wing 1 and 2 options

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fix: Replace "fairytale" with "myth", and you get George Lucas' intent for Star Wars.

Just like there's an idea behind Star Wars, there's an idea behind Star Trek, and I agree with Lehah that you don't seem to know either well enought.
 
That's absurd - it's a widely known fact that teenagers have a preference for adult entertainment!
Maybe a little sad, but certainly true! :D Grand Theft Auto anybody?
Somehow I'm under impression that he ment Ginger Allen's pre WC stuff :D
I disagree that Star Trek is at the same level as Star Wars - the former tries to tackle some deep and meaningful stuff while the latter is simply a fairytale set in space.
Don't answer questions you obviously don't have the faculties for.
Well he does have a point about Star Wars - after all it begins with Long, long time ago..., this was ment to be a typical fairytale beginning, and Lucas did admit that he meant it. Star Wars is as much fantasy as it is Sci-fi, and it's not the bad thing - it's like Lord of The Rings you can have all it's universe wich 's only limitation is the imagination of it's creator.

Trek, on the other side was ment to be somehow both hard SF and Utopia, and it probably inspired more scientists than any other SF universe (c'mon, everybody knows that Hawking is a Trekkie :D), so it may seem more "realistic"... but for today they're on the same level of unrealism.

edit: i'm terribly sory for any mistakes but it's well after midnight here
 
Myth as used by Lucas is not the same as a fairy tale. On some level, both Star Wars and Star Trek use symbolic fiction to express certain ideas about mankind and the universe. The ideas are vastly different, of course. To discuss of which is more realistic (Q or Obi-Wan? Phasers or Blasters?) is irrelevant.
 
You have something to say here - but you're not using the right words.


Witch one do you think is wrong? Hard SF? I just wanted to say, that Star Trek was taken seriously by it's creator and it's somehow similar to sam old Hard SF stories (after all it was created when SF was really popular)

And for Utopia - it's exactly what I ment - it shows society in some points very simmilar to the one shown in Thomas Moore's book - no money no wars inside the federation almoast no struggle for power, no deaseses, no poverty, evryone focused on improving himself - looks like Utopia to me - or some kind of communism, and this is absolutly unrealistic vison of Society. So we can come to the conclusion - we can talk about realism of some aspects of Star Trek or Star Wars, ant it's the Star Wars wich is more realistic from the sotia point of view
 
You might want to look up the definition of "hard SF" before you post any further, Mancubus. ST (and SW) is very much not "hard".

"Hard SF" means that the technology is based off of or derived from known science of today, with an emphasis on accurate science (or at least internally consistent, for the times when the tech has to go "off the reservation", as with FTL drives), and the technology is an important part of the story (though not necessarily the primary focus). Think of the stuff written by folks like Robert Heinlein, Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Arthur C. Clarke, for more famous examples of hard SF writers.
 
There was one aspect of this thread early on that got me thinking. The idea that a single fighter could be able to take down a powerful capital ship. Though it may seem absurd at first, I believe it is entirely plausible.

Consider the following scenario which pits a single fighter against a capital ship. I realize the conditions are quite different from the Wing Commander universe, but I think the comparison can be made. I'll choose a Soviet vessel because of its power and size, and I'll choose an American fighter because, well, I'm American, so why not? :D : It's 1985, and the Soviet Union is the only remaining nation in the world to employ a battlecruiser class ship. IMO there were few other single ships that could be considered as powerful; the Kirov's array of weoponry was formidable. Now imagine an F-18 skimming the waves at mach .91; it has managed to quietly close with the Kirov while the ship and its fighter screen are occupied with other important matters. Suddenly in range, the pilot quickly pops up and fires off a couple of Harpoon anti ship missiles, turns, and flees the engagement zone.

Now, there can be speculation as to whether or not the Kirov could eliminate the incoming missiles; could it even detect them in time? Missile interception was always a difficult task, especially in the 1980's. Even American ships equipped with the latest in Aegis radar and point defenses were still considered quite vulnerable to missile attack. Perhaps our friend the Kirov could find herself surviving the above scenario, but it is possible that a series of events could lead to a single fighter deploying an ASM with the capability of sinking a large, expensive, and incredibly powerful vessel.

I suppose it does reveal the interesting relationship between fighters and capital ships. Both types need each other; neither would last very long without the other. And, on a humorous note, I couldn't really ever see an alien from Alien fitting into a cockpit of any kind to fly a fighter of any kind! I'm glad the Kilrathi evolved the way they did. It would be boring in Confed space without them!
 
Witch one do you think is wrong? Hard SF? I just wanted to say, that Star Trek was taken seriously by it's creator and it's somehow similar to sam old Hard SF stories

You have the (basic) ideas in mind, but you're using all the wrong words to get your point across. It's kind of like confusing the words "bite" and "byte" - they sound the same but mean totally different things.
 
Wing Commander, Star Trek and Star Wars I see it at the same level of Science Fiction. It can be entertained but it is not serious.

So...what's "serious" Sci-Fi? What do you intend when you define the word "serious" in this context?

Are you talking drama? Action? Character interaction? Ideas? Special effects? Extraterrestrial racial makeup?

That terminology isn't exactly the most clear. What do you mean when you say this?
 
There was one aspect of this thread early on that got me thinking. The idea that a single fighter could be able to take down a powerful capital ship. Though it may seem absurd at first, I believe it is entirely plausible.

Consider the following scenario which pits a single fighter against a capital ship. I realize the conditions are quite different from the Wing Commander universe, but I think the comparison can be made. I'll choose a Soviet vessel because of its power and size, and I'll choose an American fighter because, well, I'm American, so why not? :D : It's 1985, and the Soviet Union is the only remaining nation in the world to employ a battlecruiser class ship. IMO there were few other single ships that could be considered as powerful; the Kirov's array of weoponry was formidable. Now imagine an F-18 skimming the waves at mach .91; it has managed to quietly close with the Kirov while the ship and its fighter screen are occupied with other important matters. Suddenly in range, the pilot quickly pops up and fires off a couple of Harpoon anti ship missiles, turns, and flees the engagement zone.

Now, there can be speculation as to whether or not the Kirov could eliminate the incoming missiles; could it even detect them in time? Missile interception was always a difficult task, especially in the 1980's. Even American ships equipped with the latest in Aegis radar and point defenses were still considered quite vulnerable to missile attack. Perhaps our friend the Kirov could find herself surviving the above scenario, but it is possible that a series of events could lead to a single fighter deploying an ASM with the capability of sinking a large, expensive, and incredibly powerful vessel.

I suppose it does reveal the interesting relationship between fighters and capital ships. Both types need each other; neither would last very long without the other. And, on a humorous note, I couldn't really ever see an alien from Alien fitting into a cockpit of any kind to fly a fighter of any kind! I'm glad the Kilrathi evolved the way they did. It would be boring in Confed space without them!

Or take the Falklands war, for that matter. The Brits shot down a good number of Exocet missiles that the Argentines threw at them...at least, whenever they were able to throw them. At least one got through, though, as the HMS Sheffield unfortunately demonstrated.

It was, and still is, all about the alertness of the crew. Being a 12-year Navy vet, this is the single most critical aspect that I'd ever seen in regards to combat readiness. A crew can be combat-ready, but if they're not alert to the threat, as was much like the USS Stark when she got hit by an Exocet back in the '80s, the ship has no chance.

The technology has been there for some time, but the technology employed is only as good as the crew manning battle stations.
 
So...what's "serious" Sci-Fi? What do you intend when you define the word "serious" in this context?

Are you talking drama? Action? Character interaction? Ideas? Special effects? Extraterrestrial racial makeup?

That terminology isn't exactly the most clear. What do you mean when you say this?

I'm talking about the entire created universe, from the base ideas to the details.
The final result of the creation.

A Sci-fi Universe is serious when all fits in. When it seems possible.

Battlestar Galactica (Tv Series), 2001 (movie), Red Planet (movie), X-Files (Movie)seems possible to me.

Surely what seems serious to me it might not be the same to other. Depends on preferences and knowledge of every person. A Space scientist maybe laugh of all these universes we are talking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top