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.
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.
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?
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)
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
Jar-Jar next appearence will be the Star Wars Phantom Menace Christmas Special.
I started with nothing and I still have most of it.
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!
--
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.
> "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.
> 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 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.
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.
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...
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.
"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.
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
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
*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 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.)
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
>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