Science Says Star Wars Blows Up Better Than Star Trek

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Does this really matter at all?? I love both franchises though I prefer Star Trek. Honestly, while it's cool and you know, 'one more point for Star Wars' and all that... Does this matter? Both franchises began in the 70's, before the cynical age, so does anyone really care? They're both considered pulp sci-fi, and everyone knows to never take either franchise too seriously on their science. So can we just let it go?

This matters?

Soviet Heavy:
God I fucking love this video. Especially when Vader does the big fuck you force choke the whole crew for making fun of his lasers.

EDIT
Whoops, I was talking about the wrong video.

THIS is the one I was referring to.

Holy hell! What an upset! :D

This article is way too nerdcore for me. Starwars and Startrek are both good franchises, what's the point of figuring out which one has a better explosion?

Um...the day Star Trek has the kind of operating budget Star Wars does, this might actually become a relevant topic of discussion...but, yeah, they don't.

The Original Star Wars had better explosions. Yet another aspect those shit prequels ruined. Remember Jango chasing Obi-won above Genonosis?

Loonerinoes:

Soviet Heavy:
God I fucking love this video. Especially when Vader does the big fuck you force choke the whole crew for making fun of his lasers.

EDIT
Whoops, I was talking about the wrong video.

THIS is the one I was referring to.

Holy hell! What an upset! :D

You just can't beat the POWER OF THE FORCE.
If it was Kirk, THEN it would have been an upset :P

The original destruction of the Death Star in 1977 is a moment etched into the memories of all who witnessed it, a grand denouement to the most epic cinematic experience of all time. But that wasn't good enough for ol' George, so in 1997 he added the "ring effect," a hoop of fire that emanated awkwardly from the immolated space station. The effect was more than a little reminiscent than the one used by its Star-faring rival several years earlier, in the 1991 flick Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Score one for the Trekkies, right?

I'm confused. Which movie came out first?

Sorry, I dont see how having a trench 30-40 feet deep in something the size of a moon will provide "considerably less resistance." I'm calling bull shit on that one.

The Amazing Tea Alligator:
Phil Plait's great! Anybody read 'Death from the Skies!'?

Hell yeah!

I loved his explanations of Gamma-Ray Bursts, as well as his plausible alien invasion.

The_root_of_all_evil:

bojac6:

(For the record, I do not think we need to wait for science. If there is a character from Star Trek sexier than Princess Leia, I haven't seen the episode. And I've seen all the episodes.)

The infamous "Decontamination" skit in Enterprise?

You would make me think of THAT wouldn't you? :P

Honestly, am I the only who thinks it is kind of pointless to compare realism in two science-fiction franchises that completely disregard many realities of space?

While we are on the subject, here is a useful link on the matter.

Queen Michael:
Star Wars wins! Now to find scientific evidence for all the other stuff in the movies. The lightsabers will have to be our first priority, of course.

It would be more like the beam katana in No More Heroes...a beam of light will continue to stretch outward unless it strikes something it can't pass through...so it'd have to have something to hold its shape.

If the explosion ring is at right angles to the trench on the Death Star, then the trench doesn't come into play at all, and is probably a negative point, all considered.

Personally, I say give both explosion effects a red cross, and send each of the people responsible a dunce cap and a message that they need to sit in the corner until they learn how to do proper space explosions.

Hubilub:
Firefly still wins for not having sound in space.

Suck on that, Trekkies and... Wookies?

Not to mention that there's no fire in space either - something the crew exploited in one episode to push out a pretty substantial blaze.

Of course it's vertical It was IMPLIED that that scene was seen through the eyes of a dying storm trooper floating off in the distance. He happened to be floating in a position in which the explosion appeared sideways.

Soviet Heavy:

God I fucking love this video. Especially when Vader does the big fuck you force choke the whole crew for making fun of his lasers.

EDIT
Whoops, I was talking about the wrong video.

THIS is the one I was referring to.

Holy shit that's an awesome and probably accurate video. I'm a fan of both series, and I've always said that the Enterprise would kick Star Wars' ass.

OT: Lucas still did it wrong IMO. If the trench is considered a stress point, then the ring should have been horizontally aligned. I'm also assuming the trench that is being referred to is the docking ring around the center, because the exhaust trench was minuscule to the one that was around the entire station.

of course Star Wars wins :)
but ya idk...it's sci-FI peoples xD

ben---neb:
Who will win between Star Wars and Star Trek? There's only one way to find out...

FIGHT

AND THE WINNER IS...

Umm...

The magic disapearing WB logo?

I always thought the whole 'ring explosion' was stupid.

Anyone that knows anything about physics, nay, common sense would tell you that an explosion produces a force in all directions unless channeled by some kind of fixture or structure. If there is a visable ring from the detonation, it would appear as a ring expanding from the center, as you could only see the density of the wave where it appears thickest from the point of view, which would be the sides of the sphere.

Abedeus:

Queen Michael:
Star Wars wins! Now to find scientific evidence for all the other stuff in the movies. The lightsabers will have to be our first priority, of course.

They already made a lightsaber, but it lack a proper energy source. Give nano-materials a couple of years and it'll work.

It sounds like I'm mimicking Fallout, but microfusion cells will win here. The only power source with enough wattage is a fusion or fission reaction and a fusion reaction is mildly easier to contain than a fission reaction.

Is it bad that I'm already getting ideas in my head on how to do this?

Niccolo:

Abedeus:

Queen Michael:
Star Wars wins! Now to find scientific evidence for all the other stuff in the movies. The lightsabers will have to be our first priority, of course.

They already made a lightsaber, but it lack a proper energy source. Give nano-materials a couple of years and it'll work.

It sounds like I'm mimicking Fallout, but microfusion cells will win here. The only power source with enough wattage is a fusion or fission reaction and a fusion reaction is mildly easier to contain than a fission reaction.

Is it bad that I'm already getting ideas in my head on how to do this?

Actually, they're waiting for nanofiber carbon batteries to become viable. One lightsaber would require a power of a small city to work effectively. The idea is to generate a great amount of energy, converting air into plasma. Then, using powerful magnetic field, encasing that plasma around a ceramic sword-shaped object. Only problem is changing colors from orange ;d

Wow. This is the nerdiest news post I've read in quite a while. Awesome!

Im still waiting for something to have ships fly at eachother at random angles. Why is everything always upright?

GameGoddess101:
Does this really matter at all?? I love both franchises though I prefer Star Trek. Honestly, while it's cool and you know, 'one more point for Star Wars' and all that... Does this matter? Both franchises began in the 70's, before the cynical age, so does anyone really care? They're both considered pulp sci-fi, and everyone knows to never take either franchise too seriously on their science. So can we just let it go?

Someone who says not to take it so seriously seems to be taking it too seriously methinks.

ow ow ow.... Given that both involve more plot-holes per minute than an average MST3K flick, is it really worth discussing which one is slightly less flawed???

(Ok, nerds, before you start flaming me, yes, both were entertaining. But, I'm a fucking physicist. I have very high standards about that sort of thing when you start talking about realism; expecting suspension of belief is fine, but trying to explain bullshit physics of fictional universes just makes the bullshit smell that much more pungent).

Abedeus:
[snip snip snip] Then, using powerful magnetic field, encasing that plasma around a ceramic sword-shaped object. Only problem is changing colors from orange ;d

Add some metal ions to the mix? copper for green, iron for red, potassium for purple...I forget the others.

Abedeus:

Actually, they're waiting for nanofiber carbon batteries to become viable. One lightsaber would require a power of a small city to work effectively. The idea is to generate a great amount of energy, converting air into plasma. Then, using powerful magnetic field, encasing that plasma around a ceramic sword-shaped object. Only problem is changing colors from orange ;d

Fusion and fission cells - while still theoretical - would be capable of a tremendous energy output. And yes, I know the principle behind how al ightsabre would be made...

A better method would be to construct it as forming an arc of electricity - when you see lightning, it's not electricity in the same sense as a spark but is actually plasma - and generating a constant 20,000 volts or thereabouts (The voltage to cause plasmification) isn't beyond the realm of possibility for a fusion power generator.

The real doubt is whether a small enough one could be made... Hmm.

Niccolo:

Abedeus:

Actually, they're waiting for nanofiber carbon batteries to become viable. One lightsaber would require a power of a small city to work effectively. The idea is to generate a great amount of energy, converting air into plasma. Then, using powerful magnetic field, encasing that plasma around a ceramic sword-shaped object. Only problem is changing colors from orange ;d

Fusion and fission cells - while still theoretical - would be capable of a tremendous energy output. And yes, I know the principle behind how al ightsabre would be made...

A better method would be to construct it as forming an arc of electricity - when you see lightning, it's not electricity in the same sense as a spark but is actually plasma - and generating a constant 20,000 volts or thereabouts (The voltage to cause plasmification) isn't beyond the realm of possibility for a fusion power generator.

The real doubt is whether a small enough one could be made... Hmm.

But... a lightning wouldn't arc onto you if two lightsabers crossed? Two plasma swords would react like lightsabers - would collide, since ceramic can't be cut by plasma.

I still like energy, as in heat, over energy as in electricity more. And like poster above noticed, it would be easier to color a lightsaber made from ceramic and plasma.

As usual, science fiction offers a solution:

The Death Star had some kind of widget in its core/construction/snack machines/whatever that caused that superheated ring when it blew up. Ditto Praxis, which had an atmosphere made of oh, say Klingon farts, which have the same effect.

There doesn't need to be a factual solution for either in either film, especially since both are fantasy. I mean, come ON.

Plus, it's essentially the same special effect, created by computers, which were created by science. So there's your scientific explanation.

Abedeus:

Queen Michael:
Star Wars wins! Now to find scientific evidence for all the other stuff in the movies. The lightsabers will have to be our first priority, of course.

They already made a lightsaber, but it lack a proper energy source. Give nano-materials a couple of years and it'll work.

Who's they and where can I find some of those they?

what about the spherican explosion from the supernova in generations

MajoraPersona:

The original destruction of the Death Star in 1977 is a moment etched into the memories of all who witnessed it, a grand denouement to the most epic cinematic experience of all time. But that wasn't good enough for ol' George, so in 1997 he added the "ring effect," a hoop of fire that emanated awkwardly from the immolated space station. The effect was more than a little reminiscent than the one used by its Star-faring rival several years earlier, in the 1991 flick Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Score one for the Trekkies, right?

I'm confused. Which movie came out first?

Star Wars was out first, but the ring around the Death Star explosion was added in a rerelease of the original trilogy in 97, several years after Star Trek VI.

Abedeus:

But... a lightning wouldn't arc onto you if two lightsabers crossed? Two plasma swords would react like lightsabers - would collide, since ceramic can't be cut by plasma.

I still like energy, as in heat, over energy as in electricity more. And like poster above noticed, it would be easier to color a lightsaber made from ceramic and plasma.

Hmm... Lightning may arc, yes - but a magnetic field would be completely necessary on either version to contain the plasma, and this would likely stop the arcing.

However... as to ceramic not being cut by plasma, you might have a small flaw there. The most common plasma seen by people is oxygen plasma - which comes in at several thousand degrees (Fahrenheit or Celsius, take your pick - it's still goddamned hot) and, well, it won't cut ceramic - it'll just make it melt or vaporise depending on the ceramic used.

Also... ceramics are known for being rather fragile. Even a steel-reinforced one would crack along the ceramic spaces and shatter.

The lightsabre version I was talking about was essentially a scaled-up version of a plasma-cutter. The spark between the electrodes of the cutter keeps the plasma tightly corraled, since plasma is charged and thus attracted to electricity; on a scaled up version a magnetic field would be necessary to avoid all the uncomfortable arcing.

However, it'd be less likely to shatter in your hands and vaporise either the only thing containing the plasma or you.

theSovietConnection:

MajoraPersona:

The original destruction of the Death Star in 1977 is a moment etched into the memories of all who witnessed it, a grand denouement to the most epic cinematic experience of all time. But that wasn't good enough for ol' George, so in 1997 he added the "ring effect," a hoop of fire that emanated awkwardly from the immolated space station. The effect was more than a little reminiscent than the one used by its Star-faring rival several years earlier, in the 1991 flick Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Score one for the Trekkies, right?

I'm confused. Which movie came out first?

Star Wars was out first, but the ring around the Death Star explosion was added in a rerelease of the original trilogy in 97, several years after Star Trek VI.

Ah, thanks. I avoided the 'digitally remastered' versions when I could, as my dad bought the original original trilogy when it was released just before those edited versions. A bit annoying how they all had a George Lucas interview before the movie itself, but w/e.

I once saw parts of the rereleases. Didn't like them so much.

Also, I finally re-read the quoted text properly. Hurray for not paying attention.

Undiscovered Country > Special Edition Star Wars

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here