Slashdot Mirror
"Trekkies" the Movie: The Other Force
If youre struggling to survive in the mushroom cloud of adoration and marketing, the intergalactic miasma of fried chicken and Jar Jar Blink action figures surrounding the Mother Movie, heres good news: "Trekkies," a new documentary thats quirky, fun, as pure and unheralded as the other one is deafening and over-hyped .
"Star Trek" and "Star Wars," vastly different in many ways, have for nearly a generation been the twin cultural pillars of the ascendant techno nation. Both precede the glory years of the Net and the Web, though millions of fans have since coalesced and communicated worshipped, in fact online.
Both were discovered at the dawn of the Age of Hype, although both were almost instantly absorbed by it. Personally, Ive always leaned towards the "Star Wars" movies to me, better, more imaginative works with much more powerful stories, technology, animation and mythology.
"Star Trek" always seemed a little loopy to me, sort of a futuristic Rainbow Coalition celebrating a loveably diverse cast who couldnt act but compensated with pluck, good heart, and some phasers and transporters.
My own notion is that there are significant class differences between the two cults. "Star Wars" has always attracted a different audience brainier, more techno-centered, perhaps because it has a high-minded sounding High Priest in George Lucas, whereas the Trekkies have to get their inspiration from William Shatner.
This possible difference is borne out by this great documentary (directed and edited by Roger Nygard and released the same week as "Phantom Menace"), which makes clear Trekkies are more idiosyncratic, unassuming, dotty and working class.
"Trekkies" is really the antidote to the "Star Wars" circus, a campaign thats threatening to turn a good series of movies into a new kind of faith and that has driven crass commercialism to grotesque new levels of greed and tastelessness. If you want to wait out the din, "Trekkies" will hold you.
This movie is a love letter to the people who have supported the TV show and movies and who flock to the countless Star Trek conventions every single weekend in America and much of the rest of the world.
These are the folks who study the Klingon language (a Klingon version of "Hamlet" and the Bible are in the works, and theres a hilarious scene in the movie where students try to learn the word "kill" in Klingon). In the film, fans argue about the definition of "Trekker" versus "Trekkie", and worship the aging but game Stars from the shows various mostly tacky incarnations: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, James Doohan and DeForest Kelley to Brent Spiner, Grace Lee Whitney, LeVar Burton, Jonathan Frakes and Kate Mulgrew.
These fans-as-in-fanatics trade action figures and photos and bid furiously for wigs, rubber masks and Federation pistols auctioned off by collectors. From the looks of things, a whole convention doesnt gross one good Pizza Hut tie-in, but "Trekkies" seem to all covet a piece of the action, however small.
By and large, the trekkies in "Trekkies" are good hearted and appealing, even the dentist in Florida who wears a Starship uniform and decorated his office to look like a Federation warship, and whose sometimes rattled patients look up to see the Enterprise hovering about the dental chair.
Some, like the Arkansas woman who wears her uniform everywhere and insists that her co-workers call her "Commander," raise the question of what a life is and who does or doesnt have one. Others, like the astonishingly articulate teenager from Bakersfield, California, who drives to conventions every weekend with his Dad in a "Roddenberry" cruiser (named for Gene, of course, the shows late creator), or the rotund woman who hosts "Talk Trek and Beyond" beamed from Sunland, Calif, to 2.5 million listeners make it clear that they do have lives, but "Star Trek" is mostly it.
This is the right movie at the perfect time. It reminds us just how odd and unpredictableAmerican culture is, especially when it intersects with technology, sci-fi and the screen. In this genre, you dont really even need hype.
When Capt. James T. Kirk and the Starship Enterprise made their debut in l966, the show wasnt much of a hit, and critics accurately panned it a clunky stinker awful acting, bad writing, cheesy sets, pretentious space jargon.
But after years of reruns and re-births, the "Star Trek" fan base grew wildly, even as the spin-offs and movies got more sophisticated. The series went from a TV show to a social phenomenon, a beloved hobby for nerds everywhere, a magnet for the odd and the non-normal.
In "Trekkies", Roddenberrys widow and others try to make a case that the real appeal of "Star Trek" is that it presents a hopeful, diverse view of the world. That doesnt really fly. I think the more accurate explanation is that "Star Trek" has always been so earnest and clunky that its completely accessible, relaxing, even camp.
Good for it, and for this loving documentary about it. You wont see Colonel Sanders out shilling for "Trekkies," or that noxious little rat who works for Taco Bell, either.
If youre like me, and needed a bit of distance between the publicity blitz and experience of seeing The Movie, catch "Trekkies."
Its a sweetly unassuming film with a production budget of roughly $19.98, no marketing tie-in of any sort, nor a single special effect that can still warm your heart.
And speaking of Phantom MenaceS[Fear not. Nothing is Given Away Here}
Its tough to grasp what George Lucas had in mind when he sabotaged this gorgeous, epic and sometimes quite powerful movie with Jar Jar Binks and his bug-eyed nation of witless, jabbering, amphibians.
Its a testament to "Phantom Menance" that its one of the best movies youll see in the next few years despite some space-size flaws that would sink a lesser film or producer. "Phantom Menace" remains true to its core mythology will machines serve us, or will we serve them?, and the quest of the young man to save his world and choose between good and evil. The special effects are truly stunning, even breathtaking. Theres a great new bad guy, and the Jedi stuff still holds up. Yodas swamp has been traded in for a staggering Jedi Council room with the best view in the galaxy.
Lucas should have learned from the nightmare Ewoks, but he didnt. Once again, theres an alien nation inserted into a great story for no other reason than that theyre cute (or perhaps make Kentucky Fried Chicken and Toys "R" Us happy).
The Hans Solo character is sorely missed. Lucas and his movies tend towards self-importance, and Solo jeered at just the right times ("you take the Force, kid, Ill take the money.") Jar Jar doesnt begin to fill Solos ironic and deflating shoes: they simply turn the film into a Disney cartoon at moments when it really wants -- and very much deserves -- to be something else.
Sometimes, the writing is unforgiveably clunky, as when Anakin Skywalker, the young Darth-to-be yells "yippee" when he learns he might be leaving his Mom and heading off with a Jedi Knight. ("Yippee")? Or when Liam Neesons Qui-Gon Jinn portentiously intones "the focus IS the reality!"
But "Phantom Menace" is well worth seeing. Youll get more than your moneys worth, and the stage is sure set for a blockbuster sequel, post-prequel, or whatever. Maybe Lucas will come down off of his perch and chill the Hype. Maybe hell even grasp the notion that theres something wrong when people get sick of a movie before it even comes out.
Anakin did not yell "Yippee" when he found out he would be leaving his mother and training as a Jedi. He yelled "yippee" when he Watto told him to finish his task and then he could go home for the night.
I like both star wars and star trek. but you should
really get your facts straight. "brainier" and yet
more "unassuming, dotty and working class"?
just what the hell ARE you talking about anyway?
>Data runs Linux
So that's why he keeps screwing up! It all makes sense now.
I left the movie with the word tradgedy on my lips.. i'm glad to see i'm not the only one who thought an incredible movie was shot in the foot by rampant and pointless attempts at comic relief alhtough I consider not jUST jar jar but also the rediculous "oops 12 year old shot the reactor which was conveniently in the hanger bay" ending to be part of it as well.
That said, I think ya got it backwards with Star Wars/Trek... i think for more trekkies delve into the spec's and technology while star wars is much more plot driven. We watch for forshadowing and hints of things to come everywhere in SW. Had Jar Jar and Annikin been in a star trek, no one would have noticed cuz we'd be busy watching klingons get vaporized.
i dont understand why everyone seems to keep comparing jar jar to the ewoks. this really makes no sense at all and show how limited their understanding is of how the movies have been written. jar jar _is_ the equivilent of c3po in this movie. he provided the exact same function, which was to be annoying and get in the way of the other characters. ppl need to just sit back and think about it for once instead of overly romantisizing the first set of films.
I wonder who would win a war between the Borg and the Empire?
Borg: "You will be assimilated."
Vader: "boo-haaa... You will join the Dark Side of the Force."
Borg: "Resistance is futile."
Vader: "boo-haa booo-haaa"
Light Saber: "waa waa woo waa shssshsshs"
Sparks fly and Borgs die.
I think it's difficult to tell who would win because we never really did see the full extent of the Borg. (Although if they can get their asses kicked by the Federation (Star Trek Federation, not the Star Wars), they can't be all that tough (but then again, the Empire got their asses kicked by Ewoks)).
Since Star Wars happened a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away, maybe the Empire became the Borg.
That's Trekkers, and it's not funny!
Star Wars vs. Star Trek?
:)
:)
vi vs. emacs?
sony vs. sega?
apple vs. commodore?
atari vs. intellivision?
CDs vs. vinyl records?
little endian vs big endian?
c vs. c++?
gid0: root vs. wheel?
tty1 vs. console?
Ginger vs. Mary Ann?
Face it. Holy wars are just human nature... and I'll kill anyone who disagrees with me.
BTW it's, Star Trek, vi, sony, commodore, atari, CDs, little endian (owing to the 6502), c, wheel, console, and Ginger.
"OTOH, SW is all legend. It's about a hero who goes out, fight badguys, save the universe and (hopefully) get the girl (which I think OB1 will not, judging from the ST rumour floating around, duh! there's luke)"
Well, lets see how that holds up. Cpt. Kirk fights bad guys, saves the known universe countless times, always gets the alien girl. I guess ST is legend then too.
that could actually work sort of. I mean, darth vader did have a ton of technology built into him didn't he. And the empire did have a giant orb for a mothership and the borg have a giant cube.
As for treckies being dumber than star wars fans, I don't think so. I hated Star Sars and enjoy Star Trek (not voyager though, and DS9 doesn't hold my attention). Now, I know a few people who are just the opposite of me, they love Star Wars and hate Star Trek. One of those people was held back, the other is in ninth grade. I skipped high school, am attending college, and I am top of the presedents list and a Phi Theta Kappa member. I have built robots from scratch, know lots of programming languages, and use an O2 at home. The Star Wars fans I know of need a calculator to long division. So suck on that!
Just when you thought it was safe long long ago in a galaxy far far away. :)
Way to go on summarizing what the rabid, holier-than-thou fanboys have beeb discussing in the newsgroups for the past week. Perhaps next time you can form your own opinion based on the experience of seeing this movie and the others which you claim to be drawing from. Then you could get quotes and character names ("Hans Solo") right.
I agree with you on the Leia thing -- I mean, the most lasting imagery of her from the SW trilogy is of her in a gold bikini with a collar around her neck. Blech!!
But Uhura didn't do a lot on the Enterprise except handle a glorified switchboard. Even in the movies, when everyone else had advanced in rank, there she was still answering the damn phone. (Was she glass-ceilinged in? I wonder...)
Whatever the shortcomings were with the overly politically correct ST-TNG, at least the women got to do a wider variety of stuff.
They are both fantasy with a bit of a tech gloss. :P
One just has more gloss than the other and doesn't
like to admit it's fantasy and not science fiction.
Neither are very brainy, they're just entertainment.
Actually the first inter-racial kiss on American television was in an episode of The Outer Limits, the one entitled Demon with a Glass Hand or somesuch. Robert Culp was the actor but I cannot recall the name of the hispanic actress.
No, using terms like 'warp core' and such isn't technobabble. However to 'destablize the wizbanger by merging the unobtainium with the bullshitium and creating a stream of paramonticles, then flipflopping the stream and reversing the polarity' is technobabble. The scriptwriters just have in the script anyway, then another group fills in the blank with whatever nonsense they feel like. ;)
You are sorely mistaken if you believe that the measure of how "mainstream" a franchise is proportional to the amount of revenue that franchise generates.
That's like saying that Burger King is alternative because that franchise makes less money than McDonalds. Oh please.
Both Star Wars and Star Trek are mainstream. It just so happens that Star Wars appeals to more people (for whatever reason) than Star Trek.
IMHO, Star Trek does not, in any way, target a more intellectual/educated audience. If Star Trek really were targeting that kind of an audience, then the dialogue wouldn't contain even 1/2 as much pseudoscience techno babble/jargon as it does; not to mention the all to frequent, and unbelievable, episodes dealing with time travel.
I meant to agree with the person you were disagreeing with (the parent). Oops.
Fizgig, who logged out so moderators don't lower his score because of this stupid post
It's all very easy to make fun of the "clunky"
special effects of the original "Star Trek" in
1999, but in 1966 they were pretty groundbreaking.
I remember being completely blown away by the
notion of being able to "beam" down to a planet
from a ship that remained in orbit. The Enterprise was the first spaceship (nobody ever
said "starship" until Star Trek) that didn't look
like a cigar. And the stories--clunky acting
aside--were pretty good compared to a lot of what
passed as science fiction on TV both before and since.
"Star Wars" has always struck me as a much more
derivative product. The Star Wars movies are entertaining, but ultimately they are cowboy movies with ray guns, with a hefty dose of 70's feel-good bogus spiritualism thrown in. If you want a *real* science fiction movie, go see "2001:A Space Odyssey."
Categorical statements like "Star Wars fans are better educated and smarter than Star Trek fans" is both arrogant and dumb.
I finally went and saw the phantom menace, and couldn't believe how lame it was once you get past the special effects. Even worse is considering that he had 20 years to think about it, and this is all he could come up with? I'd much rather sit through Star Trek V 10 times than this piece of crap once more.
"Feel, don't think"
is exactly what appears to have happened with this flick.
Science Fiction, like any other class of fiction, has it's sub-genres.
Star Trek (TNG and beyond more so than TOS) is "Super-Science," in that the storys more often than not involve the characters having to solve some puzzle of futuristic science and technology in order to survive. Science isn't nessecarily accurate (this isn't the same as hard SF) but it at least tries to offer explanations for things.
Star Wars is "Space Opera"...not really concerned with the science and technology (so long as it looks cool), so much as telling a good adventure story.
One's not nessecarily better than the other, there's just a large fundamental difference.
I agree, but it can be taken farther... What few people seem to be realizing is that SW is essentially a fantasy story in a high-tech world. The weapon of choice is a powerful sword, magic, in the form of "the Force", is present and accounted for, and mythical races abound. While ST races are generally human'ish, or some sci-fi departure from that, SW races are much more akin to AD&D's Monstrous Manual. A perfect example of this is in ROTJ when Luke fights the beast in the pit (pardon my lack of knowledge... I am currently not remembering the name of the beastie.) When was the last time you saw a creature like that in ST? The only real departure from a fantasy setting in SW is the space battles, which runs like a WWII dogfight. But here again the focus is more on the character than the tech. In Star Trek, battles more resemble moving weapons platforms blasting away 'till one is sunk, like old naval battles... the emphasis is on the unit.. the crew and ship working together.. There is once in awhile a quick idea by one of the crew (usually an inverse tacheon pulse of some kind...), but there is nowhere near the emphasis on the individual. Anywho, them's my thoughts... feel free to disagree.
If Katz thinks SW is a bit more high brow than ST, despite it's appeal to kids, it's most likely because ST's plot points are treknobabble, their crisis is treknobabble, and their solution is treknobabble. Invariable someone phase shifts the neutrino flow to the warp nacelle or some such hogwash and everything is good again. SW's solution to a crisis on the other hand, is to fly over, kick some butt with a lightsabre and find out who your father is. Generally the moral issues in ST are so trivial or are through such a poorly scripted lens as to not be an advantage.
:)
Jar-Jar, the Rastafarian sucked. The accent sucked, and the Japanese mobsters AKA the trade union were really idiotic ideas. They definetly should NOT have had identifiable humanish accents. Jar Jar's CGI sucking was the worst part. An annoying race isn't a bad thing, heck, it's a new race, they're PROBABLY going to be annoying, but lousy CGI isn't excusable.
Now we hear that Leonardo di Caprio might be Anakin in 2. Hurray! He's ugly and annoying, but if he gets girls interested in Sci-Fi, I can forgive him. Besides... he's the 'protagonist' we love to hate.
I'm sure Katz though will belch his bile at it if it ever becomes true. Another sell out he'll say.
Yup. Star Trek appeals to all those who have lives so devoid of real meaning, that they must enter a fantasy world and memorize stupid, inane details about fictional science. Trekkies (the people) are laughable, pathetic, pitiable geeks. I plan to see the movie in order to feel better about myself.
Well, PM wasn't as bad as you say - not much more than eye candy, and Lucas is about as deep as Speilberg (not too), but to make a comparison between SW and ST, especially a favorable one with tons of unforgivable journalistic mistakes, is just too much.
Can't we re-vote on whether to keep Katz here or not? I for one would switch votes after reading this kind of nonsense, and I've a feeling I'm not the only one.
Firstly, I'd like to say that watching TV/movies could never be any indication of intelligence.
ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING USEFUL WITH YOUR LIFE, however maybe.
I'll admit it -- I loved Jar-Jar.
Read Harry Knowles' thoughts on AICN. Jar-Jar was Buster Keaton up there. Yes, he was silly, and at times annoying. So was Threepio.
The "lucky fool" is deeply set in mythological cycles, too, FWIW.
My personal $0.02 and all that.
You mean that's possible? Cool.
I watched a Star Trek: Voyager episode recently.
They couldn't speak four lines in a row without using the word "technology".
I guess their writers must really be into technology. The word, that is.
Thank You. While it is great entertainment, Star Wars has corrupted moviemaking by changing films from story-oriented entertainment to amusement park rides. It wasn't Star Wars, but its imitators that really developed this despicable genre of filmmaking.
Star Wars is also guilty of confusing religion and technology. It is the natural impulse of most of humanity to worship or otherwise build a mythology around those things that they do not understand. Hyperspace, light sabers, mysteriously levitating landspeeders, are all elements of a kind of technological mysticism that was very new when the film came out in 1977. Star Wars tells us that our lives are governed by some vague "force", definitely a religious concept. The technological setting of the film sends the message that in the future (I know it's "A Long Time Ago...", but it IS very futuristic) there will be room for mysticism, that mankind will NOT ultimately define the secrets of the universe according to reason. Instead, he will have to choose between this fuzzy techno-mysticism or overt religion, ie. The Force. Take that as you will, but personally that kind of message bugs me.
Star Trek, the original series, anyway, has a different message. Star Trek tells us that reason and principle and humanity will ultimately prevail throughout the galaxy. This idea was sort of lost with ST/TMP and ST/TNG. How many times has technobabble saved the day in these series? ST/Voyager has at recaptured at least some of Rodenberry's original intent.
Actually Spock is a good character because he is full of real genuine emotion and compassion inspite of his oppressive upbringing as a vulcan. This is why he fails to finish his logic training in ST: The Motion Picture.
Thanks for saying that Star Wars is geared towards little boys, and star trek isn't. For me, you're quite right, I never watched star trek until I was 15 or so, but went to see that last Star Wars movie (not PM... Forgot the name right now) when I was about 8. :-)
Heh. Glad I surfed at -1 to read that. Agreed, after this review of trekkers, he needs his own separate section of slashdot to blather on.
Here's one idea somebody pointed out that made a lot of sense:
- Kirk = id (child), will, intuitive, driving force, passion, original instinctual brain, libido. For example, Kirk was always getting laid; it was often implied with scenes where he's sitting on a bed pulling on his boots talking to the woman of the episode. He also demonstrates tremendous willpower being the only one able to fight the various alien forces while everybody else is unconscious. He's the captain, the driving force, the will of the ship. Artistic lisence? Sure, but it works.
- Spock = ego (adult), logical, computer, intellect, unemotional, modern conceptual brain, non-instinctual. Spock's Vulcan half denies emotions and strives for a purely logical application of thought to life. As the Science Officer--science representing the computerlike ego (in the Freudian sense)--Spock sends facts and data to the Captain so that the Captain, the will, can make decisions. Spock can perform well when he knows the rules, but he has trouble with improvisation and bluffing.
- McCoy = superego (parent), conscience, right vs. wrong, healer, medicine man, shaman. Isn't the conscience a healer if we listen to it? McCoy might argue, "Dammit Spock, those are people down there on that planet. You can't just leave them there!... Damn you and your cold, cool logic, Mr. Spock!" McCoy is the doctor, the conscience, always battling with the ego (Spock) to do the right thing, not necessarily the prescribed thing, i.e., Starfleet regulations. McCoy and Spock are continually sparring with each other about the way they approach problem solving. McCoy, the conscience, empathizes with others while Spock, the computer, applies cold logic. Usually Kirk, the will, steps in and brings them all together a little like a Hegelian dialectic.
I have no idea if Roddenberry intended the trio to match Freud's breakdown of consciousness, but it does work. And the characters are very consistent with these roles in each episode. Go figure.One reason Star Trek works is that it's multilayered. On the simplest level you have the animal: the fight scenes and the love scenes. Next you have the mind: the plot, the problem or task to be solved. Then, Star Trek has the heart: the subtle relationships that flow in and out of the dialogue between Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Finally, there's a relationship with the mysterious "out there" continually referred to throughout the series. The first movie dealt with the merging of man and machine to create a new species. How much more out there and mysterious can you get?
I find some of this in Star Wars, but not to the degree and depth I do in Trek. Star Wars is about trusting your intuitive side, following your bliss, turning within, the feminine side, etc. Sure, let's develop this side of ourselves. It can't hurt. But in the end I choose Trek.
Anyway, I've been to two Star Trek conventions. I was shocked to see so many vendors and hardly any intelligent conversation. I don't recommend it unless you have no expectations.
About the part of the Phantom Menace review:
Lucas did not over hype this movie. In fact, Lucasfilm and Fox spent very very little on advertising. It is those horrid Tricon (KFC,TACOHELL,PIZZA HUTT) commericals and all the Pepsi stuff...They are doing the massive hyping. Not Lucas. He said this himself in one of the gazillion interviews that was on TV.
As for my thoughts on the movie, I say 4 out of 5 stars.
Just my thoughts...
Those of you who saw Trekkies must remember Anne Katherine Murphy, the Spiner Femme (for a good laugh see: http://members.aol.com/annedroidz/brent.html). I have known this person personally via the Internet for some years, and I know a few people who have met her personally. I just want to say right off that she is an absolute whacked out stalker fan. The movie left out all the *really* nutty things she's done. You can read about some of them on her website. She was deeply proud to be in this movie and boasted about it all over kingdom come. We all sniggered into our sleeves and bided our time till FINALLY we got to see it. It was almost anticlimactic. Yes, Anne was a characature of herself (Brent breaks? Bwaaahahahaha!). Yes, there was her world-famous fireroof safe full of Brent Spiner memorabelia, the massive numbers of convention pictures, there was Anne's sincere insistance that she was NOT a Trekkie, just a Spiner Femme. Check, check, check. It was actally so predictable. The real pleasure of Anne's performance was in what wasn't being said however. There was an oddly knowing glance at Denise Crosby as she started talking about Brent that I was immediately certain was acknowledging the one-time sexual dalliance of Denise's character Tasha Yar and Data in the second episode of ST: TNG. There was Anne's little daughter Stephanie, whom she had claimed wishfully but persistantly during her pregnancy to be Brent Spiner's (no, no one was fooled) and whose first word was... you guessed it... Data. There were the unglimpsed contents of The Safe, which I knew to contain one of her most prized posessions, a Rock from Brent Spiner's backyard. Of course this was not shown to Denise, who might have told Brent. There was no mention of daily drive-bys of Brent's house, or excruciating rollerblade excursions up the steep hill he lives on. No mention of the crap she bought at a garage sale held by Spiner's girlfiend at his house (http://members.aol.com/annedroid1/garagesale.html is an absolute must-read), though it may possibly have been post-Trekkies. I was thinking of it though. None of the pictures taken following Brent down the street of him looking nervously over his shoulder at her.
Don't get me wrong, Anne is one of the most memorable people I've met online but she's also one of the creepiest. And let's just say I'm not her favorite either (proud of it however!).
- Edelphi (my logon wouldn't work for some reason)
Warp drive breakthrough! Yeah, this just about proves that Katz is TALKING FROM HIS ASS.
Now, Katz, shut up and write about what you understand.
Uh, time travel or the force, which is more plausable? NEITHER! Get over it! Both Star Wars and Star Trek are aimed at 12 year old boys. There are bound to be inconsistencies with real life, and women wearing revealing clothing at random intervals. Both have flaws, most notably William Shatner and Mark Hamel (hmm, main flaw in both shows is main character, interesting). However, I like them both, even though I am not a 12 year old boy.
Both are main stream, but in a different way. Star Trek is cliched and made fun of by people. Most people do not actually watch it, they just know it's the show with Spock, you know, the pointy eared guy. They think that "Beam me up, Scotty" is actually a quote from the show. Most people, correct me if I am wrong, have seen Star Wars, and like it because of the epic struggle between good and evil. They can forget for two hours(or six) that good and evil are not that easily defined. They don't really like the science in science fiction, they want those emotional struggles, which Star Trek admittedly sucks at.
Why do all you geeks care about what is mainstream? Go back to memorizing your Klingon dictionaries and Star Wars weapons.
--Anonymous Coward who does not want to be bullied into getting an account by being called anonymous coward
see, this is why I like Red Dwarf. putting emotions in an AI isn't such a good idea. I'm really wishing right about now that someone at M$ had seen "White Hole" (RD 4:4) before they put in that paperclip thing.
He's been told over and over and over about demoronizer (if he simply MUST use MS products).
But he doesn't use it.
He's written several articles about how cool Linux is and how he was getting into it.
But he still uses MS products for his "writing".
Taken together, these facts would seem to indicate that Jon has no interest in USING anything outside of the MS universe nor LEARNING about anything outside of the MS universe.
Just making money off of you fools by writing about how cool you are and how you'll be the next wave in technology. Meanwhile, don't worry about the question marks or 1's or whatever because he can't be concerned with actually LEARNING the tech, just massaging your egos.
Wearing sports clothes show your support for the team. Wearing a Trek uniform more shows the desire to live in the Trek universe (or something.. Very badly formulated) You rarely see people walking around with full football or hockey gear. You'd also think those people were nuts.
I almost bought Shatner's new book "Get A Life!" when I saw it on the new releases table at Barney's Noble the other night. Then I looked inside and saw that far from a critique of the losers who seem to base their whole philosophy on Star Trek|Wars, it was an 'analysis.' Needless to say Shatner knows who pays the honorarium for his visits to trekkie conventions.
This Space Cowboy and Indians stuff (the Trek/Wars dreck) isn't really damaging real science fiction, but it isn't encouraging it either. I shudder when I'm in a speciality SF store trying to buy new books I enjoy reading, and I am forced to encounter the "con" sorts whose whole lifestyle is based out of this sort of fantasy and role playing.
At least they don't drive up the prices on the books I enjoy reading, nor do they pollute the entire environment of Uncle Hugos and Dreamhaven (the SF bookstores I sometimes frequent). As long as they stick to bubblegum cards and plastic toys they're outta my way.
Melbert
You get the idea from the actually stars that
they think the fanatics are crazy, but at the
same time they hear some really inspirational
stories from fans.
Also, I'm surprised Katz didn't mention this
(it ties in nicely with his Hellmouth series)
but one of the main points of the fans was
that sports fans can wear the uniform of their
interest (sports jersey) but if you wear a
star trek uniform then you are treated like
a freak.
A while back, the poll about whether or not Jon Katz should stay took me by surprise. I didn't know his being here was a controversial thing. I hadn't read any of his pre-slashdot writings, but what I've read on slashdot didn't seem so bad, and I voted accordingly. Now I wish I hadn't. As time went on, I began to dislike more and more of his work. I think the point I genuinely began to hate him was with his article on the Star Wars hype and then this followup. I cannot, for the life of me, even begin to comprehend why these inane ramblings are allowed here. Im sure if he wasn't Jon Katz, his posts would be moderated down a few notches. Also, maybe I'm living under a rock, but I haven't seen any insane amount of hype for The Phantom Menace. I blame the fact that I don't have a tv. And my theory is, if he doesn't want to see all these Star Wars commercials, he should stop watching tv. What I have seen, is the usual current-big-movie articles in various newspapers and magazines, that do little more than scream "I'm Star Wars related, buy me" to fans. Much of this can hardly be blamed on Lucas. A comparable situation, would be if a news site mentioned Linux just to get a bajillion hits from slashdotters. I would hardly blame, persecute, openly insult nor attempt to belittle people's opinions of Rob for linking to such a story. I think Katz should just leave Lucas alone. He's created what I consider to be the greatest movie series ever, and then (time to render my opinion invalid in nearly everyone's eyes, ah well) topped them all with Phantom Menace. I suppose I'll go on a little sidetrack now and explain that. While I think the originals were great, there is a higher standard for movies now than there was then. All the subtleties that make it Star Wars are consistent, but much of the less important qualities have been improved. Better fight scenes, effects, casting (well, apart from Anakin) and the whole movie has a more pollished feel to it. If the first Star Wars movie wasn't released 20 some odd years ago and was released today exactly as it is, and the Phantom Menace was released 20 years ago as it is, I think everyone would be huge Phantom Menace fans these days and finding something about Star Wars to bitch about, like Luke Skywalker. There is too much cynicism around. Everyone has to whine about every movie. "It's just a bunch of explosions, there is no plot. These people can't act." are the trendy things to say about any action movie out there. For christ's sake, there's even a movie critic whose job is to hate every movie ever. Mr. Cranky was sort of amusing at first, then it just got old really fast. "Let's see what method of dying or pain infliction he will compare watching this movie to!" It's all just too much. I reckon I'll just stop reading reviews and anything related to reviewing movies ever. Time for me to ignore everyone, sit back, take a deep breath, and just enjoy what I like without someone trynna make it a point to ruin it for me.
In fairness, Trek hasn't been doing all that much exciting recently, so I liked having the alternative around. Voyager hasn't been covering a lot of new ground recently, and, as I watch DS9 winding down towards its big cataclysmic finish, I can't help but think that B5 did it better...
Of course, all of this is open to debate. Now I'm looking forward to the big Crusade kickoff, even if we only get to see 16 episodes of it...
Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
-1 is for Troll in the sence of annoying idiot who just wants attention. Best way of dealing with them is to ignore them, and the moderators score it apropriately.
---
Spammed? Click here for free slack on how to fight it!
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Posted by generic kewl tech reference:
:)
I must respectfully disagree.
IMHO, NEITHER movie is science fiction (and man, am I gonna get flamed for this). Let's see if I can explain this coherently...
First, Star Wars comes across as an 'epic in tech-fantastic drag' precisely because, if I recall the myriad intreviews with George Lucas correctly, that is precisely what it was written as.
This does not, to me, seem to remove its speculative vision merely because the story was
deliberately designed as mythology.
Both Star Trek and Star Wars suffer from unbelievable science, clunky dialogue, passable characterization and spotty continuity.
And, by the way, I fully expect to see PMenace at least twenty more times, and am genuinely distressed to have missed the final Deep Space Nine episode. Just because I don't think they're SF doesn't mean I dont like them.
Now let the flames begin
Ecm
Posted by gamesgod:
Actually Spock is a good character because he is full of real genuine emotion and compassion in spite of his oppressive upbringing as a vulcan. This is why he fails to finish his logic training in ST: The Motion Picture.
----------
Both genres are different and both cool
Posted by gamesgod:
Actually Spock is a good character because he is full of real genuine emotion and compassion in spite of his oppressive upbringing as a vulcan. This is why he fails to finish his logic training in ST: The Motion Picture
Actually is was logic and reason as well as faith which allowed Luke Skywalker to break the cycle and redeem his father at the end of ROTJedi. He had Yoda and Obi-wan in one corner nervous about the fate of the Jedi, urging him to kill Vader. In the other corner he had the scheming Emperor urging him to kill Vader to take his place. A little Vulcan in Luke instructed him that this has got to stop! This logic is flawed. I will not kill, I will not repeat my father's sins and fall into the same trap.
star trek vs star wars on slashdot! Katz, what were you thinking of?
somebody's gonna get hurt here, man! sure, it's good to have movies like "roger and me" that appeal to the anthropologist in all of us -- and "trekkies" qualifies. it's good to laugh at ourselves....but sneaking in the review at the same time?
Interesting, John's apostrophes are now represented by superscript 1s. Itake it that was easier than geting Word to stop doing "smart" quotes?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
The above has been claimed several times, but let's face it, Jar Jar isn't cute. For something to be cute, it generally has to be small and fuzzy. He's meant to be amusing, not cute, and apparently succeeds with some youngsters. He's more analogous to C3PO than the Ewoks.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
There were 4 other people in the theater when I went to see it last night. Too bad.
I loved the "Q virus" story, and the "Trek Pull". The barbecue where the guy was bragging that last year, "a girl even showed up" - had me laughing til my stomach hurt. I felt so sorry for the dentist's kids, too - there was one very brief shot of his daughter rolling her eyes that was just too awesome.
yea, and we all know that bumpy noses are an evolutionary must!
common now, I like both starwars and star trek, your complaints about star wars are quite unfounded, its not about technology, its about fantasy... technology is simply used to replace the magic of high fantasy story telling.
even star trek (at least at its best) isnt realy about technology (esp. not voyager) but rather about social and political problems and characters, not just about technology.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
You can say this all you want, but the last few Star Trek movies(the last one especially), Voyager and DS9 all suck. Star Wars TPM was so much better than those movies I feel pity fo the Star Trek fans.
Star Trek can never have good scenes like the light saber battle between Liam Neeson & Darth Maul, Obi-Wan & Darth Maul, or Luke & Vader. Or maybe it could, but it's ability to do that left with the old show. THe new show sucks in comparison.
I'm pretty sure you'd get culture shock if you ever found out that Southerners in general don't match your stereotype, or possibly have a similar stereotype about you. .
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
(currently testing something about signatures here)
I'm halfway reminded of the division of personality types based on Tolkien's races in _Cryptonomicon_.
I wonder what personality type Babylon 5 fans are supposed to have. Would there be two basic types, one for the Vorlons, and one for the Shadows?
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
(currently testing something about signatures here)
DS9 really had some good moments.
Actually even Voyager had, but they were
very rare... The first ST show I did not mind
to miss half of it.
And, in my opinion ST is more "intelectual"
than SW. But that does NOT make the SW fans
stupid, or the SW movies stupid in general.
And, lately ST lost a lot of its quality.
Traxus.
However!
The reason you can't write on atoms is tht there isn't any "thing" to write on! Atoms are clouds of electrons zipping around a (to your eye if you could see them, which can't precisely) loosely knit bunch of neutrons and protons.
Electrons don't stand still to be written on. And altering the contents of an atoms simply changes it into another element.
Gluons, Quarks, neutrinos, etc. also need to keep moving as well. Quarks don't float about by themselves and you couldn't line them up to spell anything out on an atom anyway. Gluons and neutrinos are inapropriate for this as well.
Molucule sized writing is much more realistic and as you say, has been done.
Addressing the issue of technobabble in all the ST series; How many episodes was the resolution to a problem suddenly found via science, solving all problems, letting the writers off the hook. I call this disease the "sonic screwdriver syndrom" after some 3rd and 4th regeneration Doctor Who writers abused the sonic screw drivers.
Using words like "Plasma Conduit" isn't the problem. "Reversing the stream of Tachyon emissions to cause an overload" is. Doing this occassionally could be overlooked, but some episodes are nothing more than a massive showcase for the writer's lack of technical care or understanding.
The ST:TOS usually took care that technology never became the main point of the story. If something unusual was needed, then it became the result of "higher technology" and was treated as magic. ST:TNG would try to even explain this stuff, but it isn't important to the story! Star Wars's technology is incidental. You could replace it with knights, swords, horses and magic spells and it would still work.
Can you imagine Jordy, the Magician theorizing about the newt-eye/bat-wing ratio of a potion and not be board by it? Of course, like anything you could do this in moderation, but you can't build a plot around talking about hypothetical technology or magic.
The advantage of ST of course is that the next episode might be better. Star Wars only has a few "episodes" (4). But even if last weeks Star Trek episode sucks, next weeks may rock.
Anyway, gotta go, pardon the errors.
Ciao!
The Doctor What (KF6VNC)
In general, you are correct: the Gungans' "primitiveness" (I don't know how primitive you can be when you have force shields and contained EMPs, but the *style* was the point) overpowered the incredibly high-tech droids and pulse guns of the Trade Federation. Kinda makes you think of Walden. . .
However, they should have picked a Gungan other than Jar-Jar Binks. He was essentially a bumbling idiot; he got kicked out of the Gunga city for dropping something on the Boss' head (that's what I think; I've seen it 3 times and still can't figure out exactly what he's saying there). All he had on his side was serendipity, e.g. his taking out 2-3 droids (including a dreaded droidicar) when he gets his foot stuck in half a droid. Perhaps a more Hans Soloish gungan, whose motives differ widely from the "good guys" but ends up doing the "right thing for the wrong reasons" or something.
I'm sorry, but Jar-Jar is not a geek in the sense most of us think. As Qui-Gon said, "The ability to speak does not make one intellegent."
Brynn
"Any sufficiently advanced form of Magic is indistinguishable from Technology." - Gnomish Technomancer
I'd say that Star Trek mania is just as large as Star Wars normally. The media situation is overhyped right now. Writing about a situation as it is NOW as if it was as it always has been or ever will be makes too many assumptions about the uniformity of experience, ignoring the inherent change in any system. Look at the situation five years ago and then tell me how many non-hardcore Star Wars fans there were. "Star Trek"-type fanatacism is at a low right now due to the last movie being not exactly stellar, the cancellation of DS9 and Voyager's exile to a very minor network (Name another show on UPN. Go ahead, try.) Honestly, there are equal numbers of Storm Troopers and Klingons at Sci-Fi conventions.
And as for the assumption that people who prefer Star Wars are smarter than those who prefer Star Trek, remember that CmdrTaco has been described as a ****Wesley Crusher*** lookalike (search the archives!) rather than a Luke Skywalker lookalike.
--I hate people when they're not polite -"Psycho Killer", Talking Heads
Jar-Jar next appearence will be the Star Wars Phantom Menace Christmas Special.
I started with nothing and I still have most of it.
See also http://www.gamecenter .com/News/Item/Cont/0,4,0-1612_2,00.html.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Just when I thought it was bad enough that the MCI logo always appeared on their comm screens, they had to have Auger start talking about it in the dialog. Puke. It was like watching a commercial during what was supposed to be content. Otherwise it's a great show though.
--Bitscape
Just to throw in my .02, I think it' unfair to throw DS9 in with Voyager adn the last few movies. It think that show has definately had its moments and that it has a great cast.
Granted all of the good stuf has been during the seasons where they started taking cues from Bab5 (long-term 'arc' plotline, a universe where bad things actualy happen, etc) but it's still the best of the ST crop in the last 5 years.
Star Wars was geared more towards the general public - star trek was not. I think you've gotten it backwards - star trek usually has all the so-called "brainy" people watching it. That's my experience anyway. I don't hear many star wars fanatics talking about the technicalities of hyperdrive, or that the X-Wing uses xyz shielding while the B-Wign uses abc shielding. I just *don't* - and I know *alot* of star wars fans.
OTOH, star wars people will usually go into deeeeeeep detail about the history of star wars, and practically have the scripts for all 4 movies memorized. Star trek fans don't do that.
Just my $0.02. Now, let the moderation begin!
--
If you watched, end to end, all 21 seasons and 8 (9?) feature films, the amount of camp couldn't exceed 25%. Most of the camp is in the original season. I don't think you've watched much Trek, Jon. I like the Rainbow Coalition analogy though.
sw
No irony. I was quite aware that Lucas made THX1138. I certainly am not making an anti-Lucas post! I am looking at films, not auteurs.
About Star Wars and Star Trek being in different genres: erm, I believe that was the essential point of my post.
I still believe that Star Trek as an entire entitiy, as a cluster of core concepts, is true - and reasonably good - science fiction, although many of the stories in the franchise fail horribly on many levels (e.g., technobabble.) I still think the essential epistemic thrust of the franchise is coherent and powerful, which is why its ideas seem to invade the collective psyche readily.
I have to challenge the analogy between Star War's effect on film with LotR's effect on fantasy. Last I checked, it didn't take $50 million of studio backing to write a fantasy novel - or get it distributed. And since the costs of publication are much cheaper than the costs of film production, publishers have always been much more willing to take chances. Star Wars set the cost-to-profit expectation so overwhelmingly high that any film which threatens to be too cerebral is vetoed by the studios from the beginning (which is also why I think Star Trek movies keep themselves comfortably dumber than they have to be.) I think Star Wars' success is responsible - which is different from saying that Lucas or the film itself intentionally did anything wrong or is even bad (I still think of it as good dumb fun.)
Also, while you and me might think of Star Trek, Star Wars, and Blade Runner as being in entirely three different categories, I don't think that most studio execs make that distinction.
I recently got into an extended discussion with someone about Star Wars. Like I've said elsewhere, I feel that Star Wars has had a bad influence on film in general and on science-fiction film in particular.
My favorite science fiction author (and one of my favorite writers in *any* genre), Samuel Delany, said that the true "star" of a science fiction narrative is the episteme - the implicit stance towards the possibilities of human existence upon which the narrative is built. By this measure, Star Trek as an arch-narrative is science fiction (although not necessarily the most sophisticated science fiction, and any given story/show can fail of that charter) and Star Wars is not. Star Wars is simply an epic in tech-fantastic drag. There really is no speculative vision (and don't tell me about The Force, or even Joseph Campbell) that drives Star Wars.
Which is actually fine - when I feel like leaving my mind in a jar at home and getting stupid-kicks, I love that sort of stuff. Unfortunately, the film industry has run with the expectation that science-fiction films be the sort of epic-blockbuster that Star Wars was - it's made it much more difficult to create the good, cerebral, speculative science fiction that used to be made (2001, Stalker, Solaris, THX1138, La Jette, Invasion of the Body Snatchers even Planet of the Apes and Soylent Green.) The only two really great recent science fiction films I can think of are Pi (which is borderline in terms of the genre) and Gattaca - my candidate for best SF film in memory.
But Star Trek qualifies as real science fiction - not because of the technobabble, but because its stories are built on a vision of the possible.
HEY! Why does -1 score get "Troll"??
--diva (Troller extraordinare)
diva Pasty Drone NewsTrolls, Inc.
> "Star Wars" has always attracted a
> different audience brainier, more
> techno-centered, perhaps because it has a
> high-minded sounding High Priest in George
> Lucas, whereas the Trekkies have to get their
> inspiration from William Shatner.
Actually, I think comparing George Lucas to Gene Roddenberry would be a better analogy. And I think that Roddenberry compares quite favorably. The two styles are different. Star Wars are laden with Campbell's 'Power of Myth' epic nature. Good, evil, heroes, princesses etc...the stuff that legends are made of. Roddenberry's works (don't forget to include his legacy Earth:Final Conflict) are more post-modern. Characters are portrayed as good or evil in different lights, their motivations are more complex, and they are altogether more like real people, not archetypes. Personally, I enjoy both types of stories.
Of course, I could adjust the analogy the other way, and pit Shattner against Mark Hamill. That's a whole other can of worms. I think Shattner wins though.
Lets also point out the fact on this issue that Star Wars is not a tv program. They don't have the time in the movie to explain all the little details, nor should they.
Personally I think that Star Trek focuses more on the search for knowledge while Star Wars focuses more on the understanding of that knowledge. If you are an analytical type you will want to get the understanding for yourself, but the latter makes better drama.
In Star Trek you could never have Jedi Knights fighting with light sabers. In the Star Trek environment it would seem absurd. But then again, you don't get cool things like the Borg in Star Wars.
But take the Borg, if you were to have it in both series: In Star Trek you focus on the battles with the Borg and how you disable them. In Star Wars you would sneak into their cube, kill their leaders, and destroy the main reactor. Of course since a borg ship really is impenetrable to boarding, there are no real leaders, and there shouldn't be any 'main' reactor it would be silly.
If I were to judge the series I would say Star Trek favor intellegence while Star Wars favors wisdom.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
I totally agree. I think Star Trek is great in that it has gotten many non-s.f. fans into s.f., but Star Trek is really light science fiction in that the science is really really crummy 99% of the time.
:)
I don't mind it that much. I think TNG was quite good and even liked TOS. (Haven't watched DS9 or Voyager to pass a valid judgment.)
But I think the best Treks are the ones with interesting storylines.. The technobabble is really annoying.
And this is precisely why I love Star Wars, which doesn't even bother making an effort to explain things (which is why I HATE the midichlorians (not a spoiler since if you haven't seen it, you won't know what I'm talking about)).
I think Star Wars is great because it focuses on the non-technical aspects, like story, scale and wonder, and general coolness.
On the other hand, I also love harder s.f., like Contact or Blade Runner, that actually try to really deal with moral implications of technical issues with a better attempt at being realistic.
For another book dealing with Fandom, check out "Fallen Angels" by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn. It's an insightful look at classic (if not modern) Sci-Fi fandom. Oh, and it is fiction, I just noticed that I sort of introduced it as non-fiction. The parallels to todays world are so striking it's almost scary.
Tom Byrum
> The first one to read it wins some fried
> chicken, a Jar Jar air freshener and one of my
> dozen"How To Install Linux" handbooks.
Hmm...has anyone else noticed a strange LACK of articles on Katz trying to get Linux to work? Not sure if I may have missed an article somewhere, but if not, I suppose he gave up and wants to recoup some of his investment.
> My own notion is that there are significant class
> differences between the two cults. "Star Wars"
> has always attracted a different audience
> brainier, more techno-centered, perhaps because it
> has a high-minded sounding High Priest in George
> Lucas, whereas the Trekkies have to get
> their inspiration from William Shatner.
I find your comparison of leadership flawed at its most basic level. First, George Lucas is the mind behind Star Wars, and to apply that comparison, you would need to compare to Gene Roddenberry and Rick Berman. Unless you wanted to go with lead actors, in which case you'd have to compare Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford to Shatner, Stewart, etc., and I know who I'd consider to be the better group of actors there.
> These are the folks who study the Klingon language
> (a Klingon version of "Hamlet" and the Bible are
> in the works, and theres a hilarious scene in the
> movie where students try to learn the word "kill"
> in Klingon)
You may find it funny, but I find it amazing that from a work of fiction there can emerge an entire language. I do not know the slightest bit of Klingon, and haven't researched it much, but it seems to be a ful fledged language of its own, not overwhelmingly derived from any extant language. This grasp of linguistics goes to show that Star Trek is/was far better researched and utilizes more esoteric knowledge than anything from the Star Wars camp. Some of my favorite moments when watching Star Trek are when they mention some obscure facet of history or other culture and I think "Hey, I KNOW about that!". I must admit, I'm a sucker for esoteric allusions, but I get none of that from Star Wars (yes, I know it's because it is a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away, but why?)
> By and large, the trekkies in "Trekkies" are good
> hearted and appealing, even the dentist in Florida
> who wears a Starship uniform and decorated his
> office to look like a Federation warship, and
> whose sometimes rattled patients look up to see
> the Enterprise hovering about the dental chair.
Ok, perhaps this is overpicky, but a Federation WARSHIP? AFAIK, the Federation has only one starship (i.e. not those interceptor things that came from Jupiter to attack the Borg cube) that is specifically designed for offensive action, and the Defiant is used for mostly exploration and science missions anyway.
That you would not know this demonstrates that you have not been exposed to Star Trek to form an educated opinion on it. Star Wars on the other hand, requires...7, now 9 hours of movie watching to learn the largest part of the canonical story (I am discounting the books, I know, but I am canceling that out by not counting the Star Trek books). Star Trek, on the other hand, because of its TV series, has an enormous supply of canonical video from which you can familiarize yourself with the Star Trek universe. When one compares the percentage of SW video you have seen to the percentage of ST video you have seen, do you consider that ratio large enough to make a decent comparison?
Now for a bit pertaining the little I quoted above. Certainly some people go overboard...I'm sure that there are Star Wars fans who do the same thing. The only reason that there may seem to be more ST fanatics is because of the aforementioned depth compared to SW. It is a simple ratio...
> In "Trekkies", Roddenberrys widow and others try
> to make a case that the real appeal of "Star
> Trek" is that it presents a hopeful, diverse view
> of the world. That doesnt really fly. I think the
> more accurate explanation is that "Star Trek" has
> always been so earnest and clunky that its
> completely accessible, relaxing, even camp.
Ok, let me get this straight, you don't think that Star Trek provides a "hopeful, diverse view of the world"? Ooook, perhaps you haven't even seen the Star Trek that I have. Part of the "earnest"ness that you mention is because when it delivers its message, Star Trek takes itself seriously. As for "accessible" and "relaxing", this is just because Star Trek does not slap you across the face with its messages...they are there if you look for them (much less so now, but it peaked with ST:TNG) but you could easily sit through an entire episode and really "see" as much or as little as you liked. The show had depth if you looked for it, but the plot was thick enough that you could watch it at any level without plunging into deep water(to continue the analogy).
Now for the TPM review...
> The Hans Solo character is sorely missed. Lucas
> and his movies tend towards self-importance, and
> Solo jeered at just the right times ("you take the
> Force, kid, Ill take the money.") Jar Jar doesnt
> begin to fill Solos ironic and deflating shoes"
Excuse me: HanS Solo? Ok, you are either writing this very late at night, or you have never read a SW book, read the back of the tape boxes, or even listened to the dialog carefully. Isn't research an important part of journalism? Anyone can write a rant (as demonstrated by this post), but an editorial, in my opinion, qualifies as journalistic content and should be checked over with the same care. This sloppiness is further demonstrated by your probable mis-quote "the focus IS the reality". I don't remember this line in particular from the movie, but s/focus/force/ seems to make more sense.
As for comparing the role of Jar Jar to Han Solo?!?! Where did you come up with that comparison? As mentioned in another post, Jar Jar is much more akin to C3PO (right down to "How Rude!") than the cavalier mercenary found in the likes of Han Solo, not to mention that fact that unless he is (much) older than he looks, Han won't be born for at least 30 years.
Ok, I'm tired of block-quoting, so I shall be brief. I do not consider Anakin's scripting to be "clunky", I consider it to be an accurate representation of what a 7 or 8 year old boy would say, either in this time or long, long ago. How would you have him be, as the Darth-to-be? I think that giving him this light cheery attitude now will further enhance his fall to the dark side. Wouldn't a dark, brooding youth be not only obvious (and not worth the story of "How this Boy Turned Into a Very Bad Man") but be unlikely to be taken in by the Jedi as a trainee?
"chill the Hype"? I'm sorry, but I don't think that most of the Hype (obviously a proper noun, as you capitalized it) came from Lucas himself. I can name a long list of movies that have had soft drink and restaurant tie-ins (which are probably one of the few Lucas-approved avenues of Hype). The rest has been either from the fans, or from the media which caters to them. And, as long as they don't do anything tasteless (which some of the PH, TB, KFC commercials come close to) I have no problem with the Hype. People have a right to make money whatever ways the market will support, and people have every right to ignore it. If enough people ignore it, they remove market support, which negates the effect of the advertising. So, in effect, the tie-ins only exist because they work.
Ok, I've been at this rant for a good half hour now, which means it will be at the bottom of the posts where no-one will read it, but perhaps it will be moderated up. Anyway, I now cast my post into the eddies and currents of free moderation.
Tom Byrum,
username mycroft can be mailed to via academus.net
I agree with Lemmy's post, but noticed that he included THX-1138... one of George Lucas' earliest films.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
I never really considered Star Wars to be science fiction in the first place, it is fantasy. The dumb critics are at fault here, just because it is in space doesn't make it science fiction.
You forgot to mention Blade Runner as good science fiction. I agree that Gattaca is a spectacular movie.
Q.
>My own notion is that there are significant class
>differences between the two cults. "Star Wars
>has always attracted a different audience
>brainier, more techno-centered
i wont repeat what im replying to, but i agree with aenigma...
When you look at the trail of products Star Wars and Star Trek have left behind, you quickly understand that Star Trek is the far more brainy techno-centered of the two.
Star Wars (since SW:SW, not just TPM): Toys, board games, a few books, memorabilia, kids halloween costumes..
Star Trek: A lot of the same, but the books are not fantasy based, but rather things like "The Physics of Star Trek" (which gets way into some adv nuc physics), and tons of technical manuals, specifications, explinations, etc of cruisers, battleships, arms, and technology..
Star Wars has never produced the same brainy books and magazines as Star Trek did and Star Wars did not and does not level of pocket protector, geeky type of fan base.
And about poor writing and acting.. cummon now, like Luke Skywalker was a particularly well played rool... with Star Trek you have Capt Jean Luc Picard played by a British award wining Shakespearian actor as well as Whoopi (like her or not, she is a good actress) and a slew of others.. yes shatner sucked, but Lenoard Nemoy?
just an opinion
-Z
I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going.
So in a battle, who wins, the death-star or the enterprise? Enterprise has photon torpedos, but the death star clearly has more power (destroy a whole planet, remember)?
But can the death-star actually get close enough and target well enough to hit the big E? I think not. E can park in orbit pretty much anywhere, and as we know from episode 4, it takes the DS a long time to target the rebel base, because they can't move around the planet fast enough.
Also we have the issue of warp vs. hyperspace. Assume for the moment that both work and are different means of super-luminal propulsion. E can manuver and fight while in warp while it would seem the deathstar (and everything star-wars) can't do much except hold on during a warp jump. Could E use this to their advantage, doing super-luminal strafing runs on the DS?
Also other technological advantages for the E are transporters, which don't seem to exist in star wars.
However, the *force* might present a bit of a problem for our hyper-logical trek crews.
-=Julian=-
heh, heh, that ought to get 'em going..
I was given the book, "The Physics of Star Trek" by Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics at Case Western Reserve University, for Christmas last year. Prof.Krauss and many of his colleagues in academia are apparently Trekkers - partly for the fun of discussing the next day what the ST writers got wrong and what they got right. And there are several times in the book that he calls the writers foresighted - e.g. when in the original series, the crew encountered a "black star" (black hole) before the term black hole had been coined.
He does talk about their gaffs, but in general he seems impressed by all that the writers have gotten right. I don't think he saw the Voyager episode you mention when he wrote the book though...
Yes, I'll generally agree that SW is basically a fantasy. I didn't want to say that for fear of a flame war. In fact (and I'd venture to say that *this* is why Campbell liked it so much) StarWars is nothing but the monomyth tied up in in Sci-Fi clothing. {Just to go out on a limb, so is Bab5}
It's basically a story about this boy, who was really a prince, who apprentices himself to a great wizard to fight the evil emporor and his evil wizard henchman. They travel to the great citadel of the Evil Wizard, and destroy it.
hrm...
I have to completely disagree with you on the "braininess" of Star Trek and Star Wars, as well as what is appealing about them. Now, I have always enjoyed both, and while I was only 10 when Star Wars came out, I'd already been exposed to Star Trek even then. Both are worthwhile, but they have completely different messages, even to the point that Star Wars isn't classified as scient fiction by some. {Personally, I prefer a broader definition.}
First, let's look at typical plots from the movies, with regards to technology. Let's face it, Technology is how we determine the 'braininess' of these movies, since technologists are people we consider brainy in the "Real World".
Star Trek's typical plot involves a man vs man or man vs nature conflict where the solution is found using reason, knowledge or science. Examples abound of this: A wierd virus which McCoy must syntesize a vaccine/cure for, Kirk putting together the parts of a "gun", which required thought and knowldege (and was contrasted against the more bestial knife of his opponent: Kirk won not because he was stonger, but because he was *smarter*). I'm useing Original Series examples, in part because the methods used in the earlier episodes were less wild than the later ones, where the technological solution was pulled out of someone's hat.
Contrast this with StarWars where the central theme was almost anti-technology. Part of the reason Darth Vader was bad was that he was mostly machine. The straying of Luke to the "Dark side" was symbolized by his mechanical hand. Even in TPM, the enemies were droids and machines, and the good guys were fighting with almost medieval tools. The best exmpale of this is from the first movie, when everyone using the computers failed to "hit the spot" but Luke could do it by cutting off the computers and using the Force--which was something only living beings had access to.
Star Trek's message is very similar to the one of classic science fiction, especially that kind called "hard sci-fi." While Trek probably doesn't qualify as hard sci-fi, the message that our problems can be solved by applying science, reason and technology is there, whereas Star Wars seems to have an almost Luddite message in comparison.
From this it's easy to see why Trekkies are more interested in technical details and the technology of Star Trek, and why Star Wars afficionados care more about plot and the humanistic parts of it. Personally, I think the Trekkies have missed part of the point, but that's just my humble opinion:).
This is also why I don't think the appeal of Trek has anything to do with campy acting and so forth. Perhaps that's why *you* like it, but the people I know who like Trek like it for it's vision of a rational hopeful universe, where there are still things to do, things to explore, but those problems are soluble through science, reason and knowledge.
Mythological epics tell us about our values, ideals, beliefs and norms. They reflect the cutural values of society. This is the myth making of Star Wars. Good vs. Evil, the triumph of the hero, unseen forces known to few but acknowledged and respected by many.
Star Trek, on the other hand, translates those values into action and a plan/vision for the future. The end of poverty, the uninty of nations and worlds, the beauty of discovery. Star Trek doesn't really tell us what our values are but assumes a common thread of understanding. We all want an end to war and poverty. We all want to discover new life and learn about other places and things. The Prime Directive is a prime example of an acknowledgement of the intrinsic value of things different from "us." Of not wanting to harm, that which we want to understand.
The values are learned through myth and storytelling, i.e. Star Wars. The vision to put those values into action is exemplified in Star Trek.
However, I could be wrong. They could be just a couple cool movies made in Hollywood.
Sean Brown
Linux Evangelist
srbrown@nyx.nospam.net
Sean Brown
Linux Evangelist
"I'll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours." - Bob D.
>as when Anakin Skywalker, the
>young Darth-to-be yells "yippee"
>when he learns he might be leaving his
>Mom and heading off with a Jedi Knight.
you may have missed the fact that young anakin didn't know that his mom wouldn't be going with them, even though the audience already did. he didn't learn this until a little later. (i think it was about 5 minutes later into the film.)
Oooh. Not the Federation/Borg/Dominion/Cardassians/Klingon/Romul an VS Rebel/Empire fleet thing again!
Though it is fun to debate.
"All those tubes and wires and careful notes!"
Compare apples and apples. The Cube has all the qualities you state in the Enterprise but better. Plus, way more evil and who needs the force when you've got the Collective? :)
Star Trek was earlier, with adventures based on parables, philosophical thought experiments, moral questioning and not much emphasis on special effects.
I'm talking about the Star Trek I saw as a kid in the 70s, in few and far-between trips to the US.
well, didn't he get his emotion RPM a few years ago?
And there are some people that liked(and even needed) Jar Jar, you know. A lot of the younger kids probably need more than internal politics and mysticism. Remember, it's supposed to be for ALL ages, and I know many people feel it should be aimed for them because the originals were, but we are 20 years older now, and Lucas wants to give something to the next generation too. I think most of the critics had feelings along those lines; they felt as if Lucas had abandoned them in favor of their kids.
Plus, I thought he was funny.
And for exactly the same reason!
Thank you!
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Ok... go ahead and demote this if you want... it just happens to be my opinion.
(Granted... DS9 and Voyager suck just as much, if not worse.)
Why? 3 words. What's the point?
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Insightful! Star Trek does indeed use a lot of metaphors. They even hinted at that fact in the episode where the Captain Picard was forced to learn to communicate with a race that spoke in a purely metaphorical language.
One of the best examples is the ST:TNG episode where Riker is offered the power of Q. At first we all hoped he would have the restraint to not allow the powers to affect his judgment or personality. But instead, through very good acting IMHO, he changed in a way that made him exhibit less respect for authority. We all got to see an enactment of the quote "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" in an entertaining, educational, and harmless way. And we learned more about the character of Will Riker. We learned one of his weaknesses.
I think it's not hard to see something of ourselves--or someone we know--in each of the characters in Star Trek. That's what makes me like the characters so much.
BTW did you folks know Brent Spiner (Data) is a very good singer and has produced a CD? It's called "Old Yellows Eyes is Back" or something like that. I highly recommend it.
Everyone should go see trekkies, it was hilarious. They did it perfectly, so that if you're a star trek fanatic, you'll like it becuse the people in the movie are so cool. But if you're not a star trek fanatic, you'll have a great time luaghing at these people who take it a little too serious...
TNG was certainly influcend by Star Wars, but retained many of the moral aspects of the original series. It displays some very interesting views on American and 60th culture (at least in retrospect, for me as an European). Watching the original series can be quite funny, especially when it gets near to sex. Gene Roddenberry obviously had strong opinions about humanitariasm, but at the same time were either struck with complete disregard for women, or had to fold to "market requirements," so women couldn't play an integral part until the later epsiodes of TNG, and the later series.
In some sense, DS9 is an abnomination of the main theme, but Voyager returned to the completed-story-telling of ST and TNG. DS9 might be special in directly competing with Babylon 5, and resembles most of what I would judge as a soap-opera. DS9 also is special in the fact that is the only series to have a strong religious context to it's story, albeit it being a somehwat eastern-thinking one instead of some rather constitutional Christianity based, which I would suppose to be prevalent in the U.S.
There are a number of very enlightning stories in all series, and from a quality point of view, given the fact the first (er, 4th to 6th) episodes of Star Wars were feature films, I find many episodes of all four series of ST on par with them. [I won't even start on the feature films.] One of my favorites might illustrate my view: the Doctor is stranded on an alien planet in a museum (who has seen it should know what I'm writing about). The story telling in this episode uses a really amazing twist, and I would hope the next films would be able to keep up with that quality.
So my conclusion on comparing Star Wars to Star Trek: it's like Apples and Oranges, and each has it's virtues, especially the fact that I judge the feasture films as "add ons."
TNG was certainly influcend by Star Wars, but retained many of the moral aspects of the original series. It and the original display some very interesting views on American and 60th culture (at least in retrospect, for me as an European). Watching the original series can be quite funny, especially when it gets near to sex. Gene Roddenberry obviously had strong opinions about humanitariasm, but at the same time were either struck with complete disregard for women, or had to fold to "market requirements," so women couldn't play an integral part until the later epsiodes of TNG, and the later series.
In some sense, DS9 is an abnomination of the main theme, but Voyager returned to the completed-story-telling of ST and TNG. DS9 might be special in directly competing with Babylon 5, and resembles most of what I would judge as a soap-opera. DS9 also is special in the fact that is the only series to have a strong religious context to it's story, albeit it being a somehwat eastern-thinking one instead of some rather constitutional Christianity based, which I would suppose to be prevalent in the U.S.
There are a number of very enlightning stories in all series, and from a quality point of view, given the fact the first (er, 4th to 6th) episodes of Star Wars were feature films, I find many episodes of all four series of ST on par with them. [I won't even start on the feature films.] One of my favorites might illustrate my view: the Doctor is stranded on an alien planet in a museum (who has seen it should know what I'm writing about). The story telling in this episode uses a really amazing twist, and I would hope the next films would be able to keep up with that quality.
So my conclusion on comparing Star Wars to Star Trek: it's like Apples and Oranges, and each has it's virtues, especially the fact that I judge the feasture films as "add ons."
I bet a software company would love to see their logo positioned somewhere on a Star Trek computer screen. It would cost them a fortune, but would be a real advertising coup. Microsoft LCARS, anyone? :-)
(deep breath)
If you like Star Wars, watch Star Wars. If you like Star Trek, watch Star Trek. If you like both, watch both. That's all there is to it. I think.
I won't flame you because I think you're right. Star Trek is usually weak science fiction at best. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have usually good and often excellent stories (ok, Voyager is often awful), but the science fiction elements are usually completely overlooked (the incredible potential of discovering a Dyson's Sphere in ST:TNG's "Relics", which was quickly written off) or reduced to technobabble (how many problems are simply solved by a beam of some exotic particle).
As stories about interesting ideas in a futuristic setting (or simply allegories to contemporary issues), Star Trek is an entertaining medium and does a good job while remaining accessible to most people.
Star Wars is fantasy, pure and simple. No explanations are given (or desired) for the technological aspects of the world of Star Wars.
It's just pure and simple fun (OK, maybe not so simple). It's a brain twinkie, but that doesn't mean it has to be vapid or uninteresting to anyone with a 3-digit IQ.
Star Wars spawned a whole industry of sf/fantasy movies that tried to imitate what made it sucessful. There was a lot of dreck, but there was a lot of good stuff, too. Aside of Star Trek and Contact, what was the last SF or fantasy movie that wasn't a moronic kid's film or a thinly veiled horror or action flick. I'm hoping PM will rejuvenate what I consider to be a brain-dead and violence-obsessed industry.
p.s. "missed the final Deep Space Nine"? I thought it wasn't till next month!
I'm a big fan of both
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
"Brainy" people don't like Star Trek, because for all their efforts of its writers to make some of the technology seem plausible, it is ruined by ridiculous technobabble and a complete lack of understanding of basic science.
For example, I saw an episode of "Voyager" where they discover text written on the atoms of molecules of DNA, as if they were solid tinker toy models! And what was the text written in? Sub-sub-atomic particles? geez
By keeping the technology vague, Star Wars allows the audience to concentrate on important aspects of the story (like mystical new-age crap like the Force) without it being ruined by blatant technical errors.
>>>These are the folks who study the Klingon language (a Klingon version of "Hamlet" and the Bible are in the works, and theres a hilarious scene in the movie where students try to learn the word "kill" in Klingon).
Actually, the Klingon version of Hamlet ("Hamlet: Prince of Denmark - The Restored Klingon Version") has already been produced, although highly limited (1,000 copies, hand-numbered, and 26 "deluxe" editions). All 1,000 copies are sold out, but I believe if you're willing to donate US$500, you will get one of the deluxe versions.
The URL? http://www.kli.org (The Klingon Language Institute). Careful, it's a 64K link...
Everytime I read an article about Star Wars and Sci-fi in general one of my favorite shows always seems to get left out. Babylon 5. B5's five year run ended a while back, but I've still got almost every show on tape. This show's five year story arc, a complete plot spanning 5 years, was excellent. I'd like to hear from other slashdot readers and find what ya'll think of B5. For those who are interested in learning about a truly awesome show check out the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 at
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.html
I hope women are in the future too, not just "mankind".
And before anybody gets on their "im tired of all the PC rules" high horse, it's not about PC, it's not about rules, it's about respect.
Was their plastic armour a little too flimsy for rocks??
I always thought that the white armour was a sort of reflec armour, designed for protection against beam weapons and spitzensparken during ship battles.
Those joints would be very vulnerable to edged weapons.
dave
Personally, i've always felt that the appeal of Star Trek was in fact in its utopic and hopeful vision of the future. i could handle a little bad acting if it meant world peace and warp drive technology. :)
Also, keep in mind that the show was fairly progressive at the time it was aired. The cold war was still going on, yet a Russian was sitting at the helm and people kept talking about how there was no money on Earth...
it also had the first "inter-racial" kiss on american television.
oh, yeah, and the Borg would wipe out the Empire in about 30 seconds. Unless the Klingons got there first. The storm troopers wouldn't stand a chance against an entire race of people so hardcore they have to fill their ships with smoke.
/zard
I can't see how identifying with an emotionless character driven by pure logic makes anyone smarter. How smart can you be to idolize something that denies your humanity?
On the other hand, Star Wars embraces humanity, all the characters have emotion, even R2D2 and C3PO. They're driven by human motivations that we can identify with, and each story isn't served up with a nicely packaged moral message.
Is emotion or passion so wrong? They're not always pleasant, but I'm kind of attached to them myself...
Remember, your fictitious hero could never share your passion for Star Trek because it's emotional, not logical to sit around the TV wasting your life watching and idolizing ANY fictitious character.
Guess we all know where my preferences lay.
My $.03
http://www.bullnet.com
SPOILER ALERT
/. are, or were, or will be geeks. So I find it a little discouraging that most of us geeks are more than happy to dump on Jar-Jar in just the way the rest of the world dumps on us. I think George Lucas has found a way to make us confront the sources of prejudice that exist in all of us.
I think I must be the only person in America who, though I won't say I liked Jar-Jar, felt the character worked in the Phantom Menace, and enhanced the movie rather than detracted from it.
One of Lucas' favorite themes is to contrast the primitive, the overlooked, and the dismissed, with the efficient, the mechanical, the soulless. This was supposed to be how the Ewoks worked in ROTJ, only the Ewoks turned out way too cute and cuddly. He didn't make that mistake this time.
This is the same theme as Aesop's fable about the lion and the mouse. A lion catches a mouse and is about to have a rather small snack, when the mouse proposes, "If you let me go I'll do you a favor sometime". The lion finds the idea that the mouse could help him highly amusing, but figures the laugh is worth the loss of an admittedly small morsel so figures, "what the hell", and lets the mouse go. Some time later, the lion becomes caught in a hunter's trap, consisting of some heavy netting. Who should come along but the mouse, who repays the favor by gnawing through the netting, saving the lion from certain death at the
hand of the hunter.
So then, Jar-Jar's "job" in The Phantom Menace is to seem useless and annoying for most of the movie and to provide help at a critical time, which is exactly what he does, twice in fact. He helps Qui-Gon and Obiwan get to the Capital City despite the invasion, by introducing them to his hidden city and boss man (whose voice was provided by one of my favorite character actors Brian "Forward my Hawkmen!" Blessed).
And then he takes the party to the Gungan temple where he knows they'll be, so Amidala can bargain with them. And then the entire Gungan army takes on the "tanks" and "missles" of the Trade Federation, evoking the Zulu warriors who took on, and often bested the best and brightest of the British Empire. I can't think of a better metaphor for how I felt about IBM in the '70s or M/S in the 90s than the scene where the racks of robots come out of the carriers and slowly unfold all in perfect, mindless, horrible synchrony. (I hasten to add that I know some people who work, or have worked for Microsoft and I generally like them. So I mean no offense to them.) Lined up against them is a motley crew of Gungans with their spears and shields (well they're enhanced, to be sure, but we're not supposed to think that they can stand up to the Trade Federation.)
In effect, the Gungans in general, and Jar-Jar in particular, are geeks.
Most of us here at
I remember that when I was young, the way I was taught that black people are "just the same as us under the skin". But that's a bit misleading, since there are other differences between people, and between subcultures, and those differences are often substantial. If people weren't different in some way, there would be no prejudice.
My personal prejudice is against Frenchmen. I would never have felt this way if I hadn't shared a house with a Parisian for a year. He had a snooty attitude, and he left smelly anchovies and cheese around the house and just generally annoyed me. It was the difference in manners and habits that I found annoying.
Of course, he wasn't really such a bad guy. My other housemate, who had spent some time in Tunisia, which has strong ties to the French, got along with him well. It didn't help that in those days, I had a certain amount of closed-mindedness about me.
Anyway, the key to defeating prejudice is in seeing differences as valuable, and in seeing people who are different as valuable, whether that's because of the differences or in spite of them. And I can't think of a better demonstration of that in popular culture than Jar-Jar and the Gungans.
"I see great things in baseball" - Walt Whitman
there is nothing here of intrest...
see subject...
end of message.
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
no, John uses M$ word or make M$-HTML. /.
now does this mean that John is werking for M$ no, just that he must not care that he is making BAD HTML, cause there could be no way he wouldnt know that MOST M$ software isnt freindly to non-M$ software, and write for
Now John is it that hard to use someother software? or at lest use the DEMORONISER. now dont get me wrong i like John, well, most of the time... but this M$-HTML is a bad thing. well time to get some work done...
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
The only good pun is a dead pun.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I'd just like to raise my hand as a member of the B5 camp.
It had a 5 year pre-writtern storyline in which they set up components in the first season, that didn't become apparent until the last two. Sheer genius.
Everyone knows that Star Wars is the mainstream crap for halfwits. It's the sci-fi you watch when you're not watching sci-fi... why?
Because it's lacking the first component of sci-fi. The science. Which makes it just fiction.
Personally, however, I think that if you dress up as a Wookie, a Klingon, a Vorlon or whatever you're beyond stupid.
It's one thing to watch it, enjoy it, and even contemplate it. But it's another thing altogether to think you're part of it.
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
*Crowd responds "Hi Carlos!"*
I'm not here to disagree. Jon you make some great points, and you are completely right.
But this is the way that I see it:
There ARE two different sides to Star Wars and Star Trek. (This is very well illustrated in the lifestyles of my roommate and I since I prefer Trek over Wars and he prefers Wars over Trek. We both appreciate the other genre, know the characters, and experience the same magic when we watch each genre, but our favorites differ.)
My Roommate is an Engineer, I am a Scientist. (That could be the difference here, but let me explain further.)
I explained above that I was a closet Trekkie, which is also true, I do not attend conventions, I know SOME Klingon (but only so I can curse in a really mean sounding language and scare lots of unsuspecting people.), and I like to learn and understand the technology and inne workings of the StarTrek Universe. (I have read the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Technical Guide to the Enterprise D.)
My Engineer Roommate likes to argue, "who would win? The Starship Enterprise vs a Star Destroyer?"
I ammusingly respond, "The Enterprise, The Star Destroyer cannot break lightspeed, and only has blasters for weapons."
My Engineer roommate is a classic Wars fan (even though he was born after 1976 and only saw Jedi in the theater, while I saw all the movies in the theater and remember them.) I think the "magic" of Star Wars is the rudimentary conflict that engulfs the entire saga. The battle of rebels versus a tyranical empire, that parrallels the even more fundamental conflict of the light and dark side of the force, and the meanacing character of Darth Vader at the center of it all.
To me, the draw of Star Trek was hope. Trek was something closer to home, a dream of mankind reaching and mastering the stars. (And since I am an Astronomer, this was an appealing dream to me), while Star Wars was a story about a time long ago, and a galaxy far away. Trek was humans, doing human things, with human abilities and human technology. Star Wars was humanoids doing extrodinary inhuman things (ie. the Force) and using virtually non-human technology. (Yeah, an argument could be mdae that a lightsaber and a Warp Engine are pretty far out there. And I agree, but hey, it's all Sci-Fi/Fantasy isn't it?)
So in this fan's eyes, Star Trek is/was for the intellectual fan who enjoied the aspects of future technology and science,while Star Wars is/was for the Fantasy and Dramatic Sci-Fi fan, who enjoies seeing a powerful story unfold before their eyes.
Whatever genre you like, go out and enjoy the magic for yourself. Don't let BaronCarlos tell you what to do.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
"Got Linux?"
I thought he said, "let your focus become your reality"?
So emotions should be held above logic and reason? Well, lets look at it logically (sorry to have to resort to cold, inhuman thought, but you really cant examine an idea emontionally and get any usable information):
The three things that probably generate the most emotional response in any form and under any circumstances: Sex, Violence, and Drugs. The three things generating the most intellectual response: Philosophy, Technology, and Psychology. (Why psychology? Because the only other one i could think of that would be in the top 3 was theology, and it tends to generate more emotional response than intellectual).
Now, lets apply these to people. Possibly the least intellectually oriented people on the surface of the earth: Rednecks (american southerners for those of you not familiar with the term. see also: trailer trash, hick). Now, i'm pretty sure none of us want to be such, so lets examine their motivations. What's one of the most abundently made fun of tendencies of said people? Their propensity for having hordes of children (*ticks off the box next to Sex). Second in line: their love of hunting and 'wrastlin' (ticks off Violence). And lastly, their vast consumption of alcoholic products beer, whisky, moonshine, you name it (ticks off Drugs).
So the penultimate human, according to you, is a redneck? A person driven so entirely by their persuit of emotional fullfillment as to disregard logic (that having a dozen kids when you're on welfare is a bad idea, that drinking causes all sorts of disorders, or that violence is, generally, a bad thing).
Well, perhaps it makes me inhuman but i think i'd rather debate philosophy with socrates and plato, physics with hawking, or psychology with junge and freud than go out huntin' with bubba and a six pack.
Dreamweaver
"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
As i replied to the other post, i didnt mean All southerners. I AM a southerner, i live in columbia SC and have for years. I meant the particular subset of southerners known as Renecks, which is why i SAID rendnecks. I clarified the word redneck for those people who havent heard the term. I have a number of friends in other countries who have never heard the word. I even have talked to a few people as close as new york who didnt know what a redneck was. But if you say 'southerner' it tends to conjure up the same image.
As for bigotry, hundreds of books, movies, and casettes have been made on the subject of "You might be a redneck if..", all of which were okay, yet my pointing out the same things is bigotry? Whatever.
Dreamweaver
"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
Phantom Menace showed Lucas has been concentrating computer animation for the last 15years not directing movies. If anyone else had made the exact same badly directed movie, ala Wing Commander, everyone would be tearing him to shreds.
And Katz that was the most biased journalistic irresponsibility you've ever typed, lets hope its the low point of your career.
--Keines Mittleib fur die Menge
Actually the first inter-racial kiss on American television was in an episode of The Outer Limits, the one entitled Demon with a Glass Hand or somesuch. Robert Culp was the actor but I cannot recall the name of the hispanic actress.
:)
Actually since "The Outer Limits" were in B/W, it's kinda hard to tell if she's really is Ispanic, or just pretty
Murphy
I agree, Star Trek is very technical. Which happens to be its appeal for me. I dislike whenever someone tries to make a comparison between Star Wars and Star Trek. They're both science fiction franchises with the word "Star" in their names. They've both spawned legions of fans. I'd say the similarities end there. They differ vastly. The biggest being that Star Trek is about a seemingly perfect future for the Earth. Star Wars is much more fantasy than science fiction. Star Trek is most often about the technology. Star Wars is about mysticism, the technology is merely used as an obstacle or simply for effect.
I think it's the media's fault for not being able to differentiate between the two that somehow bored into people's heads that somehow Star Wars and Star Trek can be compared. Or that they have completely different sets of fans. I love them both. I watch Star Trek because it portrays a planet Earth I'd be proud of. It gives me a future where mankind has broken free of religious and cultural differences and embraced the pursuit of science. A future where our primary goal is to constantly learn and better ourselves. I like Star Wars because it takes me away to a completely different universe. It gives me an epic storyline of good vs. evil, of a valiant quest to save the universe.
I could no more compare Star Trek with Star Wars than I could compare either with Red Dwarf or even Hitchhiker's Guide.
(And just for the record, I base my opinion of Trek on the later seasons of the TNG, DS9, and the occasionally good Voyager episode. Perhaps I prefer Berman-era Trek. I revel in the techno-babble.)
You've gone off and started an "I'm smarter than you are" flame war. Nice going. ;)
From all the debate here on SW vs ST, I think that many /. readers would like "Bimbos of the Death Sun" by Sharyn McCrumb, from TSR books. It's a mystery about a murder at a Con. Extremely funny (if you've been to any cons) and the title is a jab at the titles/covers given to many good books in the SF world. May be out of print, but definitely worth a read.
Best Slashdot Co
I was a little astounded on your take on the Star Trek/Star Wars dichotomy. Like other people responding to your article I'd always found that the Star Trek fans were the more technically inclined and intelligent, but having thought about it, I think I've put my finger on the dichotomy between Star Trek (and B5) fans, and Star Wars fans:
Star Trek (particularly the series under the control of Rodenberry), Babylon 5 and for that matter the E.E. 'Doc' Smith 'Lensman' novels, are Science Fiction Procedurals (by analogy with Police Procedurals). The universe in which each series inhabits is reasonably well thought out, self consistent, and extrapolated from present day conditions. Secondly, the plot of each episode is well defined, the tension exists in achieving the resolution within the constraints provided. The closest analogy within the Police Procedurals are 'Law and Order', 'Columbo' and 'Dragnet'. Just as we know that Columbo is not going to brandish an assault weapon, mow down hordes of henchmen, and then beat a confession out of the murderer, Starfleet officers, B5 crew members, and Lensmen are constrained to certain abilities and actions. Rodenberry states in 'The Making of Star Trek' that he would recast scripts to navy operations in Vietnam to see if the actions were consistent. The universe and continuity of the series is the primary draw. As with most true science fiction character must be trumped by exposition. This often plays to Shatneresque delivery, of course it also generated the unique and venerated character of Spock as well.
As for the claim that Starfleet is one big utopian Rainbow coalition, Damn right! Science fiction procedurals presume the infinite perfectibility of mankind. The shows simply assume that the economies of plenty have outrun the economics of scarcity, and assume that we have achieved a few centuries of social advancement. Just think how utopian and multicultural our world would look to the inhabitants of Salem during the which trials. Secondly, science fiction is always more culturally advanced than the mainstream. Trek featured the first interracial kiss on network television. Contrast this with Star Wars, with its nearly lilly white cast with one token black... (for the remainder of this rant, rent a copy of 'Chasing Amy').
The nature of the Science Fiction Procedural leads to three forms of appreciation, duplication, fandom, and fanaticism.
With regard to duplication, many features of the original Star Trek which were unbelievable when the show first aired are now so commonplace that we forget how prescient they were at the time. Flip phone communicators, intensive care units with continuous vital sign displays, giant flat screen displays and seamless ship wide computer networks are just some examples of developments which were strongly influenced by present day designers influenced by Star Trek. Star Trek has also strongly influenced the language with such catch phrases as "warp drive" and "beam me up". Of course one of the most venerable computer games is TREK as well.
With regard to fandom, I really haven't encountered a Generation X technical type which hasn't seen the bulk of the original series as well as much as the more recent programs. Usually Trek serves as a 'gateway drug' making the fan conversant with the basic elements of science fiction allowing him to move on to the hard stuff (i.e. golden age science fiction). I always bristle at the contention that Generation X has a fixation on 'The Brady Bunch', I and the bulk of my compatriots abhorred that show and use Trek as a common point of reference. Such matter of fact fandom is so common in technical circles that it is an implicit assumption, as unnoticeable as the presence of air. Of course, these aren't the folks showing up at every Trek convention, they have a life.
Star Trek has a considerable number of fanatics as well, folks who run about in Starfleet uniforms, speak Klingon, and read the Star Trek novels (ecch!). These seem to be the sort of people who you regard as Star Trek fans. The primary draw is once again a consistent and well documented universe. Unfortunately these fans have gotten the upper hand in recent years. This seems to correlate with the passing of Roddenbery and the increasing corporatization of the franchise. The most egregious manifestation of this is the often total ignorance of science and technology by the present writers, with the use of the notation 'tech tech tech' to call for the insertion of a certain volume of incomprehensible technobabble. The insertion of comic relief and small odious children are another bad sign (Neelix is the Jar Jar Binks of Trek). This has often degraded the franchise to its present precarious standing.
Star Wars is mythic science fantasy, a lot of visually arresting scenes, with virtually no relation to scientific or technological fact. Lasers come out to here and clank when you hit them together, starfighters make maneuvers which only make sense in the presence of an atmosphere etc... The storytelling is good, but since anything can happen the need for exposition is greatly reduced. The movies are 'tech tech tech' from the get go. A thousand BEMs crowd the screen but precious little is known about any given species, unlike the anthropological detail provided in Trek and B5. Finally, the total primary product consists of 12 hours or so movie footage. On the other hand Trek's primary product is roughly 800 or so hours of television and movies, allowing for a very comprehensive exploration of a reasonably consistent universe.
Fandom with regard to Star Wars is similar to being a fan of a good comic book with a short run, or gone with the wind (not that there's anything wrong with that). A book titled 'The Physics of Star Wars' is rather unlikely, and few of the technological components of the movies have any desirability in the real world. Few people really need a light saber in the real world, on the other hand everybody body wants a comm badge and a tricorder (and I suspect we'll have both within 5 years, worst case).
So in closing I would propose that Star Trek and Star Wars are separate genres, and that fandom in Trek is much broader but more subtle.
As I noted in my previous missive, what's wrong with the United Federation
of Planets being a Rainbow Coalition?
As Slate notes today in Is Star Wars Racist? Star Wars has a lot to answer to in this department.
The storm troopers never had a chance against the Ewoks! hee hee
I like both. I prefer classic Trek over the new ones, simply because IMHO (no flames pliz, I know these things can get long) the characters seem so wishy washy. Esp. on TNG. Less action, more thought...oh well
How come no one ever compares geeks to gonzo? Most of my friends are into HST and are all in the computer industry. Well, except one, he's a physiologist
I dare go so far to call Katz a new journalist. The ending of the Rolling Stone story "Geeks" was a beautiful piece of NJ in the style of Joe Eszterhas (before he went Hollywood) or even Robert Christgau. The way he kept himself out of the story was great - the only hint came at the very end where the kids wonder if they have 3 plates
The universe of Star Trek is far more extensive/complex than that of Star Wars...there are oodles of details, intricate stories, and an effort to make a logical explanation for all the occurences within the stories. Star Trek affords fans the chance to become very literate about/intensely involved in a very elaborate fictional universe; the serial, long lasting nature of this universe facilitates both better character development and far better detail building than does Star Wars.
Star Wars, on the other hand, is a looser form of story telling...there is little or no explanation of the physical surroundings of the characters, and the galaxy that they travel is essentially one big backdrop for the actual story. Logical explanations are very rarely made...unlike Star Trek, the way the spacecraft function is never explained, a whole bunch of anomalies are attributed to "the force" and left at that, and a plethora of alien species are introduced with absolutely no explanation as to where they came from, what possible evolutionary advantage can be found in their appearance, or their planetary cultures and philosophies. Star Wars asks one to go with the flow, suspend disbelief ("Why are the bad guys such bad shots? How could whatever species Jabba is evolve in the first place?! How did the droids become sentient?!?!"), and just follow the story...which is absolutely fine by me.
Personally, I find that Star Trek is superior as pertains to the incredible amount of detail to absorb and the greater scope allowed by the episodes, and Star Wars to be superior as pertains to grandiose story telling and sheer fun. And as for the Star Wars/Star Trek fan issue, in my experience, Star Trek appeals more to a more limited, intelligent, technically/logically oriented audience, while Star Wars appeals to a broader range of people, as the story telling entrances even those who normally abhor science fiction. One thing I have noticed is that Star Trek fans are almost always fans of other sci fi as well, while Star Wars fans often don't like sci fi at all in general. Hrm....
--When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!--
1. More characters, and hence more female characters.
The ratio is not all that different, admittedly. But I just don't like Leia. I'd rather there have been NO major female characters in SW than have to watch her fall in love with Han Solo and start acting like a silly little girl.
Uhura is just so much cooler
2. Face it, there's more to like (or hate, as the case may be). An actual TV series, more movies, etc. The thing that has always freaked me out about the SW-obsessed is the comparatively tiny amount of stuff they're obsessing over.
3. SW is, bottom line, a children's story. Its target audience is little kids, especially little boys. Not that this is bad, but it doesn't do all that much for the argument that SW fans are "smarter" than ST fans.
Admittedly, it can be nice to not have to think for a little while, but it's not my thing. I like ST's metaphoric dealing with a whole bunch of contemporary issues MUCH better than SW's black-and-white, good vs. evil and that's that type of storyline.
Just opinion, of course.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
I have yet to see TPM, and went to see Trekkies this last weekend instead of waiting in line. The people working the ticket booth knew nothing about the film, and there were only about 6 people in the theater.
This movie was great. While not quite as entertaining as _Hands On a Hard Body_ (another cool documentary about a contest for a truck in a small Texas town), I laughed almost constantly throughout.
Ignore Star Wars...go see this movie.
>>Now, lets apply these to people. Possibly the least intellectually oriented people on the surface of the earth: Rednecks (american southerners for those of you not familiar with the term. see also: trailer trash, hick).
So Southerners == idiots. Hmm.
Given the bigotry inherent in your post, you'll excuse me if I take your opinions on intelligence with seven or eight tons of salt.
Or when Liam Neesons Qui-Gon Jinn portentiously intones "the focus IS the reality!"
Actually, he said "your focus determines your reality." And hasn't Deepak Chopra been saying that for a while?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
The fact that ST is mostly space drama, where we see people doing their daily stuff (abit weird daily stuff). ST is also focused on morals and alot of trekkers apprieciate it.
OTOH, SW is all legend. It's about a hero who goes out, fight badguys, save the universe and (hopefully) get the girl (which I think OB1 will not, judging from the ST rumour floating around, duh! there's luke)
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
> My own notion is that there are significant
> class differences between the two cults. "Star
> Wars" has always attracted a different audience
> brainier, more techno-centered, perhaps
> because it has a high-minded sounding High
> Priest in George Lucas, whereas the Trekkies
> have to get their inspiration from William
> Shatne
The Next Generation attacts engineers and
scientists because it is the only escapist
TV program in which the engineers are the
heros. Star Wars is more akin to a classic
fairy tale where the young prince rescues the
princess and battles pure evil.
Talking about brainier people misses the point
and gets into an argument about how to measure
intelligence.
For all off those who have wished this.....
/ y2Karchives/021.html
http://www.geekculture.com/geekycomics/Aftery2k
Um, I never said that emotion was *wrong*.
But emotion doesn't make one intelligent, no matter important it may be.
I am a big fan of both series, and was in line to see Phantom Menace on the first day, but the two shows to me for different reasons -- they're not the same, but that doesn't make either *wrong*.
"We are Microsoft Borg 2000. We're breaking into your security system now unless you lower your expectations and surrend
>My own notion is that there are significant class
>differences between the two cults. "Star Wars
>has always attracted a different audience
>brainier, more techno-centered
I just don't see this. I've always thought of the Star Trek audience as smarter... this are, after all, the people who identify with Spock and Data, rather than those who identify with Luke and "trust your instincts".
And the sheer numbers of the box office results imply that Star Wars is the more mainstream of the two (not to argue for a minute that Star Trek is not mainstream)
"We are Microsoft Borg 2000. We're breaking into your security system now unless you lower your expectations and surrend