ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

enterprise-e vs empiral star destroyer

legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 2:34 pm

You keep saying it's official.  The publisher for ICS is "DK Children", the publisher for the Essential Guide is "Lucas Books".  Now, explain to me in the most logical sense how the ICS has a "higher" canon value than the Essential Guide.

legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 2:38 pm

You ask me what's my point, my point is that one book is official and the other isn't.  Just saying it's official doesn't make it official, so to move forward, can everyone involved in this blog move ahead as to what's considered canon and not-canon.  Frankly, I'm sick of continuously posting the same material over and over again.  Can we all first agree on what material will be excepted and not accepted as to make this an apples to apples comparison, or are we going to dodge the issue so we can ping pong match this entire blog until hell freezes over.  Let's all agree on what we will accept as canon and not-canon.

legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 2:51 pm

There is material that chr33355 is stating here, and then acts like none of what was stated is in dispute.  Then has the nerve to say that the tech manuals aren't canon when in fact they have a Paramount logo on them.  So, basically in chr33355's opinion, everything I'm saying is not canon, but everything stated by chr33355 is canon.  This couldn't be more childish if I made this up.  Quit glossing over and ignoring what I'm saying.  I stated alot of stuff, all of which is official whether they be from official written material or from the series or movies.  I'm not throwing in any conjecture or material not accepted as canon.  I'm not even throwing in conjecture from the statement that chr33355 made about the "Die is Cast" episode.


And yet we didn't see anything close to that level of damage on the visuals of the attack.  Given that the whole thing was a trap I imagine that the Founders just sent fake sensor data too fool the Romulans.


This statement above is conjecture.  It's not fact.  What you see onscreen and what's stated onscreen is the fact of the series.  Can we stop with the conjecture.  I'm not doing it, so if you're going to respond to me, respond to me with facts not conjecture.

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 3:07 pm

Quote: legacymillenium @ Jul. 20 2011, 2:51 pm

>

>There is material that chr33355 is stating here, and then acts like none of what was stated is in dispute.  Then has the nerve to say that the tech manuals aren't canon when in fact they have a Paramount logo on them.  So, basically in chr33355's opinion, everything I'm saying is not canon, but everything stated by chr33355 is canon.  This couldn't be more childish if I made this up.  Quit glossing over and ignoring what I'm saying.  I stated alot of stuff, all of which is official whether they be from official written material or from the series or movies.  I'm not throwing in any conjecture or material not accepted as canon.  I'm not even throwing in conjecture from the statement that chr33355 made about the "Die is Cast" episode.

>And yet we didn't see anything close to that level of damage on the visuals of the attack.  Given that the whole thing was a trap I imagine that the Founders just sent fake sensor data too fool the Romulans.

>This statement above is conjecture.  It's not fact.  What you see onscreen and what's stated onscreen is the fact of the series.  Can we stop with the conjecture.  I'm not doing it, so if you're going to respond to me, respond to me with facts not conjecture.

>
  We do not see any sort of damage to the surface of the planet what we see doesn't match was the people say.  As for the essential guides being publushed by lucas books that is wrong lucas books is a part of the lucas licensing department which licenses all lucasflim written material.  the Essential Guides are published by Del Ray and the ICS are published by DK.  You need to double check your material before you say stuff.  Just having a logo doesn't make somthing canon it just means it is licensed property.


legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 4:29 pm

I just looked it up at Amazon.  It states that The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, Revised Edition is from Lucas Books. I do my research.


"We do not see any sort of damage to the surface of the planet what we see doesn't match was the people say."


As far as the above comment is concerned, all I have to say is WOW.  Now you're disputing canon, because what's seen on screen is considered canon.  By the way, it was stated before the attack on the founders homeworld what was to be expected from their attack on the planet.  It's not like they were shocked their weapons did the amount of damage stated by the Romulan bridge officer, what was a shock to them was there were still life form readinds, hence the trap, but not the actual damage to the planet.


I'm done trying to discuss this issue.  You continuously shrug off material such as actual video seen from the series, but yet still want us as a whole to except Saxton, and video from ESB and other SD.net machinations.  Someone's conjecture about SD firepower is acceptable to you, but official video isn't.  I'll return to this debate when someone wants to come at me without conjecture of any kind.

legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 4:34 pm

From what I've gathered by Lucas itself, only his material is considered 100% canon.  After all folks, SW is his brain child not yours.  He's said that all other material outside of what was stated earlier by marshall8472 is not considered true 100% canon and are actually considered lower canon, and if that lower stuff contradicts the higher stuff it's not valid at all.

Six of Nine

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 622

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 7:41 pm

I have 1 question are you a Star Trek fan or Star Wars?


You have some great ideas Legacy


As a wise man once wrote, : "Nature decays, but latinum lasts forever".

StekTek

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Jul. 21 2011, 7:17 am

In my opinion, I would think that the Enterprise-E would win in this battle. While I think that the Star Destroyer would be much more powerful than the Enterprise's phasers and torpedoes, the thing that would win the battle for the Enterprise would be strategy. The Enterprise crew would find a weakness in the Star Destroyer's design and utilize that to their advantage. The Enterprise is considerably more maneuverable. The Star Destroyers Turbolaser Batteries are aimed and controlled by a crew which would be a disadvantage compared to the targeting scanners on the Enterprise. The Enterprise could make several passes each time firing at key systems of the Star Destroyer.


If you consider that the Star Destroyer has a squadron or two of TIE Fighters to deploy to defend the Star Destroyer than that is a different story. The TIE Fighters are much faster and maneuverable than the Enterprise would be. The fire power of a TIE Fighter is not that much but if you add the fact that their are a bunch of them shooting at the Enterprise then maybe the battle would be more evenly matched.

legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 21 2011, 8:36 am

I'm actually a scifi fan in general and have the same love for both SW and ST.  I appreciate you thinking I have some great ideas.  When I approach this discussion or debate (depending on how people take it), I try to be as objective as possible.  Problem I see is that some people involved in this debate, particularly people who favor SW base almost all of their arguments on discrediting ST when what they should be doing is finding material to support their claims.  The truth is there are 6 SW movies to draw facts from, and 11 ST movies along with 5 series on the other side of the debate.  Clearly there is alot more footage and dialog for ST to draw upon.  So, all I ever hear from the SW supporters is the asteriod scene from ESB, which is completely conjecturzied since it is a visual description, not someone stating some fact, and the ICS which is not G-canon.  That's pretty much the basis for a sizeable portion of their "evidence".  They rather use this conjecture of 200 gigatons, then simply stating "we really don't know the firepower of the SD".  To them, some PhD looking at video tape and formulating some idea of the firepower is considered unquestionable fact, and they want to compare that to numbers that have either been stated in some official material released and authorized by Paramount or to information that has actually been stated on screen.  In that regard the basis of their argument is complete conjecture, yet they want to question actual footage scene in ST on screen, and stated on screen such as "The Die is Cast".


They are so stuck on the visuals effects.  Are we that childish that we are stuck on visual effects.  Ofcourse the visual effects as good as they are were back in the mid 90's, when that episode was made, are still not going to be as great as they are now.  For a TV budget they did their best to portray the planet getting bombarded, yet they want to be so literal. 


Let me give you an example, in the new Trek movie when the Enterprise goes to warp, you see a white flashing background when it's travelling at warp speed.  Now if you compare that to any of the series, for the exception of the original, when a ship travels at warp we see the black background of space with the stars being stretched.  Does that mean that literally, something is different about warp speed now in the new movie compared to the other series?  The answer is no.  It's called a "creative license".  In any good scifi, the effects take a back seat to the story telling.  SW is included in the trope of good scifi, atleast in my opinion.  Lucas himself as stated along time ago that special effects without story means nothing.  He himself is more concerned about story telling than the special effects, but it was important enough to update, and hence he went back and remade much of the special effects from the original series in order to keep it looking consistent with episodes 1-3.  A similar approach has been done to ST with the original series.  Point is, some of the special effects were redone for consistency sake, but obviously not all of it.  Why, budget being the key factor.  It takes a lot of money to do this, and so only specific shots were redone.  For example, all that new footage was added to episode 4, such as at Mos Eisley.  The battle of Yavin was also redone.  But, the tie fighter scene where the Falcon was being chased down after they escaped DID NOT have redone special effects.  The targeting computer was the same cheap looking thing from the original.  Why did he not update the effects there, because it wasn't important enough to do it.  He pick and chose the scenes for "dramatic presentation".  Yet pro-wars debaters religiously go by the mantra of the visuals.  You really believe the footage of the asteriod being destroyed is perfect?  The special effects were done in the late seventies, and it was another scene which Lucas DID NOT update, because it wasn't worth updating.  It didn't enhance story telling.  The asteroid scene in episode 2 with Obi Wan getting chased down by Fett had great visuals, because it was made recently with the cutting edge effects of the time, and it was a part of the dramatic story telling.  The ESB asteriod scene where the SD is shooting down asteriods was not a significant part of the story telling, so when he had a chance to redo the effects for ESB, he skipped that scene.  People arguing about this shit need to stop being so damn literal.  It's like children being enthralled by pretty colors.  Grow up.


 

legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 21 2011, 8:58 am

On what marshall8472 stated, if people honestly think that ST ships don't have the firepower to devestate a planet, You're in LA LA land.  It was stated in the original series that the Enterprise could devestate the entire surface of a planet wiping out all life.  Does that mean, it has the firepower to blow the planet to pieces?  No.  But, you don't need to be powerful enough to blow a planet to pieces, just powerful enough to cause enough damage to render it lifeless.  Now, you bring a small floatila of ships like in "The Die is Cast", given the firepower of a single ship, a small floatila would be capable of actually destroying a planet.  That was clearly stated and shown, and I'm not going to get bogged down by the special effects like other people.  I'm no so visually enthralled.

legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 21 2011, 9:00 am

Now since there is still a debate as to officially released material by Lucas Books being lower canon, what about WWW.starwars.com?

jtorrez

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Jul. 21 2011, 12:56 pm

Enterprise-E versus an Imperial-class Star Destroyer? hrmm

Ok so this answer is under the premise that Star Wars and Star Trek on the same timeline just different points in time.

Thus Star Trek would be Star Wars past and Star Wars be Star Treks future.


Star Wars would be based after the fall of the Federation and destructure of earth spreading mankind about the galaxy



With all this in mind the Star Destroyer being greater technology would whoop the Entprise-E

A better question:

Who would win between ST:ENT Enterprise-J and a Star Destroyer.



-jon Genius level repeat offender

Six of Nine

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 622

Report this Jul. 21 2011, 2:29 pm

The Enterprise E, it has more firepower


As a wise man once wrote, : "Nature decays, but latinum lasts forever".

Six of Nine

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 622

Report this Jul. 21 2011, 2:30 pm

I have an idea lets make a Star Wars thread

RedShirtGuyNumber1001

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2016

Report this Jul. 21 2011, 8:58 pm

this poll is gay...

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum