Reframing the Star wars vs. Star Trek argument

[Vince278]

You'll note that I included myself in the definition.

[Zevico]

Reframing is so cliche. I prefer deconstruction, for indeed the subtext of this debate is a furious and immature conflict between the elite intellectuals and the proleteriat. In this context, it is clear that the source of this infantile argument is an infantile society whose members see fit to establish their own superiority by mocking or belittling others, whether they stand on the side of the so-called intellectuals or those of the 'masses'.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I prefer Trek because its is Sci-Fi my favorite genra, StarWars is Fantasy (mostly King Arthur alagory) wraped in a Space setting.

As a matter of fact I would wager that most people who say StarWars is their favorite will list other Fantasy works, most notibly LoTR as close seconds and will be more avid readers of Fantasy Liturature. Thouse who prefer Trek will be oriented towards other forms of Sci-Fi.

Basicaly every Nerd is someware on a scale of Fantasy <-> Sci-Fi, in addition various works can be placed on the scale as well
Trek is on the Sci-Fi extream and LoTR is on the other, StarWars I would place just inward from LoTR but still firmly Fantacy.

Someone should create one of thouse humourous surveys with a name along the lines of "What type of Nerd are You?"

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by el freako


Eh? How can they be extinct if one is left?

Well, in the new series, it's established that he is the only one left--which presumably means that if he doesn't find a way to reproduce, the species will die with him.

So, virtually extinct.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
I prefer Trek because its is Sci-Fi my favorite genra, StarWars is Fantasy (mostly King Arthur alagory) wraped in a Space setting.

And of course Star Trek is so much more scientific than Star Wars...

[Verto]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


And of course Star Trek is so much more scientific than Star Wars...

Relatively speaking, yes. It depends on your defintiion of "scientific" - Jules Verne wrote many books that are steeped in science, but were ultimately proven to be mere fiction (center of the earth, etc). IMO, scientific in relation to sci-fi is based more on how the author tries to present the book, whether he emphasizes science, or fiction.

[Lonestar]

Statement: The Star Wars Franchise is still geared towards having a universe that makes sense within itself. This possibly comes from LFL being a privately Held by The Lord and Master Lucas

Proud Boast: Chewbecca could defeat any ST charecter in combat, except rip-shirt Kirk.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Verto
Relatively speaking, yes. It depends on your defintiion of "scientific" - Jules Verne wrote many books that are steeped in science, but were ultimately proven to be mere fiction (center of the earth, etc). IMO, scientific in relation to sci-fi is based more on how the author tries to present the book, whether he emphasizes science, or fiction.

Whereas Star Trek decides to emphasize technobabble.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Statement: The Star Wars Franchise is still geared towards having a universe that makes sense within itself. This possibly comes from LFL being a privately Held by The Lord and Master Lucas

Proud Boast: Chewbecca could defeat any ST charecter in combat, except rip-shirt Kirk.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Whereas Star Trek decides to emphasize technobabble.

H.G. Wells does the same thing, to an extent - he throws out a bunch of stuff that looks scientific enough to make you think he might be on to something, and tells his story before it wears off. Take, for example, The Time Machine. Absurd, but H.G. Wells tries to describe in such a way that the reader thinks it could happen.

It is popular to accuse Star Trek of spouting off technobabble, but I think it is the same as what the earlier sci-fi writers did. Star Wars, on the other hand, barely mentions its technology. It is just there to provide a vehicle for the plot, whereas technology IS part of the plot in Star Trek.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Verto
H.G. Wells does the same thing, to an extent - he throws out a bunch of stuff that looks scientific enough to make you think he might be on to something, and tells his story before it wears off. Take, for example, The Time Machine. Absurd, but H.G. Wells tries to describe in such a way that the reader thinks it could happen.

Bad example. I never particularly liked HG Wells either. I just thought his stories were lame.

[Verto]

Just because you have ****ty taste doesn't make it a bad examplle.

[Stefu]

STAR WARS: STRICT FATHER
STAR TREK: NURTURING PARENT

[Q Classic]

True Blue Star Wars fans tend to worship the ground Lucas walks on.

Indeed, they're about as ****ed up as Juggalos.

===

True Blue Star Trek fans tend to worship the ashes of Roddenberry.

They're the ones that write up with horrible slash fanfics that include Mary Sues and Furries. Ooop, I mean aliens.

===

Heretical Star Trek fans are the ones who orgasm over the rampant and over-the-top sexuality of late Voyager and Enterprise.

They're the ones who actually act out those horrible slash fanfics with Mary Sues and Aliens.

===

True Blue Stargate fans are losers who worship MacGuyver.

While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is sad that they'll obsess over contorted plotlines, poor special effects, and ****ty writing.

===

True Blue Babylon 5 fans are as unkempt, rabid, and zealous as the psychotic RMS-linux fanbase.

Anything not according to the bible of JMS is to them, trite and unsophisticated. It gives them a false sense of superiority, at least until they realize that every other Fiver looks down upon each other.

[Q Classic]

Old-school BSG fans don't like the new series.

That's okay, because anybody who can stand watching the ****ty series that was on ABC is also likely the kind of person who would like Stealth, Ecks vs. Sever, and Elektra.