The Big Divisive Question, Part Two

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Well... damn that sounds about right.

I find myself incredibly accepting and all that stuff about realising mine is not the one true culture.

I often berate people endlessly who think their way of life is better than others >.> the close minded ingrates.

 

[Woodsey]

"What does it mean if you prefer Star Trek to Star Wars?"

It means you are insane.

 

[The Dark Canuck]

So heres a Star Wars and Star Trek conundrum i would like to tell.

If a Red Shirt in Star Trek always dies on a mission.
And a Storm Trooper from Star Wars can never hit anyone with their blasters

What happens when you put the Red Shirt and a Storm Trooper in a cage and have them fight it out?

XD

Nah, you have it slightly wrong. A stormtrooper can't hit anyone -important- with their blasters. They're plenty good against everyone else (See: the beginning of A New Hope). Your Red Shirt doesn't stand a chance.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Personally, I am more a Star Trek man than a Star Wars man. However, I prefer Star Wars for the Jedi/Sith conflicting, and Star Trek for the introspection of a possible future of our humanity.

I would have to say it is a 60/40 split for me, in the end.

 

[putowtin]

porkins,

leave Porkin's alone, Piggy never did now't to no-one!

 

[CrystalShadow]

Interesting. I have the opposite problem, having seen all of DS9, and only scattered parts of Babylon 5.

You should rectify that. It's certainly worth a watch. The first four seasons at least. You could probably give season 5 a pass or skip right to the final episode (which was originally the season 4 finale, but pushed to season 5 after they got a 5th season).

Personally, while I like DS9 as a series, it feels very off for Star Trek.

And while I know some people complain about the unrealistic behaviour of people in other series of Star Trek, I found Sisko's morality quite messed up by comparison to any other starfleet captain.

The series also has religious overtones that just feel a little out of place.
On the whole, it's interesting in it's own right, but it fits rather uncomfortably into the other series set in the same period. (TNG and Voyager)

The religious bits may be borrowed from B5. As there's a lot of religion represented in the various cultures. The thing that's cool about B5 is that there are very few throwaway episodes. Almost every episode advances the plot in some way. Heck there's dialogue in the pilot that references the original series finale. It's rife with foreshadowing. Not so with Ds9 from what I've seen. It's just "here's quark, and his former cardassian girlfriend, and some magic gambling machine that's screwing up the station, or whatever." I know they're different episodes, but yeesh.

Only Star Trek I can stand is probably TOS and TNG (and the movies). Enterprise was okay, but very boring in a lot of respects. Particularly the space combat. Almost none of the crew of VOY is likeable (maybe Neelix and 7of9) and I don't like the series handling of the Borg, and DS9 I've already stated my opinions. While it has a few characters who are interesting (Bashir, Dax, O'brien and Worf) they're rarely in the spotlight. Can't stand Sisko, Kira or Quark. I've heard the last few seasons are pretty good but I have no plans to watch it in the near future.

There certainly is quite a bit of foreshadowing in DS9 relating to the dominion, but there's also a lot of surrounding stuff that doesn't matter so much.

Season 1 is the most like Star Trek's traditional episode structure, while seasons 2-4 have a lot of arcs that span 3 or more episodes.

The last 3 seasons have a few scattered episodes that are kind of independent, but for the most part they form a single story.

The ending, however, is a real letdown.

Still, there's a handful of episodes that stand out to me.
To a degree, these are a personal preference, but some of them really do have a strong impact.


The season 1 episode - "Duet", which is about hatred and revenge
(and possibly the episode "progress" as well, depending on how much tolerance you have for Kira)

"The quickening" in season 4, which involves Bashir trying to find a cure for a plague on a planet in the gamma quadrant.

"The visitor" - Which is a time travel story of sorts, where Jake is trying to save is father from something that in his perspective happened a long time ago. (also season 4)

"Our man bashir" - if you can tolerate stories like this, it's fun just for the James Bond parody it represents. (season 4)

"Trials And triblle-ations" - Not really that great on it's own, but the re-use of a TOS episode in a time travel story is visually interesting. (season 5)

"In the pale moonlight" - A rather dark story about the interplay between a person's morals, and the things they do. Can really be summed up around the concept of "The ends justify the means". (season 6)

"Time's Orphan" - Again, a tolerance for the premise is needed, but Molly O'brian ends up lost through a time portal, only to be recovered when she's about 20. (season 6)

The season 6 finale "Tears of the prophets" - Primarily for the battle of Chin'toka

"Favor The Bold + Sacrifice of Angels" in season 6, mostly just for the battle


Anyway, DS9's story arcs certainly aren't coherent enough to involve something meaningful in every episode, but there definitely are a lot of little details that foreshadow the overall plot from season 2 to 7. Which is something you only realise when you watch the whole thing in order.

 

[antidonkey]

I just want to say, thank you for using "trekkie" and not "trekker". For some reason, trekker fills me with enough rage to punch every nerd in a 10 mile radius regardless of their choice of sci-fi.


Also, ST>SW.

 

[DTWolfwood]

So heres a Star Wars and Star Trek conundrum i would like to tell.

If a Red Shirt in Star Trek always dies on a mission.
And a Storm Trooper from Star Wars can never hit anyone with their blasters

What happens when you put the Red Shirt and a Storm Trooper in a cage and have them fight it out?

XD

Nah, you have it slightly wrong. A stormtrooper can't hit anyone -important- with their blasters. They're plenty good against everyone else (See: the beginning of A New Hope). Your Red Shirt doesn't stand a chance.

thanks buzzkillington <.<

 

[Jacob.pederson]

I think of the Prime Directive (and First Contact doctrine) as representing a bit more of a the long view of the universe than simply the rights of cultures to "be themselves". Example: let's say that we eventually get around to colonizing and terraforming Mars. Seems like a good thing right?

What the Prime Directive is all about is that almost any planet represents a possibility of future intelligence and civilization. As our sun ages, swells, and pushes the habitable zone outwards in our solar system, who's to say that life on Mars couldn't evolve and become civilized without human intervention? Taking this longer view, our colonization of Mars becomes a genocide.

Of course, if the Prime Directive is taken this way, it becomes extremely restrictive to the expansion of life throughout the universe. A careful viewer will note that Star Trek's characters tend to violate the Prime Directive as often as they follow it. Hence, I don't think Roddenberry was necessarily taking one view over the other, but rather highlighting this fundamental conflict among short-lived species between the present and the future.

 

[Falseprophet]

Thank God I'm not the only person to realize this. Interesting article here:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html

Taken to its logical extreme of course. Of course this guy is the epitome of a professed Star Wars fanboy and Trek hater. So take all he says with the recommended daily dose of salt.

Ah, Mike Wong's site. He does have some really thoughtful essays about Trek, even if he is an unabashed Star Wars fanboy. A shame he doesn't seem to add anything new these days.

If you follow his line of reasoning, he basically suggests the decline of Trek's core ideals from TOS to the latter seasons of TNG is a result of This essay in particular [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization] details the process. But he does seem to be blinded to the decline of Star Wars' core ideals at the same time. As I commented on yesterday's article, Star Trek is a property whose core ideals were betrayed by a committee of the creator's disciples, while Star Wars is a property whose core ideals were betrayed by its own creator.

Interestingly, I think the reason I loved Babylon 5 so much was how it built on the best elements of both Star Trek and Star Wars. B5 brought in the discussion of big ideas and the more realistic science of original Trek and the best TNG episodes, and fused them with mythic storytelling and an epic tale like Star Wars. B5 of course had the tacked on 5th season and most of the movies were bad, but it was still the best thing on TV in its day.