Bill Nye settles the debate once and for all between Star Wars and Star Trek. Get the full story at: rol.st/1NbOqKj Subscribe to Rolling Stone on UA-cam: bit.ly/1uGwgGg
+Stefano De Luca (SteDL89) "Fairytale set in space". That would be the very definition of SciFi... Science Fiction isn't a genre. It's a setting. Anything that depicts technology way ahead of current-day Earth, is SciFi. Also, Star Trek has stuff like telepathy and mind-reading, aka magic.
+Melodeath00 Except it's not. They just created telepathic mice that could communicate with each other. 1 was in SA, the other NA. True they used cybernetics to pull it off but there's no reason evolution couldn't produce something like that.
I'd say the originals without any EU or Prequels included would be a Western in space, but with the prequels, EU, new trilogy etc. it becomes a Fantasy in space.
+Xavier Ford There is and there isn't, They have the sounds because it would be boring to the view however there are times where they will show times where there is not sound and they do talk about it as well.
It really doesn't make sense to compare films from different genres in such a way. WHICH MOVIE IS BETTER? WHEN HARRY MET SALLY OR SCHINDLER'S LIST? LET'S ALL TALK ABOUT IT.
One big difference he might be forgetting though is Star Trek is the future of earth's technology. Star Wars, being in a faraway galaxy, is able to have mediclorians and unusual technology
So just because it reminds him of religion is why he prefers Star Trek? Which I love as well, but c'mon bill. What about Spock? And I'd so rather live in a Star Wars world using the force and what not.
I'd say “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” was quite religious, and I've never noticed any Star Trek episode or film not having any sound effects in space (even thought there shouldn't be).
I used to agree with Bill about the force being "magic" but really, there's no reason it couldn't have had a scientific explaination, it's just that the explaination isn't critical to the storytelling; the force is hard to understand, but Jedi's understand it and can use it. Granted in the prequels they *tried* to provide a scientific explanation, but it was handled so clumsily that it came off as extremely contrived and hamfisted. I don't think it's fair to categorize it as being analogous to religion or "magic".
In my opinion, neither is better than the other because Star Wars and Star Trek are completely different things. Star Trek is the perfect text book definition of Science Fiction. Like Bill Nye stated, it uses futuristic technology that can plausibly be recreated in our own future and its also all based off scientific fact. It is also more of a philosophical exploration of humanity and what it means to be human. Star Wars on the other hand, is what I like to call "Science Fantasy". Once you think about it, Star Wars has more things in common with Lord of the Rings than it does with Star Trek. It is essentially the Hero's Journey in space. The Force, like Bill Nye said, is essentially space magic, a power thats never question and just is. Its basically their religion. Its okay to prefer one over the other, that fine. Personally, I prefer Star Wars, mainly because I grew up with it and only started getting into Star Trek just recently. But to say that one is better than the other is unfair when talking about two completely different things. Its like saying a bird is better than a fish when they are completely different species.
+greatergameplayer He'd probably say something like: The Q is a species of highly evolved beings that have the capability to manipulate space-time. The mechanism they change matter and time is unknown to humans. However it appears to be a biological ability that they've achieved through either natural evolutionary processes or by permanent artificial manipulation. The Q have often shown god-like powers but as Star Trek emphasizes time and time again, the advances of even a few 100 years or even a few parlor tricks can make a person seem like a god to members of their own species. Much less a species which has been evolving for who knows how long elsewhere in the universe. As for limitations of the Q, all evidence in the series points to a member of the Q's lifetime being a linear one (as opposed to The Prophets in Deep Space Nine who are 4th dimensional beings who can conceptualize the entirety of the 4th dimension and exist at all times at once). For instance, Q never runs into Picard as an earlier version of himself. so we can guess that his conception of his own lifetime may be linear. They also have the ability to or choose to procreate as well. Therefore a Q's life has an inception at least. And their offspring can potentially surpass them in power when sent head to head. Members of the Q also have the ability to cast other members out or even kill them. So we know a Q's lifetime has a start and can have an end so their lives progress in a linear fashion like ours even though they are able to travel through time at will and left on their own, they may well live forever (as we picture forever). At one point it is suggested by Picard that the Q are actually fearful of human beings because they think that humans may surpass the Q at some point in their evolution. Though we never get a direct answer to that theory from Q, I'd say that the writers were pointing to a more reasonable and logical explanation for the Q's existence rather than a magical one or an explanation found in a hocus pocusy Yoda riddle
I don't understand the argument that Star Trek is better because its not a fantasy. When did fantasy become a negative? ( I get why Bill Nye personally prefers Star trek being a scientist and what not). Star Wars is sci fi and fantasy, so I say best of both worlds. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke
Story telling? That's bullshit. So from your standpoint, a good story is a story that will only go deep as good vs. evil. No further. Star Wars is only better at satisfying shallow people with CGI and explosions. That's it.
I know bill Nye may not know a lot about Star Wars but the according to the prequels it is caused by micro organisms called midi chlorians and in the sequels it is a force that surrounds and penetrates us.
Actually the midiclorians don't cause the force they are a link between the force and living beings. Midiclorians are basically the wifi connection for the force.
Unfortunately, he didn’t exactly answer which would win in a head-to-head competition & such… Sure, based on logic & reason, Star Trek does have an edge over Star Wars. HOWEVER, its still a 50/50 battle. When done right, Star Wars wins. That if these two franchises fought each other 1000 times, Star Wars would win no more than 500 & Star Trek would win at least 500. There are three primary factors that play into this. The first is that hyperdrive is far faster than warp drive, despite warp being more maneuverable than hyperspace. But even Imperial Interdictors could mess with warp IF their gravity well projectors can actually affect whatever it is that makes warp speed possible & such… The second is offense & this is where they mostly TIE in a lot of things. In terms of weapon placements, Imperial Starships, such as the iconic Star Destroyers, has more weapon emplacements than the Federations’ ‘One-Beam-at-a-Time’ thing. Even if a Federation ship took one of two Star Destroyers down, the second Star Destroyer would easily finish it with its broadside. Lastly, defense. This may also be a draw, of sorts. If we’ve followed the rules of ship-to-ship combat, which was best culminated in “Last Jedi, the”, how & why the broadside barrage in “Revenge of the Sith” happened the way it did, I wouldn’t be too surprised that TIE Fighters, maybe even TIE Bombers, could slip under a Federations’ ship’s shields to deal critical damages & such. But, in all honesty, I’d rather help Produce a Silver Screen version of a Reality show where Trekkies & Jedi Junkies have absolutely no idea they’re actually competing against each other until it’s too late. Despite the hardcore fans calling the shots in how this fan focused movie plays out, I personally believe that J.J. Abrams should be the main Camera Director who has two assistant camera directors, one for Trekkies & the other for Jedi Junkies; to bring the Best Visuals for the fans & such. In the end, this idea of mine is ‘half-baked’. I can only come up with how Star Wars encounters Star Trek, yet I’m going to be extremely reliant on which time period Star Trek encounters Star Wars. Otherwise, the hardcore fans will be calling the shots in what they’re specifically going to be doing, what protocols & procedures they’ll specifically follow, pretty much all that. When applying, Jedi Junkies could apply as a Hutt Stormtrooper, or a Wookiee TIE Pilot (Force sensitives allowed, even Light siders in the Imperial Military); Trekkies could apply as a Romulan in the Cardassian military for all I care. Hopefully, this’ll be discreetly passed around and I’m contacted for this project & such…
I dont think star destroyers can destroy starships that easily. Sure they have lots of weapons but if you loom closely those weapons are more like plane-based turrets rather than tactical weapons for ship to ship battles. Theyre not meant to fight, theyre used to carry a shit ton of tie fighter and even then the tie fighters arent that powerful as they only use green lasers and not torpedoes, they dont even have shields. Star Trek ship on the other hand are specifically designed to fight against other ships meaning their tactical systems and weapons are far more destructive than that of those laser turrets i mentioned. Their shields are either decent or extremely powerful compared to that of a destroyer plus their sensors could detect parts of a ship they could disable or destroy to gain an advantage. I doubt even the jedi or sith could handle extremely experienced starfleet officers who know how to use a phaser which if set to maximum kill could instantly vaporize and enemy leaving the jedi in empty husk. The death star is also quite easy to destroy, i mean sure one shot could blow up a planet but it takes a long time for it to recharge and even then, the feds torpedoes are powerful alone to destroy its core. At the end of the day star wars would lose against the might of the federation, if not then the borg.
That seems to be more one sided, @@kelkellacsamana7298. < ua-cam.com/video/9nzgbfJw-po/v-deo.html > is a video I recommend watching (MY scenario is a bit more different, but the rules of the game are extremely similar), & there are at least two other videos, the part two & an explanation that the ‘lasers’ mentioned in Star Trek: the Next Generation aren’t the same lasers that’re in Star Wars. Thus, I want you to bear in mind, that yes, the Star Trek universe has a technical edge, but even Trekkies must Humble themselves on the advantages that Star Wars does have over Star Trek.
There is magic. Q and the gods of the wormhole in Deep Space 9 but yeah I take his point. Trek is an optimistic view of science in the future essentially.
Does nobody remember Q from star trek? he's the embodiment of a magic being. while the force has been explained as the manipulation of creatures on an atomic scale. which is at least a scientific justification for the force. Shouldn't scientists do research before making broad statements about the validity of scientific theory in fantasy shows.
+Jonathan Sampson cause he starts off with "some of my best friends like star wars don't get me wrong" so he seems like he has a preference over star trek but i'm obviously jumping the gun by saying he hates star wars.
star trek also has magic, like vulcan mind melding, or those things in voyager that get into your dreams but also... Star wars isn't science fiction, it's a space fantasy, sometimes a space opera, it never pretends to be anything but. Star trek is science fiction, even with the magic it has and never explains. This makes the whole discussion moot, it's like trying to decide between Lord of the rings and breaking bad, Iain M banks or stephen king or eminem and nirvana. which is to say, i'm sure neither are bad, but you don't judge grunge by its words per minute just as you don't judge rap by how great the distortion on the guitar solo is.
The force is NOT magic. It's science. The more I hear Bill Nye talk, the more I get annoyed with him, especially when he dodges the question or says "nother" as in "it's a whole nother thing".
Star Trek has sound in space, the planets have earth like gravity and atmospheric pressure, ships go faster than light, Spocks half human (how the hell's that possible), that Q guy, you could go on and on. At least Star Wars is overtly fantasy and not trying to pass itself off as a version of our future. I like Bill Nye, but c''mon dude, don't choose one over the other because you feel It's more scientifically accurate. They're both so deep into the realm of science fiction/fantasy, why bother discussing which is closer to reality?
In Star Wars the force is not magic in EP 1 they explained a more scientific explanation. The force belongs with all living beings but to determine if you can use it or how strongly, they introduced midicloriens. Now they are microscopic cells that are passed down through genes that have "evolved" ,even though I don't believe in it, to give the host this power also know as the force. Last in Morgan freeman and the wormhole tv show they explained how the force could be real. Mic drop
"Star Wars has magic, so I don't like it. Star Trek is better." I just saved you guys a minute and a half of your lives. It's funny that this scientist complains about Star Wars having sound effects in space, but Star Trek does, too. He also complains about unexplained powers in Star Wars. True fans of Star Trek can list many races and characters that make use of omnipotent powers. Bill Nye, as a scientist, you should know not to talk about stuff you know nothing about.
Dammit Bill. Come on. You can't set aside your ultra-serious, science-first thinking to just ENJOY a movie??? How depressing and boring is your life???? O_O Seriously. Sometimes it's just for fun!!! I wish I could meet this man, if only to encourage a little fun in his life. He seems utterly devoid of humour, expression, light-heartedness. I have great respect for his qualifications and standing in the scientific community, but I would hate for anyone I know to be this tight-assed and closed off to good humour and entertainment. This isn't living to the best of your ability, humans need fun in their lives!!!
That is one of the most closed-minded comments I have ever seen. I honestly thought when I loaded the second part of your comment that you were gonna say how you were kidding. Must I honestly explain myself or can you just reread what you wrote and conclude yourself how far your head was up your ass? Sorry lol but jesus christ c'mon man people have their own taste. I would think people have learned this before right at the age of reason.
leon Wishing people happiness and joy in their life is close-minded now?? For FUCK sake, and you say I'm the one that's up my ass?? Are you kidding me right now??? You realize by utterly subscribing, THIS stringently to being PC, and accepting, and, you know, tiptoe tiptoe, must accept everybody and everything that exists, you're actually DENYING a form of intelligence?? Are you aware of that? This is, of the 9, Naturalist Intelligence, discerning and being able to judge, in this case, actions and motivations, and choosing the appropriate response or course of action. By restricting yourself to a blanket dogmatic approach that censors and shuts down any sense of non-absolute acceptance, you actually open the door for pedophiles and murderers and yes, cliché, but terrorists. You NEED to be discerning, otherwise you're just a fanatical little sheep, not a critically thinking adult, and the danger and vulnerability that invites is staggering, it's like asking politely to be harmed and conquered. I OFFERED joy. I wished and hoped and had aspirations for a happier, more fun existence for this person. Someone who can't just sit down and enjoy a programme, seriously lacks for joy, they're "on", all the time, there's no true relaxation. That is infinitely sad, and unnatural for not just our species, but life itself (as evidenced strongly by birds and animals). The first language we learn, is in fact not a language of syntax and grammar and vocabulary, but literally, play. It's a language all in itself, and its communication is so innate, it's often completely silent, almost telepathic. With that in mind, and the necessity for all healthy, mentally balanced individuals to practice play, and light-heartedness, for self-care, can you try and perceive within his body language, expression, and complete avoidance of light-heartedness, that he clearly isn't taking best care of himself? And with that extensive explanation, which I'm guessing from your over the top, supremely exaggerative comment, you needed to hear, can you now understand my comment, and motivation for saying so, a little better? Are you still in total meltdown and ready to explode at a perceived injustice that you feel you need to rectify, is that still the scenario, as you see it?
+sfgdhdhd story telling is not just about the lack of plotholes. its about creating a universe and then inviting the viewer to inhabit that world. its about setting up relatable characters that the audience connects with, and learning more about them through their journey.
+John Yenter Well, I connect better with star trek universe. As Lucas himself said: star wars is a family soap opera, it's not about space ships and I prefer sci-si:)
He didn't say what was better. He explained the differences between the two. If it's taken what he thought was better, his explanation is based on what appeals to HIM.
Star Trek did go into the realm of religion in a positive way with DS9. He should really do the scientific thing and GAIN KNOWLEDGE about the subject matter. Also, Star Wars is great adventure cinema with all the right touches of drama, fantasy, action, and adventure (I'm talking orig trig). It's all great.
I believe in a lot of that mumbo jumbo type of stuff, but I have to agree with Bill Nye on this. Star Trek is better because it doesn't have a bunch of mumbo jumbo type of stuff. If I want that kind of crap, I'll pray or read my horoscope and I don't need a space opera to jam it down my throat.
Star Trek fans: Oh, Star Wars is pure fantasy... Star Trek is hard science! Literally every single other science fiction franchise: Yeah, Star Trek, let's talk...
There's no proof telepathy exists, but Star Trek has both Deanna and Lwaxana Troi, not to mention many other mind readers. There's plenty of magic in that technobabble too...
Adding to discrediting Mr. Nye's position, there is an awful lot of Vulcan mysticism, prophecy, and strange powers they never fully explain that permeates all of Star Trek. If you're going to be dismissive of The Force, then have a fun time explaining your support of Spock trying to mind meld (at a distance) with VGER from Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
+William Johnston Actually, they've explained a lot of these, There may be some instances where it doesn't make sense (ie when they go to the center of the galaxy) but a lot of it is described on how species evolved and their level of evolution, technology and general science where they are at. The Vulcan's for example, are way more scientifically advanced than humans.
Star Trek V is a mess of a movie in general (so I don't bring it up), but there are enough floating Space Heads to make Star Fox paranoid. The Vulcans are a very interesting race, aside from their advanced physiology they also have psionic abilities. It's just that Star Trek I had Spock go against the established method for neural interchange by trying to mind meld without physical contact - which goes against the science of the Mind Meld (connecting nervous systems through skin connection). - Now Spock was able to link with VGER, as its energy field could have acted as a nervous system, it just goes against what was known and established as Vulcan lore. Which is the problem with Scientists criticizing Star Wars, The Force, Fantasy, and by extension Religion. Just because something cannot, at present, be quantified and explained, does not mean that there isn't a reasonable rationale behind it. - The force isn't so far fetched (energy field that exists in the connection between all things). Gravity functions as a connection between all matter. Perhaps the Force is just a way to manipulate and read the flows in Gravity (we don't know). - and yes it's kind of "bad science" to speculate, but you have to start with some way to explain the things you don't fully understand so you aren't dismissive of the potential of learning from them.
So... star trek has nothing fantasy/god stuf like , like star wars? So nobody remembers that part where they meet god or that other part with an almighty being in the center of the universe or w/e???
+David Kelly The Q is another race though, They are a highly evolved race, it is not a magical force that anyone can essentially wield depending on how strong it is with them.
I had very low hopes and Bill once again met every expectation. 1. Star Trek had sound in space before Star Wars... 2. Bill goes on about 'the Force' and calls it Magic... Unlike Star Trek with 'Q', Time Travel every other bit of nonsense. He could have just said "I prefer the optimism of a Social Utopia in Star Trek' and been good. Deanna Troi says "I sense much fear in him" and it's Science but when Yoda says it... it's magic.
That argument you're using "Star Trek is more realistic than Star Wars" is the worst point I've ever heard. Your point is not even close to valid regarding two FICTIONAL universes..
***** they are both fictional, warp along with hyperspace are actual theories. One is no more real than the other, and don't give me that "force isn't real" crap because ST has the Q and Ocampa. SW tends to focus on the mystical things while ST doesn't focus too much on them but they are still very much their.
***** so some guy snaps his fingers and makes literally anything happen is more realistic than a guy who can push things with his mind.. Okay... By the way, if I'm not mistaken, not all Ocampa could use the abilities Kes did so don't start that.
***** and that's what sets SW and ST apart. You just have to realize that not everything form SW is fantasy and not everything from ST is reality, that wasn't the point I made. They both have certain elements of both.
+Marcus Jones lol, not magic! Just 'highly advanced.' Don't worry guys, magic and religion are dumb. But the Q don't need those, because they're 'highly advanced.'
Dumb. Bill Nye didn't think this through. There is WAY more crazy magic shit in Star Trek. It's called the Q for one. Also, Star Trek also has sound effects in space!
What everyone has to realize here is that Bill Nye is an ATHEIST. And being that Star Wars expresses "belief" in "the force", it is a subject beyond his PERSONAL acceptance & professional expertise, which is why he down plays Star Wars (space "fantasy")and exalts Star Trek (science "fiction"). However ultimately both are the same.
LOL "Both are the same" did you even listen to the video? Not to mention they're not even the same genre. Star Wars is "Space Fantasy" whereas Star Trek is "Science Fiction".
That one anime nerd That's because it's also faced on another front. Star War is geared towards children(imagination) and men(action). Star Trek caters to adults(order/intellect) and women(drama/soap opera).
From a scientific and storytelling standpoint, Star Trek is superior. For fans of woo-woo! Old fashioned good vs evil flippy light sword fight stuff, Starwars is better. Personally speaking, I can't stand the contrived storytelling in Star Wars where everything conveniently falls into place, how every little action or random decision leads to some massive plot point. "By the way, I've know I tried to kill you a bunch, but I'm your father, dude! Would you like to be co-ruler of the galaxy with me?" or "Let's go over here, OH MY GOD, WE FOUND the MILLENIUM FALCON!" But there's the pew pew PEW!
Bill Nye is awesome. He is one of the coolest people ever. But Star Wars sucks ass. Enough is enough. Its overrated and shittty. Im a Trekkie. Lifelong. I know Star Wars has a few great things about it. Only a few. Harrison Ford being the big one♥ - but....no. Star Trek for life, man.
Yeah but 100 Star Trek episodes don't equal 1 Star Wars movie, except the first 2, those weren't that great. Still in just a couple hours Star Wars does a lot more than Star Trek.
Star Wars is closer to "fantasy" than it is to "sci-fi": it's a fairytale set in space.
Star Trek is "pure" sci-fi.
+Stefano De Luca (SteDL89) "Fairytale set in space". That would be the very definition of SciFi...
Science Fiction isn't a genre. It's a setting. Anything that depicts technology way ahead of current-day Earth, is SciFi.
Also, Star Trek has stuff like telepathy and mind-reading, aka magic.
As a Star Wars fan, I agree with this statement
+Melodeath00 Just because it's set in space makes it science fiction? Uh.. no. It makes it a space fiction.
+Melodeath00 Except it's not. They just created telepathic mice that could communicate with each other. 1 was in SA, the other NA. True they used cybernetics to pull it off but there's no reason evolution couldn't produce something like that.
+Stefano De Luca (SteDL89) Future Fantasy.
This isn't really deciding so much as it is just explaining a basic difference in genre.
that hooker on the right can give me a good rub with her shiny shoe, just give me a long, rough bootjob!
Agreed.
Yeah that seems more accurate of what Bill Nye does becuz he’s not sayin which he likes better
I find Bill Nye's lack of faith disturbing.
Hes called the science guy so
Star Wars is a Western set in space. Star Trek is more science fiction.
George Lucas was inspired partially by Westerns, martial arts, and war movies.
+Jessica Causey ...Actually, Gene Roddenberry's original vision was a Western set in space. "Wagon Train to the Stars."
Interesting
I'd say the originals without any EU or Prequels included would be a Western in space, but with the prequels, EU, new trilogy etc. it becomes a Fantasy in space.
FIREFLY is a western in space. Star Wars is fantasy
there's sound in space in star trek
+Xavier Ford Not in JJ's version.
+Xavier Ford There is and there isn't, They have the sounds because it would be boring to the view however there are times where they will show times where there is not sound and they do talk about it as well.
David Kelly well JJ is a part of the trekkies and a traitor to the Star Wars fans.
Even though JJ is far more of a Wars fan than Trek fan. xD
"Star Trek doesn't have magic."
Until you bring up the Q, or the wormhole aliens in DS9, or...
Meh
DS9? That's shunned by quite a few Star Trek fans...
So is Voyager, and so is Enterprise. I don't care, I like all of 'em, well, except for Enterprise.
enterprise is so terrible
Agreed.
It really doesn't make sense to compare films from different genres in such a way. WHICH MOVIE IS BETTER? WHEN HARRY MET SALLY OR SCHINDLER'S LIST? LET'S ALL TALK ABOUT IT.
One big difference he might be forgetting though is Star Trek is the future of earth's technology. Star Wars, being in a faraway galaxy, is able to have mediclorians and unusual technology
its science fiction vs space opera, its all a matter of taste
He forgets that Star Trek has time travel which is impossible according to the laws of physics.Especially in the past.
So just because it reminds him of religion is why he prefers Star Trek? Which I love as well, but c'mon bill. What about Spock? And I'd so rather live in a Star Wars world using the force and what not.
He didn't actually state any preference. I agree with everything he said, and I prefer Star Wars...
Sounds to me like Star Wars is integrating the best of multiple genres into an epic space opera
I'd say “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” was quite religious, and I've never noticed any Star Trek episode or film not having any sound effects in space (even thought there shouldn't be).
I used to agree with Bill about the force being "magic" but really, there's no reason it couldn't have had a scientific explaination, it's just that the explaination isn't critical to the storytelling; the force is hard to understand, but Jedi's understand it and can use it. Granted in the prequels they *tried* to provide a scientific explanation, but it was handled so clumsily that it came off as extremely contrived and hamfisted. I don't think it's fair to categorize it as being analogous to religion or "magic".
In my opinion, neither is better than the other because Star Wars and Star Trek are completely different things. Star Trek is the perfect text book definition of Science Fiction. Like Bill Nye stated, it uses futuristic technology that can plausibly be recreated in our own future and its also all based off scientific fact. It is also more of a philosophical exploration of humanity and what it means to be human. Star Wars on the other hand, is what I like to call "Science Fantasy". Once you think about it, Star Wars has more things in common with Lord of the Rings than it does with Star Trek. It is essentially the Hero's Journey in space. The Force, like Bill Nye said, is essentially space magic, a power thats never question and just is. Its basically their religion.
Its okay to prefer one over the other, that fine. Personally, I prefer Star Wars, mainly because I grew up with it and only started getting into Star Trek just recently. But to say that one is better than the other is unfair when talking about two completely different things. Its like saying a bird is better than a fish when they are completely different species.
I love this 🙌🏼
Star Trek had noise in space too. Just watch the opening credits. Every time the Enterprise flies by, you get that woosh sound.
fair enough but how does Bill Nye explain the Q
+greatergameplayer came here to say the same thing.
+greatergameplayer He'd probably say something like:
The Q is a species of highly evolved beings that have the capability to manipulate space-time. The mechanism they change matter and time is unknown to humans. However it appears to be a biological ability that they've achieved through either natural evolutionary processes or by permanent artificial manipulation. The Q have often shown god-like powers but as Star Trek emphasizes time and time again, the advances of even a few 100 years or even a few parlor tricks can make a person seem like a god to members of their own species. Much less a species which has been evolving for who knows how long elsewhere in the universe.
As for limitations of the Q, all evidence in the series points to a member of the Q's lifetime being a linear one (as opposed to The Prophets in Deep Space Nine who are 4th dimensional beings who can conceptualize the entirety of the 4th dimension and exist at all times at once). For instance, Q never runs into Picard as an earlier version of himself. so we can guess that his conception of his own lifetime may be linear. They also have the ability to or choose to procreate as well. Therefore a Q's life has an inception at least. And their offspring can potentially surpass them in power when sent head to head. Members of the Q also have the ability to cast other members out or even kill them. So we know a Q's lifetime has a start and can have an end so their lives progress in a linear fashion like ours even though they are able to travel through time at will and left on their own, they may well live forever (as we picture forever).
At one point it is suggested by Picard that the Q are actually fearful of human beings because they think that humans may surpass the Q at some point in their evolution. Though we never get a direct answer to that theory from Q, I'd say that the writers were pointing to a more reasonable and logical explanation for the Q's existence rather than a magical one or an explanation found in a hocus pocusy Yoda riddle
+Stork Shmork i love that answer
+greatergameplayer I was thinking the same thing.
+greatergameplayer And the prophets as well as their whole story arc throughout the series.
I don't understand the argument that Star Trek is better because its not a fantasy. When did fantasy become a negative? ( I get why Bill Nye personally prefers Star trek being a scientist and what not). Star Wars is sci fi and fantasy, so I say best of both worlds.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-Arthur C. Clarke
What about the Q in Star Trek? They're more magic than The Force.
Story telling? That's bullshit. So from your standpoint, a good story is a story that will only go deep as good vs. evil. No further. Star Wars is only better at satisfying shallow people with CGI and explosions. That's it.
well that Shakespearean outlook still crushes Star Trek and its realism I mean just look at the box office what did people prefer
Thank you, Nye!
I find Star Wars more Enjoyable as Movies while I find Star Trek more enjoyable as a Tv Show
I know bill Nye may not know a lot about Star Wars but the according to the prequels it is caused by micro organisms called midi chlorians and in the sequels it is a force that surrounds and penetrates us.
Actually the midiclorians don't cause the force they are a link between the force and living beings. Midiclorians are basically the wifi connection for the force.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke
The force is energy! It's not magic!
Unfortunately, he didn’t exactly answer which would win in a head-to-head competition & such…
Sure, based on logic & reason, Star Trek does have an edge over Star Wars. HOWEVER, its still a 50/50 battle. When done right, Star Wars wins. That if these two franchises fought each other 1000 times, Star Wars would win no more than 500 & Star Trek would win at least 500. There are three primary factors that play into this.
The first is that hyperdrive is far faster than warp drive, despite warp being more maneuverable than hyperspace. But even Imperial Interdictors could mess with warp IF their gravity well projectors can actually affect whatever it is that makes warp speed possible & such…
The second is offense & this is where they mostly TIE in a lot of things. In terms of weapon placements, Imperial Starships, such as the iconic Star Destroyers, has more weapon emplacements than the Federations’ ‘One-Beam-at-a-Time’ thing. Even if a Federation ship took one of two Star Destroyers down, the second Star Destroyer would easily finish it with its broadside.
Lastly, defense. This may also be a draw, of sorts. If we’ve followed the rules of ship-to-ship combat, which was best culminated in “Last Jedi, the”, how & why the broadside barrage in “Revenge of the Sith” happened the way it did, I wouldn’t be too surprised that TIE Fighters, maybe even TIE Bombers, could slip under a Federations’ ship’s shields to deal critical damages & such.
But, in all honesty, I’d rather help Produce a Silver Screen version of a Reality show where Trekkies & Jedi Junkies have absolutely no idea they’re actually competing against each other until it’s too late. Despite the hardcore fans calling the shots in how this fan focused movie plays out, I personally believe that J.J. Abrams should be the main Camera Director who has two assistant camera directors, one for Trekkies & the other for Jedi Junkies; to bring the Best Visuals for the fans & such.
In the end, this idea of mine is ‘half-baked’. I can only come up with how Star Wars encounters Star Trek, yet I’m going to be extremely reliant on which time period Star Trek encounters Star Wars. Otherwise, the hardcore fans will be calling the shots in what they’re specifically going to be doing, what protocols & procedures they’ll specifically follow, pretty much all that. When applying, Jedi Junkies could apply as a Hutt Stormtrooper, or a Wookiee TIE Pilot (Force sensitives allowed, even Light siders in the Imperial Military); Trekkies could apply as a Romulan in the Cardassian military for all I care.
Hopefully, this’ll be discreetly passed around and I’m contacted for this project & such…
I dont think star destroyers can destroy starships that easily. Sure they have lots of weapons but if you loom closely those weapons are more like plane-based turrets rather than tactical weapons for ship to ship battles. Theyre not meant to fight, theyre used to carry a shit ton of tie fighter and even then the tie fighters arent that powerful as they only use green lasers and not torpedoes, they dont even have shields. Star Trek ship on the other hand are specifically designed to fight against other ships meaning their tactical systems and weapons are far more destructive than that of those laser turrets i mentioned. Their shields are either decent or extremely powerful compared to that of a destroyer plus their sensors could detect parts of a ship they could disable or destroy to gain an advantage. I doubt even the jedi or sith could handle extremely experienced starfleet officers who know how to use a phaser which if set to maximum kill could instantly vaporize and enemy leaving the jedi in empty husk. The death star is also quite easy to destroy, i mean sure one shot could blow up a planet but it takes a long time for it to recharge and even then, the feds torpedoes are powerful alone to destroy its core. At the end of the day star wars would lose against the might of the federation, if not then the borg.
That seems to be more one sided, @@kelkellacsamana7298. < ua-cam.com/video/9nzgbfJw-po/v-deo.html > is a video I recommend watching (MY scenario is a bit more different, but the rules of the game are extremely similar), & there are at least two other videos, the part two & an explanation that the ‘lasers’ mentioned in Star Trek: the Next Generation aren’t the same lasers that’re in Star Wars. Thus, I want you to bear in mind, that yes, the Star Trek universe has a technical edge, but even Trekkies must Humble themselves on the advantages that Star Wars does have over Star Trek.
There is magic. Q and the gods of the wormhole in Deep Space 9 but yeah I take his point. Trek is an optimistic view of science in the future essentially.
Does nobody remember Q from star trek? he's the embodiment of a magic being. while the force has been explained as the manipulation of creatures on an atomic scale. which is at least a scientific justification for the force. Shouldn't scientists do research before making broad statements about the validity of scientific theory in fantasy shows.
Who has wings in Star Wars?
I think he's talking about having wings on spacecraft like X-Wings when there's no real need for them apart from looking cool
and then there's Q
yeh i loved him too
so bill nye hates star wars. got it.
+rtswift How does this translate to "He hates Star Wars?"
+Jonathan Sampson cause he starts off with "some of my best friends like star wars don't get me wrong" so he seems like he has a preference over star trek but i'm obviously jumping the gun by saying he hates star wars.
star trek also has magic, like vulcan mind melding, or those things in voyager that get into your dreams
but also... Star wars isn't science fiction, it's a space fantasy, sometimes a space opera, it never pretends to be anything but.
Star trek is science fiction, even with the magic it has and never explains. This makes the whole discussion moot, it's like trying to decide between Lord of the rings and breaking bad, Iain M banks or stephen king or eminem and nirvana. which is to say, i'm sure neither are bad, but you don't judge grunge by its words per minute just as you don't judge rap by how great the distortion on the guitar solo is.
Lewis Bentley that does not make it not magic
Star Trek has magic in it has the Q has the Vulcan telepaths and many others who are similar Force users in Star Wars
The force is NOT magic. It's science. The more I hear Bill Nye talk, the more I get annoyed with him, especially when he dodges the question or says "nother" as in "it's a whole nother thing".
Star Trek has sound in space, the planets have earth like gravity and atmospheric pressure, ships go faster than light, Spocks half human (how the hell's that possible), that Q guy, you could go on and on. At least Star Wars is overtly fantasy and not trying to pass itself off as a version of our future. I like Bill Nye, but c''mon dude, don't choose one over the other because you feel It's more scientifically accurate. They're both so deep into the realm of science fiction/fantasy, why bother discussing which is closer to reality?
In Star Wars the force is not magic in EP 1 they explained a more scientific explanation. The force belongs with all living beings but to determine if you can use it or how strongly, they introduced midicloriens. Now they are microscopic cells that are passed down through genes that have "evolved" ,even though I don't believe in it, to give the host this power also know as the force. Last in Morgan freeman and the wormhole tv show they explained how the force could be real. Mic drop
"Star Wars has magic, so I don't like it. Star Trek is better." I just saved you guys a minute and a half of your lives. It's funny that this scientist complains about Star Wars having sound effects in space, but Star Trek does, too. He also complains about unexplained powers in Star Wars. True fans of Star Trek can list many races and characters that make use of omnipotent powers.
Bill Nye, as a scientist, you should know not to talk about stuff you know nothing about.
Revoltz22 he was probably just put on the spot and hit with various questions.
Dammit Bill. Come on. You can't set aside your ultra-serious, science-first thinking to just ENJOY a movie??? How depressing and boring is your life???? O_O Seriously. Sometimes it's just for fun!!!
I wish I could meet this man, if only to encourage a little fun in his life. He seems utterly devoid of humour, expression, light-heartedness. I have great respect for his qualifications and standing in the scientific community, but I would hate for anyone I know to be this tight-assed and closed off to good humour and entertainment. This isn't living to the best of your ability, humans need fun in their lives!!!
could not have said it better my man
Johnny Chavez Cheers Johnny :)
That is one of the most closed-minded comments I have ever seen. I honestly thought when I loaded the second part of your comment that you were gonna say how you were kidding. Must I honestly explain myself or can you just reread what you wrote and conclude yourself how far your head was up your ass? Sorry lol but jesus christ c'mon man people have their own taste. I would think people have learned this before right at the age of reason.
leon Wishing people happiness and joy in their life is close-minded now?? For FUCK sake, and you say I'm the one that's up my ass?? Are you kidding me right now???
You realize by utterly subscribing, THIS stringently to being PC, and accepting, and, you know, tiptoe tiptoe, must accept everybody and everything that exists, you're actually DENYING a form of intelligence?? Are you aware of that? This is, of the 9, Naturalist Intelligence, discerning and being able to judge, in this case, actions and motivations, and choosing the appropriate response or course of action.
By restricting yourself to a blanket dogmatic approach that censors and shuts down any sense of non-absolute acceptance, you actually open the door for pedophiles and murderers and yes, cliché, but terrorists. You NEED to be discerning, otherwise you're just a fanatical little sheep, not a critically thinking adult, and the danger and vulnerability that invites is staggering, it's like asking politely to be harmed and conquered.
I OFFERED joy. I wished and hoped and had aspirations for a happier, more fun existence for this person. Someone who can't just sit down and enjoy a programme, seriously lacks for joy, they're "on", all the time, there's no true relaxation. That is infinitely sad, and unnatural for not just our species, but life itself (as evidenced strongly by birds and animals). The first language we learn, is in fact not a language of syntax and grammar and vocabulary, but literally, play. It's a language all in itself, and its communication is so innate, it's often completely silent, almost telepathic.
With that in mind, and the necessity for all healthy, mentally balanced individuals to practice play, and light-heartedness, for self-care, can you try and perceive within his body language, expression, and complete avoidance of light-heartedness, that he clearly isn't taking best care of himself?
And with that extensive explanation, which I'm guessing from your over the top, supremely exaggerative comment, you needed to hear, can you now understand my comment, and motivation for saying so, a little better? Are you still in total meltdown and ready to explode at a perceived injustice that you feel you need to rectify, is that still the scenario, as you see it?
Rodgerinho Some people prefer sci-fi over fantasy, simple as that. How is that hard to understand? Funny comment though ^
So the more realistic something is, the better it is? WTF!?
From a scientific standpoint, Star Trek is better. From a storytelling standpoint, Star Wars is better.
Hmm. Well said
Hmm. Well said
+Andrew Hassell I like star wars... but the sory telling is nothing special, there is so many plot holes :D
+sfgdhdhd story telling is not just about the lack of plotholes. its about creating a universe and then inviting the viewer to inhabit that world. its about setting up relatable characters that the audience connects with, and learning more about them through their journey.
+John Yenter Well, I connect better with star trek universe. As Lucas himself said: star wars is a family soap opera, it's not about space ships and I prefer sci-si:)
bill nye the science guy! bill nye the science guy! Eyyyyyy
The scientific knowledge of Bill Nye is insignificant next to the Power of the Force!
He didn't say what was better. He explained the differences between the two. If it's taken what he thought was better, his explanation is based on what appeals to HIM.
+vargavision His tone of voice gave away his opinion. His words were simple diplomacy.
That's another way of looking at it, but this is just a clip. I'd have to see the entire interveiw to understand the context of what he was asked.
Star Trek did go into the realm of religion in a positive way with DS9. He should really do the scientific thing and GAIN KNOWLEDGE about the subject matter. Also, Star Wars is great adventure cinema with all the right touches of drama, fantasy, action, and adventure (I'm talking orig trig). It's all great.
You got it
I believe in a lot of that mumbo jumbo type of stuff, but I have to agree with Bill Nye on this. Star Trek is better because it doesn't have a bunch of mumbo jumbo type of stuff. If I want that kind of crap, I'll pray or read my horoscope and I don't need a space opera to jam it down my throat.
Bill Nye the science guy
Star Trek has sound effects in space:P
Clearly, Doctor Who wins.
Ahhhh Yesssssss. :)))
I keep wondering how the hell she gets those pants off.
😀
I know what u meant Bill Nye...u were obviously saying Star Trek
bill nye and neil degrass tyson for president
bill nye the science guy
Star Trek fans: Oh, Star Wars is pure fantasy... Star Trek is hard science!
Literally every single other science fiction franchise: Yeah, Star Trek, let's talk...
The bias is strong with this one.
There's no proof telepathy exists, but Star Trek has both Deanna and Lwaxana Troi, not to mention many other mind readers. There's plenty of magic in that technobabble too...
+LiquidCucumber Once you said "technobabble" I knew you were a layman.
+Lucus Kane You can only use tachyon so many times before it starts to sound silly!
The Winner is clearly Doctor Who!
Bill Nye the science guy (Bill Nye your moms a guy)
Science Fantasy vs Science Fiction
sooo, what was his decision? xD
Adding to discrediting Mr. Nye's position, there is an awful lot of Vulcan mysticism, prophecy, and strange powers they never fully explain that permeates all of Star Trek.
If you're going to be dismissive of The Force, then have a fun time explaining your support of Spock trying to mind meld (at a distance) with VGER from Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
+William Johnston Actually, they've explained a lot of these, There may be some instances where it doesn't make sense (ie when they go to the center of the galaxy) but a lot of it is described on how species evolved and their level of evolution, technology and general science where they are at. The Vulcan's for example, are way more scientifically advanced than humans.
Star Trek V is a mess of a movie in general (so I don't bring it up), but there are enough floating Space Heads to make Star Fox paranoid.
The Vulcans are a very interesting race, aside from their advanced physiology they also have psionic abilities. It's just that Star Trek I had Spock go against the established method for neural interchange by trying to mind meld without physical contact - which goes against the science of the Mind Meld (connecting nervous systems through skin connection).
- Now Spock was able to link with VGER, as its energy field could have acted as a nervous system, it just goes against what was known and established as Vulcan lore.
Which is the problem with Scientists criticizing Star Wars, The Force, Fantasy, and by extension Religion. Just because something cannot, at present, be quantified and explained, does not mean that there isn't a reasonable rationale behind it.
- The force isn't so far fetched (energy field that exists in the connection between all things). Gravity functions as a connection between all matter. Perhaps the Force is just a way to manipulate and read the flows in Gravity (we don't know).
- and yes it's kind of "bad science" to speculate, but you have to start with some way to explain the things you don't fully understand so you aren't dismissive of the potential of learning from them.
VULCANS BELEIVE IN THINGS THE SAME FUCKING HUMANS BIELIVE IN CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bill nye the science guy!!!
So... star trek has nothing fantasy/god stuf like , like star wars? So nobody remembers that part where they meet god or that other part with an almighty being in the center of the universe or w/e???
+Sword of damocles
Bill Nye: "SW has magic like the Force."
Me: "Q."
+David Kelly Q is more God-like than fantasy.
+David Kelly
The Q is another race though, They are a highly evolved race, it is not a magical force that anyone can essentially wield depending on how strong it is with them.
Jonathan Sampson So is the Force. Midichlorians?
+Jonathan Sampson To play devil's advocate: Didn't Q once give his powers to Riker?
how about Q. is he not magic
Star trek has magic. Just look at Q.
I knew nye was a Star Trek nerd
He must not have watched the prequels.
YOU ASK BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY STAR TREK OR STAR WARS WE ALL KNOW STAR WARS DOESN'T HAVE MUCH SCIENCE SO
I had very low hopes and Bill once again met every expectation.
1. Star Trek had sound in space before Star Wars...
2. Bill goes on about 'the Force' and calls it Magic...
Unlike Star Trek with 'Q', Time Travel every other bit of nonsense.
He could have just said "I prefer the optimism of a Social Utopia in Star Trek' and been good.
Deanna Troi says "I sense much fear in him" and it's Science but when Yoda says it... it's magic.
SW vs. ST is so ridiculous. It's like having a "The Godfather vs. Casablanca" feud.
Yeah. It's comparing apples to oranges.
star wars is an art
Keep this in mind: Star Wars is a Space Opera, Star Trek is not.
Well of course Bill Nye the SCIENCE Guy is going to go with the "SCIENCE fiction" one and not the space opera or space fantasy.
Star trek didnt go magic lane then WTF is Q lol
Yeah great rivalry like Yankees vs Red Sox. But oh wait, same director???
Sadly, yes.
+CUMBICA1970 So ALL star trek series and movies have the same directors?
Nah, I figured he was talking about the reboots.
The force was bacteria, Dr. Nye.
That argument you're using "Star Trek is more realistic than Star Wars" is the worst point I've ever heard. Your point is not even close to valid regarding two FICTIONAL universes..
***** they are both fictional, warp along with hyperspace are actual theories. One is no more real than the other, and don't give me that "force isn't real" crap because ST has the Q and Ocampa. SW tends to focus on the mystical things while ST doesn't focus too much on them but they are still very much their.
***** so some guy snaps his fingers and makes literally anything happen is more realistic than a guy who can push things with his mind.. Okay... By the way, if I'm not mistaken, not all Ocampa could use the abilities Kes did so don't start that.
***** and that's what sets SW and ST apart. You just have to realize that not everything form SW is fantasy and not everything from ST is reality, that wasn't the point I made. They both have certain elements of both.
+Marcus Jones lol, not magic! Just 'highly advanced.' Don't worry guys, magic and religion are dumb. But the Q don't need those, because they're 'highly advanced.'
it doesn't matter what bill nye says
All I need to say is lightsaber
Dumb. Bill Nye didn't think this through. There is WAY more crazy magic shit in Star Trek. It's called the Q for one. Also, Star Trek also has sound effects in space!
STAR WARS IS BETTER!!!
Pff Star Trek the only copy cat of Star Wars nobody copy Star Wars because they know they won't be that good
bill nye = hater lol
This argument is stupid. Star Wars is fantasy.
Star trek whud win in a batte
who gives a crap what bill Nye says
ALIEN
she's hot
Stop restricting your mind you rigid empty hole (lol)
What everyone has to realize here is that Bill Nye is an ATHEIST. And being that Star Wars expresses "belief" in "the force", it is a subject beyond his PERSONAL acceptance & professional expertise, which is why he down plays Star Wars (space "fantasy")and exalts Star Trek (science "fiction"). However ultimately both are the same.
LOL "Both are the same" did you even listen to the video? Not to mention they're not even the same genre. Star Wars is "Space Fantasy" whereas Star Trek is "Science Fiction".
I'm an ATHEIST, and I love Star Wars. And Star Trek.
ladkatta I'm an atheist and I still prefer Star Wars WAY more than Star Trek
That one anime nerd That's because it's also faced on another front. Star War is geared towards children(imagination) and men(action). Star Trek caters to adults(order/intellect) and women(drama/soap opera).
And NON ATHEIST love Star Wars. And Star Trek.
From a scientific and storytelling standpoint, Star Trek is superior. For fans of woo-woo! Old fashioned good vs evil flippy light sword fight stuff, Starwars is better.
Personally speaking, I can't stand the contrived storytelling in Star Wars where everything conveniently falls into place, how every little action or random decision leads to some massive plot point. "By the way, I've know I tried to kill you a bunch, but I'm your father, dude! Would you like to be co-ruler of the galaxy with me?" or "Let's go over here, OH MY GOD, WE FOUND the MILLENIUM FALCON!" But there's the pew pew PEW!
Bill Nye is awesome. He is one of the coolest people ever. But Star Wars sucks ass. Enough is enough. Its overrated and shittty. Im a Trekkie. Lifelong. I know Star Wars has a few great things about it. Only a few. Harrison Ford being the big one♥ - but....no. Star Trek for life, man.
Unfortunately Star Trek sucks.
Nope Star Trek has over 600 episodes. Star Wars is just movies AFAIK
Yeah but 100 Star Trek episodes don't equal 1 Star Wars movie, except the first 2, those weren't that great. Still in just a couple hours Star Wars does a lot more than Star Trek.
@danwat1234 Star Wars has two TV shows.
Charlie Khosravi Inner light is better than the original trilogy
Unfortunately you are wrong, your opinion sucks and Star Trek is superior to star wars in every aspect.
What about the Q in Star Trek? They're more magic than The Force.
There is a limit to his power plus is a highly evolved being maybe even a god
I like Star Trek: The Next Generation more than any of the Star Wars movies.