"Trekkies" the Movie: The Other Force 167
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.
He really doesn't care. (Score:1)
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.
Re:A few more points about Trekkies (Score:1)
"Get A Life" (Score:2)
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
A few more points about Trekkies (Score:3)
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.
Yo, Katz. (Score:3)
Yes!!!! Re:Another Sci-Fi Show (Score:1)
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
--
Although you make many valid points... (Score:1)
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
Re:But reality favors, "X sux, Y rulz" (Score:1)
>>Star Wars vs. Star Trek?
Both are good
>>vi vs. emacs?
Emacs.
>>sony vs. sega?
Sony.
>>apple vs. commodore?
Apple.
>>CDs vs. vinyl records?
CDs.
>>little endian vs big endian?
Bigger is better, but less is more.
>>c vs. c++?
C++.
>>gid0: root vs. wheel?
Tossup.
>>ty1 vs. console?
Console.
>>Ginger vs. Mary Ann?
Genie. Ginger was a tramp, and Mary Anne was a rube.
LK
Re:Star Wars brainier? (Score:1)
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
Re:Star Wars brainier? (Score:1)
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.
smell the server burning? (Score:2)
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?
jar Jar isn't cute (Score:1)
Re:Trekkies is great (Score:1)
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.
Re:It's all in the details... (Score:1)
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.
Re:Star Wars brainier? (Score:1)
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.
Prejudice is always ugly... (Score:1)
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
personality types? ha! (Score:2)
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
Re:this is it exactly... (Score:1)
Re:this is it exactly... (Score:1)
C3PO in the first movie may not have been developed as much as in the later movies, but you still got an idea of what the character was about. You got to know what kind of personality he had. He had kind of a high society kind of stuck up attitude, wasn't very brave, and was usually oblivious to the moods of the people around him, but also genuinely cared about them also, for example when he thought they had all been crushed in the trash compactor, or when he volunteered to donate parts for R2D2. What in the Phantom Menace was there to tell you anything about Jar Jar the character? It seems like about anything you can say about Jar Jar can be said about any other gungin in the movie, as he seemed to defined in a pretty 1 dimentional, stereotypical way.
As far as what I said being a matter of opinion, absolutely it is. I never meant to imply otherwise. That's why I started out with "I disagree" instead of something like "That's not right." However, this is definately how I feel on the subject of Jar Jar. I think that a direct comparison between him and C3PO is weak at best.
I agree... (Score:1)
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.
Why you can't write on atoms (Score:1)
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!
Re:On behalf of Jar-Jar (SPOILERS) (Score:2)
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
But what about... Wesley Crusher?????? (Score:1)
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.
Jar-Jar's next appearance (Score:2)
Trek vs Wars (Score:1)
EFC did it (Score:1)
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
Re:Star Wars brainier? (Score:1)
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.
I believe the opposite is true. (Score:5)
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!
--
Camp? Huh? (Score:1)
sw
Re:Yippee (Score:1)
This 'leaving mom' scene is so weak, I almost walked out of the theatre after it. Anakin is very much like that dope Culkin in Home Alone. I heard an amusing remark the other day, that they were "really scraping the bottom of the child actor barrel" with this one. It's so true. He came off as a bratty little shit in an interview I saw, and the same qualities began to leak through into the film when I saw it.
Re:Spot the Irony in Lemmy's post before reading t (Score:1)
Re:Star Trek, Star Wars (Score:1)
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.
Star Trek, Star Wars (Score:5)
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.
Re:Star Trek, Star Wars (Score:2)
First Star Trek and Star Wars are two different genre who just happen to both take place in space. No one compares MASH to Apocalyse Now because they both take place in East Asia. Star Trek is "space drama" while Star Wars is "space fantasy." Even Lucas admits that what he tried to create with the whole SW thing is "myth-building." Roddenberry, and those who succeeded him, tried to make morality tales. SW takes place "in a galaxy far, far away" while ST is steeped in it's own grasp of humanity with the home planet of the Federation being Earth. Comparing the two genres of movies is a pointless.
ST was/is a television show first, a movie second. SW was a standalone film, which, upon success, became a series of films. And of the films, it is clear that SW is better. The ST films are hampered by keeping to the characters as they were created on TV. The ST chracters are forced to be more realistic (cough, cough) because two-dimensional hero-myth TV series die inthe first season unless they are on Saturday morning.
The revival of ST came about because of the success of SW. Once SW became a blockbuster, the other studios looked around and asked "Do we have anything like that?" Thus was born the first ST movie and the success of that film led directly into the new TV series.
Star Trek (the new set of serials) is not real science fiction. It's "space drama." It uses deus ex machina so much, they might as well be talking about using the Force. How many times has sticking the fuon generator into the fuon matix making show-saving uberfuons been the solution? I'd guess about 75% of the time. Even the Greek plays didn't rely on it so much.
And finally, SW didn't ruin science fiction films, corporations ruined them. The ability for film studios to control distribution and the loss of the independant movie houses which meant that the corporate studio sold movies to corporate theaters. The heads of studios became convinced the only way to make money was the blockbuster. Making $30 million from $5 million movies was good, but making $200 million from a $100 million is better. And there's lots of reasons for that, but it means smaller films with smaller distributions get less attention. And not many small films are made using sicence fiction anymore. Star Wars did not destroy the science fiction film genre anymore than Lord of the Rings destroyed fantasy books.
-S. Louie
Bad analogy (Score:3)
> 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.
Re:Camp? Huh? (Score:1)
Re:It's all sciffy anyways... (Score:1)
Re:It's all in the details... (Score:1)
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.
Re:It's all sciffy anyways... (Score:1)
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.
Re:Bimbos of the Death Sun (Score:1)
Tom Byrum
Critique (VERY LONG, Article of its own?) (Score:2)
> 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
Spot the Irony in Lemmy's post before reading this (Score:1)
Re:Star Trek, Star Wars (Score:2)
Are you kidding?! Star Wars revolutionized the whole film industry! The special effects alone are a milestone in the history of film. While I agree that there have been a host of cheap Star Wars wannabee films, the same can be said for E.T.
Please recognize that prior to the Star Wars films coming out, the sci-fi genre was as stale as year-old bread. Had Star Wars not been so successful, it is doubtful that the Star Trek movies would have been made.
As for speculative vision, who cares? It is a fun story...that is the whole point of Star Wars. It is a direct decendant of the Saturday Morning Serial. I think that perhaps Star Wars has been misclassified. Futuristic Fantasy would be an appropriate genre.
Most importantly, before you crucify Star Wars, ask yourself this question: "When was the last time I saw people camping out for more than a week for a new Star Trek (or any other) movie?
Re:jar Jar isn't cute (Score:1)
"Mesa loved him!"
He wasn't being sarcastic; the man is that idiotic.
Re:Star Trek, Star Wars (Score:1)
This is the audience's fault, not the film's. There are PLENTY of good films out there with little to no special effects and excellent acting/story.
You're right, but... (Score:1)
You forgot to mention Blade Runner as good science fiction. I agree that Gattaca is a spectacular movie.
Re:Star Wars brainier? (Score:1)
>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" [amazon.com] (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
Death Star vs. Enterprise (Score:1)
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..
Re:It's all sciffy anyways... (Score:1)
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...
Re:More on braininess (Score:1)
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...
More on braininess (Score:5)
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.
Re:Star Trek, Star Wars (Score:2)
This reminds me of a scholarship interview I had. One of the blanks on the form that we gave them so they'd know more about us was "List 4 books which you have found interesting or influential." I put down two books from Orson Scott Card's Ender series. Why I did that, I don't know. I should have put one. But, hey, I thought they were interesting.
They saw this (my panel was led by an English professor), and asked me a lot of questions about it. I had to essentially justify reading science fiction as opposed to "real" literature. I don't think I did that great a job relating what I was thinking, but I at least had the ideas right in my head. A foreign languages professor asked me why someone like him should read Sci-fi if the author has to spend that much more time setting up the gimmicks and gizmos and that much less time setting up the characters and plot.
My argument was that only really bad sci-fi relies on the gimmicks. The good stuff (your definition may vary) is more about the human reaction to the slight changes in the "real world" that the author provides. That was one of the strengths of Gattaca. Nothing in there couldn't have happened. It was about what humanity might do if circumstances went along a certain path.
It all started going downhill once they asked "Do you think Hamlet would have been better written as science fiction?" Ughhh. I did get the scholarship, though, so it couldn't have been that bad.
Oh, and how can you not include Contact as one of the real science fiction movies of recent years?! I did love Gattaca, though. I own both movies . . . and I've seen The Phantom Menace twice already.
Myth Making vs. Future Vision (Score:1)
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.
the phantom (dennis the) menace (Score:1)
>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.)
Re:Data runs Linux (Score:1)
Though it is fun to debate.
Death Star vs. BORG CUBE (Score:1)
Re:Yippee (Score:1)
I have an idea.....let's harshly judge some child actors and make them turn into drunken psychopaths.......wait....they don't need us for that.
Re:Yippee (Score:1)
Star Trek was essential to this geek's development (Score:1)
I'm talking about the Star Trek I saw as a kid in the 70s, in few and far-between trips to the US.
Re:Data runs Linux (Score:2)
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.
Yes! Someone else who hates the midichlorians! (Score:1)
Thank you!
--
- Sean
Re:A few more points about Trekkies (Score:1)
When you wear a Star Trek uniform, what -- or who -- are you showing support for? The cast of the Enterprise?
Sorry... that is a bit loony...
--
- Sean
B5 Sucks. (Score:1)
(Granted... DS9 and Voyager suck just as much, if not worse.)
Why? 3 words. What's the point?
--
- Sean
Re:Advantages ST has over SW: (IMHO, at least) (Score:1)
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.
Re:Star Wars brainier? (Score:2)
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.
It was great (Score:2)
I like Star Strek for its cultural view (Score:1)
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."
I like Star Strek for its cultural view (Score:1)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4)
One is weak science fiction, one is purely fantasy (Score:1)
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
It's all sciffy anyways... (Score:2)
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.
Slight correction of Jon's article (Score:1)
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...
Another Sci-Fi Show (Score:3)
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.html
Re:It's all sciffy anyways... (Score:1)
Paul Hogan, Robert Forward and other's do a good job at this sort of Hard SF writing. Star Drek doesn't even come close.
Re:Star Trek, Star Wars (Score:1)
As the earlier writer said, it has had a bad influence. People now go to films and come away mostly remembering if the special effects were good or bad. Clue- there's more to drama than special effects. Good actors can get away with a bare stage.
As for speculative vision, who cares?
Oh well, I guess you win. Science fiction definitely isn't supposed to have speculative vision.
When was the last time I saw people camping out for more than a week for a new Star Trek (or any other) movie?
Those were fans. Not the movie, even though they tried their hardest to be a part of it. Besides, the movie was an excuse to camp out, for the most part. The life-deprived need that sorta stuff to get by.
Re:Star Trek, Star Wars (Score:1)
Does a perfect world include sexism? (Score:1)
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.
Re:Ewoks vs. Storm Troopers (Score:1)
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
Re:jar Jar isn't cute (Score:1)
Data runs Linux (Score:2)
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
Re:Star Wars brainier? (Score:2)
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
On behalf of Jar-Jar (contains spoilers) (Score:5)
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.
none, he rolled his own... (Score:1)
see subject...
end of message.
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
no, John uses M$ word or make M$-HTML (Score:1)
now does this mean that John is werking for M$ 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 [fourmilab.ch]. 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
"Trekkies" should have been "The Fandom Menace" (Score:1)
-russ
Mostly harmless! (Score:1)
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.
A Voice from the "Other" Side of the Force (Score:4)
*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?"
Re:Qui-Gonn Jin misquoted by Katz (Score:1)
Re:Star Wars brainier? (Score:1)
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
Re:It's all sciffy anyways... (Score:1)
As for the 'technobabble' what else would they do? The shows all take place on board extreamly complicated constructs and the characters are (usuallaly) high-trained individuals. Go read the transcript from a space shuttle launch and tell me a little bit of tech-talk isnt normal by people who have been using the stuff for years and years in every day conversation. Saying that trek is bad because they use words like 'warp core', 'plasma conduit', or 'tricorder' is like saying Home Improvement is a bad show because they use words like 'engine block', 'piston', or 'power drill'.
Dreamweaver
Re:Prejudice is always ugly... (Score:1)
Dreamweaver
Re:Star Wars brainier? (Score:1)
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
Everyone drops the ball sometime, 1st Lucas, Katz (Score:1)
And Katz that was the most biased journalistic irresponsibility you've ever typed, lets hope its the low point of your career.
Re:I believe the opposite is true. (Score:1)
Most scifi storys require the writer to invent new phisics to support the plot. There are two apporaches to this. You can try to explain in depth how your new phisics works, like star trek, or you can just assume that your ship can go faster than light and leave it at that, like star wars.
I have never read/seen any scifi that tried to explain it's fake phisics that wouldn't have been better if it didn't. I think this is because trying to explain any phiscs, real or otherwise is much to large a task to fit intermitantly into a scifi story. Explaining nonexistant phisics allways seems to involve picking large words out of a dictionary, not looking at the definitions, useing them, and hopeing nobody knows what they mean.
Re:Data runs Linux (inter-racial kiss) (Score:1)
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
Re:Star Wars brainier? (Score:3)
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.)
It's all in the details... (Score:5)
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....
Advantages ST has over SW: (IMHO, at least) (Score:2)
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.
Star Wars brainier? (Score:2)
>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)