Slashdot Mirror
How Star Wars Trumped Star Trek For Scientific Accuracy
An anonymous reader writes "When George Lucas added the 'ring around the Death Star' effect to his 1997 re-release of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, the revision was almost as hated as Greedo shooting first, and to boot was seen as a knock-off of the seminal 'Praxis effect' in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991). But a debunking astronomer claims that the Federation got it wrong and the fan-boys should thank Lucas for adding some scientific accuracy to his fictional universe."
A good bitchfight is about to emerge here. I for one have my popcorn ready. BTW, Star Wars is waaayyy better than that sissy star trek.
Apparently this is regarding a book published in 2002 which talks about the 1997 edition of Star Wars vs a 1991 Star Trek - comparing the way an explosion appeared on screen.
Which portion of this 8 year old book about a 20 year old movie is news?
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
I care about the integrity of a work of art, cheesy pyro effects and all.
Digital remasterings that go beyond color correction and noise reduction suck. JMHO.
Acceptable? Getting rid of the matte outlines that were visible in VHS Star Wars IV. Not acceptable? Adding a CGI tauntaun.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Star Trek is science fiction while Star Wars is science fantasy. There is far more real science accuracy in Star Trek than anything in Star Wars. They even got the Ipad right more than 20 years before it became real. Star Trek explains the science whereas Star Wars is just fun fantasy stuff.
Unless, of course, Praxis had a trench round its circumference too (visible or not). Strip-mining is a viable extraction method.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I agree. This slash story is pretty lame. Also Han shot Greedo preemptively. Han was a rogue, not a white knight.
Not all of us have the beautiful anamorphic laserdiscs.
Laserdiscs? What's wrong with the OT DVD release?
Han shoots first on my DVD copy. Same on my VHS copy.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
How Star Wars Trumped Star Trek For Scientific Accuracy
Isn't that the greatest headline ever to create a nerd flame war!?
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Both are entertainment. If you know anything about the relevant science they spout off, I hope you're not taking notes for future reference. I assume both put just enough real science in there to make it sound not _entirely_ bullshit but didn't bother going to ridiculous realistic detail to turn it into a class.
Again, these shows/movies were for entertainment. Picking apart the "science" that was written by.. writers.. might be funny in some blatant cases, but generally it's just a futile effort since not even they cared and they were the ones writing it into canon.
Frankly, my opinion is that those who "take offense" to the lack of credible science in these two series/movies are the ones who sincerely hope/hoped it will/would/(was?) become reality in the not so distant future (or long ago past for the Star Wars fans). OMG! The science isn't real! Does that mean I won't get to tool around the galaxy on the Enterprise-A/B/C/D/E?
Exactly. Dicking with SFX is mostly just irritating. But a major personality rewrite is a betrayal -- not of us fans, but of the character himself.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Lukas had every right to change his creation but to assume fans of the original would be pleased was a little foolish.
Of course he does. It's just amusing that a person who once went in front of Congress to protest against the colorization of The Three Stooges is one of the biggest film revisionists of all time at this point. Hell, he's supposedly supposed to be making even more revisions for the BD release.
Science fiction ? Star Wars is more like future fantasy, and Star Trek is more future fiction.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Maybe 'Science Fiction' is a major misnomer for all works currently filed under it.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Yeah, it's not like conjuring up some mystical phenomena that allows the characters to defy the laws of physics.
Star Wars is more like future fantasy
That certainly explains the opening scroll for every movie, which all start "A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away" :)
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
So, if I'm reading the summary correctly, Star Wars was edited to include an effect that had already been included in Star Trek. So for copying Star Trek, Star Wars wins?
Is 1563649 a prime number?
> For christ sakes.. in star wars you could alter someones mind by waving at them.
Spock mind-melded a guard through a wall in "A Taste of Armageddon" and influenced him to open the locked door.
> You could move objects by REALLY wanting them.
Gary Mitchell in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" levitated a bunch of stuff.
> Death? Thats for losers.
Nomad killed Scotty and resurrected him.
You guys who think Star Trek is more "scientific" than Star Wars are just not paying attention.
> Need I go on?
I won't if you won't!
Send to Klingon High Command: "This is Excelsior, a Federation Starship traveling in beta quadrant. We have monitored a large explosion in your sector. Do you require any assistance?"
You know I will admit I do get angry when I watch a news clip or history channel documentary and find the information presented to be flat wrong or terribly misleading... it makes me sad. However getting angry over application of reality to the pure fiction of Star Wars and Star Trek? really? What is gained by comparing the force to a transporter or light saber to cloaking fields? How is it that anyone on earth is even capable of knowing with any certainty how a fricking death star will explode? What is it even made out of and what are the properties of its explodey core? I would gladly forgive any and all scientific transgressions made in Star Wars if the script is changed so that all we remember of jar jar is that he was stepped on and killed by one of those shield carrying dinosaurs.
- Star Wars uses laser weapons. Any advanced space-race would never use laser weapons as they are readily re-mediated by the use of reflective materials. Star Trek uses Phasers (phased energy weapons), which at least sort of makes sense.
- An entire planet existing as a city? This makes no sense from a material logistics point of view, at all. There is nothing like this in Star Trek.
- Need I mention the force? Microscopic life forms (midichlorians) giving magical powers to people? It is an interesting plot device, but rooted in any kind of science? No.
That could be because Star Wars is about the story, whereas Star Trek is about the characters.
Inventing Particle A which is fixed by Particle B may not be a good story in itself, but how Kirk, Spock, Bones et al deal with the situation is why I like ST over SW.
Darth Vader was a great baddie, but so was Khan.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Absolutely wrong, at least for connoisseurs. "Hard" science fiction, or SF for short, is very different from fantasy.
SF is a genre written with a "what if" question. Suppose *one* and only one thing that's impossible today were possible, what then? Examples of authors in this genre are Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein and Arthur Clarke. There's very little true SF in movies and TV, it's too cerebral for visual consumption. A magazine that specializes in SF is Analog, published since 1930, when it was named "Astounding".
Fantasy is a genre where anything goes. You could say that SF and, as a matter of fact, all fiction is a sub-genre of fantasy. Star Trek and Star Wars are fantasy but not true SF, they have too many impossible things to qualify as true Science Fiction.
Personally, I see it as an apples and oranges thing. You'd be more accurate comparing Star Trek with Dr. Who and Star Wars with Star Ship Troopers (but I wouldn't even want those flame wars!)
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
While I agree that it's stupid that they made Greedo fire first, it was pretty obvious that if Han hadn't shot him, Greedo would have pulled his trigger, so even without Greedo shooting first, Han was still acting in self-defense.
My point being that the idea of making Greedo shoot first to make Han look somehow less "evil" was even at its very best, a completely unnecesssary change, because it was obvious to me that Han shot Greedo in self defense when I first saw the movie in 1977. The real problem with that change was that it made Han look like he was somebody who simply reacted to situations around him rather than proactively dealt with them in an efficient and appropriate manner.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Leave now and never come back!
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
not science fiction.
The other problem with having Greedo shoot first is that they were, what . . . about 2-3' feet from each other? Across the table? Greedo is an experienced bounty hunter. How the hell does he miss from that distance??
Star Wars < Star Trek <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 2001
It's a pretty insignificant point. I don't know anyone that would seriously side with Star Wars being science fiction. It has more in common with the Lord of the Rings than it does any sci-fi I've seen. Have some good films come out of the Star Wars universe? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's anymore than a fairy tale set in space. Couple that with the kiddy image of marketing and merchandise and it's hard to take Star Wars seriously as science fiction.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I'm pretty sure that "A Long Time Ago, In A Galaxy Far Far Away" doesn't scroll at all.
My film prof claimed it was essentially a western :)
What is more scientifically accurate? Superman or Spider-man? They are both so wide of the mark it is not even worth noting the difference.
vi +
in later ST, especially TNG, Particle A and Particle B became the stories within themselves.
DS9 didn't do hardly any "particle of the week" stories. TNG had it's share, but there was usually a compelling story behind TNG's plot devices. TNG and DS9 generally used technobabble as a means to an end. It wasn't until Voyager that the particle of the week became the whole storyline.
I'd criticize Star Trek for it's character flaws before I'd criticize it for technobabble. How many times did Worf miss attackers that were boarding the Enterprise? Exactly how do you become the Chief of Security for the flagship of the Federation if you can't hit a man sized target from 20 feet away with a small arm? How many times did Riker get the Enterprise whipped in battle? How did Kirk not get drummed out of Starfleet after being caught by Khan with his shields down? How many of his crew paid the ultimate price for that command failure? What would happen to a US Military Officer who made a similar mistake?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm actually familiar with those, and if you dig a tiny bit deeper, you'd see that they're STILL the same thing.
On the other hand, if you look at the way the Millennium Falcon moves, especially the way it goes into hyperdrive, it is WAY more realistic.
You lost me when you used FTL drive as an example of something that's "more" realistic.....
The whole idea in Star Wars of a struggle between good and evil is far more realistic
Except it's not a struggle between good and evil. It's a struggle between two sets of elitists that basically espouse the same philosophy. You think the Jedi represent good? Yoda was perfectly content to allow Anakin's Mother to die and even encouraged the boy to let it happen. Windu tried to appoint himself Judge, Jury and Executioner. Qui-Gon wasn't permitted by the Jedi code to rescue two people from slavery and broke the rules in saving one of them.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Star Trek will forever and always be better then Star Wars!!!
I'd criticize Star Trek for it's character flaws before I'd criticize it for technobabble. How many times did Worf miss attackers that were boarding the Enterprise? Exactly how do you become the Chief of Security for the flagship of the Federation if you can't hit a man sized target from 20 feet away with a small arm? How many times did Riker get the Enterprise whipped in battle? How did Kirk not get drummed out of Starfleet after being caught by Khan with his shields down? How many of his crew paid the ultimate price for that command failure? What would happen to a US Military Officer who made a similar mistake?
Picard should have been drummed out multiple times over for his incompetent leadership in battle. It became almost a cliche; the Enterprise is attacked. Ensigns-of-the-week are thrown about the bridge. Shields are down to 50%. Picard sits there, looking worried. He's informed they're opening fire again. Picard just sits there. They get hit, and an ensign-of-the-week is blown up by his or her apparently dynamite-filled console. Shields are down to 20%. Picard finally orders the crew to return fire, but at that point weapon systems are offline, which I always suspect was what Picard was hoping for.
Yep, I never really thought that badly about ST:TNG until I saw Battlestar Galactica and how real moral ambiguity could play out. The thing about ST is they always won; even when they made the "tough moral decisions" everything still worked out in the end, which got annoying.
Babylon 5. Far more accurate with science than Trek or Wars. Also, they had JPL engineers on staff to give thumbs up/down to spacecraft design and maneuverability. Also had a 5 year story arc planned out, not make things up as you go along.
Well, there's a difference. The Three Stooges were clearly high class art films, whereas Star wars was very clearly more equivalent to something coming from Chihuly or Kinkade. Or it might possibly be that George Lucas grew up on The Three Stooges and didn't want them screwing with his childhood memories.
The movie Blade Runner, for instance, as much as I wished it had been, was not Science Fiction. Even though it was set in the future (2014), there was a long list of astounding scientific advances the viewer had to accept in addition to the main premise that an android could become self-aware and, in some cases, not even know that it is an android (I mean c'mom, imagine the science needed to produce utterly accurate bodily functions. Or did androids just think they had amazingly efficient digestive tracts?
I always thought the implication was that the replicants were engineered biological organisms. Otherwise why would they bother with the Voight-Kampf test? Once you've accepted that they're biological, pooping comes for free. Really the only big leap is that such a level of bioengineering
that they could make something that is indistinguishable from a human, but so much stronger, resistant to heat, etc.
That doesn't sound like significantly more of a stretch than presuming you could somehow accelerate human growth to super-speeds. Mr. Clone inexplicably knowing things he couldn't possibly have known is the bigger leap imo.
And what makes Blade Runner (and to a lesser extent The Island) true Sci-Fi is not that they restrict the degree to which they extrapolate from existing technology. It's that they posit a type of technology and a type of future in which that technology exists, and explore how that affects the human condition as we see it today. True sci-fi is always about the present, not the future.
The enemies of Democracy are