain bat fark made up.And the horrible part is it just kept getting stupider. The Holo-deck was about the dumbest thing I have ever seen. I seem to recall an episode where they got trapped inside and the people outside couldnt turn it off because then the people inside would be gone forever.......Seems a little severe for a simple light effect. If you really can use the technology of a holodeck to disintegrate matter then shouldnt you make a portable version, stick some engines on the back and drill holes in the borg with it?

And plot.

They couldnt be different. SW was a story arc, a lame story arc, but still there was a farking point to what people were doing. 90% of star trek was typical serial episodic numbnuts. Introduce new alien race, or scientific problem, or on ship romance. Put it in front of a back drop of a new alien race, science problem, or romance and poof! you have an episode. Oh look theres a quantum hyper field destroying the environment of this planet full of simple agrarian hot chicks who have some social quirk that makes it possible for Kirk/ Ryker to sex them all up before solving the problem.
 
2011-11-30 07:32:24 PM  

fusillade762: Mugato: towatchoverme: And - Mugatu - Voyager beamed a photon torpedo onto the deck of a borg cube in one of their episodes. I forget which.

Well then all the did was elucidate the idiocy of the Enterprise -D.

The transporter is the worst contrivance Trek ever came up with and it's all because they couldn't afford a shuttlecraft in the first season.

Yeah. And the dumbest part is always worried about being beamed into solid matter like rock. News flash genius: beaming your body into AIR will kill you just as fast as rock. Not to mention the fact that technically you're dying every time you beam somewhere. The thing that arrives at the other end is just a duplicate copy of you.


Same with any kind of Stargate or wormhole kind of thing. Also in theory it should allow cloning. When you transport someone you have to beam along reassembly directions. So if someone dies, stuff the amount of matter needed to make them into a transporter (get a corpse or a dead monkey or two), beam that and your last set of reassembling instructions for the person somewhere. Oh look person X is now back.
 
2011-11-30 07:32:58 PM  

BroVinny: simplicimus: Mugato: ha-ha-guy: The first two were mediocre and then the Ewoks just flushed it down the drain

Empire was better than any Trek films and there were at least three Trek films worse than the SW prequels.

He could also acknowledge that there wouldn't be a Star Trek after the animated series if SW didn't hit.

Outside of the original movie and Nemesis, what's the third?

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier directed by William Shatner

"Why does God need a starship?"


Can you even imagine the logistics of pizza delivery on super bowl sunday when you are a diety who lives on a planetoid far from earth? It takes some subtle manipulation of the human soul to get nasa to launch a probe in your direction with some Dominoes on board.
 
2011-11-30 07:33:37 PM  

MagSeven: Came for sexy pics of coked out 70's Carrie.
/I'll show myself out.


they're too busy geeking out over the shields/no shields thing to worry about things like hot chicks..
 
2011-11-30 07:33:53 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-11-30 07:33:58 PM  

simplicimus: Outside of the original movie and Nemesis, what's the third?


Final Frontier, Insurrection and I dare you to find more plot holes in the entire prequel trilogy than were in Generations.
 
2011-11-30 07:34:03 PM  
Virulency:

ya i wonder if the old enterprise could cope with a tie bomber swarm...

also why don't they EVER transport a bomb or something onto another ship?


TNG CONUNDRUM covered that pretty well. The big E rolled right through an aliens races planetary fighters like a Juggernaut.

In Trek ships have energy shields and unless you know their shield frequency to compensate you can't transport anything through them. This sort of explains why trek is sometimes lose with "rescuing" people during battles where their shields are most likely up.
 
2011-11-30 07:34:03 PM  
How it should be solved ...

img820.imageshack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


/Someone else's submission in a Fark Photoshop content soon after I joined Fark.
//Those were great back then , weren't they?
///not a likely outcome
 
2011-11-30 07:35:36 PM  

archichris: I dont honestly recall any attempt to explain SW-ian physics in terms of tech level. At least not in the movies. They had huge exhaust ports on star destroyers, indicating some pretty serious fuel being burned, but then the deathstar just kind of wafted along with no external engines of any kind.


SW Tech never did have any kind of initial plans to be consistent. Lucas just wanted the best special effects and good lines. So he tossed in a bunch of words like shields, lasers, proton torpedos, etc for the characters to say. Then he filmed whatever looked cool.

Also SW suffers in that every official game, comic book, and novel is canon. So dozens of authors have gotten to further butcher the physics of SW over the past decades. People try to retcon it into something uniform, but it's pointless to a degree.
 
2011-11-30 07:35:55 PM  
Holy crap, I went back and watch Carrie's rant. First it's lame. And second, what the heck happened to her! She looks like crap!
 
2011-11-30 07:36:02 PM  
The real question is why dont Jedi Masters make a lightsaber that is just 16 of them attached together at the hilt, forming kind of a koosh ball of death and then fling it around with their minds........
 
2011-11-30 07:36:08 PM  

Tumunga: they're too busy geeking out over the shields/no shields thing to worry about things like hot chicks..



img844.imageshack.us

cheers
 
2011-11-30 07:37:22 PM  

ha-ha-guy: archichris: I dont honestly recall any attempt to explain SW-ian physics in terms of tech level. At least not in the movies. They had huge exhaust ports on star destroyers, indicating some pretty serious fuel being burned, but then the deathstar just kind of wafted along with no external engines of any kind.

SW Tech never did have any kind of initial plans to be consistent. Lucas just wanted the best special effects and good lines. So he tossed in a bunch of words like shields, lasers, proton torpedos, etc for the characters to say. Then he filmed whatever looked cool.

Also SW suffers in that every official game, comic book, and novel is canon. So dozens of authors have gotten to further butcher the physics of SW over the past decades. People try to retcon it into something uniform, but it's pointless to a degree.


They should have just paid the asking price and bought the inertia-less light drive from the outsiders.......

/too obscure?
 
2011-11-30 07:38:03 PM  
jb.org
 
2011-11-30 07:38:32 PM  
They should do it already so we can all go hysterically blind and deaf
 
2011-11-30 07:38:37 PM  

TyrantII: In Trek ships have energy shields and unless you know their shield frequency to compensate you can't transport anything through them


...but you can shoot matter through it if you know the frequency, when Soren got the Enterprise's shield frequency from Georgi's air filter.
 
2011-11-30 07:40:04 PM  

dstanley: [jb.org image 278x216]


Gee, that's inspired.
 
2011-11-30 07:40:23 PM  

archichris: inertia-less light drive from the outsiders


Is Niven ever obscure?
 
2011-11-30 07:40:58 PM  
I'll get the popcorn....
 
2011-11-30 07:42:05 PM  

BuckTurgidson: Tim Tebow>Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise


ftfy
 
2011-11-30 07:44:23 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com

BIATCH!!!! Wheres my Sammich???
 
2011-11-30 07:44:41 PM  
fusillade762:
Yeah. And the dumbest part is always worried about being beamed into solid matter like rock. News flash genius: beaming your body into AIR will kill you just as fast as rock. Not to mention the fact that technically you're dying every time you beam somewhere. The thing that arrives at the other end is just a duplicate copy of you.


Maybe. Quantum mechanics is funny. You're disassembled and reassembled on the quantum level, but since it's a exact 1:1 copy, is it not you? Did you really "die". Does it even matter?

I wouldn't step into one, but at that point it's almost beyond comprehension. The information is exactly the same, so it's not different in any way. Pretty sure quantum mechanics states that the original needs to be destroyed too, which means it's technically not a copy, but the original. Very weird stuff to think about.

As for rocks or air, you're not being into them as much as either using their elements as raw material to rephase yourself, or just pushing them out of the way.
 
2011-11-30 07:45:21 PM  

Mugato: simplicimus: Outside of the original movie and Nemesis, what's the third?

Final Frontier, Insurrection and I dare you to find more plot holes in the entire prequel trilogy than were in Generations.


Well, the Force seems to have limitations that are not explained, or else it just comes and goes depending on the plot.
It takes Anakin a while to remember he has a mother.
Age difference between Anakin and Padme.
 
2011-11-30 07:46:24 PM  

HoneyDog: Holy crap, I went back and watch Carrie's rant. First it's lame. And second, what the heck happened to her! She looks like crap!


Too much:
*drinking
*drugs
*ECT
*life
*Paul Simon
 
2011-11-30 07:47:19 PM  

BroVinny: HoneyDog: Holy crap, I went back and watch Carrie's rant. First it's lame. And second, what the heck happened to her! She looks like crap!

Too much:
*drinking
*drugs
*ECT
*life
*Paul Simon


And:
*plastic surgery
 
2011-11-30 07:47:29 PM  
Jeez, that balding, pudgy old canadian jew would fire his torpedo at anything

cdn.videosift.com

and he would enjoy it.
 
2011-11-30 07:47:53 PM  

video man: Star Forge > Borg Cube > Death Star

Always.



images3.wikia.nocookie.net

Forgetting something?
 
2011-11-30 07:50:48 PM  
archichris:

Star treks techology was just plain bat fark made up.And the horrible part is it just kept getting stupider. The Holo-deck was about the dumbest thing I have ever seen. I seem to recall an episode where they got trapped inside and the people outside couldnt turn it off because then the people inside would be gone forever.......Seems a little severe for a simple light effect. If you really can use the technology of a holodeck to disintegrate matter then shouldnt you make a portable version, stick some engines on the back and drill holes in the borg with it?


not sure on the episode, but the holodeck was explained as forcefields and photons of light, with the occasional replicator crap thrown in. It had computer safety against doing something to injure a person, so maybe they were turned off?

The holodeck was cool be very quickly became a crutch for poor story telling and cheap seasons. I'd say practically 1/3 of Voy episodes used it in some way, on a ship that was always talking about the need to ration "Energy". Yeah, who cares about food and materials you need to replicate, everyone gets holodeck R&R!

Between the holodeck use and Janeway having to replicate a new shuttle for the one she lost, yet again, in the previous episode, Voyager wouldn't have made it a parsec.
 
2011-11-30 07:51:05 PM  
Been watching TOS on netflix

St better than sw definitely

furiousfanboys.com
 
2011-11-30 07:51:34 PM  

Arklop: video man: Star Forge > Borg Cube > Death Star

Always.


[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 250x427]

Forgetting something?


That looks like Skyrim's version of ED-E
 
2011-11-30 07:53:01 PM  

Arklop: video man: Star Forge > Borg Cube > Death Star

Always.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 250x427]

Forgetting something?



What is that, your Federation issue space penis gourd?
 
2011-11-30 07:53:52 PM  
BroVinny: HoneyDog: Holy crap, I went back and watch Carrie's rant. First it's lame. And second, what the heck happened to her! She looks like crap!

Too much:
*drinking
*drugs
*ECT
*life
*Paul Simon

And:
*plastic surgery


She needs to sue who ever did the plastic surgery, it's supposed to make you look better.......not worse. Hell, my 84 year old mom looks better than she does.
 
2011-11-30 07:54:56 PM  
fc04.deviantart.net

THIS. TRUMPS. EVERYTHING.
 
2011-11-30 07:55:00 PM  
blogs.suntimes.com
 
2011-11-30 07:55:31 PM  

Arklop: video man: Star Forge > Borg Cube > Death Star

Always.


[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 250x427]

Forgetting something?


Man if I could delete any one author from SW canon, Anderson wins hands down.

What's his name, the asshole who kicked off Chewie is a close second.
 
2011-11-30 07:57:05 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Man if I could delete any one author from SW canon, Anderson wins hands down.

What's his name, the asshole who kicked off Chewie is a close second.


R. A. Salvatore.

To be fair, he didn't act unilaterally. The powers-that-be that authorized the New Jedi Order story arc have some culpability as well.
 
2011-11-30 07:57:35 PM  

simplicimus: Well, the Force seems to have limitations that are not explained, or else it just comes and goes depending on the plot.
It takes Anakin a while to remember he has a mother.
Age difference between Anakin and Padme.


How are any of those plot holes? I don't even know what the second one means.

I'm talking about Picard having the ability to go anywhere at anytime he wants and decides to go back to 3 minutes before Soren destroys the planet with an octogenarian in tow instead of just going back to the moment he first met Soren and kicked his ass.

Or how a gas powered rocket can travel to a star roughly the same distance as our sun is to earth (8 light minutes away), destroy the star and make the planet dark in less than 20 seconds

Or why Soren needs to get back into the Nexus but can't just fly into it with a ship, the exact way he got into it in the first place.

Or why the Enterprise B is the closest ship to this event happening in the far reaches of space even though it's in earth's solar system.

or....nevermind, no one's still reading at this point.
 
2011-11-30 07:59:05 PM  

ha-ha-guy: fusillade762: Mugato: towatchoverme: And - Mugatu - Voyager beamed a photon torpedo onto the deck of a borg cube in one of their episodes. I forget which.

Well then all the did was elucidate the idiocy of the Enterprise -D.

The transporter is the worst contrivance Trek ever came up with and it's all because they couldn't afford a shuttlecraft in the first season.

Yeah. And the dumbest part is always worried about being beamed into solid matter like rock. News flash genius: beaming your body into AIR will kill you just as fast as rock. Not to mention the fact that technically you're dying every time you beam somewhere. The thing that arrives at the other end is just a duplicate copy of you.

Same with any kind of Stargate or wormhole kind of thing. Also in theory it should allow cloning. When you transport someone you have to beam along reassembly directions. So if someone dies, stuff the amount of matter needed to make them into a transporter (get a corpse or a dead monkey or two), beam that and your last set of reassembling instructions for the person somewhere. Oh look person X is now back.


They actually did a pretty interesting Outer Limits episode about this.

Think Like a Dinosaur (The Outer Limits) (new window)

Michael Burr is the only permanent human occupant of the Tuulen station, situated on a vast empty plain of the Moon. His companions are the Hanen, an emotionless dinosaur-like alien species who have developed a highly advanced means of long distance travel by 'jumping' through space. Achieved by creating an exact duplicate of the jumper, the copy is reconstituted at the destination point and the original destroyed, thus leaving only one.

Kamala Shastri is one of the test jumpers to arrive for travel to the planet Gend, but in the final stage of the transfer, something inexplicable happens. Confirmation of her duplicate's arrival is not received from Gend and the procedure is temporarily aborted. When it's later determined that Kamala's copy does indeed exist, Michael is called upon to 'balance the equation' and eliminate the original. Michael knows the human race is desperate to access a technology that would allow them to leave behind a planet now virtually destroyed by pollution and over-population. He also knows it is imperative that he avoid a protocol breach with the Hanen, but can he bring himself to kill Kamala?
 
2011-11-30 07:59:10 PM  
This whole thing should turn pretty epic if Bill and Carrie play it right.

So far they're both doing good!
 
2011-11-30 08:01:35 PM  
Vinny, it's "What does God need with a starship", not "why".

Yeesh.
 
2011-11-30 08:01:45 PM  

simplicimus: Mugato: simplicimus: Outside of the original movie and Nemesis, what's the third?

Final Frontier, Insurrection and I dare you to find more plot holes in the entire prequel trilogy than were in Generations.

Well, the Force seems to have limitations that are not explained, or else it just comes and goes depending on the plot.
It takes Anakin a while to remember he has a mother.
Age difference between Anakin and Padme.


In theory you can use the Force to crash a Star Destroyer or move a planet

Hyperspace seems to beat Warp speed since it gets you wherever as demanded by the plot.
/size matters not
 
2011-11-30 08:02:00 PM  

Le Bomb Suprize: Meh, I think they are both smart, witty, and likeable. Their little feud smacks of opportunism and no real malice. Also, Firefly was better than either Star Trek or Star Wars.


I agree!

/Circle gets a square.
 
2011-11-30 08:02:14 PM  
images3.wikia.nocookie.net

www.noisetosignal.org
 
2011-11-30 08:02:46 PM  
The Heart of Gold . Improbability canna be bullied.
 
2011-11-30 08:04:02 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Vinny, it's "What does God need with a starship", not "why".

Yeesh.


I bow to your superior skills. You'll have to forgive me--I've had sex about 1,000 times since I last watched that movie.

/almost every time, with a partner
 
2011-11-30 08:05:19 PM  

Fano: In theory you can use the Force to crash a Star Destroyer or move a planet


"size matters not" is not literal (at least that's what my gf says and I believe her) it's the kind of shiat a trainer says when someone's trying to lift weights. It's clear it took a lot of concentration for even Yoda to move that X-Wing.
 
2011-11-30 08:07:24 PM  
The best part of this thread is the manifestation of Little Brother Syndrome from BSG fans.
 
2011-11-30 08:07:32 PM  
i291.photobucket.com

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.
 
2011-11-30 08:07:48 PM  

simplicimus: It takes Anakin a while to remember he has a mother.



Anakin's father is Captain James T. Kirk.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2011-11-30 08:10:01 PM  

BroVinny: Jim from Saint Paul: Vinny, it's "What does God need with a starship", not "why".

Yeesh.

I bow to your superior skills. You'll have to forgive me--I've had sex about 1,000 times since I last watched that movie.

/almost every time, with a partner


Liar!
 
2011-11-30 08:10:11 PM  
Fisher's clearly insane now but I degress. In regard to Star Wars and Trek, Shatner couldn't hold her jockstrap. Shatner shoulda woulda could've been a Jenny Craig spokesperson when Empire hit the big screen. He fell flat after the kick ass. Fat and bald he went on to cement his legacy in many Colombo episodes. That no talent hack deserves billionaire status less then Zuckerberg or dare I say 50 cent?
 
2011-11-30 08:11:41 PM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.


You sound serious. I am taking you seriously.
I am taking the hypothetic space battle serious too.
This is serious!
 
2011-11-30 08:11:41 PM  

Kanemano: the Enterprise and the Star Trek Universe uses battleship tactics, Star wars and BSG use Aircraft carrier tactics,


Not really. BSG was a ship of the line. Same with a Star Destroyer. Sure they deploy flying elements but both are meant to take a beating and fight in close quarters.
 
2011-11-30 08:13:13 PM  

ununcle: Fisher's clearly insane now but I degress


I've met her and she might be a little "off" because of her pharmaceutical past but she's very bright and very funny and self deprecating as opposed to being a pompous dick like Shatner.

/loves Trek, loves Shatner but he's a pompous dick
 
2011-11-30 08:13:59 PM  

badLogic: Virulency: Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

also why don't they EVER transport a bomb or something onto another ship?

For a transporter to work the shields must be down. If the shields are down generally a single photon torpedo will do the trick.
Or they could just beam all the life-forms off the ship and capture it.


Uhhh... No.

I'm pretty sure the Enterprise cannot hold 37,085 people. Last I checked, the Enterprise D was made to hold about 1,014 people.
 
2011-11-30 08:14:30 PM  

dstanley: [jb.org image 278x216]


+1
 
2011-11-30 08:14:40 PM  

BroVinny: [fc04.deviantart.net image 640x400]

THIS. TRUMPS. EVERYTHING.


Came here to say this ;)
 
2011-11-30 08:16:40 PM  

simplicimus: Outside of the original movie and Nemesis, what's the third?


The third is most of the other ones.
 
2011-11-30 08:16:52 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Also SW suffers in that every official game, comic book, and novel is canon. So dozens of authors have gotten to further butcher the physics of SW over the past decades. People try to retcon it into something uniform, but it's pointless to a degree.


Nope. Lucas has stated that certain books, games, and comic books are not canon and he will ignore them at will when developing new projects.

/as he did with the god awful prequels
 
2011-11-30 08:17:01 PM  
Shatner: records HAS BEEN
Fisher: Appears in weight loss commercials

/do the math
 
2011-11-30 08:17:08 PM  

Mugato: ununcle: Fisher's clearly insane now but I degress

I've met her and she might be a little "off" because of her pharmaceutical past but she's very bright and very funny and self deprecating as opposed to being a pompous dick like Shatner.

/loves Trek, loves Shatner but he's a pompous dick


Hug time!

startrekparodies.com
 
2011-11-30 08:17:28 PM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source


Not those damn asteroid calculations again. That's Saxtonite logic if there ever was any.

It got worse when that wanker Saxton went from just arguing about the length of Super Star Destroyers to actually co-writing a few SW books and inserting his opinions. Thus, by using the SW canon rules, fanboys could come back and say the numbers clearly made Star Wars win. . .because the books they were citing were had fanboy authors that put in numbers so far over-the-top that it became a joke.

I did my time in the trenches in the old "Imperial Star Destroyer vs. Galaxy Class Starship" near-infinite usenet threads back in the mid-to-late 90's. That was an infinite well of nerdrage I never want to see again.
 
2011-11-30 08:19:36 PM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.


Did anyone else scream... NERD?
 
2011-11-30 08:20:11 PM  
startrekparodies.com

Looks like he's licking giant rat anus.
 
2011-11-30 08:21:19 PM  

WeenerGord: [startrekparodies.com image 160x128]

Looks like he's licking giant rat anus.


It's a Mugato.
 
2011-11-30 08:21:23 PM  

Gonzee: You sound serious. I am taking you seriously.
I am taking the hypothetic space battle serious too.
This is serious!


www.roflcat.com
 
2011-11-30 08:21:27 PM  

bravian: ha-ha-guy: Also SW suffers in that every official game, comic book, and novel is canon. So dozens of authors have gotten to further butcher the physics of SW over the past decades. People try to retcon it into something uniform, but it's pointless to a degree.

Nope. Lucas has stated that certain books, games, and comic books are not canon and he will ignore them at will when developing new projects.

/as he did with the god awful prequels


There are several "levels" of canon. Anything in the movies or modern TV shows trumps anything in the books. The books trump the toys and radio plays. The toys and radio plays trump the old (pre-90s) cartoons and comic books. And if George says it is no longer canon, then it is no longer canon no matter where it came from.

Trek has no such strict controls. Books go all willy-nilly and run off into Starfleet Battles universe sometimes, or they just ignore other books entirely. They have rules that must be followed, but every Trek book is considered non-canon unless you want to consider it canon, in which case it's canon until something comes along to retcon it.
 
2011-11-30 08:22:25 PM  

BroVinny: ha-ha-guy: Man if I could delete any one author from SW canon, Anderson wins hands down.

What's his name, the asshole who kicked off Chewie is a close second.

R. A. Salvatore.

To be fair, he didn't act unilaterally. The powers-that-be that authorized the New Jedi Order story arc have some culpability as well.


All I remember from that arc is:

Jedi: Oh no these things are "immune" to the force. Oh no its armor is lightsaber proof!
Me: So grab that boulder over there with the force and beat its brains out. Jesus.
200 more pages of the Jedi acting stupid.
Me: You know for all his faults, Vader would have ended this invasion long ago.

/I swear the Vong were created so that Zahn's "furry little lizard that repels the force" idea wasn't the worst abuse of the Force in the books
 
2011-11-30 08:25:06 PM  

Who farking cares?



he's senile
 
2011-11-30 08:25:53 PM  

BroVinny: WeenerGord: [startrekparodies.com image 160x128]

Looks like he's licking giant rat anus.

It's a Mugato.


OK so he's licking giant Mugato anus. How old are you? Do you think you can teach your mother how to suck eggs, boy? I saw them when they came out. farkin joke police, messn up my jokes with obviousities, sheesh...
 
2011-11-30 08:26:43 PM  

bravian: ha-ha-guy: Also SW suffers in that every official game, comic book, and novel is canon. So dozens of authors have gotten to further butcher the physics of SW over the past decades. People try to retcon it into something uniform, but it's pointless to a degree.

Nope. Lucas has stated that certain books, games, and comic books are not canon and he will ignore them at will when developing new projects.

/as he did with the god awful prequels


Uh, do you know what the fark you are talking about?

Star Wars has a very elaborate canon system.

Only a tiny number of things are completely non canon, and they are almost always marked by the "Infinities" logo, such as some comic books that gave "what if" scenarios if something in the movies went a different way (like if Luke died on Hoth, or if Leia used the Thermal Detonator on Jabba)

The vast majority of Star Wars material is at the "C" level of canon, for continuity. Every random book out there, every random comic book is almost certainly at this level. The only things higher are projects he personally worked on (the movies, that godawful Clone Wars series I really wish they'd cancel immediately). The things that are lower "S" canon (for Secondary) are things that couldn't fit as a whole but individual plot or setting elements might be salvageable.

Yes, George Lucas can override any of it, but the can even override his own stuff and make Expanded Universe authors fret as they try to retcon it all to make sense (like implying the Republic is ~25,000 years old in Star Wars by saying the Jedi defended the Republic for "over 1000 generations" while Palpatine in Episode I said the Republic was only 1000 years old. Retcon: The Republic is over 25,000 years old, but went through a major reorganization 1000 years ago and was legally/technically a different government).

He obviously uses stuff from the Expanded Universe materials. The name Coruscant for the capital world of the Republic & Empire was from the Thrawn Trilogy novels by Timothy Zahn. Lucas originally wanted to call that planet Jhrantor, as a homage to Trantor from Asimov's works, but he decided to go with what the novelists had already done. He has also vetoed things from novels that he wouldn't allow. In those Thrawn Trilogy novels, an insane clone of Obi Wan Kenobi was going to appear as a villain, but Lucas nixed it and it was replaced with an insane clone of an obscure relatively similar Jedi Master.
 
2011-11-30 08:27:03 PM  

Mugato: ununcle: Fisher's clearly insane now but I degress

I've met her and she might be a little "off" because of her pharmaceutical past but she's very bright and very funny and self deprecating as opposed to being a pompous dick like Shatner.

/loves Trek, loves Shatner but he's a pompous dick


I disagree. Everything Shatner does now is poking fun at himself and his over the top image. That's why he has to show his "muscle" but let on that he is old and fat. Maybe that does not resonate with you, but that is what he is doing. He purposefully cultivates the "dick" image for the comedic aspects, but I guess not everyone gets it.
 
2011-11-30 08:28:25 PM  

WeenerGord: OK so he's licking giant Mugato anus. How old are you? Do you think you can teach your mother how to suck eggs, boy? I saw them when they came out. farkin joke police, messn up my jokes with obviousities, sheesh...


So, what time does the nursing home take your computer away?
 
2011-11-30 08:30:36 PM  

BroVinny: WeenerGord: OK so he's licking giant Mugato anus. How old are you? Do you think you can teach your mother how to suck eggs, boy? I saw them when they came out. farkin joke police, messn up my jokes with obviousities, sheesh...

So, what time does the nursing home take your computer away?


Around the same time your mommy takes yours away.

/now get off mah lawn
 
2011-11-30 08:30:50 PM  

KarmicDisaster: I disagree. Everything Shatner does now is poking fun at himself and his over the top image. That's why he has to show his "muscle" but let on that he is old and fat. Maybe that does not resonate with you, but that is what he is doing. He purposefully cultivates the "dick" image for the comedic aspects, but I guess not everyone gets it.


I think beneath his rough, dickish exterior there's a thick-skinned dickish interior that nonetheless demands acceptance.
 
2011-11-30 08:30:59 PM  
My theory: Everything Shatner does is a psychological reaction to the childhood trauma of being named "Shatner".
 
2011-11-30 08:31:09 PM  

WeenerGord: simplicimus: It takes Anakin a while to remember he has a mother.


Anakin's father is Captain James T. Kirk.

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 180x140]


Well that ties the thread up nicely. I was afraid it was Sheridan or Sinclair.
 
2011-11-30 08:33:44 PM  
Warp drive is not possible...

Discuss
 
2011-11-30 08:33:50 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 220x211]
BIATCH!!!! Wheres my Sammich???



What? To me that looks more like:

"HHNNNNNHHHHUHHHNNNNHHHHH..."

ploop!

"GAaaaaaaahhhh...."
 
2011-11-30 08:35:04 PM  

BroVinny: KarmicDisaster: I disagree. Everything Shatner does now is poking fun at himself and his over the top image. That's why he has to show his "muscle" but let on that he is old and fat. Maybe that does not resonate with you, but that is what he is doing. He purposefully cultivates the "dick" image for the comedic aspects, but I guess not everyone gets it.

I think beneath his rough, dickish exterior there's a thick-skinned dickish interior that nonetheless demands acceptance.


So he's an actor?
 
2011-11-30 08:35:20 PM  

Silverstaff: The name Coruscant for the capital world of the Republic & Empire was from the Thrawn Trilogy novels by Timothy Zahn


Yeah, EU fanatics always trot that out and that's pretty much it as far as EU stuff in the prequels.
 
2011-11-30 08:36:23 PM  

simplicimus: So he's an actor?


Precisely.
 
2011-11-30 08:37:44 PM  

KarmicDisaster: He purposefully cultivates the "dick" image for the comedic aspects, but I guess not everyone gets it.


No, I get it. I always have. The movie Free Enterprise is a great example of that. But it only goes so far until his true dicktitude overrides all of his shtick.
 
2011-11-30 08:38:09 PM  
img36.imageshack.us

Until this thread I thought this show's depiction of Geek Culture was an over the top exaggeration. I stand corrected. It is spot on.
 
2011-11-30 08:39:31 PM  

Antedeus: Until this thread I thought this show's depiction of Geek Culture was an over the top exaggeration. I stand corrected. It is spot on.


Except the geeks on that show have sex.
 
2011-11-30 08:39:54 PM  
There is some powerful nerd in this thread right now.

I'm actually in awe.
 
2011-11-30 08:40:21 PM  

Mugato: Silverstaff: The name Coruscant for the capital world of the Republic & Empire was from the Thrawn Trilogy novels by Timothy Zahn

Yeah, EU fanatics always trot that out and that's pretty much it as far as EU stuff in the prequels.


Prequels would have been a million times better if he ran the scripts through Zahn first.

Lcas's problem is he can't stop shooting himself in the foot. Things like how Obi Wan is there when the twins are born and everyone decides to go into hiding, but in Empire he's shocked when Yoda mentions "Hey we have a plan B still". Or like how you can figure out of someone is force sensitive with a simple blood test. Yet no one from the Empire ever drops by to check the folks named Skywalker out on Tatooine. You think you'd keep an eye on that bloodline.
 
2011-11-30 08:40:44 PM  

Mugato: KarmicDisaster: He purposefully cultivates the "dick" image for the comedic aspects, but I guess not everyone gets it.

No, I get it. I always have. The movie Free Enterprise is a great example of that. But it only goes so far until his true dicktitude overrides all of his shtick.


So, you are saying that he pretends to be a dick to cover the fact that he really is a dick? Does that work?
 
2011-11-30 08:41:48 PM  

Gonzee: Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.

You sound serious. I am taking you seriously.
I am taking the hypothetic space battle serious too.
This is serious!


img221.imageshack.us
 
2011-11-30 08:43:01 PM  

Mugato: ununcle: Fisher's clearly insane now but I degress

I've met her and she might be a little "off" because of her pharmaceutical past but she's very bright and very funny and self deprecating as opposed to being a pompous dick like Shatner.

/loves Trek, loves Shatner but he's a pompous dick


Did you finish the rest of my post? It was something like you just said :)
 
2011-11-30 08:44:39 PM  

TheWhaleShark: There is some powerful nerd in this thread right now.

I'm actually in awe.


Hey, some people like their stories based in reality. Others like to imagine what could have been, what might be, what would be.
 
2011-11-30 08:46:14 PM  

Silverstaff: bravian: ha-ha-guy: Also SW suffers in that every official game, comic book, and novel is canon. So dozens of authors have gotten to further butcher the physics of SW over the past decades. People try to retcon it into something uniform, but it's pointless to a degree.

Nope. Lucas has stated that certain books, games, and comic books are not canon and he will ignore them at will when developing new projects.

/as he did with the god awful prequels

Uh, do you know what the fark you are talking about?

Star Wars has a very elaborate canon system.

Only a tiny number of things are completely non canon, and they are almost always marked by the "Infinities" logo, such as some comic books that gave "what if" scenarios if something in the movies went a different way (like if Luke died on Hoth, or if Leia used the Thermal Detonator on Jabba)

The vast majority of Star Wars material is at the "C" level of canon, for continuity. Every random book out there, every random comic book is almost certainly at this level. The only things higher are projects he personally worked on (the movies, that godawful Clone Wars series I really wish they'd cancel immediately). The things that are lower "S" canon (for Secondary) are things that couldn't fit as a whole but individual plot or setting elements might be salvageable.

Yes, George Lucas can override any of it, but the can even override his own stuff and make Expanded Universe authors fret as they try to retcon it all to make sense (like implying the Republic is ~25,000 years old in Star Wars by saying the Jedi defended the Republic for "over 1000 generations" while Palpatine in Episode I said the Republic was only 1000 years old. Retcon: The Republic is over 25,000 years old, but went through a major reorganization 1000 years ago and was legally/technically a different government).

He obviously uses stuff from the Expanded Universe materials. The name Coruscant for the capital world of the Republic & Empire was from the Thrawn Trilogy novels by Timothy Zahn. Lucas originally wanted to call that planet Jhrantor, as a homage to Trantor from Asimov's works, but he decided to go with what the novelists had already done. He has also vetoed things from novels that he wouldn't allow. In those Thrawn Trilogy novels, an insane clone of Obi Wan Kenobi was going to appear as a villain, but Lucas nixed it and it was replaced with an insane clone of an obscure relatively similar Jedi Master.


Do you talk to your girlfriend with that mouth?
 
2011-11-30 08:50:59 PM  

BroVinny: Antedeus: Until this thread I thought this show's depiction of Geek Culture was an over the top exaggeration. I stand corrected. It is spot on.

Except the geeks on that show have sex.


You'd be surprised at how many geek girls there are.
 
2011-11-30 08:51:25 PM  
Time for nerdy hotties....

www.demotivationalposters.org
chztdwtease.files.wordpress.com
chztdwtease.files.wordpress.com
t3.gstatic.com
 
2011-11-30 08:52:07 PM  
I just looked at the direction this thread, and my wife just said there will be no sex tonight. You guys are a bunch of c@ck blocking droids in here.

Here is a quick bit of trivia, Stars was set a long time ago, and Star Trek is in the future.

They ain't ever going gonna meet.

Now I'm going back to beg and grovel to my wife.
 
2011-11-30 08:53:47 PM  

ha-ha-guy: t in Empire he's shocked when Yoda mentions "Hey we have a plan B still"


His being shocked must have been in a delated scene I didn't see. He seemed to know all about it when pressed later.

ha-ha-guy: Yet no one from the Empire ever drops by to check the folks named Skywalker out on Tatooine


They had no reason to believe there were any Skywalker kids.
 
2011-11-30 08:54:19 PM  

Mugato: You'd be surprised at how many geek girls there are.


Well, okay, I exaggerate for humorous effect. Shoot me now! Shoot me now!

www.johnpiscitello.com
 
2011-11-30 08:56:54 PM  

RadicalMiddle: I just looked at the direction this thread, and my wife just said there will be no sex tonight. You guys are a bunch of c@ck blocking droids in here.

Here is a quick bit of trivia, Stars was set a long time ago, and Star Trek is in the future.

They ain't ever going gonna meet.

Now I'm going back to beg and grovel to my wife.


BullShiat!!!! it's simple directive:

img96.imageshack.us

Grow a pair and put your AT AT in her turbo laser confinement system.
 
2011-11-30 08:58:12 PM  

RadicalMiddle: Now I'm going back to beg and grovel to my wife.


Yeah, and we're the sad ones.

/going to have plenty of sex with my Terran gf tonight
//finds people who are even more obsessed with guys throwing balls around higher on the pathetic scale
 
2011-11-30 09:00:23 PM  

toraque: Kanemano: toraque: Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise

Mugato: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1) Star Destroyers do have shields
2) They don't use actual lasers
3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon as they could have easily done, especially with those Borg ships that let them beam in and out at will

/end geek rant


the Enterprise and the Star Trek Universe uses battleship tactics, Star wars and BSG use Aircraft carrier tactics,


how many battleships can one carrier destroy? lets ask the Japanese from the battle of midway.

I know I'm being a history nerd in a thread full of sci-fi nerds, but there were no battleships sunk at Midway.

OK maybe the sinking of the Yamato would have been a better example of mighty one battleship vs. tens of small fighters.

Not really, as the Yamato was simply thrown at the enemy intending to sacrifice itself in a hopeless battle just to buy time in order to fortify the Japanese mainland. It didn't even carry enough fuel for the return trip.

The Battle of Taranto is probably the best historical match, as it was the first decisive air to ship engagement and heralded the rise of naval aviation over the battleship.

No ewoks were involved in either battle.


Taranto was first but the targets, as at Pearl Harbor, were anchored. Sitting ducks.
A more convincing case for the twilight of the big gun navy was either the sinking of the Repulse and Prince of Wales off Malaya or the sinking of the Musashi at Leyte Gulf. They were fully armed and crewed and at full speed in fairly open seas. They merely lacked air cover.
 
2011-11-30 09:03:00 PM  

Mugato: ha-ha-guy: t in Empire he's shocked when Yoda mentions "Hey we have a plan B still"

His being shocked must have been in a delated scene I didn't see. He seemed to know all about it when pressed later.

ha-ha-guy: Yet no one from the Empire ever drops by to check the folks named Skywalker out on Tatooine

They had no reason to believe there were any Skywalker kids.


Obi Wan: "That boy is our only hope."
Yoda: "No there is one other."

That sounds like Ben managed to totally forgot about Leia or was really senile in the Jedi afterlife since 900 year old Yoda needs to remind him he was there for the birth of Leia.

So lets say you have a Luke Skywalker living with the Lars family. The Lars family of course that Shmi married into and on the home planet of Anakin Skywalker. You're the Empire and you don't look at that in the least? Worst Homeland Security Department ever. You'd think some droid that was processing census data would have lit up like a Xmas tree when that one came up.
 
2011-11-30 09:03:28 PM  

RadicalMiddle: Here is a quick bit of trivia, Stars was set a long time ago, and Star Trek is in the future.


B-b-but time travel!

Give me an X-wing, and a rugged Astromech droid sidekick.

Oh, and there is this game Gratuitious Space Battles that has a Star Trek and Star Wars mod. I hadn't played in a while, but this game prompted me to fire it back up. I do remember that the Empire SW mod was WAY overpowered. The creator was obviously biased, he did the ST one too, IIRC.
 
2011-11-30 09:03:54 PM  
www.martinbreton.com
 
2011-11-30 09:09:40 PM  
FIRST

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.


ACTUALLY,

1. It can be lazers or lasers, according to my sister, a lexicographer, can be either depending on localisation.

2. Agreed, Star Destroyer lazers can destroy SMALL asteroids, but are on a twenty-five minute cooldown. Star Trek Lasers can fire continuously.

3. Star Destroyers deflector shields can only deflect energy-based weapons. This means you could literally fire a rifle shot at a port hole and suck it's inhabitants into space. Star Trek shields deflect EVERYTHING.

4. Both can carry other ships.

5. Star Destroyers require a full crew to operate; a Galaxy-class Starship can fly solo. How exactly can an armada of shiatty Star Destroyers hold against a full fleet of Galaxy-class starships?

That's right, they couldn't.

Thread over.
 
2011-11-30 09:09:47 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Obi Wan: "That boy is our only hope."
Yoda: "No there is one other."

That sounds like Ben managed to totally forgot about Leia or was really senile in the Jedi afterlife since 900 year old Yoda needs to remind him he was there for the birth of Leia.


Obi-Wan knew this much about the female twin: she was taken to Alderaan.

When he later tried to go to Alderaan, he was met with the debris of the destroyed planet. He had no reason to suspect that the girl didn't perish with the planet.

Of course, that's one workaround. Continuity became a convoluted mess when the prequels came out.
 
2011-11-30 09:13:11 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Grow a pair and put your AT AT in her turbo laser confinement system.


I've bullseyed her womp rat.
 
2011-11-30 09:13:11 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Obi Wan: "That boy is our only hope."
Yoda: "No there is one other."

That sounds like Ben managed to totally forgot about Leia or was really senile in the Jedi afterlife since 900 year old Yoda needs to remind him he was there for the birth of Leia.


Or that Obi Wan spent the last 20 years looking after Luke hoping he'd be the one, writing Leia off as a Princess that according to Luke's vision is probably dead. Yoda maintains that she's still a viable candidate.

ha-ha-guy: So lets say you have a Luke Skywalker living with the Lars family. The Lars family of course that Shmi married into and on the home planet of Anakin Skywalker. You're the Empire and you don't look at that in the least? Worst Homeland Security Department ever. You'd think some droid that was processing census data would have lit up like a Xmas tree when that one came up.


Padme was made to look like she was preggers when she died. It's a big galaxy and Tattoine is obviously known as a planet that doesn't keep records. The Emperor didn't sense that Anakin had a kid until Luke first used the Force.
 
2011-11-30 09:14:34 PM  

BroVinny: ha-ha-guy: Obi Wan: "That boy is our only hope."
Yoda: "No there is one other."

That sounds like Ben managed to totally forgot about Leia or was really senile in the Jedi afterlife since 900 year old Yoda needs to remind him he was there for the birth of Leia.


Obi-Wan knew this much about the female twin: she was taken to Alderaan.

When he later tried to go to Alderaan, he was met with the debris of the destroyed planet. He had no reason to suspect that the girl didn't perish with the planet.

Of course, that's one workaround. Continuity became a convoluted mess when the prequels came out.


That's definitely the best work around. Of course it gets weird in that Obi Wan's next comment isn't in the vein of "Oh she survived, awesome" or "How did she survive?". I figure it's like the parsec thing or Vader being Luke's father. Lucas came up with it at the last minute and shoved it, then came up with some weird way to rationalize it.
 
2011-11-30 09:14:55 PM  
I read this thread.
Then I looked at the wedding ring on my finger.
And I realized that I won.
 
2011-11-30 09:16:35 PM  

GreenAdder: I read this thread.
Then I looked at the wedding ring on my finger.
And I realized that I won.


Says you.
 
2011-11-30 09:19:40 PM  

GreenAdder: I read this thread.
Then I looked at the wedding ring on my finger.
And I realized that I won.


So many people with the same jibes about people bullshiatting about sci-fi not getting laid, going out of their way to convince everyone that they are. Are you a THX theater? Because you're projecting like a motherfarker.
 
2011-11-30 09:20:19 PM  

BroVinny: [fc04.deviantart.net image 640x400]

THIS. TRUMPS. EVERYTHING.


29.media.tumblr.com

/oblig
 
2011-11-30 09:21:21 PM  

ha-ha-guy:
So lets say you have a Luke Skywalker living with the Lars family. The Lars family of course that Shmi married into and on the home planet of Anakin Skywalker. You're the Empire and you don't look at that in the least? Worst Homeland Security Department ever. You'd think some droid that was processing census data would have lit up like a Xmas tree when that one came up.


You really think an out-of-the-way dirthole like Tatooine is going to have detailed census data reported back to the Empire? I always figured Obi Wan put Luke on Tatooine for 2 reasons:

1. It's so backwater and undeveloped that the Empire will not pay too close attention to who was there. Heck, Obi Wan himself lived in a shack there for almost 20 years as the Empire tried to hunt the Jedi to extinction, and never found him.

2. Tatooine is too tied to Anakin's memories of his childhood and his mother that the entire planet is like a painful memory to him, he would never go there. As literally the last place in the Galaxy that Vader would ever look, it would be the first place to hide.

Although, since before he met Obi-Wan, kept talking about wanting to transmit his application to the Imperial Naval Academy, I always wondered about the "what if" Luke actually applied. I would think the name "Skywalker" would flag pretty hard in Imperial systems and his application would be accepted immediately. In fact, some very helpful Stormtroopers would be there to escort him there.
 
2011-11-30 09:21:39 PM  
I love when people geeking out about this stuff say "thread over".
 
2011-11-30 09:21:48 PM  

Mugato: So many people with the same jibes about people bullshiatting about sci-fi not getting laid, going out of their way to convince everyone that they are. Are you a THX theater? Because you're projecting like a motherfarker.


You seem. . . tense. You know what would ease your tension?
 
2011-11-30 09:21:59 PM  
i6.photobucket.com

If you can't have the original, Adrianne Curry is available and will work just fine.
 
2011-11-30 09:22:04 PM  

ha-ha-guy: That's definitely the best work around. Of course it gets weird in that Obi Wan's next comment isn't in the vein of "Oh she survived, awesome" or "How did she survive?".


How do you know it wasn't? Yoda's "there is another" was the last line on the scene. We don't know what the two of them talked about after Luke flew off.
 
2011-11-30 09:24:25 PM  

BroVinny: You seem. . . tense. You know what would ease your tension?


A yummy frog.

images.wikia.com
 
2011-11-30 09:27:40 PM  

Drank Malk: ACTUALLY,

1. It can be lazers or lasers, according to my sister, a lexicographer, can be either depending on localisation.


Your sister is a terrible lexicographer.
"Laser" is an acronym, or at least derived from one. The S stands for "stimulated". The term may have evolved from L.A.S.E.R. into an actual word, but that doesn't mean that people can just replace letters willy-nilly because of "localisation" (a word that actually does sometimes use a z).
 
2011-11-30 09:29:12 PM  

Mugato: Silverstaff: The name Coruscant for the capital world of the Republic & Empire was from the Thrawn Trilogy novels by Timothy Zahn

Yeah, EU fanatics always trot that out and that's pretty much it as far as EU stuff in the prequels.


Here is a more comprehensive list: Link (new window)
 
2011-11-30 09:29:36 PM  

Silverstaff: ha-ha-guy:
So lets say you have a Luke Skywalker living with the Lars family. The Lars family of course that Shmi married into and on the home planet of Anakin Skywalker. You're the Empire and you don't look at that in the least? Worst Homeland Security Department ever. You'd think some droid that was processing census data would have lit up like a Xmas tree when that one came up.

You really think an out-of-the-way dirthole like Tatooine is going to have detailed census data reported back to the Empire? I always figured Obi Wan put Luke on Tatooine for 2 reasons:

1. It's so backwater and undeveloped that the Empire will not pay too close attention to who was there. Heck, Obi Wan himself lived in a shack there for almost 20 years as the Empire tried to hunt the Jedi to extinction, and never found him.

2. Tatooine is too tied to Anakin's memories of his childhood and his mother that the entire planet is like a painful memory to him, he would never go there. As literally the last place in the Galaxy that Vader would ever look, it would be the first place to hide.

Although, since before he met Obi-Wan, kept talking about wanting to transmit his application to the Imperial Naval Academy, I always wondered about the "what if" Luke actually applied. I would think the name "Skywalker" would flag pretty hard in Imperial systems and his application would be accepted immediately. In fact, some very helpful Stormtroopers would be there to escort him there.


I get Vader not wanting anything to ever do with Tatioone (likely why he doesn't go down with the search party for the droids. Or maybe his rebreather doesn't handle sand well). However the Emperor being the paranoid farker he is, you think he'd check up on things like that. Or just rubbed out the Lars family to clean up lose ends.

Regarding the academy and Skywalker, I guess the idea there is there was a reason Uncle Owen kept stalling that application. However you'd think Owen would have changed the kid's last name and just claimed him as a natural born or something. Keeping it Skywalker implies at some point he's cool with Luke finding out his heritage, maybe getting some training, and then doing something. Yet he badmouths Kenobi all the time.

Even weirder is in the prequels the big deal is that Anakin started training too old. So he couldn't become a Jedi Knight and slids over to the dark side instead. So after screwing that up, when handed a kid, what does Kenobi do? Figure "enh I'll wait till he is 18 or so and then start training him...". Seems weird.
 
2011-11-30 09:30:15 PM  
Bobcat Goldthwait on Star Wars fans (new window, NSFW language)
 
2011-11-30 09:36:11 PM  
The geek is strong in this thread. I'm surprised Wil hasn't shown up to bathe in all this geek juice.
 
2011-11-30 09:36:43 PM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.


Turbolasers? Does that mean the Death Star slapped a Type R sticker on it?

Besides, Genesis Torpedo.
Checkmate.

Yeah Han, that's no moon. It's now Risa II, and Riker is gonna christen it by doing Troi in the pooper in the dent that was once the turbo hyper laser typer r
 
2011-11-30 09:41:19 PM  

ha-ha-guy: However the Emperor being the paranoid farker he is, you think he'd check up on things like that. Or just rubbed out the Lars family to clean up lose ends.


Why would Palpatine know about the Lars? Unless he was a Metallica fan.

Even weirder is in the prequels the big deal is that Anakin started training too old. So he couldn't become a Jedi Knight and slids over to the dark side instead. So after screwing that up, when handed a kid, what does Kenobi do? Figure "enh I'll wait till he is 18 or so and then start training him...". Seems weird.

Obi Wan wasn't Luke's legal guardian. He had no control over when or if he was to be trained. In fact it seemed to not even occur to him that he had o drag Luke into it before he saw Leia's message. Even then, when Luke said he wanted to be a Jedi, Obi Wan had a definite "Oh shiat, not this again" look.
 
2011-11-30 09:43:56 PM  

Shadow Blasko: GreenAdder: I read this thread.
Then I looked at the wedding ring on my finger.
And I realized that I won.

Says you.


I met my wife at a D&D game.

We'll soon be teaching our girlfriend to play.

Who's winning now?
 
2011-11-30 09:45:35 PM  

archichris: ha-ha-guy: archichris: I dont honestly recall any attempt to explain SW-ian physics in terms of tech level. At least not in the movies. They had huge exhaust ports on star destroyers, indicating some pretty serious fuel being burned, but then the deathstar just kind of wafted along with no external engines of any kind.

SW Tech never did have any kind of initial plans to be consistent. Lucas just wanted the best special effects and good lines. So he tossed in a bunch of words like shields, lasers, proton torpedos, etc for the characters to say. Then he filmed whatever looked cool.

Also SW suffers in that every official game, comic book, and novel is canon. So dozens of authors have gotten to further butcher the physics of SW over the past decades. People try to retcon it into something uniform, but it's pointless to a degree.

They should have just paid the asking price and bought the inertia-less light drive from the outsiders.......

/too obscure?


Hell no. The kzinti got it first.
 
2011-11-30 09:53:51 PM  
Has Fark fallen so far as to be debating a biatchfest by two has-beens?
 
2011-11-30 10:02:54 PM  

RatMaster999: I met my wife at a D&D game. We'll soon be teaching our girlfriend to play. Who's winning now?



I see there is a nice picture of you, your wife and girlfriend on your profile. Which one did you marry, the black one or the white one?
 
2011-11-30 10:07:31 PM  

WeenerGord: I see there is a nice picture of you, your wife and girlfriend on your profile. Which one did you marry, the black one or the white one?


Oh, burn.
 
2011-11-30 10:07:58 PM  

WeenerGord: RatMaster999: I met my wife at a D&D game. We'll soon be teaching our girlfriend to play. Who's winning now?


I see there is a nice picture of you, your wife and girlfriend on your profile. Which one did you marry, the black one or the white one?


i.imgur.com
 
2011-11-30 10:08:27 PM  

stuffy: Has Fark fallen so far as to be debating a biatchfest by two has-beens?


As opposed to the Algonquin Roundtable it once was?
 
2011-11-30 10:13:42 PM  

Perducci: Drank Malk: ACTUALLY,

1. It can be lazers or lasers, according to my sister, a lexicographer, can be either depending on localisation.


Your sister is a terrible lexicographer.
"Laser" is an acronym, or at least derived from one. The S stands for "stimulated". The term may have evolved from L.A.S.E.R. into an actual word, but that doesn't mean that people can just replace letters willy-nilly because of "localisation" (a word that actually does sometimes use a z).



I think you just proved his point, ya pedant.
 
2011-11-30 10:13:42 PM  

archichris:
Star treks techology was just plain bat fark made up.And the horrible part is it just kept getting stupider. The Holo-deck was about the dumbest thing I have ever seen. I seem to recall an episode where they got trapped inside and the people outside couldnt turn it off because then the people inside would be gone forever.......Seems a little severe for a simple light effect. If you really can use the technology of a holodeck to disintegrate matter then shouldnt you make a portable version, stick some engines on the back and drill holes in the borg with it?

And plot.

They couldnt be different. SW was a story arc, a lame story arc, but still there was a farking point to what people were doing. 90% of star trek was typical serial episodic numbnuts. Introduce new alien race, or scientific problem, or on ship romance. Put it in front of a back drop of a new alien race, science problem, or romance and poof! you have an episode. Oh look theres a quantum hyper field destroying the environment of this planet full of simple agrarian hot chicks who have some social quirk that makes it possible for Kirk/ Ryker to sex them all up before solving the problem.



It doesn't matter what you say. It's really... pointless. The only thing you will never, EVER, be able to deny AND which TOTALLY negates any arguement you will ever make, are these words:

"Jar Jar Binks"

Star Trek wins.
 
2011-11-30 10:14:11 PM  

stuffy: Has Fark fallen so far as to be debating a biatchfest by two has-beens?


Dude, you should know better.

Also,WeenerGord, that burn was so sick, it's in an oxygen tent in the isolation ward.
 
2011-11-30 10:15:47 PM  

Colin O'Scopy: "Jar Jar Binks"


But. . .

Star Tre--. . .

I mean. . .

(BroVinny gives up)
 
2011-11-30 10:16:09 PM  

Colin O'Scopy: Star Trek wins.


Wesley Crusher.
 
2011-11-30 10:18:04 PM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source


Ah, Stardestroyer.net. The same people who try to judge power output of a weapon by the size of special effects fireballs in space.
 
2011-11-30 10:24:50 PM  
So there has been a fight going on between Skywalker and Dax?
 
2011-11-30 10:27:54 PM  

Mugato: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1) Star Destroyers do have shields
2) They don't use actual lasers
3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon as they could have easily done, especially with those Borg ships that let them beam in and out at will

/end geek rant


Also, wasn't Star Wars "a long time ago"? Star Trek is supposed to be several hundred years in the future.

Also:

www.founditemclothing.com
 
2011-11-30 10:28:03 PM  

ole prophet: So there has been a fight going on between Skywalker and Dax?


I think it's between Obi Wan and Spock's father.

/this thread = sexy time.
 
2011-11-30 10:32:06 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Also, wasn't Star Wars "a long time ago"? Star Trek is supposed to be several hundred years in the future.


Not only that, but Star Wars happens in another galaxy, while Star Trek largely confines itself to this one.

/aside: Does anyone else feel, as I do, that "midichlorians" were Lucas' way of trying to give purpose to mitochondria?
 
2011-11-30 10:35:53 PM  

real_headhoncho: The geek is strong in this thread. I'm surprised Wil hasn't shown up to bathe in all this geek juice.



Dirt-beards aren't allowed in ST-winning threads. That's why he's not here.
 
2011-11-30 10:36:43 PM  


mimg.ugo.com



FARKERS GET A LIFE
 
2011-11-30 10:38:51 PM  
images3.wikia.nocookie.net

Makes a black hole all parties cease to exist*. Shakes head in disappointment, vanishes.

*excepting The Doctor if present...
 
2011-11-30 10:40:24 PM  
Call me crazy, but...

Star Wars gave us this little gem:

images.wikia.com

And Star Trek gave us this one:

i333.photobucket.com

Personally, there's room for both in my little world.

/they almost make up for pieces of shiat like Eps I, II, III and Final Frontier, Insurrection and Genesis.
//almost
 
2011-11-30 10:41:24 PM  

zato_ichi: Colin O'Scopy: Star Trek wins.

Wesley Crusher.


Granted.

But Binks out-losers him. Which, if you look at it in a certain way, is another advantage for Wesley - he's a loser on such a scale it takes a supercomputer and crap Jamaican accent to out-loser Wesley.
 
2011-11-30 10:42:21 PM  
amd1433:

/they almost make up for pieces of shiat like Eps I, II, III and Final Frontier, Insurrection and Genesis.
//almost

Errr- NEMESIS, not Genesis. Though Nemesis really, REALLY wanted to be Wrath of Khan...
 
2011-11-30 10:43:35 PM  

BroVinny: Oh, burn.


GreenAdder: [i.imgur.com image 600x556]

zato_ichi: Also,WeenerGord, that burn was so sick, it's in an oxygen tent in the isolation ward.



Although I am understandably pleased to have at last succeeded in scoring mad props by burning some poor hapless dude on FARK, I feel some credit should go to Ratmaster999. I have just discovered that his wife was a nude bathing beauty in a real live Hollywood movie. Way to go dude!

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-11-30 10:49:29 PM  

Son of Thunder: BroVinny: You seem. . . tense. You know what would ease your tension?

A yummy frog.


images.wikia.com

Superintendant Praline: Now, this item, "Crunchy Frog". Am I to understand there's a real frog in here?
Company owner: Yes, a little one.
Superintendant Praline: What sort of frog?
Company owner: A dead frog.
Superintendant Praline: Is it cooked?
Company owner: No.
Superintendant Praline: What, a raw frog?!
Company owner: We use only the finest baby frogs, dew picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose.
Superintendant Praline: That's as may be - it's still a frog! Do you even take the bones out?
Company owner: If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy, would it?
 
2011-11-30 11:02:56 PM  

Colin O'Scopy: zato_ichi: Colin O'Scopy: Star Trek wins.

Wesley Crusher.

Granted.

But Binks out-losers him. Which, if you look at it in a certain way, is another advantage for Wesley - he's a loser on such a scale it takes a supercomputer and crap Jamaican accent to out-loser Wesley.


I tease.

I'm a fan of both, and I have to give the upper hand to Wesley on this one. Wesley was a promising character that got dealt a bad hand due to lazy writing and/or neglect/fan rejection. Jar Jar is just...bad. Like, terrible bad.

Star Trek episodes can get a pass on a lot of bad writing because of its episodic nature, sheer volume of material and rotation of talent.
Star Wars, however, is much more infrequent, and much more calculated. It gets less of a pass from me.
But, one of my earliest memories is bouncing to the Imperial March on vinyl played on my dads' Cerwin Vega floor speakers.
 
2011-11-30 11:05:22 PM  
This thread....

the nerd is strong with this one.
 
2011-11-30 11:08:23 PM  
OOOOOOOFFF
You want some ice for that BURN, Carrie?
 
2011-11-30 11:13:07 PM  

Surool: Son of Thunder: BroVinny: You seem. . . tense. You know what would ease your tension?

A yummy frog.

Superintendant Praline: Now, this item, "Crunchy Frog". Am I to understand there's a real frog in here?
Company owner: Yes, a little one.
Superintendant Praline: What sort of frog?
Company owner: A dead frog.
Superintendant Praline: Is it cooked?
Company owner: No.
Superintendant Praline: What, a raw frog?!
Company owner: We use only the finest baby frogs, dew picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose.
Superintendant Praline: That's as may be - it's still a frog! Do you even take the bones out?
Company owner: If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy, would it?


And a Python reference. The circle is now complete...

I used to work in a comic book shop about 12 years ago, so I'm really getting a kick out of these...
 
2011-11-30 11:17:03 PM  

zato_ichi: Star Trek episodes can get a pass on a lot of bad writing because of its episodic nature, sheer volume of material and rotation of talent.
Star Wars, however, is much more infrequent, and much more calculated. It gets less of a pass from me.


Yeah, because they churn out an episode every week for 30 years and 11 movies, sometimes more than one series at a time, it gets to make even less sense than a movie series. Maybe a better answer would have been to turn it down a notch on the sheer volume if they couldn't cut it. Like 5 seasons of TNG, 5 seasons of DS9 and 3 movies might have helped.
 
2011-11-30 11:17:34 PM  

zato_ichi: Colin O'Scopy: zato_ichi: Colin O'Scopy: Star Trek wins.

Wesley Crusher.

Granted.

But Binks out-losers him. Which, if you look at it in a certain way, is another advantage for Wesley - he's a loser on such a scale it takes a supercomputer and crap Jamaican accent to out-loser Wesley.

I tease.

I'm a fan of both, and I have to give the upper hand to Wesley on this one. Wesley was a promising character that got dealt a bad hand due to lazy writing and/or neglect/fan rejection. Jar Jar is just...bad. Like, terrible bad.

Star Trek episodes can get a pass on a lot of bad writing because of its episodic nature, sheer volume of material and rotation of talent.
Star Wars, however, is much more infrequent, and much more calculated. It gets less of a pass from me.
But, one of my earliest memories is bouncing to the Imperial March on vinyl played on my dads' Cerwin Vega floor speakers.



OH yeah, all this is entirely pointless if you look at it from, uh, REALITY! I'll agree with you, and you'll also notice I referred to Wesley instead of the actor who portrayed him.


/Wheaton, buy a real beard, please. You're perpetuating the geek-stereotype.
//...and a tan. PLEASE!
 
2011-11-30 11:19:26 PM  
This thread is useless without more slave leia pics:

images.wikia.com

pockettacoradio.com
www.evilmilk.com
 
2011-11-30 11:24:30 PM  

GreenAdder: Bobcat Goldthwait on Star Wars fans (new window, NSFW language)


Ha! The jokes on you. Bobcat sucks. I never watched the whole 4 minutes. You posted a link and I only watched 3 quarters of it,,,,I always Thought Bobcat was over rated and only watched it to 3:40 ,, oh wait,,,,,
 
2011-11-30 11:25:08 PM  

jaymanchu: This thread is useless without more slave leia pics:

[images.wikia.com image 449x620]

[pockettacoradio.com image 300x273]
[www.evilmilk.com image 500x325]


NOM,,NOM,,,
 
2011-11-30 11:25:36 PM  
Commander T'Pol. Her ...ears are pointed. Your argument is invalid.
 
2011-11-30 11:25:37 PM  

gunther_bumpass: Perducci: Drank Malk: ACTUALLY,

1. It can be lazers or lasers, according to my sister, a lexicographer, can be either depending on localisation.


Your sister is a terrible lexicographer.
"Laser" is an acronym, or at least derived from one. The S stands for "stimulated". The term may have evolved from L.A.S.E.R. into an actual word, but that doesn't mean that people can just replace letters willy-nilly because of "localisation" (a word that actually does sometimes use a z).


I think you just proved his point, ya pedant.


How does that prove his point?

It'd be like changing scuba to skuba. It's an acronym.

What does the "z" stand for in lazer?
 
2011-11-30 11:26:46 PM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.


::cough:: Virgin ::cough::

PS. Stargate kicks both of their asses (Carter destroyed a star), they beamed weapons, and they had MacGyver.
 
2011-11-30 11:27:20 PM  

amd1433: Call me crazy, but...

Star Wars gave us this little gem:

[images.wikia.com image 640x480]

And Star Trek gave us this one:

[i333.photobucket.com image 640x269]

Personally, there's room for both in my little world.

/they almost make up for pieces of shiat like Eps I, II, III and Final Frontier, Insurrection and Genesis.
//almost


I' too lazy to hunt down a highlander pic,, but there can only be one.
 
2011-11-30 11:39:08 PM  

I can't get the cap off!: gunther_bumpass: Perducci: Drank Malk: ACTUALLY,

1. It can be lazers or lasers, according to my sister, a lexicographer, can be either depending on localisation.


Your sister is a terrible lexicographer.
"Laser" is an acronym, or at least derived from one. The S stands for "stimulated". The term may have evolved from L.A.S.E.R. into an actual word, but that doesn't mean that people can just replace letters willy-nilly because of "localisation" (a word that actually does sometimes use a z).


I think you just proved his point, ya pedant.

How does that prove his point?

It'd be like changing scuba to skuba. It's an acronym.

What does the "z" stand for in lazer?


Well, you said that L.A.S.E.R. may have evolved into an actual word: laser (which it has).
You then give an example of a word: "localisation", that due to localization, has two accepted spellings.
Now that "laser" is a word and not strictly an acronym, shouldn't its use be subject to the same local variances
as other words? I'd have thought so. Personally I'd spell it 'laser' for the reasons you mentioned - but your
argument did sort of legitimize the use of 'lazer'.

/not a lexicographer
 
2011-11-30 11:46:41 PM  

Eshkar: Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.

::cough:: Virgin ::cough::

PS. Stargate kicks both of their asses (Carter destroyed a star), they beamed weapons, and they had MacGyver.


meh... the SDF-1 would take both down in a single shot from across a solar system.

And as for as Tie fighters sent ahead, VF-01 fighters would use them for target practice.
 
2011-11-30 11:48:37 PM  

amd1433: Call me crazy, but...

Star Wars gave us this little gem:

[images.wikia.com image 640x480]

And Star Trek gave us this one:

[i333.photobucket.com image 640x269]

Personally, there's room for both in my little world.

/they almost make up for pieces of shiat like Eps I, II, III and Final Frontier, Insurrection and Genesis.
//almost


Nicely put. You picked two of the best moments from the two best movies in each series. Now if you'll excuse me I have these two waiting for me on my DVR:

wolvesinwinter.files.wordpress.com

www.wildaboutmovies.com
 
2011-11-30 11:50:09 PM  

Eshkar: PS. Stargate kicks both of their asses (Carter destroyed a star), they beamed weapons, and they had MacGyver.


Having Richard Dean Anderson as the star of your series is not a selling point.
 
2011-11-30 11:50:54 PM  

Mugato: zato_ichi: Star Trek episodes can get a pass on a lot of bad writing because of its episodic nature, sheer volume of material and rotation of talent.
Star Wars, however, is much more infrequent, and much more calculated. It gets less of a pass from me.

Yeah, because they churn out an episode every week for 30 years and 11 movies, sometimes more than one series at a time, it gets to make even less sense than a movie series. Maybe a better answer would have been to turn it down a notch on the sheer volume if they couldn't cut it. Like 5 seasons of TNG, 5 seasons of DS9 and 3 movies might have helped.


OK, sure. But it's out there, and we've got to go on what is done. For all they have done, I think ST does a piss-poor job on inter-personal relationships (much of DS9 being a variable) vs. SW, but ST does a far better job in moral questions.

I get what you are saying, and that comes down to proprietary control, which as I barely understand, became a problem w/ ST.

But, what I'm getting at is volume of quality, and as one with a preference towards SW, this pains me to say that ST wins. I talking about movies and film, I haven't read that many books. Each incarnation of ST has 2-4 great episodes per season, and 1-2 outstanding episodes.
SW has a pretty limited pool to draw from, and has a stricter vetting process.
But, I could be talking out of my ass. I've been drinking.
 
2011-11-30 11:52:23 PM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: badLogic: Virulency: Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

also why don't they EVER transport a bomb or something onto another ship?

For a transporter to work the shields must be down. If the shields are down generally a single photon torpedo will do the trick.
Or they could just beam all the life-forms off the ship and capture it.

Uhhh... No.

I'm pretty sure the Enterprise cannot hold 37,085 people. Last I checked, the Enterprise D was made to hold about 1,014 people.


1,014 in very spacious private quarters. In the alternate Klingon War timeline of "Yesterday's Enterprise" the Enterprise D is configured to transport up to 6,000 troops.
 
2011-11-30 11:54:38 PM  
Shatner has a good point. Star Wars became a slave to their special affects. The stories and acting got weaker and weaker. Whereas Star Trek had a lot more compelling stories.

I'd say Kirk just photoned the warp nacelles off the Carrie Fisher.

Enterprise to Fisher, you are ordered to surrender your vessel, please respond.

Besides, who picks a fight with Captain James T. Kirk. Once that shirt comes off, you're dead. I mean this guy can build a goddamn cannon out of dirt and rocks and stuff. You never see scruffy little Luke down in the dirt building a light saber out of bantha shiat.

This man defeated Kahn and then as a follow up to that, took issue with God and defeated him too. Nobody messes with James T. Kirk.
 
2011-11-30 11:56:29 PM  

ActionJoe: BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise

Trolling


I have no idea what you mean by that. But allow me to add:

Tebow > Janeway > Picard
 
2011-12-01 12:00:49 AM  

phuquetarde: Besides, who picks a fight with Captain James T. Kirk. Once that shirt comes off, you're dead.


www.splashnewsonline.com
 
2011-12-01 12:00:59 AM  

imfallen_angel: Eshkar: Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.

::cough:: Virgin ::cough::

PS. Stargate kicks both of their asses (Carter destroyed a star), they beamed weapons, and they had MacGyver.

meh... the SDF-1 would take both down in a single shot from across a solar system.

And as for as Tie fighters sent ahead, VF-01 fighters would use them for target practice.


Blah blah blah blah -

Mr. Worf, Quantum torpedoes, fire.

Empire obliterated, roll credits. Luke and friends can go get wasted on Romulan Ale.
 
2011-12-01 12:01:29 AM  

phuquetarde: Shatner has a good point. Star Wars became a slave to their special affects. The stories and acting got weaker and weaker. Whereas Star Trek had a lot more compelling stories.

I'd say Kirk just photoned the warp nacelles off the Carrie Fisher.

Enterprise to Fisher, you are ordered to surrender your vessel, please respond.

Besides, who picks a fight with Captain James T. Kirk. Once that shirt comes off, you're dead. I mean this guy can build a goddamn cannon out of dirt and rocks and stuff. You never see scruffy little Luke down in the dirt building a light saber out of bantha shiat.

This man defeated Kahn and then as a follow up to that, took issue with God and defeated him too. Nobody messes with James T. Kirk.


Luke did stuff a bone in the rancor's mouth, smacked him with a rock, then crushed him with a gate, so, Luke fights dirty if you dump him down a trapdoor.
 
2011-12-01 12:04:11 AM  

Fano: Luke did stuff a bone in the rancor's mouth. . ..


A new realm of slashfic possibilities arise. . ..
 
2011-12-01 12:06:39 AM  
Federation technology is superior to Imperial technology in all things except in power of turbo lasers. (the amount of energy needed to destroy an earth sized planet the way Alderan is destroyed is probably more than lifetime total energy output of the sun over it's 4-5 billion year lifespan, too bad they don't use it better) It is easy to assume that the edge in energy weapons would be enough for the Empire to win, but that is not the case.

Federation starships can fight at higher speeds while Empire ships are limited to sub-light during combat. Moving at Warp speeds, federation starships would be untouchable by anything the Empire could put out there. Federation torpedos can also move at warp speeds and be fired at warp speeds. It would be shooting Empire fish in a barrel. Granted, this is not how any of the Star Trek video games display combat, but it is done in the shows enough and it would be the tactics they would use against the Empire.

Federation starships are more maneuverable than Empire ships. Especially when warp speeds are considered. Starships could manuever to blind spots behind those large engines and empty the phaser banks then bolt away faster than the lasers being shot at them. Think "Picard Manuver".

If you are thinking about a total war between the Empire and the Federation, of course the Empire would win. They have the resources of almost an entire galaxy while the Federation would barely have 1/8th of that. Add to that the willingness to destroy entire planets and commit mass genocide, things the Federation would never do, and the Empire would break their will to fight. The Empire could shovel massive amounts of ships and clones and completely overwhelm the limited resources of the Federation. Just like the Allies did to the Axis in WWII.
 
2011-12-01 12:06:41 AM  

Eshkar: Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

... starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.

::cough:: Virgin ::cough::


Close. Science fiction writer.
 
2011-12-01 12:07:58 AM  

Drank Malk: 2. Agreed, Star Destroyer lazers can destroy SMALL asteroids, but are on a twenty-five minute cooldown. Star Trek Lasers can fire continuously.



Making stuff up in a nerd thread just to win doesn't make you cool.
 
2011-12-01 12:17:35 AM  
What? No Han Solo vs. Malcolm Reynolds in a bar fight/arm wrestle arguments?

/my money is on Mal
//on the other hand the Millennium Falcon has guns
 
2011-12-01 12:19:20 AM  
I was going to post a link to Plinkett's reviews on redlettermedia but fark says it is unfetchable, so I guess I won't.

/recommence nerd-off
 
2011-12-01 12:20:28 AM  

way2slo: Federation technology is superior to Imperial technology in all things except in power of turbo lasers. (the amount of energy needed to destroy an earth sized planet the way Alderan is destroyed is probably more than lifetime total energy output of the sun over it's 4-5 billion year lifespan, too bad they don't use it better) It is easy to assume that the edge in energy weapons would be enough for the Empire to win, but that is not the case.

Federation starships can fight at higher speeds while Empire ships are limited to sub-light during combat. Moving at Warp speeds, federation starships would be untouchable by anything the Empire could put out there. Federation torpedos can also move at warp speeds and be fired at warp speeds. It would be shooting Empire fish in a barrel. Granted, this is not how any of the Star Trek video games display combat, but it is done in the shows enough and it would be the tactics they would use against the Empire.

Federation starships are more maneuverable than Empire ships. Especially when warp speeds are considered. Starships could manuever to blind spots behind those large engines and empty the phaser banks then bolt away faster than the lasers being shot at them. Think "Picard Manuver".

If you are thinking about a total war between the Empire and the Federation, of course the Empire would win. They have the resources of almost an entire galaxy while the Federation would barely have 1/8th of that. Add to that the willingness to destroy entire planets and commit mass genocide, things the Federation would never do, and the Empire would break their will to fight. The Empire could shovel massive amounts of ships and clones and completely overwhelm the limited resources of the Federation. Just like the Allies did to the Axis in WWII.


Let me pilot a TIE Defender and I swear I can explode all of Starfleet, plus all their shipping containers, after laboriously identifying all of them.
 
2011-12-01 12:26:19 AM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: Close. Science fiction writer.


Like I'd buy some shiat from an unknown who calls me a cheap bastard just for looking. Way to advertise, virgin.

/No sale for you.
 
2011-12-01 12:26:21 AM  

BroVinny: phuquetarde: Besides, who picks a fight with Captain James T. Kirk. Once that shirt comes off, you're dead.

[www.splashnewsonline.com image 600x900]


He still looks 20 years younger than he is. If you want to see what he'd look like if he seriously hit the gym, watch the first Star Trek movie with the pastel pajama uniforms, when he was 48 and trying to look 10 years younger, in full comeback mode.
 
2011-12-01 12:26:29 AM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.


The main phaser arrays of the Galaxy-class each consisted of 200 phaser emitter segments, each segment supplying 5.1 megawatts, total 1.02 gigawatts of phased energy output.

Okay, that's good. But this is better:

Each photo torpedo contains 1.5kg of anti-matter, so the total mass for the E=mc² equation is 3kg. During a photo torpedo detonation, the energy released is 64.5 megatons of TNT.

Ouch. Can you imagine that going off in the enclosed space of a Star Destroyer after being beamed in by a Starfleet ship? It would make the Hindenberg disaster look like a birthday candle. The Star Destroyer would cease to exist. Nothing would be able to remain intact short of a Death Star.

Galaxy-class ships can fire 10 torpedoes at once, aside from just beaming them in, with a range eight times or so the distance from the Earth to the Moon.


And the space-fighter idea, of battleships versus aircraft carriers, is nonsense. On Earth, ships and aircraft operated in two different mediums. In space, both ships and fighters operate in the same medium. Fighters are not "faster" than ships. Acceleration is determined by the thrust-to-weight ratio or the biological limits of the crew, and total delta-v by the amount of fuel carried. Ships can carry more gravity compensators and more fuel. So not only can they potentially accelerate faster, they can also reach higher speeds. I'll give fighters the advantage that they can rotate much faster than a ship, and thus can change their thrust vector much faster.

Fighters also can't turn and bank in space. They can vector... the same as the ships can. The Galaxy-glass ships can achieve acceleration of over 1,000 g's. Not bad for a four-million-ton ship.

Also, I'll note that the Starfleet ships can jump in and out of warp at will, enabling them to terminate the engagement at will, or maneuver to stay out of the range of Imperial ships, or to attack from unexpected directions.
 
2011-12-01 12:28:04 AM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: I'm pretty sure the Enterprise cannot hold 37,085 people. Last I checked, the Enterprise D was made to hold about 1,014 people.


What if the water was taken out of them and the remaining minerals shaped into something resembling crystals?
 
2011-12-01 12:29:05 AM  

Nem Wan: BroVinny: phuquetarde: Besides, who picks a fight with Captain James T. Kirk. Once that shirt comes off, you're dead.

[www.splashnewsonline.com image 600x900]

He still looks 20 years younger than he is. If you want to see what he'd look like if he seriously hit the gym, watch the first Star Trek movie with the pastel pajama uniforms, when he was 48 and trying to look 10 years younger, in full comeback mode.


www.oceanstatedubs.com

/seen it
 
2011-12-01 12:48:47 AM  
api.ning.com
Bunch of slack-jawed f****ts around here. These pics will make you a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus, just like me!


www.fantafilm.net
supportyourlocalgunfighter.com
digitalnipples.files.wordpress.com
 
2011-12-01 12:49:14 AM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy:

I'm pretty sure the Enterprise cannot hold 37,085 people. Last I checked, the Enterprise D was made to hold about 1,014 people.


Her crew was 1014. The ship could crew over 3000 and transport even more according to its designer, Andy Probert.
But they could never afford that many extras, hence the 1014 number.

/Voyager beaming the torpedo onto the Borg Scout was pretty cool.
 
2011-12-01 01:03:14 AM  
Looking strictly at power generation/distribution it looks something like...

ISD > Cylon Basestar > NCC 1701D > BSG > NCC 1701

Weapons' power output is similar, with BSG closing in on NCC 1701D due to it using a LOT of fighter craft.

The tactics is where it gets confusing. Star Trek has the advantage of hand-waved transporters (with a few hand-waved and plot-convenient limitations). Star Wars has the advantage of hand-waved hyperdrive, and BSG's hand-waved hyperdrive is basically a ship-sized transporter.

So, the best ship that will always win the battle is the ship in the book that I wrote that hasn't been published yet and is still partly in my mind. But I promise when it comes out, it will kick all of those other starships' asses!
 
2011-12-01 01:03:31 AM  

Mugato: ha-ha-guy: However the Emperor being the paranoid farker he is, you think he'd check up on things like that. Or just rubbed out the Lars family to clean up lose ends.

Why would Palpatine know about the Lars? Unless he was a Metallica fan.

Even weirder is in the prequels the big deal is that Anakin started training too old. So he couldn't become a Jedi Knight and slids over to the dark side instead. So after screwing that up, when handed a kid, what does Kenobi do? Figure "enh I'll wait till he is 18 or so and then start training him...". Seems weird.

Obi Wan wasn't Luke's legal guardian. He had no control over when or if he was to be trained. In fact it seemed to not even occur to him that he had o drag Luke into it before he saw Leia's message. Even then, when Luke said he wanted to be a Jedi, Obi Wan had a definite "Oh shiat, not this again" look.


Another possibility? Obi-Wan wanted Vader to find Luke.

Think about it. Leia is deeply, intensely passionate, and has a very icy temper. Even as a little girl, that would have been obvious, and Obi-Wan would have just cut off all contact with Organa and prayed Vader never realized he had a new apprentice. After all, Leia was a farking princess. Leaving her alone was best for everyone.

But his second hope was, well, a farking retard, and I have a feeling that was even worse when he was a kid. (I'm sorry, but if you hear your enemy say "No, I am your father", and you do not automatically think "I want a paternity test", you are not the sharpest spoon in the drawer.) So Obi-Wan decided, okay, let's just make this simple. Tell the Lars to keep the kid's last name, wait for a few weeks, and Vader will show up. Then the fight to the death can begin.

When nothing happened, Obi-Wan probably just sort of gave up, especially since Leia was reckless enough to go charging headlong into the Rebellion, and puberty-induced Luke would have been forbidden by multiple peace conventions. Then one day up shows Luke with Leia's holo. Obi-Wan's probably trying to figure out whether to curse the Force for not giving him the smart one or thank the Force for not giving him the biatch.

/And Shatner, you can talk about character development when Star Trek turns into the go-to example for nearly every psychology teacher.
//Oh, yeah. Star Wars perfectly exemplifies Frued, Jung, Campbell, and a few billion other theories. You don't even know.
 
2011-12-01 01:07:23 AM  
a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

2 A-wings took out a super star destroyer by nailing a shield generator and crashing in to the bridge, all hands lost. Those are like 8 km long or some crap right?
 
2011-12-01 01:08:13 AM  

MagSeven: [api.ning.com image 489x324]
Bunch of slack-jawed f****ts around here. These pics will make you a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus, just like me!


[www.fantafilm.net image 312x336]
[supportyourlocalgunfighter.com image 640x480]
[digitalnipples.files.wordpress.com image 640x524]


GIS fails me but I simply cannot find the old pic from a zine showing 3PO and Leia in post-coital after glow. A pity.
 
2011-12-01 01:15:42 AM  

Drank Malk: 1. It can be lazers or lasers, according to my sister, a lexicographer, can be either depending on localisation.


No, he's right. LAZER = Light Application of Zima Elicits Risqueness
 
2011-12-01 01:19:11 AM  

Fano: MagSeven: [api.ning.com image 489x324]
Bunch of slack-jawed f****ts around here. These pics will make you a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus, just like me!


[www.fantafilm.net image 312x336]
[supportyourlocalgunfighter.com image 640x480]
[digitalnipples.files.wordpress.com image 640x524]

GIS fails me but I simply cannot find the old pic from a zine showing 3PO and Leia in post-coital after glow. A pity.


worldfamousdesignjunkies.com
This looks pre-coital
 
2011-12-01 01:25:33 AM  

krispos42: And the space-fighter idea, of battleships versus aircraft carriers, is nonsense. On Earth, ships and aircraft operated in two different mediums. In space, both ships and fighters operate in the same medium. Fighters are not "faster" than ships. Acceleration is determined by the thrust-to-weight ratio or the biological limits of the crew, and total delta-v by the amount of fuel carried. Ships can carry more gravity compensators and more fuel. So not only can they potentially accelerate faster, they can also reach higher speeds. I'll give fighters the advantage that they can rotate much faster than a ship, and thus can change their thrust vector much faster.

Fighters also can't turn and bank in space. They can vector... the same as the ships can. The Galaxy-glass ships can achieve acceleration of over 1,000 g's. Not bad for a four-million-ton ship.


Was going to say this. The fighter/carrier model in space makes about as much sense as a surface ship serving as a carrier for torpedo boats or a transport plane launching fighters. Less sense, actually, as the fighters wouldn't be any faster than their mothership, and only very slightly more maneuverable.
 
2011-12-01 01:30:11 AM  

rolladuck: ISD > Cylon Basestar > NCC 1701D > BSG > NCC 1701


Why would you rank a Cylon Basestar so high? They never win a fight without their magical nonsense "oh you have a network so I can hack you" killswitch. And that's against the Galactica, a 40-year-old ship that was supposed to be retired.
 
2011-12-01 01:36:19 AM  

LordPomposity:

Was going to say this. The fighter/carrier model in space makes about as much sense as a surface ship serving as a carrier for torpedo boats or a transport plane launching fighters. Less sense, actually, as the fighters wouldn't be any faster than their mothership, and only very slightly more maneuverable.


Actually I'm pretty sure the transport planes launching fighters is a very real likelihood for the future of the Air Force drone programs. Small, fast, super agile and disposable drones shred current fighters in simulation scenarios with no loss of life on the drone using side (minimal loss if you lose the transport).
 
2011-12-01 01:47:06 AM  
Dorks.

And I completely understand that a Star Destroyer could take out a Galaxy-class pussmobile within minutes.
 
2011-12-01 01:47:19 AM  

BroVinny: Eshkar: PS. Stargate kicks both of their asses (Carter destroyed a star), they beamed weapons, and they had MacGyver.

Having Richard Dean Anderson as the star of your series is not a selling point.


i5.photobucket.com

He was SO cruel!
 
2011-12-01 01:47:31 AM  

BroVinny: Shockaholic


I recently tried reading "Shockaholic" and couldn't finish it. I enjoyed "Wishful Drinking", but Carrie Fisher came off as far too whiny in "Shockaholic".
 
2011-12-01 02:03:56 AM  

Fano: GIS fails me but I simply cannot find the old pic from a zine showing 3PO and Leia in post-coital after glow. A pity.


"Oh! Oh! My servo-pelvic Accu-Jak!"

/obscure?
 
2011-12-01 02:18:58 AM  

AaronB1138: LordPomposity:

Was going to say this. The fighter/carrier model in space makes about as much sense as a surface ship serving as a carrier for torpedo boats or a transport plane launching fighters. Less sense, actually, as the fighters wouldn't be any faster than their mothership, and only very slightly more maneuverable.

Actually I'm pretty sure the transport planes launching fighters is a very real likelihood for the future of the Air Force drone programs. Small, fast, super agile and disposable drones shred current fighters in simulation scenarios with no loss of life on the drone using side (minimal loss if you lose the transport).


Done and sucked (new window)

Star Trek had fighters in DS9; they were cannon fodder for the big ships.
 
2011-12-01 02:22:13 AM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: AaronB1138: LordPomposity:

Was going to say this. The fighter/carrier model in space makes about as much sense as a surface ship serving as a carrier for torpedo boats or a transport plane launching fighters. Less sense, actually, as the fighters wouldn't be any faster than their mothership, and only very slightly more maneuverable.

Actually I'm pretty sure the transport planes launching fighters is a very real likelihood for the future of the Air Force drone programs. Small, fast, super agile and disposable drones shred current fighters in simulation scenarios with no loss of life on the drone using side (minimal loss if you lose the transport).

Done and sucked (new window)

Star Trek had fighters in DS9; they were cannon fodder for the big ships.


Forgot...

More awesome approach, looked badass...still sucked (new window)

/The Blackbird was a sexy plane
 
2011-12-01 02:23:56 AM  

dougputhoff: Where's Tom Baker when we need him?


30.media.tumblr.com

"Actors are able to trick themselves into treating anything as if it's fantastic. It's a kind of madness really."

"Most drama in our lives is really rather squalid."

"I think quite often a fate worse than death is life - for lots of people."
 
2011-12-01 03:05:17 AM  
WeenerGord

I find I must bow head and grant you +1 internets. Well played.
 
2011-12-01 03:39:58 AM  
If you want to rate the universes with space ships...

Firefly > Stargate > Futurama > Star Trek > Star Wars

...and they're all awesome.
 
2011-12-01 03:47:08 AM  
Multiple episode TV show versus two hour movie. It's not really fair to compare which could portray a deeper story.
 
2011-12-01 04:27:38 AM  
Personally a fan of the sag. Let 'em swing.
 
2011-12-01 05:43:00 AM  

Virulency: Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

BuckTurgidson: Imperial Star Destroyer > Battlestar Galactica > Enterprise

Mugato: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1) Star Destroyers do have shields
2) They don't use actual lasers
3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon as they could have easily done, especially with those Borg ships that let them beam in and out at will

/end geek rant


the Enterprise and the Star Trek Universe uses battleship tactics, Star wars and BSG use Aircraft carrier tactics,


how many battleships can one carrier destroy? lets ask the Japanese from the battle of midway.

ya i wonder if the old enterprise could cope with a tie bomber swarm...

also why don't they EVER transport a bomb or something onto another ship?


Voyager. Dark Frontier. Interestingly enough, into a Borg Ship.
 
2011-12-01 06:33:35 AM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.



Unless of course, it is a Super Class Star Destroyer (Dreadnought) then beaming a photon torpedo onto the bridge would make it instantly crash into the nearest large body.

All that being said, the Star Trek ship would win the fight only for the fact that their capital class vessels have the turning and maneuverability and speed of a star fighter class from Star Wars. Star Wars' capital ships are only used to targeting large capital ships with their heavier guns.
 
2011-12-01 07:18:29 AM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy:

and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source


Its easy to do with fake numbers.
 
2011-12-01 08:13:06 AM  
Shatner is the man! But Alien kicks both Star Trek and Star Wars out of the water.
 
2011-12-01 08:24:14 AM  

Nem Wan: Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: badLogic: Virulency: Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

also why don't they EVER transport a bomb or something onto another ship?

For a transporter to work the shields must be down. If the shields are down generally a single photon torpedo will do the trick.
Or they could just beam all the life-forms off the ship and capture it.

Uhhh... No.

I'm pretty sure the Enterprise cannot hold 37,085 people. Last I checked, the Enterprise D was made to hold about 1,014 people.

1,014 in very spacious private quarters. In the alternate Klingon War timeline of "Yesterday's Enterprise" the Enterprise D is configured to transport up to 6,000 troops.


This is moot. He never said beam them aboard. Beam the whole farking crew into space.

Although, isn't the transporter limited in the number of individuals/objects it can transfer at a time? IIRC, there's a TNG episode in which it takes hours (if not days) to evacuate a small population from a planet's surface.
 
2011-12-01 08:32:06 AM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: badLogic: Virulency: Kanemano: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

also why don't they EVER transport a bomb or something onto another ship?

For a transporter to work the shields must be down. If the shields are down generally a single photon torpedo will do the trick.
Or they could just beam all the life-forms off the ship and capture it.

Uhhh... No.

I'm pretty sure the Enterprise cannot hold 37,085 people. Last I checked, the Enterprise D was made to hold about 1,014 people.


1, you can hold them all in the console, stored as data. not the android, but like 0s and 1s.
2, if you were evil, say klingonian or romulan, you could just beam the opposing crew into space, instead of bringing them aboard, leaving a really nice clean ship ready for you.
 
2011-12-01 08:33:49 AM  
All you need to know about an interdimensional conflict between Star Wars vs Star Trek.
 
2011-12-01 08:47:03 AM  

PsiChick: (I'm sorry, but if you hear your enemy say "No, I am your father", and you do not automatically think "I want a paternity test", you are not the sharpest spoon in the drawer.)


I love delving into the real and imagined back-stories of stuff like this. Seriously. But I think you're off target.

When Vader dropped the Maury Bomb on Luke, he told him to "search his feelings" or whatever. I think The Force enabled Luke to see the truth of it regardless of his initial skepticism (which he did display along with shock and horror).
 
2011-12-01 08:57:46 AM  
One other thing to consider is that Trek is not very militaristic. Their idea of ground troops is Ensign Ricky with a little phaser pistol and no body armor (the red shirts!). Whereas everyone in Star Wars is militaristic, has doctrines (some good, some shiatty), a military office corps, etc.

The Fed seems like a split between military, exploration, and some peacekeeping/diplomacy duties.

So at the end of the day it's not the Enterprise vs an ISD. It's 250,000 ISDs, a Death Star, a bunch of super star destroyers, and all the associated support ships (Strike Cruisers, VSDs, Carracks, Lancers, Neb-Bs, etc) versus like ten thousand or so Fed warships. End of the day that's likely why SW nudges the Fed, they're from a much more militarized background and have much larger scale wars.
 
2011-12-01 09:15:32 AM  

Xenomech: All you need to know about an interdimensional conflict between Star Wars vs Star Trek.


i.imgur.com
 
2011-12-01 09:21:10 AM  

BroVinny: mikemoto: Wouldn't have minded photon torpedoing her circa 1979.

Nah, she was already beginning to bloat a little from whatever drugs she was taking (see the 1978 Holiday Special). 1977 for me, thanks.


Return of the Metal Bikini was in 1983, give her credit for jazzercizing herself hot then.

I'm really hoping the Shat's trying/failing to be smartass here and just coming off to Carrie as an asshole. I've been in internet feuds that lasted half a decade started over less.
 
2011-12-01 10:16:03 AM  
i12.photobucket.com

A logical circle-jerk, this thread has become.
 
2011-12-01 10:21:10 AM  

Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]


What do you think those two orbs above the bridge are? Shield generators. Check.

/and it's spelled "laser"
 
2011-12-01 10:27:11 AM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.


God dammit that ruled.
 
2011-12-01 10:27:26 AM  
Ive always thought both their techs are equal in ways. With both having plus and minuses against each other. So I would just assume its up to the actual captain of the ship to determine the outcome of the battle. Where if Kirk went up against an Imperial Star Detroyer Clone Captain, Kirk might win. But if Kirk went up against a Jedi, I would think the Jedi would have the upper hand due to precognition and the force in general
 
2011-12-01 10:32:28 AM  
Dayum... no wonder Jabba got a hot and bothered about the Princess, she was part Hut after all.

cache.gawker.com

In all seriousness though for us 70's/80's fanboys, Carrie has made a slight comeback from letting herself go a few years ago thanks in part to some good docs I think... we all get old... except Stevie Nicks apparently....

ll-media.tmz.com

Stevie, a Carrie Fisher CLONE (get it) in 1977... Stevie Nicks in her 60's is the best you can hope for really. And she fell off the weight wagon in the 90's too...

img220.imageshack.us

I mean, 63... it's stupid to look this good at 63 right?

performingsongwriter.com
 
2011-12-01 10:48:53 AM  
AaronB1138: LordPomposity:

Was going to say this. The fighter/carrier model in space makes about as much sense as a surface ship serving as a carrier for torpedo boats or a transport plane launching fighters. Less sense, actually, as the fighters wouldn't be any faster than their mothership, and only very slightly more maneuverable.

Actually I'm pretty sure the transport planes launching fighters is a very real likelihood for the future of the Air Force drone programs. Small, fast, super agile and disposable drones shred current fighters in simulation scenarios with no loss of life on the drone using side (minimal loss if you lose the transport).


It only really worked in the BSG universe, since they were still using projectile weapons and the idea was that the two ships of the line would try to duke it out, at the same time of setting up defense bombardment perimeters to take out incoming missiles and other craft. The fighters were small enough and maneuverable enough to get through the wall put down and eventually take out the defensive capabilities to allow the ships offensive weapons free reign.

That works in space and at that technology level.

Star Wars just never bothered with that kind of logical planning. If we go by the Nerd-o-sphere canon on the empires ships stats, there's not a chance in hell even a jedi rebel force would be able to take on the empire. If we went by what we saw in the movies, the ships and equipment of the empire is woefully vulnerable and ineffective against any and all threats... with the odd ability of the deathstar being able to produce the energy needed to destroy a planetary body.

Anyways, If they did something it was for cinematography or to move the plot along. It's too contradictory otherwise. Lucas could give a flying crap about science fiction as long as it looked awesome and moved the story in his eyes, he's always said as much. He doesn't even believe SW is science fiction. Any canon'ing of SW is just a fan service to sell more merch.
 
2011-12-01 11:09:32 AM  
the whole problem with all the Sci Fi battles, with the notable exception of the Wrath of Khan:

its all ww2 in space. or even earlier. star wars IV death star attack was total ww2 in space. hell, the fleet battles in the prequels were even earlier, it was broadsides of cannons at point blank range a la 19th century naval warfare. it was trafalgar in sapce, not even midway.

BSG was ww2 as well.

one can only assume that the sensors and reach of weapons between starships would be so vast the ships would never see one another, more like how if missile destroyers fought other missile destroyers now.

but that, alas, is bad eye candy and no fun to watch.

i mean CMON the Pegasus Death March in BSG? how freakin' epic was that shiat?
 
2011-12-01 11:30:03 AM  

TyrantII: AaronB1138: LordPomposity:

Was going to say this. The fighter/carrier model in space makes about as much sense as a surface ship serving as a carrier for torpedo boats or a transport plane launching fighters. Less sense, actually, as the fighters wouldn't be any faster than their mothership, and only very slightly more maneuverable.

Actually I'm pretty sure the transport planes launching fighters is a very real likelihood for the future of the Air Force drone programs. Small, fast, super agile and disposable drones shred current fighters in simulation scenarios with no loss of life on the drone using side (minimal loss if you lose the transport).

It only really worked in the BSG universe, since they were still using projectile weapons and the idea was that the two ships of the line would try to duke it out, at the same time of setting up defense bombardment perimeters to take out incoming missiles and other craft. The fighters were small enough and maneuverable enough to get through the wall put down and eventually take out the defensive capabilities to allow the ships offensive weapons free reign.

That works in space and at that technology level.

Star Wars just never bothered with that kind of logical planning. If we go by the Nerd-o-sphere canon on the empires ships stats, there's not a chance in hell even a jedi rebel force would be able to take on the empire. If we went by what we saw in the movies, the ships and equipment of the empire is woefully vulnerable and ineffective against any and all threats... with the odd ability of the deathstar being able to produce the energy needed to destroy a planetary body.

Anyways, If they did something it was for cinematography or to move the plot along. It's too contradictory otherwise. Lucas could give a flying crap about science fiction as long as it looked awesome and moved the story in his eyes, he's always said as much. He doesn't even believe SW is science fiction. Any canon'ing of SW is just a fan service to sell more merch.


You would think they could at least throw up some plywood or something.
 
2011-12-01 11:32:04 AM  
caffeine-fueled.com
 
2011-12-01 11:36:47 AM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.


Asok? is that you?

img836.imageshack.us
 
2011-12-01 11:41:12 AM  

RatMaster999: WeenerGord

I find I must bow head and grant you +1 internets. Well played.



It's all good, Jack!
 
2011-12-01 11:44:24 AM  

WeenerGord: RatMaster999: I met my wife at a D&D game. We'll soon be teaching our girlfriend to play. Who's winning now?

I see there is a nice picture of you, your wife and girlfriend on your profile. Which one did you marry, the black one or the white one?


i620.photobucket.com
 
2011-12-01 11:57:01 AM  
The reason SW wins...

ST will never have a game like this:

xboxmedia.ign.com

Not to mention The Jedi Knight series, the KOTOR series, and the upcoming MMORPG (which sounds promising).

They just can't make a good ST game it seems.

/Of course, it helps that Lucas has his own gaming company.
 
2011-12-01 12:03:35 PM  

Mugato: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1) Star Destroyers do have shields
2) They don't use actual lasers
3) Trek has never used the transporter as a weapon as they could have easily done, especially with those Borg ships that let them beam in and out at will

/end geek rant


Regarding 3, I think that's mostly for the sake of the plot. Meet borg ship, beam anti-matter bomb next to a power-core. +1 win for the good-guys. When you think about it, accurate mapless teleporters like they use in Star Trek would actually be some of the most terrifyingly destructive weapons imaginable. You wouldn't even need to teleport bombs necessarily; their teleporters have a built in subroutine that removes pathogens and foreign bodies from those transported by them. This means you can rather precisely edit the molecular composition of any object being transported. In other words, you could take a chuck of uranium, load it into the buffer, edit out a few choice electrons, then teleport it into the center of a major city and, when it re-materializes, it will immediately fiss, causing an atomic explosion. You could also take a container holding matter and anti-matter separated by a divider, load it into the buffer, remove the divider's pattern, teleport the rest, and create even greater devastation.

And imagine how easy it would make sabotage. All you need to teleport anything up to the ship is a transmitter small enough that it fits into a shirt pin beside a near-perfect communications device and computer terminal. Using holographic projection, you could make a crew member look like a janitor or low level tech, send him into a power plant, place such a transmitter on an important part of the coolant system, then teleport it up at your leisure, causing a meltdown. One would imagine practically everything of any import would be heavily shielded in the Trekverse just to prevent this sort of asymmetrical transporter warfare.
 
2011-12-01 12:08:16 PM  

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.


I bet you've never kissed a girl.
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2011-12-01 12:08:40 PM  
All I have to say is

28.media.tumblr.com
Happy.Life.Day.....

Star Trek wins.
 
2011-12-01 12:09:12 PM  

Burr: The reason SW wins...

ST will never have a game like this:

[xboxmedia.ign.com image 160x205]

Not to mention The Jedi Knight series, the KOTOR series, and the upcoming MMORPG (which sounds promising).

They just can't make a good ST game it seems.

/Of course, it helps that Lucas has his own gaming company.


Trek has some pretty good tactical rpgs, fps's, and rts's from, though to be honest I've spent far more time zooming around in a tie-fighter blasting mine fields and rebel smugglers than I did shooting phasers at Romulans.
 
2011-12-01 12:13:19 PM  

edip1976: And a Python reference. The circle is now complete...


Not yet

PYTHON TREK


Monty Trek

OK now the circle is complete. :D
 
2011-12-01 12:18:13 PM  
28.media.tumblr.com

Holy shiat, is that Bea Arthur?

With Caesar Romero over her left shoulder?
 
2011-12-01 12:25:30 PM  
And btw - For all intents and purposes, Darth Vader survived the first death star explosion because he was in a space fridge when the it exploded.

Just saying.
 
2011-12-01 12:33:42 PM  
It's too bad it's not possible to like both Star Trek and Star Wars and that these two were unable to do anything else noteworthy with their lives.
 
2011-12-01 12:36:50 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: It's too bad it's not possible to like both Star Trek and Star Wars and that these two were unable to do anything else noteworthy with their lives.


t1.gstatic.com
 
2011-12-01 12:37:28 PM  

Jodeo: Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: [i291.photobucket.com image 398x505]

1. First of all, it's "lasers", not "lazers".

2. And Star Destroyers don't just have laser. They have turbolasers, and a lot more. Here's the standard armament of an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer:

Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons (8)
Heavy turbolaser batteries (5)
Turbolaser batteries (5)
Additional turbolaser batteries (26+)
Heavy ion cannons (20)
Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)

And let me point out that turbolaser bolts can obliterate small asteroids, and it has been calculated that a single Star Destroyer turbolaser bolt has about the same output as the bomb that took out Hiroshima.
source

3. Star Destroyers DO have deflector shields that are at least as powerful as those on Galaxy-class ship from Star Trek.

4. Star Destroyers also carry fighters and other ships. Here's a standard complement:
TIE starfighters (72)
Lambda-class shuttles (8)
Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)
Assault gunboats (5)
A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats
Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)
Repair and recovery vehicles
AT-AT barges
AT-AT walkers (20)
AT-ST walkers (20)
Various ground vehicles
Prefabricated garrison bases

5. A Star Destroyer has more than just one guy manning the weapons console, too. They have an entire crew (37,085) that is dedicated to the operation of the ship, and a good chunk of that crew is actually manning weapons bays and consoles. They're assisted by targeting computers, but since the Star Destroyer has at least 64 heavy weapons emplacements on the top, bottom, sides, front and back of the ship, they've got a distinct need for more than just one fellow firing the one main gun, as in a Galaxy-class ship.

This is no contest. The Enterprise has been shown to be incapable of even destroying a single small asteroid. A Star Destroyer has been shown blasting asteroids into dust with minimal effort.

The ONLY advantage the Galaxy-class ship has over the Star Destroyer is transporter technology, which any Trek fan knows is baffled by shields; If either ship has shields up, it won't work. I guarantee you the Imperials aren't going to drop their shields, and even if they did, beaming a proton torpedo onto their bridge wouldn't stop them. Why? There are auxiliary command posts, for one, and a Star Destroyer doesn't put all its most important equipment and personnel in just one place on the ship.

On top of that, these things have TEN tractor beam projectors, and two large docking clamps/claws that are used to capture ships a lot bigger than a Galaxy-class starship.

In truth, I doubt a Galaxy-class starship could stand up to a Corellian CR90 corvette, much less an Imperial Star Destroyer.

I bet you've never kissed a girl.
[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 180x135]


Who knows how their shields would interact with teleporter tech, though. ST shields work as a wide-spectrum radiation buffer, absorbing the brunt of an attack to lessen its impact on the shielded object. SW shields, on the other hand, absorb all incoming dmg at 100% until they run out of "hit points" at which point they fail and the shielded object becomes vulnerable to damage. It may be that such shields wouldn't create enough interference to make transportation impossible, or that they could be "whittled down" to a point where teleportation was feasible.

Furthermore, there's the question of the relative strength of the two shielding systems. You point out that SW turbolasers can pulverize small asteroids; well, so do ST shield systems. In fact, ST ships have an entirely different, secondary and always active shield system -the deflector dish- that is dedicated to doing precisely this; atomizing any small object they run into. It may be that the relative power of SW lasers is not even enough to puncture the deflector shield of your typical ST ship, let alone reduce the strength of the martial shield array. In comparison, SW shields are so useless against asteroids that star destroyers have to actually destroy them to avoid being scuttled by impacts. ST martial shields can take a handful of direct hits from photon-torpedoes; a munition so powerful that Federation officers view Hiroshima-level warheads as little more than children's toys. It's hard to imagine a SW shield system -which can barely take a single asteroid collision- standing up to such a device.

As to the question of redundancies in SW ships, I don't think that's not as clear cut as you make it. While the EU stuff might make a big deal about them, in the actual films we regularly see Star Destroyers "sink" because their main bridge has been destroyed, and the point is made over and over that the Imperial hierarchy is so rigid that, without adequate commanding officers, the Imperial military is rather pathetic. In comparison, we see the secondary command deck used in various ST episodes, and we are constantly reminded that individual initiative and free-thinking are traits actively inculcated in Federation command staff. Indeed, not only do we persistently see commanders encouraging their underlings to take risks, act on their own initiative, and offer constructive contradictions and suggestions, but numerous episodes in TNG, DS:9, and Voyager revolve around the significant time and effort the Federation puts in to redundancy training for Command Staff. Everyone from the 2nd officer to the ship psychologist are prepared, at a moments notice, to step up and assume command of the Enterprise, and we see each do so successfully in at least one episode. As such, it seems save to assume that, while Imperial ships would likely collapse upon the death of the command crew, Federation crews would be far more resilient and resourceful.

Of course, all of this is just navel gazing regarding stuff that doesn't, and probable never will, exist, but it's fun to think about.
 
2011-12-01 12:40:03 PM  
Still one of my favorite movies ever....

26.media.tumblr.com

Guy Fleegman: Hey! Don't open that! It's an alien planet! Is there air? You don't know! [gulps in a breath and holds it]

Fred Kwan: [calmly sniffs the air and takes a few panting breaths] Seems OK...
 
2011-12-01 12:44:52 PM  

Publikwerks: And btw - For all intents and intensive purposes, Darth Vader survived the first death star explosion because he was in a space fridge when the it exploded.

Just saying.


/pet peeve
 
2011-12-01 12:46:54 PM  

Heron: Jodeo: Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy:

...As to the question of redundancies in SW ships, I don't think that's not as clear cut as you make it.


Bah humbug; usually I'm under-editing, and here I over-edited. Curse you, brain!

FTFM
 
2011-12-01 12:51:43 PM  

BuckTurgidson: Publikwerks: And btw - For all intents and intensive purposes, Darth Vader survived the first death star explosion because he was in a space fridge when the it exploded.

Just saying.

/pet peeve


liveforfilms.files.wordpress.com
Wiktionary - for all intents and purposes (new window)
 
2011-12-01 01:11:04 PM  

Heron: Furthermore, there's the question of the relative strength of the two shielding systems. You point out that SW turbolasers can pulverize small asteroids; well, so do ST shield systems. In fact, ST ships have an entirely different, secondary and always active shield system -the deflector dish- that is dedicated to doing precisely this; atomizing any small object they run into. It may be that the relative power of SW lasers is not even enough to puncture the deflector shield of your typical ST ship, let alone reduce the strength of the martial shield array. In comparison, SW shields are so useless against asteroids that star destroyers have to actually destroy them to avoid being scuttled by impacts. ST martial shields can take a handful of direct hits from photon-torpedoes; a munition so powerful that Federation officers view Hiroshima-level warheads as little more than children's toys. It's hard to imagine a SW shield system -which can barely take a single asteroid collision- standing up to such a device.


Time to show my nerd side for a moment: In the TNG episode "The Outrageous Okona" (an episode that felt like a Han Solo parody), the Enterprise is fired upon by ships using weaponized lasers. Yet, said lasers were noted as not even having any effect on the basic navigational shields (that even shuttle craft have) let alone the real shields.

Also, in TOS, Kirk did one of his pontifications about how the old Enterprise carried the power to destroy entire worlds (as cold war allegory). So, even an old rattle-trap like TOS Enterprise had the power to match SW's moon sized Deathstar.

On a side note for previous discussion, Voyager had the situation where the teleporter had a setting allowing for the whole crew of a ship to do a point-to-point emergency transport from one ship to another, a planet or whatever. One of the times the ship was "stolen" was done in this method and, I think, was used to save the generation ship Klingons when their religious thing metastasized.

/Blasted semi-eidetic memory. Better go watch some '80s action movies to flush the nerd out of my system.
 
2011-12-01 01:21:45 PM  

Angry Buddha: PsiChick: (I'm sorry, but if you hear your enemy say "No, I am your father", and you do not automatically think "I want a paternity test", you are not the sharpest spoon in the drawer.)

I love delving into the real and imagined back-stories of stuff like this. Seriously. But I think you're off target.

When Vader dropped the Maury Bomb on Luke, he told him to "search his feelings" or whatever. I think The Force enabled Luke to see the truth of it regardless of his initial skepticism (which he did display along with shock and horror).


The Sith control the Force, remember? So Vader could have lied, and Luke would never have known. Since I assume Yoda taught him this at some point, to automatically believe something an enemy said that shows every hallmark of being nothing more than a distraction, to the point where said distraction works, means you're an idiot. You just can't rely on a method of lie detection if your enemy has both motive and opportunity to cheat it.

/This is also why I think Obi-Wan was so surprised when Yoda said Leia was their second hope...Leia, being smarter, was the more dangerous choice, because if it came down to it, they had no way of controlling her if she went rogue.
 
2011-12-01 01:44:34 PM  
One franchise involves psychic space samurai.

The other involves a one-hit wonder actor who chewed so much scenery, it's a wonder he didn't get Styrofoam poisoning. Seriously, did Shat ever do anything of note after Kirk?
 
2011-12-01 01:47:55 PM  

PsiChick: /This is also why I think Obi-Wan was so surprised when Yoda said Leia was their second hope...Leia, being smarter, was the more dangerous choice, because if it came down to it, they had no way of controlling her if she went rogue.


...Which is also why Obiwan is retarded. Why didn't he know about Leia? He was there when she was born. He was there when Oregano and Sipowicz took her back to the station on Alderan. What, was his ghost having a senior moment?
 
2011-12-01 01:51:06 PM  

Saborlas: One franchise involves psychic space samurai.

The other involves a one-hit wonder actor who chewed so much scenery, it's a wonder he didn't get Styrofoam poisoning. Seriously, did Shat ever do anything of note after Kirk?


Oh really, like Mark Hamil was any better.

t0.gstatic.com
 
2011-12-01 02:04:32 PM  

Publikwerks: Saborlas: One franchise involves psychic space samurai.

The other involves a one-hit wonder actor who chewed so much scenery, it's a wonder he didn't get Styrofoam poisoning. Seriously, did Shat ever do anything of note after Kirk?

Oh really, like Mark Hamil was any better.

[t0.gstatic.com image 313x161]


img10.imageshack.us

Legen...Wait for it...Dary
 
2011-12-01 02:24:06 PM  

BroVinny: phuquetarde: Besides, who picks a fight with Captain James T. Kirk. Once that shirt comes off, you're dead.

[www.splashnewsonline.com image 600x900]


You realize how old he is, right?
 
2011-12-01 02:28:13 PM  

zabadu: BroVinny: phuquetarde: Besides, who picks a fight with Captain James T. Kirk. Once that shirt comes off, you're dead.

[www.splashnewsonline.com image 600x900]

You realize how old he is, right?


He can totally take Old/Fat Leia
 
2011-12-01 02:43:08 PM  

PsiChick: The Sith control the Force, remember?


No, I don't remember that. I think you're making it up!

/NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo!
 
2011-12-01 03:10:39 PM  

zabadu: BroVinny: phuquetarde: Besides, who picks a fight with Captain James T. Kirk. Once that shirt comes off, you're dead.

[www.splashnewsonline.com image 600x900]

You realize how old he is, right?


So you're saying all older people are fat?
 
2011-12-01 03:22:08 PM  

Saborlas: The other involves a one-hit wonder actor who chewed so much scenery, it's a wonder he didn't get Styrofoam poisoning


www.demotivationalposters.org
 
2011-12-01 03:25:32 PM  

peterthx: So you're saying all older people are fat?



Not all of them.

1.bp.blogspot.com1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-12-01 03:53:38 PM  

Publikwerks: PsiChick: /This is also why I think Obi-Wan was so surprised when Yoda said Leia was their second hope...Leia, being smarter, was the more dangerous choice, because if it came down to it, they had no way of controlling her if she went rogue.

...Which is also why Obiwan is retarded. Why didn't he know about Leia? He was there when she was born. He was there when Oregano and Sipowicz took her back to the station on Alderan. What, was his ghost having a senior moment?


That's why I said he probably did know--he was surprised that Yoda thought Leia was stable enough to be considered option B. After all, the last thing anyone needs is for Vader to have a surprise apprentice handed to him on a silver platter...

/Am I the only one who thinks that would actually have been totally freaking awesome?
 
2011-12-01 04:01:17 PM  

WeenerGord: peterthx: So you're saying all older people are fat?


Not all of them.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 296x392][1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x376]


Why would you do that?

i19.photobucket.com
 
2011-12-01 06:16:37 PM  
Photon Torpedo, Harpoon, same thing... Right?

And StoPPeRmobile, thanks for that eyebleach...
 
2011-12-01 07:04:42 PM  
It seems strange that someone who is so close to death would wage a public war against the star of another franchise. It's pretty immature of Shatner too.

/the "sci-fi nerds never kissed a girl" cliche is extremely outdated an lame but continue, it never gets old
 
2011-12-01 08:24:08 PM  

amd1433: Call me crazy, but...

Star Wars gave us this little gem:

[images.wikia.com image 640x480]

And Star Trek gave us this one:

[i333.photobucket.com image 640x269]

Personally, there's room for both in my little world.

/they almost make up for pieces of shiat like Eps I, II, III and Final Frontier, Insurrection and Genesis.
//almost


Industrial Light & Magic gave us both those BTW.

/ILM FTW!
 
2011-12-01 08:28:04 PM  

Burr: The reason SW wins...

ST will never have a game like this:

[xboxmedia.ign.com image 160x205]

Not to mention The Jedi Knight series, the KOTOR series, and the upcoming MMORPG (which sounds promising).

They just can't make a good ST game it seems..


AHEM

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2011-12-01 08:47:07 PM  

i1089.photobucket.com
It's all AWESOM

E!
 
2011-12-01 08:52:51 PM  

Father_Jack: i mean CMON the Pegasus Death March in BSG? how freakin' epic was that shiat?


Totally epic. The Bucket Drop was pretty spiffy, too.

And I was trying to find a picture of Gene Rodenberry's son giving George Lucas a phaser, but I found this instead:

www.portlandmercury.com
 
2011-12-01 10:22:49 PM  

2wolves: [i1089.photobucket.com image 500x262] It's all AWESOME!



Oh... that's.. not right...
 
2011-12-01 11:10:26 PM  
What? Nothing about the concept of taking Storm Troopers who can't hit the broad side of a barn against Red Shirts who die at the first sign of trouble?

I remember an OLD piece of fan fiction that resolved the issue by having the Darth Vader type character drop a baby grand piano on the red shirts after they were stuck in a Mexican Standoff with the Storm Troopers.
 
2011-12-01 11:40:16 PM  

mmonnens: What? Nothing about the concept of taking Storm Troopers who can't hit the broad side of a barn against Red Shirts who die at the first sign of trouble?

I remember an OLD piece of fan fiction that resolved the issue by having the Darth Vader type character drop a baby grand piano on the red shirts after they were stuck in a Mexican Standoff with the Storm Troopers.


Storm Troopers only can't hit heroes. They have no problem massacring mooks.
 
2011-12-02 08:47:30 AM  

Publikwerks: Saborlas: One franchise involves psychic space samurai.

The other involves a one-hit wonder actor who chewed so much scenery, it's a wonder he didn't get Styrofoam poisoning. Seriously, did Shat ever do anything of note after Kirk?

Oh really, like Mark Hamil was any better.

[t0.gstatic.com image 313x161]


Yes, The Joker!

ts2.mm.bing.net

ts3.mm.bing.net

The best Joker ever!
 
2011-12-02 10:17:41 AM  

Saborlas: Seriously, did Shat ever do anything of note after Kirk?


T.J. Hooker

TekWars
 
2011-12-02 11:46:16 AM  

yves0010: Publikwerks: Saborlas: One franchise involves psychic space samurai.

The other involves a one-hit wonder actor who chewed so much scenery, it's a wonder he didn't get Styrofoam poisoning. Seriously, did Shat ever do anything of note after Kirk?

Oh really, like Mark Hamil was any better.

[t0.gstatic.com image 313x161]

Yes, The Joker!

[ts2.mm.bing.net image 252x291]

[ts3.mm.bing.net image 300x187]

The best Joker ever!


Don't get me wrong, I though he was a great voice actor. But would I consider it on par with TJ Hooker and TekWar? Yup.

Besides, Shatner singing to Lucas is pure win
 
2011-12-02 11:50:12 AM  

imfallen_angel: Saborlas: Seriously, did Shat ever do anything of note after Kirk?

T.J. Hooker

TekWars


Boston Legal

some movie roles

had someone ghost write a shiatload of books for him
 
2011-12-02 11:55:58 AM  

Publikwerks: yves0010: Publikwerks: Saborlas: One franchise involves psychic space samurai.

The other involves a one-hit wonder actor who chewed so much scenery, it's a wonder he didn't get Styrofoam poisoning. Seriously, did Shat ever do anything of note after Kirk?

Oh really, like Mark Hamil was any better.

[t0.gstatic.com image 313x161]

Yes, The Joker!

[ts2.mm.bing.net image 252x291]

[ts3.mm.bing.net image 300x187]

The best Joker ever!

Don't get me wrong, I though he was a great voice actor. But would I consider it on par with TJ Hooker and TekWar? Yup.

Besides, Shatner singing to Lucas is pure win


I happen to be a fan of both and can never really pick who I appreciate best for the talents. I always liked Hamil for Star Wars and Batman (Damn it, his Joker laugh still gives me nightmares).

Shatner for his Kirk and other rolls.

To me, they are two actors that cant be compared. Some of my favorites.

Though I happen to like Hamil more cause Im more exposed to his work... Freaken awesome in Darksiders.
 
2011-12-03 09:00:55 AM  

peterthx: Burr: The reason SW wins...

ST will never have a game like this:

[xboxmedia.ign.com image 160x205]

Not to mention The Jedi Knight series, the KOTOR series, and the upcoming MMORPG (which sounds promising).

They just can't make a good ST game it seems..

AHEM

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x303]


The adventure games voiced by the original casts (25th Anniversary, Judgment Rites, A Final Unity) were excellent, and the best translations of Star Trek was to an interactive format. Elite Force is a great FPS successfully set the Star Trek universe, and the same can be said of the same company's work with Star Wars in Jedi Outcast.

The original cast (including DeForest Kelley until he was too ill to keep up with script changes) recorded dialog for the never-completed Secret of Vulcan Fury. I can't believe nobody has salvaged those recordings to make a game.
 
2011-12-03 01:00:00 PM  

Mugato: It seems strange that someone who is so close to death would wage a public war against the star of another franchise. It's pretty immature of Shatner too.

/the "sci-fi nerds never kissed a girl" cliche is extremely outdated an lame but continue, it never gets old


Yet the thread is now 99% Star Trek minutiae and about 0% hot Leia pix.
www.fashion-victims.org
/just sayin'
 
Displayed 358 of 358 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report