Pure hand to hand, no projectile/beam weapons.
Pure hand to hand, no projectile/beam weapons.
Chewbacca. I’ve never heard about Klingons tearing people’s arms out of their sockets.
Is this question a joke? No, the joke Worf’s supposed fighting abilities.
Chewie. In a walk.
Chewbacca, because Worf always has to lose, in order to demonstrate how strong an alien species really is.
Worf: He can be beaten up by a couple of Ferengi.
Chewbacca: They had to drop a fuckin’ Moon on him to kill him.
Who’s tougher? Gee…
You need a more compelling match, Pyth. Try…
John Candy vs Oliver Hardy, each at their peak weight.
With Rick Moranis and Stan Laurel on the undercard.
I’d like to point you to this link, especially since I wrote one of the top three responses.
Sigh. Everyone loses.
Worf and Chewbacca are fictional characters. That is, they don’t exist. So comparing them is like comparing two other things that don’t exist.
In fiction, they live in different universes. There’s no indication that the creators of Worf ever intended for a character like Chewbacca to exist in the same space. So hypothesizing what would happen if they got together is like asking whether Goldilocks could beat Spiderman in a spelling bee. WTF cares?
Writers create stories, not complete worlds. They aren’t trying to create complete worlds, they don’t want to create complete worlds, they don’t care about complete worlds.
Being a “I wanna play too” fan who extends fictional worlds isn’t wrong, but couldn’t you think of something better to do? Why not speculate about a shark combatting a squid, and actually do some tangible thinking about issues that might possibly have some slight relevance to work, science, relationships, politics? I.e., to anything real.
We’re not exploring the richness of this crossover field, people. Pay attention!
Worf vs. Chewbacca, fine.
But how about . . .
We’ve got enough lineups for two tag-team matches!
Tell that to JRR Tolkien or Frank Herbert. BTW, if you don’t like the thread’s subject matter, why did you bother to post here? Or click on the thread title to begin with. Go away and think about sharks battling squids, or whatever else is apparetnly relevent to your everyday life in the cubicle. You won’t be missed here.
Answering questions like this doesn’t achieve the goals of the SDMB, which is to combat ignorance. These questions ADD to ignorance.
Claiming to “reason” about things which are fiction amounts to distorting the truth.
I’ll be specific. To know whether Worf could “beat” Chewbacca supposes somehow you know what “wins” a fight. Is it strength? It is cunning? Is it weight? Take any one of them. How do you propose to establish the facts about either?
It’s not an exercise of discovering truths, it’s just one person’s fantasy against another’s. Can you imagine Cecil bothering to answer a question like this? I can’t.
I think it would go something like this:
Linguists may not excel at pulling both your arms out of your sockets, but they have a deadly trick of taking the fight out of you by calling attention to the shortcomings of the semiotic tools available to you within the limitations of your language.
Ok, then, everybody out of the pool and listen to partly_warmer, no more threads that don’t DIRECTLY COMBAT IGNORANCE about SENSIBLE subjects. :rolleyes:
What a tired old argument. Both characters have distinct characteristics and abilities, as set out in those fictional universes. We’re comparing these fictional characteristics and abilities, for our amusement.
Totally beside the point. We, obviously, are not the creators of those characters. We are the fans. We are supposed to think, ponder, consider, and moreover, ENJOY these fictional universes.
What a silly statement. Writers do nothing BUT create complete worlds.
Oh, boy, I get to be the first to say it…
“All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.”
Hardly. They entertain us in between our fighting of ignorance. We have to take a break sometime.
More baloney. Again, even if these characters don’t exist, there are set-in-stone characteristics that they have. We’re not simply making this stuff up ourselves. If we were, you’d probably hear someone mention how Worf spreads his wings, takes flight, and spits a ball of flame on his opponent.
By the canon examples set out in the Star Trek TV show and movies (for Worf) and the Star Wars movies and novels (for Chewie). There’s plenty of evidence in those mediums about the two characters’ abilities, believe you me.
It’s called a “hobby”. Get one.
When did this come about? Have you read anything from the Pitt? Or MPSIMS? Or, oh, I’d say 95% of all the threads posted on this board. I thought the “goal” of this board was to have fun. Is this how you get your post count up, by complaining in every thread that you don’t find “fighting for the goal?” It’s a good plan, mind you…keep that up, you’ll be posting more that God.
Oh, and Chewbacca would kick Warf’s ass.
El Elvis Rojo, you are, of course, correct that the SDMB makes ample opportunity in the Pit and MPSIMS to indulge our feelings, even about mundane pointless stuff. My issue here is that rather than answering the question, my (subjective) reaction was to respond to nature of the question itself.
My feeling is that questions like “Who would win: Chewy or Worf?” could be generated ad-infinitum by a simple computer program. And so, we could spend the rest of our lives answering basically random questions. I’m opposed to this. That’s the nub.
(Parenthetically, I could write a program to do this in about a week.)
Easily the least rational post I’ve read of yours. How did you want me to respond? Did you prefer English, or your native mud?
I’m a writer. A professional writer. It’s nowhere in my mind that my characters will be compared to others when I write. If you want to do something with them outside of my intent, like making paper dollies, hey, I’m not going to stand between you and the scissors.
No writer I’ve met would claim to be creating a complete world. Period.
The only slightly lucid point you venture is that characters aren’t set in stone. Right. As I said, these are not complete worlds. My question, which you inelegantly dodged, is whether weight, strength or cunning is supposed to determine which character would “win”. (Or even what “winning” is.) So…pick one…weight. Which weighs more a Klingon or a Wookie? Shall we get the scales out?
“The canon examples set out in the Star Trek TV show”??? Hmm. I didn’t realize there was a canon. Or did you mean cannon? Or…uh…what did you mean? (Not clear here whether you understand what “canon” means, but I’ll just shoot ahead, shall I?)
I don’t know whether you’ve read any of the scriptwriter’s guides to writing for Star Trek (I’ve read parts), but in no way do they describe the fighting power of a character. Dungeons and Dragons statistics play no part whatever in defining a TV character. There is no canon, and no evidence of any kind, about how characters from two different fictional universes would compete.
- There is, in my mind, an uneasy link between the “who wins a fight” argument, and the issue of violence in our society. Yes. Why is it important to even fantasize about such things? Why–tell me this–is it more interesting to answer “who hits harder” than “who is smarter?” Than who has better jokes? Than who can compose better forum messages?
SPOOFE, let me anticipate your adept and unexpected response, as you are clearly a person who would defend the right of a lunatic to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. He has that right. I have the right to tell hit to sit down so other people can watch the film. I have the right to suggest to the town reporter that he find something more newsworthy to report than an idiot babbing randomly in a public place.
Such as people who want to discuss the number of wookies who can dance on the head of a pin.
Amazing, a writer with no imagination. What do you write? Tech manuals?
Maybe there are writers that you haven’t met…
That’s why this is an opinion poll…
My! Not making too many generalizations here are we? And I find the idiot comment oddly appropriate… although not for SPOOFE… :rolleyes: