Star Wars or Star Trek - Superior Ship Design Style and Artistry?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- This video is an artistic critique! Let's compare and contrast the space ship design styles between Star Wars and Star Trek. What are the rules for both universes when it comes to the Art of Ship Design? Is one better than the other? Perhaps there is no conflict at all!
Support Resurrected Starships on Patreon!! www.patreon.co...
Soundtrack:
Figuring it All Out by TeknoAXE: • Figuring it All Out --...
Well they both have horrifically exposed bridges.
SEE? I'm not the only one agreeing here, am I?
in star trek there are actually races that dont have exposed bridges and at least for Klingons having a exposed bridge makes sense, because it would not be honarabel for the bridge crew to hide while the rest of the crew risks their lifes.
But overall i agree and even worse at least for star trek no one ever aims for the bridge, i mean every race in the alpha and beta quadrant should know where Starfleet Ships have there bridge, they dont even need to know what ship class they are fighting its always the weird half sphere on top of the saucer section
They get blown up sometimes too.
They will never learn to put the bridge inside the middle of the ship with a citadel around it.
To klingons, they want a honorable fight, so they have a reason to not aim the starfleet ship bridge (ot i maybe wrong)
Star Trek Capital ships are basically submarines in space. Especially for movement. It's like they are slowly gliding through water. This style was most prevalent in Wrath of Khan.
Generally, I personally prefer the star trek ships
Also when you think about it, it makes sense for star trek to have more elegant ships. It's centred on ships for an exploration organisation, they don't need there ships to look battle ready or battle worn because they aren't warships unlike the klingons and star wars
Oh hang on, are you saying klingon ships are not elegant?? What kind of PetaQ!
Resurrected Starships they're more elegant then star wars ships but not as elegant as federation ships
Simple because they have more of those random, unexplained wires and stuff on the outside. Also they're warships meaning the edges are more rugged and weapons are more prominent
Nice use of the Klingon language by the way
Qa'Plah! As a Klingon, I feel you, however Klingon ships aren't built for luxury or appearance, they are built to serve a purpose and do nothing else. To that end they are beautiful, but they aren't pretty, like the Federation ships are.
Brendon Milligan thank you
I was trying to say that but I worded it very poorly
I strongly agree Star Trek ships are much better! The largest and most powerful ship in the Trek Universe would have to be V'Ger, a massive alien entity ship: vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/8/85/V%27ger_ship.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100802203758&path-prefix=en
"...On its journey back, it amassed so much knowledge, it achieved consciousness itself. It became a living thing."
- James T. Kirk, 2270s (Star Trek: The Motion Picture)
V'ger was a massive entity and one of the most extraordinary lifeforms ever encountered by the United Federation of Planets. A sentient, massive entity which threatened Earth in 2271, en route to find its "Creator." In doing so, V'Ger destroyed anything it encountered by digitizing it for its memory chamber.
Generating a power field "cloud" about itself of over 22 AUs in diameter, the entity had gained sentience after unknown aliens repaired the old Earth space probe that formed its core - Voyager 6, whose name in corrupted English gave the sentience its name.
The entity, which viewed organic lifeforms as carbon-based units "infesting" starships, later joined with Starfleet's Lt. Ilia and Cmdr. Will Decker and evolved into a higher, yet unknown lifeform.
The V'Ger ship's size is 98 Kilometers. V'Ger is much bigger and longer than any ship in the Star Wars Universe!
Starfleet takes the condition of their ships very seriously. I've always seen Starfleet's attitude to ship maintenance and up-keep as analogous to the Royal Navy... like the Royal Navy 100 years ago. It's not like you can be promoted admiral merely by keeping your Miranda's bridge well polished, but on the other hand I think it might be pretty close given the competence of some Starfleet admirals. And You do get gritty details and "carbon-scoring" on some Star Trek ships. Klingons aren't to concerned with keeping their ships polished and factory fresh, and besides them lots of independent traders and flavor of the week race or petty-power are depicted in ships nowhere near Starfleet standards.
"It's not like you can be promoted admiral merely by keeping your Miranda's bridge well polished, but on the other hand I think it might be pretty close given the competence of some Starfleet admirals."
When I was a lad I served a term as office-boy to an attorney's firm
I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor and I polished up the handles on the big front door
(He polished up the handles on the big front door!)
I polished up those handles so carefully that now I am the ruler of the Queen's Navy
(He polished up those handles so carefully that now he is the ruler of the Queen's Navy!)
Yeah... remember Star Trek has one killer small ship...it's called the Defiant! :p
terrywest111 she has flaws but she has teeth
War Gamer Yes! One tough little ship!
Little? Or should I say small?
Dark Helmet: I see your ship is as small as mine, now let's see how well you handle it!
That "Small" ship is still pretty damned big at 250m
love the comment "What IS all this junk" for the star wars ships
I think the main reason we see 'cleaner' ships in Star Trek is that the majority of the ships we see on screen belong to a races military, be it Starfleet, the Klingon Imperial Fleet or the Romulan Star Navy, etc, so they are well maintained. Smaller ships, freighter for example tend to be a lot grungier though. I also think Star Trek ships are more theoretically possible in their designs. The nacelles are always away from the main hull for a reason, to create a smoother warp bubble around the ship. Every feature of the ship has a purpose. In Star Wars a lot of the bumps and protrusions we see are just there for the look, lol.
A warp bubble isn't theoretically possible and the rules star trek adheres to are just made up technology. All it does is produce consistency. Not that they don't look cool though...
@@jx4219 Well, science fiction (except for the really hard stuff) always has made up technology. What separates good science fiction from bad science fiction is consistency. Star Wars is consistent (minus the recent movies), mind you, but the greebling really is pointless.
@@jx4219 Warp Drive's RL counterpart is Alcubierre Drive
I generally agree with almost all that was said here. I think, for example, the K'tinga battlecruisers and to a lesser extent, the refit Constitution were excellent examples of his points about added detailing on the Star Trek movie ships. The large ships vs small ships analysis is spot on. Star Wars does more with smaller ships and Star Trek, which favors the majestic, space slow-motion shots, does more with the larger ships. Star Destroyers are iconic and intimidating, no doubt, but by focusing on extra detailing as opposed to interesting shapes, they are aesthetically less pleasing than Star Trek capital ships in my opinion. They are scary in the way that Borg ships are scary. They are giant, cold and reflect an utter lack of humanity. On the other hand Klingon K'tinga class battlecruisers, Babylon 5 Shadow vessels and the updated Cylon basestars are intimidating because they are shaped like predatory lifeforms. So there are always multiple ways to attack a design problem. Tie-fighters, X-wings, Y-wings, all the other letters and of course the Millennium Falcon are all fun designs because of their diversity. Star Trek shuttles, particularly Federation ones are all semi-sleek and functional, but all modify off one basic, if useful design. Other small ships are usually smaller versions of bigger ships.
A big factor that divides the two universes is just how casual/common space travel is - in Star Wars, even people on backwater planets can get their hands on a vessel that can traverse the galaxy, but in Star Trek, space travel is, (with only rare exceptions), the purview of large "superpowers". Think of it like military vehicles vs civilian ones - there's not too much variety in the way of military vehicles that fill a certain role, while civilian ones can vary widely.
To give a positive example of a small ship on Star Trek - there is the Delta Flyer or the USS Defiant (Sisko's one) - Though the later breaks a lot of the rules.
I suppose one that is a real fan favourite that is pretty small is the Nova Class USS Equinox (from the ST:Voyager episode of the same name).
I agree that Star Wars large ships are a bit meh - on the rebel side at least - there are some great looking imperial ones (Like Eclipse) I really do like the Star Wars fighters though - even the bonkers ones are kinda neat like the Coral Skippers or the V-wing
Not to mention runabouts and even some fighters, though fighters don't have much prominence in ST. The B'Rel is a classic small ship that is the mainstay of the Klingon fleet and I'd argue it was even more successful than the Defiant.
@@Zorro9129 Maquis Federation Fighters:*crying*
Militarily the Star Destroyer is a more efficient compact design, where all its sensitive bits are as buried in armor as possible. Star Trek ships look way sleeker but ultimately are quite a bit more fragile.
Just my thoughts.
Kevin Fox star destroyers have a very obvious bridge
In return of the Jedi a damaged fighter crashed into the bridge of the super star destroyer and completely incapacitated it coursing it to crash, the reason star wars ships are so bulky and armoured is because the shielding isn't that impressive, a star trek ship on the other hand have really impressive shielding but once it fails the ships don't have much armour at all to fall back on.
Again, Star Trek ships are notoriously underestimated. And, by the way, ST ships actually have less number of weapons on them than there are on SW ships.
@@gelatinocyte6270 Star Trek ships also have a screen history of incredibly low durability feats. See the Enterprise D throughout much of TNG and it's final destruction, caused by only a few blasts that did little more then damage the hull.
In the canon (the shows, nothing else) we've seen Federation's "toughest, biggest" ships completely die to trivial things, such as a grazing impact of the nacelle sending it out of control, a few torpedos/disruptor blasts impacting the hull in specific spots, to the Enterprise E in Nemesis being almost completely disabled yet having little to no hull damage.
Star Wars ships tend to be tougher on screen most of the time, and they often feature more weapons then the "big cannons", with the smaller cannons and weapon emplacements being canon details.
I do wonder how a federation ship would deal with ion blasts or torpedos though. :P
@@daefaron But hey,it is balanced by better shields!
SW get better armour,ST get better shields,I think this is an absolute balance.
what i also have noticed is that Stardestroyers are capable of Atmospheric Flight (see Rebels season 3 Battle of genosis part 2 for example) so they nead at least be a bit Aerodynamic, what explains the shape. A star fleet Ship normaly never touches the Athmosphere of an planet, they build in space and flight only in space, so the can be shaped as weard as thy wan´t
Could be, but then again Voyager landed on planets a few times, so at least some cruiser size ships were able to do it.
ok havn´t seen voyager until now, but is planed
I will actually feel guilty if i have helped (an any way) your decision to see it, LOL.
Seriously though, Voy doesn't rank very high on my Trek show list. It has some good moments, but far too few and far too spaced apart.
Your mileage may vary! :D
Star Trek ships are capable of atmospheric flight, although most are not designed to be. Case in point, in the original series episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday" we do see the Enterprise flying in Earth's atmosphere, even if it is brief. The Intrepid-class (USS Voyager) was designed to land on planetary surfaces so it is more capable at atmospheric flight than, say, a Galaxy-class ship. The entire line of Klingon Birds of Prey were all capable of atmospheric flight as well as landing on planetary surfaces. I'm sure USS Defiant wouldn't have a problem with it since it is rather small and more aerodynamic. We also see Enterprise (from the series "Enterprise") flying in Earth's atmosphere in the episode "Storm Front, Part II."
ok nice to know, thanks for the infos
Nice.
Personally I prefer the ST ships, but that's me. But solid shapes is structurally better...
star wars prequels, and clone wars cartoon series have more realistic for both movement, defensively etc designs. Like reflectie shapes, aerodynamic shapes.
I remember well the first two SF scenes that defined my childhood. The first was the trench run in SW (ep IV) and the utterly unintuitive tie fighters. As matter of fact, they flew in such a tight formation, that i though all 3 (Vader's tie advanced and the 2 flankers) were actually one ship held together by some force field or something. As strange as i considered this, nothing was able to prepare me for Scottie's tour of the Constitution refit in space dock. You see, i never saw the original series (way before my time), and when they showed this ship, in such fine detail, from all those angles.....my mind got blown. It was unlike anything i've ever seen, or even imagined :D
I actually had a very similar experience. I think that the refit enterprise from TMP is still the best ship in Star Trek artistically by far. The reason for this is that the redesign was kind of an evolution that took place over several years when they thought they might do a new TV series. Then of course they had a budget for TMP. The ship blows away anything from star wars at the time and you get a sense of scale with how all the scenes are shot.
Yeah, pretty much my opinion as well. I don't know, maybe it's the nostalgia factor, but the Con-refit is my favorite ST ship also.
That's still one of my favourite sci-fi ships of all time, that and the Millenium Falcon, for probably opposite reasons, ones a piece of art, the other to coin a phrase is a hunk of junk :-)
Needs more lights that don't do shit!
@Jean-Luc
ROFL!
I agree with you on every point. Of course, we can nit-pick on the details you omitted for brevity. The Klingon battle cruiser from ST The Motion Picture suffered from being covered with too many gimblies. Both the Enterprise and the Klingon ship were painted with iridescent paint that made filming them a nightmare. The Klingon ship wound up looking blue on film, while the Enterprise had to be drawn back into the film, as the iridescent paint matched the blue screen it was filmed against.
The Klingon Bird of Prey, with its non-aerodynamic wings and gigantic gun pods, always looked like a refugee from Star Wars. It just doesn't have the big round engine exhausts.
To me, the Star Trek ships have been better for the simple fact that the form followed the function. Star Wars isn't really science fiction, its epic fantasy that just happens to be set in space rather than some medieval world. As such, the science aspect of Star Wars was always secondary to the plot. This is in stark contrast with Star Trek where the science was always integral to the story. That said, my absolute favorite is and will always be the refit Constitution from TOS movies. They took the basic design of the Enterprise and gave it an incredible beauty that just can't be beat.
Disclaimer: I like Star Trek, but… Putting your engines out on tiny struts like a flying buttress is terrible functionally because they’re much more at risk in the event of debris, combat, and destruction due to gravity. Star Wars capital ships in general are much more structurally sound for their purpose than Star Trek because they are designed like rockets, not flying cathedrals.
@@Zealot2024 disclaimer as well, this is a bit of a nerd thing. While your objection does make eminent sense, the concept of how warp drive Works in Star Trek basically necessitate the engines being apart from the ship as they are. I don't know if the ship was designed first and then they rationalized around it or not, but it does fit in with the underlying fictional science of how to achieve faster-than-light speed.
@@MrMiz1113 Yeah, the most common reason given has to do with them being deadly to the crews of the ships, or perhaps because putting them behind the ship might inhibit their function, though these explanations do not make sense in light of many Klingon and Vulcan designs. But if distance is the primary issue then it would make more sense to put the engines behind the ship at the same distance away from the crew areas and keep the hull’s design cylindrical or triangular in order to maximize the armor; and minimize the risk to the engines and the crews.
Personally. Star trek makes the best capital ships look wise. Star wars the best fighters look wise.
i'm primarily a Trekkie, so my favorite Star Wars ship is the Y-wing, because it has nacelles. 8D
Huh, I loved the Y-wing since I was a child, but I never thought about it that way. You're right, it has a neck and nacelles, it all makes sense.
Also primarily a Trekkie ... but B-Wing and U-Wing are my faves, lol ... or at least they would be if the D'deridex Warbird wasn't so dominantly magnificent.
@@pwnmeisterage Oddly enough,even I am a bit inclined to ST,mah favourite SW ship is the pointy SDs.
One common misconception about Star trek ships, while I agree with this video, the Nacelles aren't engines. They are more, field generators, creating a subspace field around the ship, allowing for warp travel. They themselves do not propel the ship. At sub light speeds, the Impulse Engines, the glowing red vents that looks like tail lights, are what moves the ship, and for warp travel, space moves around the ship, the ship itself does not move, thus the nacelles are not propelling the ship. My point simply is, they are not engines, just field generators. Though they are necessary for space travel at warp. Think of it like a car, the Engine is under the hood, but its your tires that actually get the car moving. This is much like the warp nacelles they are much like the tires. The actual engine is the Warp Core, located in the secondary hull. This is what provides all the power to move the ship.
I suppose that is true. I tend to think of the Warp Core and the Warp Nacelles as a unified warp drive system rather than individual units for propulsion purposes. But your analysis of tires versus engine parts is almost flawless. Though the capacity of the nacelle's to produce the warp field is much more important than tire quality. The engine in a car generates the mechanical motive force that is transferred to the road. A warp core only produces power, all of the generation of effective motive force what translate that into movement is in the nacelles.
Pretty bad analogy.
Think of them as boats with paddles and a propeller: paddle for sub-light, propeller for FTL; take one out and the other is still functional.
Imperial ships are definitely more sturdy and compact. Star Destroyers much more closely resemble battleships and dreadnoughts etc.
I realy like both franchises and I do agree that star trek ship are a lot more functional in terms of estetics.
vulkan ships, One annular warp drive to rule them all!
+Captain Stoffel I personally prefer the large ships from Star Wars from the perspective of combat vessels. While star trek detailing is more functional as pointed out, the overall designs of the ships doesn't make much sense, Star Wars too has some similar weirdness but not as much. Most Federation ships in particular seem to have very odd designs for example one of the most important components (warp nacelles) is highly exposed on the pylons at the back and often times u see the saucer section attached to the other bit by a relatively thin connection (they made a point of this in the latest film when the enterprise gets cut in 2). Both franchises tend to have exposed bridges which doesn't make much sense but the shape of the star destroyer allows it to effectively hide all important stuff somewhere in the main hull. That being said both use their ships and technology in different ways so its not too important really.
Putting the nacelles onto pylons makes it possible to detach them quickly in case of an emergency. That way a critical hit in a nacelle doesn't automatically destroy the entire ship. The design also makes it easier to replace nacelles when wearout becomes an issue or the ship is due for an upgrade. The same applies to the saucer section: The ability to detach it quickly give the crew a chance to survive if something goes catatrophically wrong in the drive section.
If something goes wrong with the FTL-drive or the energy-generators of Star Destroyer the crew's chance to survive are a lot worse. Even if there are life-pods, you're worse off in one of those than you are in a star-ship that limited to sublight speeds.
Thunderbug must have missed that the disk can be separated from the engines as a large escape craft
bear in mind, startrek's capital ships are less of a combat vessel and more of a multi-role vessel.
I think you're neglecting the "frame" these ships were designed to fill. Star Wars sought to fill the wide screen with wide, long ships that evoked the brutality of its Nazis-in-space story. Star Trek filled the narrower NTSC frame with a swan-like tall ship appropriate for graceful morality tales. Both would suffer within the others' format.
Here's a fine video showing how Matt Jefferies cleverly fashioned the Enterprise to fit its frame. I must give the laurels to him for the sheer beauty and cleverness of his design. ua-cam.com/video/e6RAbB8afn0/v-deo.html
You know, one exception to this rule, I think, is the Defiant. The Defiant is a freakin' awesome ship! It looks good, it's design is incredibly unique, and to a fan of both universes, the Defiant is every bit as distinctive as the X-Wing or Millennium Falcon, although, it's not as widely known.
I think the author might include fighters too.
Since you said X-Wing then I think it is better to include Maquis Fighters.
First! Literally! Great Video man! You are the only person I know that actually understands both worlds!
The best of both worlds, ha! WE ARE THE BORG WE WILL ADD YOUR DESTINCTIVE DESIGNS TO OUR OWN!
Jean-Luc Martel Star Wars is cool, but the Borg are awesome.
They take the entire concept of design and aesthetics and throw it out the window. Screw logic, our ships our cubes!
star trek deseign: ohh, i am sooo curvy and sexy. star wars design: ya i'm ugly, so what ya gonna do about it punk?
As for paint: in Star Wars everyone is always at war so paint has a low priority, but in Star Trek you have a lot of downtime. For example, when the holographic doctor became a pop singing sensation fit an alien species B'Elanna Torres filled the time patching up the paint on Voyager's hull.
Every brand new ship starts off flawless and gleaming but ends up looking less grand after enough years at sea. Paint fades over time, things suffer wear and tear after use.
SW ships having a spaceworn look to them actually seems realistic. Plus they see lots of rugged use (and combat), many are maintained by (poor) pirates, rebels, or scavengers.
ST ships all having perfect fresh-from-the-Apple-factory plastic surfaces seems less realistic. Except maybe vessels which must be visually impressive for diplomatic purposes/etc.
It's interesting how the style of storytelling influences the style of ships. In Star Wars, ships are tools. Sort of like guns in an action movie. Action in space is typically centered around small ships, so the small ships are more distinct. But they are still just tools and plot devices at best. In Star Trek, the ship is like a character. As such the ships are way more elaborate (as in planned out, not greebles). This is also reflected in how a battle scene in Star Wars shows much more external action shots, while in Star Trek more shots are from the inside (except for a certain battle in DS9 that showed the Defiant weave through structures and enemy weapons fire like a Star Wars fighter, which was absolutely awesome).
I chose the federation of planets
That's like asking who's music composers were better.
Goldsmith and Horner vs Williams? Make that video. No one will be arguing just listening and crying and not caring who was better.
3Rayfire you are forgetting Ron Jones and Dennis McCarthy.
@@3Rayfire Definitely. (Especially now Goldsmith is well... Not with us anymore... He lived long and prosper)
For me, Star Trek ships are more aesthetically appealing, sometimes dramatically more. Star Wars ships look more “practical” and workman-like. There are many Star Trek ships I would consider beautiful, but very few from Star Wars (with Naboo ships being the exception). Most Star Wars ships look purpose built and practical. Both approaches are evocative, and capture the imagination.
I also suppose that in Star Wars the ships that are focused on spend more time on the ground, which would explain the paint chips, plus they're in battle almost all the time so they won't have time to repaint, whereas in Star Trek the ships are either built on the ground or in space and then once launched, get repairs in space and don't come back down again, and because the ships focused on are primarily research and exploration ships, they are not called to battle/fighting as much as an X-wing or an A-wing or a TIE fighter. Also on a Star Trek ship if they get hit you can see it, so they're not perfect all the time.
I do prefer Star Trek ships though, as they are more serene, more scientific, have more of a set hierarchy that is explained and shown often, and a relatively plausible warp drive system. Plus they're just generally a very graceful, simple and effective design
Yeah, Star Wars is more about flying from place to place, while Star Trek more about space cruising. And the shielding on Star Trek ships would make them less affected by micrometeor impacts etc. But I think the real difference is economics. Star Wars has a lot of little ships, often owned privately and by civilians, rebels, pirates, etc who cant really afford to keep them in tiptop shape. Most people today don't take their car in for every little ding they get in a parking lot. While someone like the Empire has the resources or man power to have better upkeep, and Star Trek Federation depicts more of an utopian society with the post-scarcity resources to just fix everything.
I'm a fan of Star Trek ship design more, however it's also hard not to see some glaring flaws in their ships.
I realize they are explorers, not combat ships. However, an exploration vessel is literally one that should be ready for anything, and indeed the Enterprise (and Voyager) has seen quite a bit of combat. With that in mind, the thin structures that hold up the warp nacelles seem like particular weak points. If their enemies had been smarter, they'd have targeted them and blown them off, separating the Enterprise from it's warp capability, creating a tactical advantage in their favor if not able to simply outgun the Enterprise.
Jerry Blizzard, I totally agree, mounting the bridge, engines, anything out on big stalks is a pretty weak design. But in the Star Destroyers favour is the 2 biggest Shield Generators right next to each other on top of the bridge, these are interlocking, take out one and the other is still covering the area. So that's a definite plus point. If I remember correctly the shield matrix is on the dish on most Star Fleet ships but I may be wrong, has been decades since I looked at any Star Fleet blueprints.
The dish is for navigational reasons primarily to throw space debris such as asteroid out of the way. The real shields of a star trek ship are generated from points that cover everywhere.
I mean the dish on top where the bridge is on, not the navigational dish, sorry for the confusion, so many dishes lol maybe I should have said saucer :)
Imperial Class Star Destroyers were meant to be a projection of the empires power. Like hehe we know you cant do much even if we make the bridge super obvious!
Gene Roddenberry specifically had the warp nacelles placed on stalks away from the ship because he felt that the energy they put out would be too dangerous to have in close to the living spaces, also why the warp drive is on a separate section of the ship from the living quarters. If you consider that they have massive amounts of tuned gamma radiation in the warp plasma powering the warp nacelles he probably had a point. With no aerodynamic concerns and powerful shields to protect the ship and structural integrity to hold everything together it makes sense.
@@DeadlyAssets
I'll help you
They're called saucers, not dish
Hard to beat the the Eclipse. It's creepy cool.
The Eclipse Class Super Star Destroyer? God yes. She is a magnificent world cracking bitch. It's like Queen Tyrahnee as a superweapon.
How about the Supremacy Dreadnaught then?
She got nothin' on the Borg Cube, mate. I call that intimidation 100.
When comparing the design language of Star Trek and Star Wars with regard to the small ships, it really depends on what you're talking about. Shuttles, for example don't usually have a lot going on. Runabouts, the USS Defiant, Klingon battle cruisers, and even the Delta Flyer all have quite detailed hull designs.
I actually prefer Voyager's shape over all other Trek ships as it's a little different, not fussed on the moving nacelles (imagine the pivot points getting struck in combat? no running now..).
In my eyes, the Falcon and Slave one are the best designs visually (practical....maybe not). Basically the Falcon seems to be the equivalent of driving a 5 ton truck around that happens to be powered by a dragster engine. It can't carry much, but can get into small ports. I have seen explanations for the 'space tug mandibles' on the Falcon, but other than making the ship very distinctive, I can't see it pushing things around like a tug.
I find all SW ships are very distinctive, Tie fighters look like cannon fodder with easier to hit with huge panels, the A wing looks nimble and fast being mainly engines, the B-wing looks like a capital ship killer with heavy weaponry, X-wings look heavily armed and very capable for it's size, Y-wing looks like the old/std/average (biplane like) bomber etc..whereas Trek ships are cut from the same mold, and are a bit boring. The shuttles are downright yawn worthy!
but don't let looks deceive you though
I like your video so I'm going to make a star trek vs star wars base on real physic seen on show. You have inspired me.
The physic's shown on which? As both Star Trek and Star Wars have different laws, Star Trek is closer (not much) to real physics, yet Star Wars ships act like they're flying in an atmosphere. As a result, I can't really see an accurate matchup between the 2.
But i do think that star wars ship designs are a lot more diverse than those in star trek. Though these differences are mostly due to in-universe reasons. E.g. in star wars there are dosens of differant starship manufacturers that often have their own estetic styles to them. While in star trek as for as I know there aren't a bunch of privately owned companies that are making star ships for the federation or starfleet. I do not know if the same counts for the romulens or klingons e.g. please correct me if I'm wrong.
I am sure there are but...yeah I guess for Starfleet it's mostly Utopia Planitia, San Francisco Yards, and whatever they have going on over at Andor and Vulcan. Someone should design more 'civilian' ships in Star Trek - could open a whole new ship design venue!
I agree on your point, I think if we notice closely the bulk of the star trek universe within the so called alpha quadrant where the major factions are in place (Klingons, Federation, and Romulans as well as the cardassian territory) the ships albeit civilian or service follow a symbolic design principle. For example the Romulans and the Klingon with the whole war bird concept thus their territory has a bird like distinct ship design doctrine. And Star Trek points to a utopian universe where nothing is privatized especially within the federation where in many episodes and the Star Trek the voyage home they point out currency and money is rendered obsolete. Basically communism when it works. However, diversity did come in the Star Trek Universe in the Star Trek Voyager series as the Delta Quadrant (where the ship is set in the series) lacks a major player which unifies ideas through normal diplomatic and sovereign means which excludes the Borg as a major player in the same way the Federation or Klingon are in the Alpha Quadrant. Btw, I see Grand Admiral Thrawn...I mean Admiral Thrawn dear oh dear I'm gonna get killed.
On the few occasions when we do see private or civilian ships in trek, they do seam more diverse then what we would consider Star Fleet, Klingon or Romulan design policies. So perhaps it is the governments that mandate ship design, and as we mostly experience the shows and the movies through military/government representatives, this is mostly the type of ships we see.
In Deep Space 9 there is also quite a few civilian ships. Of course in DS9 they take a bit of a departure from 'utopian communism', no doubt due to its distance from the Federation core worlds. But there has to be quite a few civilian ships in federation space. Even in 'communism' there is still industry which cannot function without some kind of commerce - although I am digressing into a discussion about society. :)
Yes that is one of my bug bears that there is no in-universe explanation for the likes of the Olympic Class / Oberth Class and other weird looking ones.
You forgot to mention how (at least in the OT) the design styles for the Empire and Rebel Alliance ships were deliberately distinct from the other (Empire = angular, geometric, simple shapes, hard edges and Rebels = more organically shaped, round and "softer" looking shapes) leading to some very beautiful looking capital ships on both sides, and then you have Republic and CIS capital ships that also had unique design differences this in my opinion is why Star Wars capital/large ship design is better than Star Trek, they're distinctly shaped and detailed from the very small to the very big, without needing to focus on maintaining consistent elements of design, each class of capital ship can look vastly different and can allow for easier and more impressive scaling up as we see with the Executor SSD or Rebel Alliance Home One.
I'm going in to this thinking that which is the most artistically superior will be rooted in personal taste and preference.
Okay, the large ships and small ships conclusions make sense,
Star Trek ships are much more elegant and maneuverable.
On the modeling, I think that was exactly how they went about building them - with things like the Star Destroyers, I read that they basically bought up lots of model kits of things like Battleships and used them to build the models and assembled them from those.
Brilliant analysis! one of the things that really bugs me about the Millenium Falcon is the positioning of its flight deck which must seriously hamper the pilot's view , i mean you cant even see the left hand side of the falcon from there, if i were driving it i would crash her for sure Haha!
It doesn't matter if it's artistic or not. It's whether or not it's functional does it perform the task needed. If we're going the artistic route then you might as well go with jupiter ascending ships.
This isn’t the video for you then. What business do you have commenting?
@@richlisola1 My bad for having an opinion. Personally I like star wars ships.
Even Jupiter Ascending ships had explainable and justifiable function from an in-universe perspective. When you are literally royalty for an entire galaxy and your wealth is immeasurable, and humanity is functionally immortal and life is lost all meaning beyond hedonism and indulgence, the size, design and showy-ness of the ships in Jupiter Ascending were to display wealth, power, status and to peacock around and be seen - and to project personal power and maintain your position in society. Like galactic Russian Oligarchs.
A great deal of what inspires the Aesthetics of these respected franchises would have to be their tones. Star Trek for example even when there are tense situations it tends to be a much more exploration oriented storytelling method as a result of things tend to be more sleek they seem to be signed a lot more around Comfort things tend to be a bit more optimistic it's escapism really the sword of utopian View thanks to Gene Roddenberry. Star Wars on the other hand their ships seem to have a very hard Edge to them these are definitely very sturdily built pure function craft not so much exploration in Star Wars after all there is a war on leave the exploration to the Smugglers and let's just get this done let's build something quick and sturdy it's obvious that they find a design that works in a stick with it for millennia. That's part of what I've always liked about Star Wars there's a very no-nonsense aspect to the design and the lack of warp nacelles does allow for a very wide variety of ship types.
"Feeling free to share your personal opinions" are you insane? I once had a Star Wars fan tell me they were gonna hit me with a chair because I said Star Trek was better. He may have been joking but this is UA-cam. I'm sure someone will threaten to butt rape someone else for saying what I said.
Here on Ressurrected Starships we try to be 'fair and balanced' to both geek parties. :P
I have my favorites from both franchises. I wouldn't complain piloting an X-wing, B-wing, A-wing, TIE Interceptor/Defender, Corrilian 1300 or being the captain of an Imperial I class Star Destroyer, Executor class Super Star Destroyer or Revenge class Heavy Carrier, Klingon Bird of Prey, Miranda class, Enterprise 1701-a or -e, Vor'cha, Neg'var, 2 or 3 from that computer game I played back in the late 1980's and a handful from the fasa games. I know I'm forgetting some from both groups.
If you would include the ships from every series and not just the original, because the romulin ship from the new movie is pretty awesome, the technology also advances pretty drastically such as transwarp,or the new sporiel drive from discovery allows trek ships to move through space as fast as star wars I mean when you talk about weapons power also it only took a trek phaser to drill nearly to the center of a planet in 10 minutes how fast could turbo lasers cut a planet in half, plus the range of each universes are way apart a trek ship can effectively destroy another ship from kilometers away where star wars always seems to be right up on the target, that's why I always thought trek ships would wipe the floor with wars ships because both technical manules do not match what is on screen.
yeah. i feel star trec's ships are less desined for warfare. star wars ships are blatently desiened for warfare.
True. Star Trek's ships are purposefully made for science and exploration.
The first thing we need to understand is that its all a matter of opinion. With that being said, you're all wrong if you don't believe the Executor to be the nicest ship of them all.
Hey Ressurected Starships, what do you think about EP VII ships' desing? The new star destroyer, for example, has a much rougher appearance than the classic ISD, as if it was built/refit on an ISD frame. Do you think the designers intentionally wanted the New Order to look like a less finished version of the Impire?
Eduardo Pipinel I think the Resurgent class is better than the old Imperial 2 class.
It doesn't have the overexposed bridge and shield generators, and has better weapons (some are even automated!).
I made a game out of this video where i drink every time he says "Distinctive"... I should have not chosen to drink Fireball!
LMAO !!! Be careful with that stuff.
"My God Man!" Are you alright?
I have been trying to create an enterprise d in space engineers, its a lot of fun moving around it.
The fatal flaw in star wars is how densely packed their formations *HAVE* to be thanks to their slow forward momentum and their incredibly low maneuverability. This means so long as you either have a wide array of continuous beam weapons or can get behind them, you can easily get rid of a star destroyer or even a fleet
For me, I favour warships over exploration ships. My favourite Star Wars ship is the Venator Class Star Destroyer used by the Republic during the Clone Wars with Executor Star Dreadnought in second.
Liked that background music!!
Music and sound is important to me. Especially since I do not have the best gear for voice recording.
i like it too
that junk on the nebulon b is cargo bays cause its normally a cargo ship
unfortunatley, he has no insight on the clone wars or the old republic. i saw no venators or thranta corvettes
I enjoy both series (I'm more of a Trek fan but that's because that is the first one I saw and have more of a connection too) and both excel and lack in certain areas, but I always saw one of their key design aspects as a result of the galactic climate, like I see most ships in star wars being old ships/designs that have a lot of the armor/components revomed to aid the ship in some way resulting in the some of odd detailing since there are parts exposed to the elements that the original design normally had covered (the Millieum falcon compared to a base model YT-1300, and the Y-wing during and after the clone wars are just two good examples of this). While Trek there's alot of battles yes but not the same extect or loss as Star Wars, so ships are made with a full use of volume resulting in that only the external units are outside the ship.
Nice video, by the way 5:56 , in CG you can use textures, which could also be picked up from random "stuff" and "glued on", it would render nice for a small amount of polygons
the Ferangy have a neceal it's the orange glowing thing on the bottom
i could give you info on any part of mon cala cruiser, star destroyer or blokade runner
Larry Niven and Jerry pouranili wrote a book about an alias invasion. The Asians space ship was sunlight speed and had been seventy years coming hear. They translated human tv and was taken aback by impractical space ship designs
Star War- 1950's fabrication technology to build an X-wing, the star destroyers built like a skyscraper and an aircraft carrier twisted together. Futuristic designs made out of a futuristic metal alloy.
Star Trek ships are more graceful and artistic...Star Wars ships are more industrial and used
personally I have issues with both universe's ship designs so am not even going to try a pick a superior ship design as for the art. Well dam, I admit i am more of a star wars fan than star trek, but there is just something about the sleek curves and shapes of the federation ships I like. I kinda feel that trying to compare these two from an artistic point is like comparing a Pagani Zonda to an LAV
both have beauty to them
It seems like SW ships are designed with the physics of air travel and combat, while the ST ships are designed with the physics of sea travel and combat.
Did anybody else see a Viking and a dropship from Starcraft?
I used to call the Star Destroyers "The baddie's flying triangle"
I now see why I prefer the Macross SDF-1 and Macross Frontier looks over Star Wars and Star Trek. The capital ships and fighters tend to far more interesting.
I would buy that argument. Trek focuses on its capital ships, yet shuttles and Runabouts are typically treated as a dime a dozen, yet in Star Wars, that small ships get the love.
Maquis Class Fighters looks cool and take a break from the UFO with twigs designs.
Star Trek ships are certainly prettier than their Star Wars counterparts, but something you may have forgotten is that many Star Wars ships, at least on the side of the Rebels, aren't in their "original condition", many of those ships are missing hull plating and have retrofit designs.
There's also the fact that in SW, different manufacturers in that universe (KDY, Sienar, CEC, etc.) have different design philosophies, which means that within a group's navy, there can be many varied designs (TIE vs Star Destroyer vs Tiberian Shuttle, etc.).
Whereas in ST, it's the government-for the most part-that decides ship design philosophies, so ships of a particular faction are easily distinguished from their adversaries.
I should add that one thing that bugs me about both ST and SW capital ships is the placing of their main bridge on the exterior surfaces of the ship. I find this an necessary step (particularly in ST where they use view screens, not windows), especially in space where ranges would most often be far too distant and light would be far too insufficient to see anything with the naked eye (a major flaw in SW designs, IMO).
This is fine in fighters and transports, which might need line of sight to scout over a battlefield or avoid crashing into an object when landing or flying low to the surface of a planet, but ships not designed to land (Enterprise in ST and Star Destroyers in SW) would have no need of surface mounted bridges for their capital ships.
Star trek is submarines and Star wars is Navel warships style type battles.
The only 'submarines' in ST are the ones that are capable of cloaking
It's hard to surpass the beauty of the Constitution class ships. The reveal of the Enterprise in 'The Motion Picture' was pretty much starship porn.
In scaling of size you might find the rules of design are not as parallel as you think
Hey which 3d modelling software do u use
Wow! I was floored. This was an amazing analysis. I had never thought of those points. Thank you for making this video! :-)
What 3d design software you use?
The biggest ship on star wars is the death star but on trek it's the Dyson's sphere which is big around as the earth's orbit around the sun so the Dyson's sphere could litterly run over the star like it was a speed bump,lol
Liked the video, but you really didn't compare Star Trek small space craft vs Star Wars small ships? Enterprise vs Star Destroyer, the E is art, the SD is military hardware. but small craft? The Delta Flyer or the Danube class ship vs Tie fighter or X wing? or the Defiant Vs Millennium Falcon? these would be a better size/crew/ function comparison?
Would love to see a video of a BSG Viper vs Tie fighter or X-wing vs Cylon raider!
favorite fighter in sci-fi z-95 headhunter (look it up). favorite sci-fi capital ship, whatever leviathinian monstrosity the admiral used in star trek into darkness.
What do you use for 3d dogital modelling as software
What software do you use to make models?
Trained in 3dsmax, mostly use Blender until i can afford a proper version of max :) this vid doesnt have much of my CG in it.
I like some designs better in SW and some better in ST. Can I like both? Is that okay?
Star Fox from SNES ships are such a neat expansion of Star Wars Designs
I personally perfer star wars designs over star trek, it just seems more realistic to me, the ships are going to have the damage of the scorch marks and chips in the paint
Dakota Anderson I prefer Star Trek ships all the important instruments are on the inside of the ship space is a harsh environment so you don't want all the stuff on the out side like on the falcon where they can be damaged easily but that's your opinion and this is mine. Now where was I ah "computer coffee black"
I think in Universe explanation there is that Star Trek Ships have navigation deflectors and Star Wars ships don't. (they probably should though) But the bigger ships maybe flying around with modest particle screening shielding switched on all the time I suppose.
If the show makers treated the franchises like a sensible magic system and didn't just do things for plot convenience then they'd seem even more grounded than they may without that.
I do like that Star Wars ships routinely land though (well the smaller ones do anyway) even the bigger ones may be able to land in an ocean or wast a lot of power by hovering near the ground (which is a tad silly I will admit in Star Wars Rogue One)
Dakota Anderson i dont really like most star destroyers because when i look at them i think "oh another pizza slice"
isn't the millenium falcon roughly the same sized as the defiant
Cubes vs Triangles... Who will win?
But no real small ships in Trek that I can think of other than shuttle craft. Even my fav Trek ship, the Defiant class is still a regular starship even being a "tough little ship."
Star Wars creative team has never actually figured out what Star Destroyers are for -- not really. That's why you never see them in action.
I hate griebling on starships I like them to be smooth
The enterprise and the star destroyer both have had designs in my mind.
More so in the star destroyer.
By design I mean the shape of the ship.
I was going to find out the chiss ships designs and saw that you had made a video then I forgot what I was going to watch
I know the chiss had their own star destroyer with recessed turbolaser batteries so they could not get hit as easily. But if you find a cache of chiss designs let me know! I am curious what they would build. They do have the Claw-craft!
Resurrected Starships Thanks for the information and I really liked your video
Resurrected Starships I was reading in a website (maybe a website that has the right information) that the chiss used star destroyers and more cruisers and a big cruiser called maelstrom but I its design is hard to describe but I saw a picture of it
Resurrected Starships In the picture of the Maelstrom I saw a imperial star destroyer I am not sure if it was from the chiss navy and not if the Chiss used imperial star destroyers or a star destroyers that they had designed themselves
lol want "fast paced action"? Give piloting a raider class vessel in Star Trek Online a try. It's a lot of fun. Good video too. I agree with your analysis, and I love both Star Trek and Star Wars.
The ships were designed to communicate the vision of the writers not a scientific fact
I could not agree with you more!
Has anyone in the ST verse Starfleet designed a ship that doesn't have the main means of propulsion strapped on structural weak points(struts) and just made something that's more or less a rocket with the nacelles hidden inside the hull? Because that would be a lot better of a ship than the highly-impractical setup they have.
Boisegang well there is the USS Defiant
Starfleet ships have warp nacelles on structurally weak pylons because they produce enormous amounts of radiation that are harmful to the crew inside the ship. Its like having two giant nuclear reactors, you want them as far away from where people live and work as you can.
Maybe, but let's take nuclear aircraft carriers(or to be more apt, Submarines) as a comparison. We don't have them outside the ships. We have them inside and shielded.
The defiant had its nacelles 'armored' but in many ways it broke the 'rules'. I think it also has something to do with warp field geometry - the nacelles are supposed to work in pairs and contract the space in front of the ship and expand it behind the ship. I agree though that the nacelle pylons look really vulnerable. They are certainly made to flex a bit - like the wings on large aircraft. They would also have to be extremely well armored or shielded. Of course you saw what happened to the Reliant in Star Trek Wrath of Khan? :)
I do agree with the end conclusion. :)
I like the functionality of star trek designs. It satisfies something in my autistic brain to be able to look at each component and know what it's for.
Star Trek functional/realistic - Star Wars beautiful.