PDA

View Full Version : YA Star wars vs. star trek



pendell
2011-11-29, 04:12 PM
This isn't actually a versus thread, simply an observation of a versus thread that has cropped up on youtube.

Specifically, Carrie Fisher (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU2jqIRjJVI&feature=watch_response_rev) explaining exactly why Star Wars is just SOOOO much better than Star Trek.

Key quotes: "Klingon? Is that a laundry detergent?"
Also various comments about William Shatner's ... um, never mind.

Not to be outdone, William Shatner responded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPiWm4mGgyg). With photo illustrations of various quirks of star wars. Also an observation that while HE could fit into his old costume Leia's bikini would require some .. uplift .. to make it workable for Carrie today.


DING DING! So ... place your bets and grab some popcorn. Should be fun! Who's gonna win? Who's winning so far?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Weezer
2011-11-29, 05:42 PM
I think Shatner has this in the bag. To paraphrase a great admiral ''Our crusers cannot repel ham of this magnitude!''

Axolotl
2011-11-29, 05:48 PM
People who were involved in the Star Wars Christmas special are in no position to criticise anything. Ever.

Star Trek got bad but never that bad. Not even Enterprise got that bad.

Emmerask
2011-11-29, 06:07 PM
Yeah the Christmas thing is so bad that it pretty much bends reality to a world of bad and even there is still the worst...

Scarlet Knight
2011-11-29, 06:47 PM
Star Trek was always bad: bad sets , bad acting, bad enough to be cancelled. But the characters were loved, with plots that spoke to the human condition. It was the ore that produced gems.

Star Wars was amazing! And yet they tried to ruin it at every opportunity in order to make a buck. It is the diamond that keeps getting cut to increase it's value. Ewok Happy Meal anyone?

The Glyphstone
2011-11-29, 06:52 PM
Considering the last film I ever saw Carrie Fisher in was Blues Brothers, WOW did she not age well.

Lord Seth
2011-11-29, 07:11 PM
People who were involved in the Star Wars Christmas special are in no position to criticise anything. Ever.Perhaps if you were referring to the writers/directors this would be accurate, but as the actors were not the ones who wrote the dialogue or anything like that, I'm not sure how you can really hold them responsible for the issues with it. Admittedly, perhaps if you had a specific problem with their acting your statement would make sense (unless it was the fault of the director--an actor can only act as well as the director allows), but that doesn't seem to be one of the complaints that gets leveled at the Holiday Special. It's like if you read a book you didn't like and blamed the cover artist for it despite having no actual problem with the cover.

Mando Knight
2011-11-29, 07:21 PM
I think Harrison Ford may have absorbed Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill's youth. Even Fisher's voice sounds aged, losing the youthful edge she had as Leia.

Psyren
2011-11-29, 07:25 PM
She got... Shatted? Shatzed? Shattacked? I need a verb to properly convey the level of destruction I just saw.

But lets be fair to Carrie, at least she wasn't in the prequels.

Yora
2011-11-29, 07:28 PM
The problem with star trek is, that it's always to clean. It always looks fake. And even when they tried to make things look dirty, you could say "they put some plastic debris in front of the walls there, there, and there, and dimmed the light".
Star Wars always looks a lot more like shot on location, while star trek is always clearly studio.

Also the Star Trek universe is just too perfect. Everything is set up exactly to support plots where at the end of the episode, you have learned the lesson about life and society you've been thought today. That applies even to the best episodes of DS9. In Star Wars, the world is simply there and the characters have to get through it, it's not a stage set up for them.

Axolotl
2011-11-29, 07:47 PM
Perhaps if you were referring to the writers/directors this would be accurate, but as the actors were not the ones who wrote the dialogue or anything like that, I'm not sure how you can really hold them responsible for the issues with it. Admittedly, perhaps if you had a specific problem with their acting your statement would make sense (unless it was the fault of the director--an actor can only act as well as the director allows), but that doesn't seem to be one of the complaints that gets leveled at the Holiday Special. It's like if you read a book you didn't like and blamed the cover artist for it despite having no actual problem with the cover.No, I refer to everyone involved, from the directors and the writers to the actors and the extras, in fact I condemn to the animators and the people who did lighting as well, everyone. Did the actors write it? No, but they read it, they knew how bad it was, and yet they still did it. If they had wanted to they could have pulled out, they could have stopped the horror from being made, but they didn't and as such they must shoulder some of the blame. I'm not condeming them morally, they can do what they want to earn a living. However once you've helped to create a work of such great, monumental badness as the Star Wars Holiday Special you lose any and all rights to critisism. I don't say this about people who've merely mad bad works, I can forgive everyone from the prequels, I can forgive the Star Trek crews for The Final Frontier, Insurrection and even Threshold. But not the Holiday Special, some things are just too far.

Starbuck_II
2011-11-29, 08:10 PM
People who were involved in the Star Wars Christmas special are in no position to criticise anything. Ever.

Star Trek got bad but never that bad. Not even Enterprise got that bad.

By bad you mean awesome, then yes, Star Wars Christmas Special was bad.

Tiki Snakes
2011-11-29, 09:39 PM
Yeah, age or no age, it's not an easy thing to get the better of the Shatner in this kind of trade-off. He's a lot sharper.

Much as I love starwars I couldn't really make any sense of Carries ramblings, to be quite honest.

Tirian
2011-11-29, 10:10 PM
By bad you mean awesome, then yes, Star Wars Christmas Special was bad.

This is a very important holiday safety tip (http://xkcd.com/653/).

I don't think either Shatner or Fisher should be bragging about their franchises. Both Star Wars and Star Trek originally started out as fairly provincial stories with compelling characters that only became truly excellent when the original cast left and good writers (Timothy Zahn and Rick Berman) took on more of the moment-by-moment duties of the story from Lucas and Roddenberry.

The Glyphstone
2011-11-29, 10:21 PM
I think Harrison Ford may have absorbed Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill's youth. Even Fisher's voice sounds aged, losing the youthful edge she had as Leia.

Yeah - she's 56, he's 81, and frankly I would guess the other way round by looking at them.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-29, 10:24 PM
Star Wars always looks a lot more like shot on location, while star trek is always clearly studio.

Did you see the SW prequels? The ships go through asteroid belts and dogfights and yet, unless they get totally wrecked, look as if they just came out of the factory/shipyard. Alse, when they're not in Tatooine (sp?), everything (backgrounds) looks CGI. They were just as bad as Star Trek: Voyager in that regard.

Models and matte paintings rock.


Yeah - she's 56, he's 81, and frankly I would guess the other way round by looking at them.

She's bipolar. Bipolar persons generally don't live as long as persons without it. Source: Stephen Fry, also bi-polar, who interviewed Ms. Fisher and other bi-polar persons. :smallfrown:

Tengu_temp
2011-11-29, 10:44 PM
I've seen much more of Star Wars, and yet I think Star Trek wins this one. Star Trek at its finest is better than Star Wars at its finest, and at its worst it's still better than Star Wars at its worst. Not to mention that it had a much bigger sociological impact - Star Trek helped to push boundaries and create a more tolerant society, and it helped to ease the international relations during the Cold War.

Lord Seth
2011-11-29, 11:32 PM
No, I refer to everyone involved, from the directors and the writers to the actors and the extras, in fact I condemn to the animators and the people who did lighting as well, everyone. Did the actors write it? No, but they read it, they knew how bad it was, and yet they still did it. If they had wanted to they could have pulled out, they could have stopped the horror from being made, but they didn't and as such they must shoulder some of the blame.Most likely they were under contract and were required to do it, so your statement "they could have pulled out" is questionable if that is the case.

The referring to "everyone" is highly questionable also. For your claim to make sense, you need to be referring to people who:
1) Were responsible for the bad parts of it (e.g. writing, directing).
or
2) Were critical enough to the project that without them, it wouldn't have been made (the actors).

I've already addressed #2. Now, for #1, you cannot legitimately be blaming someone if their contribution(s) had nothing to do with the problems in the special because they could be easily replaceable. If the guy whose job it was to deliver food to them (hardly something that had any bearing on whether it was good or bad) quit, then they would've just been replaced by another guy who would've done the exact same thing. So even by the already-dubious logic you present, it seems questionable to declare this is true of "everyone."
Both Star Wars and Star Trek originally started out as fairly provincial stories with compelling characters that only became truly excellent when the original cast left and good writers (Timothy Zahn and Rick Berman) took on more of the moment-by-moment duties of the story from Lucas and Roddenberry.This may be the first time I've seen the words "good writer" and "Rick Berman" actually used in conjunction.

Starbuck_II
2011-11-29, 11:42 PM
Wait, how much Jedi does Star Wars get?
Because some can destroy a world, a starship should be much easier.

Tirian
2011-11-30, 12:20 AM
This may be the first time I've seen the words "good writer" and "Rick Berman" actually used in conjunction.

Really? TOS was a bunch of characters running around the galaxy finding quirky planets and new energy sources that they never learned from. TNG had an engaging plotline that to a certain extent spanned the entire series and developed the main characters and challenges that they were facing. Perhaps I'm incorrect to notice that TNG started to hit this stride at around the same time that Roddenberry stepped away from day-to-day control and credit Berman for that and the subsequent goodness of DS9, but it sure seems like it wasn't Roddenberry who took the franchise to that higher level.

Now I'm waiting for Adam West to hop in and argue that the Batman franchise is better than both.

Lord Seth
2011-11-30, 01:38 AM
Really? TOS was a bunch of characters running around the galaxy finding quirky planets and new energy sources that they never learned from. TNG had an engaging plotline that to a certain extent spanned the entire series and developed the main characters and challenges that they were facing. Perhaps I'm incorrect to notice that TNG started to hit this stride at around the same time that Roddenberry stepped away from day-to-day control and credit Berman for that and the subsequent goodness of DS9, but it sure seems like it wasn't Roddenberry who took the franchise to that higher level.Michael Piller, at least in my view, deserves far more credit than Rick Berman for the turnaround. Furthermore, even if we do consider Berman to have been responsible for the turnaround in TNG, his role was that of a producer, not a writer. When he really did branch out into writing in Voyager and Enterprise...well, the results kinda speak for themselves there. As for DS9, I'd say Ira Steven Behr probably deserves the most credit for that series. (Michael Piller was again a big player in the early seasons, but it was Behr's increased influence that really made the series memorable)

Rick Berman overall did a decent job as a producer, but as a writer he really came up short.

Yora
2011-11-30, 11:12 AM
Did you see the SW prequels? The ships go through asteroid belts and dogfights and yet, unless they get totally wrecked, look as if they just came out of the factory/shipyard. Alse, when they're not in Tatooine (sp?), everything (backgrounds) looks CGI. They were just as bad as Star Trek: Voyager in that regard.
Yes, but at least those CGI shots have details and textures, which the plastic sets of Star Trek lack.

Derthric
2011-11-30, 12:16 PM
Yes, but at least those CGI shots have details and textures, which the plastic sets of Star Trek lack.

I see your complaint and when looking at TOS and TNG its not an inaccurate assessment. But that is 60's and 80's TV budgeting vs Major Film budgeting. In fact thats the problem with comparing the two. Star Trek's best moments (sans spock's funeral) come from TV, its very nature is that of episodes from these characters. Star Wars is this big grand story arc told in volumes by its very nature it must be more upfront with his visuals, characters and plots for it has less time to establish them. Personally I like ST more, but that's just me.

The funny thing is without Star Wars showing that there was a market for High Quality Sci-FI and pioneering new SFX there would not have been a Star Trek Movie franchise.

On a side note. His response video seemed more of a personal attack on Carrie Fisher than a defense of Star Trek.

Tiki Snakes
2011-11-30, 01:06 PM
I see your complaint and when looking at TOS and TNG its not an inaccurate assessment. But that is 60's and 80's TV budgeting vs Major Film budgeting. In fact thats the problem with comparing the two. Star Trek's best moments (sans spock's funeral) come from TV, its very nature is that of episodes from these characters. Star Wars is this big grand story arc told in volumes by its very nature it must be more upfront with his visuals, characters and plots for it has less time to establish them. Personally I like ST more, but that's just me.

The funny thing is without Star Wars showing that there was a market for High Quality Sci-FI and pioneering new SFX there would not have been a Star Trek Movie franchise.

On a side note. His response video seemed more of a personal attack on Carrie Fisher than a defense of Star Trek.

Affectionately, though, I'd say. Most of his video, and the video that Carries was supposedly in response to, were very typically, Shatnerianly tongue in cheek, I thought. I get the impression actually that Carrie hasn't even seen much Trek, from what I could actually discern from her video.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-30, 01:57 PM
What video did Carrie Fisher respond to? Please link. :smallsmile:

Ravens_cry
2011-11-30, 02:28 PM
Well, on the subject of gritty and dirty verses clean.
One, aging effects are expensive.
The movies had hundreds of millions of dollars for about 13 hours and half hours of entertainment. A single season of Star Trek provides more hours than that.
Two, the Federation is, for most resources, most frequently portrayed as a post scarcity society. A lot of stuff is probably new because it is.
Third, the Federation is indeed a rather clean place, been based and inspired by the hygienic Utopia of Future Past.
Fourth. The Enterprise is a military vessel as well as a science and exploration vessel. Keeping things clean and uncluttered is important for smooth running of all those functions.
Unlike, say Firefly, they have the resources to keep things ship shape and Bristol fashion.

The Glyphstone
2011-11-30, 03:03 PM
What video did Carrie Fisher respond to? Please link. :smallsmile:

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BYNdTHjstI) was Shatner's opening salvo.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-30, 03:18 PM
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BYNdTHjstI) was Shatner's opening salvo.

Thanks. :smallsmile:

Dr.Epic
2011-11-30, 05:32 PM
Our we factoring the prequel trilogy into this because if we are the average rating of a Star Wars film is WAY lower than Star Trek.

Shyftir
2011-11-30, 05:52 PM
Star Wars has lightsabers. Star Trek has Bat'leths (sp). I think my point is made.

Edit: @doc
Then you should also factor out the Newest Star Trek, cuz its pretty much Star Wars.

Dr.Epic
2011-11-30, 06:52 PM
Edit: @doc
Then you should also factor out the Newest Star Trek, cuz its pretty much Star Wars.

Do you mean it's good then? Or bad? You're going to have to elaborate.

Lord Seth
2011-11-30, 07:16 PM
Well, Mr. Plinkett hated the Star Wars prequels but overall liked the new Star Trek movie, for whatever that's worth.

Jade Dragon
2011-11-30, 07:32 PM
Star Wars has lightsabers. Star Trek has Bat'leths (sp). I think my point is made.

And your point is that people make nonsense names for things in ST?

Reverent-One
2011-11-30, 07:53 PM
Our we factoring the prequel trilogy into this because if we are the average rating of a Star Wars film is WAY lower than Star Trek.

Selective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_V:_The_Final_Frontier) memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture) much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Nemesis)? If we average up the ratings from Rotten Tomatoes, the 11 Star Trek movies average 66%, while Episodes 1-6 average 79%. If you insist on including the Holiday Special (a made for TV movie) and The Clone Wars (aka the first 3 or 4 episodes of a TV show strung together), Star Wars still averages out 67%, and personally I don't think they should be included.

Dr.Epic
2011-11-30, 07:59 PM
Selective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_V:_The_Final_Frontier) memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture) much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Nemesis)? If we average up the ratings from Rotten Tomatoes, the 11 Star Trek movies average 66%, while Episodes 1-6 average 79%. If you insist on including the Holiday Special (a made for TV movie) and The Clone Wars (aka the first 3 or 4 episodes of a TV show strung together), Star Wars still averages out 67%, and personally I don't think they should be included.

Yeah, because the scores given to the Star Wars prequels TOTALLY reflect their actual quality.

Reverent-One
2011-11-30, 08:05 PM
Yeah, because the scores given to the Star Wars prequels TOTALLY reflect their actual quality.

Seem accurate enough to me, at least as a relative measurement. I'd take the prequels over Star Trek 1 or 5 any day of the week.

nyarlathotep
2011-11-30, 08:18 PM
Star Trek good movies: 2,3,4,6,8,11
Star Wars good movies: 4,5,6

Star Trek bad movies: 1,5,7,9,10
Star Wars bad movies: 1,2,3

So Star Trek has a slightly higher percent of good movies, but only by virtue of having an odd number.

Reverent-One
2011-11-30, 08:21 PM
I think Harrison Ford may have absorbed Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill's youth. Even Fisher's voice sounds aged, losing the youthful edge she had as Leia.

Have you seen him in interviews? I saw him on Conan for Cowboys and Aliens and man, youth was not something he had.

Mando Knight
2011-11-30, 09:05 PM
Have you seen him in interviews? I saw him on Conan for Cowboys and Aliens and man, youth was not something he had.

He's still a charming rogue. Sure, he's aged quite a bit in the last 30-ish years, but into a grizzled badass. He's still distinctly Harrison Ford.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-30, 11:27 PM
Selective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_V:_The_Final_Frontier) memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture) much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Nemesis)? If we average up the ratings from Rotten Tomatoes, the 11 Star Trek movies average 66%, while Episodes 1-6 average 79%. If you insist on including the Holiday Special (a made for TV movie) and The Clone Wars (aka the first 3 or 4 episodes of a TV show strung together), Star Wars still averages out 67%, and personally I don't think they should be included.

What's wrong with Star Trek V: The Final Frontier? :smallconfused:

nyarlathotep
2011-12-01, 12:26 AM
What's wrong with Star Trek V: The Final Frontier? :smallconfused:

Miss characterization of people who are not Kirk, a plot that while interesting in initial premise is very lackluster in actual execution, a villain who does not live up the hype built for him, and some very bad acting on the part of the secondary cast.

Lord Seth
2011-12-01, 12:45 AM
What's wrong with Star Trek V: The Final Frontier? :smallconfused:What wasn't?

Seriously though, I'll (http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-reviews/star-trek-v-the-final-frontier-review-intro-5419029) let (http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-reviews/star-trek-v-the-final-frontier-review-part-1-5419181) SF (http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-reviews/star-trek-v-the-final-frontier-review-part-2-5419293) Debris (http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-reviews/star-trek-v-the-final-frontier-review-part-3-5420296) explain (http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-reviews/star-trek-v-the-final-frontier-review-part-4-5420530).

H Birchgrove
2011-12-01, 01:29 AM
I remember liking it last time I saw it. *shrugs*

I know I'm forgiving toward Star Trek, but I thought The Final Frontier would be at least entertaining to most, even with the usual Shatner ham. Fans in general (me included) like the 4th film, The Voyage Home, with the humpback whale and Spock using his Vulcan ninjutsu against some annoying punk, after all.

BTW, while there may be some truth in saying that you should only see the ST films which have an even number*, as in they have some quality the odd-numbered don't have, you end up with at least two problems: 1st. The death of Spock in The Wrath of Khan and his return in The Search of Spock. I don't see how to make sense of the 4th film without knowing how Spock came back to life. 2nd. Kirk's hatred of Klingons stems from them killing his son, which is important to the rest of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy films, especially in the - IMO - great The Undiscovered Country.

Ergo: Does it really hurt that much to watch the odd numbered films?

* Except Nemesis, dammit. :smallannoyed:

Lord Seth
2011-12-01, 02:53 AM
BTW, while there may be some truth in saying that you should only see the ST films which have an even number*, as in they have some quality the odd-numbered don't have,I've never heard anyone say that, actually. Sure, there's the whole idea that it's the even-numbered films that are the better one, but I don't know of anyone who's stated you should only watch the even-numbered ones. Search for Spock generally is considered an okay (albeit average) movie, and probably the best of the odds.


* Except Nemesis, dammit. :smallannoyed:Put Galaxy Quest between Insurrection and Nemesis and the problem is solved.

nyarlathotep
2011-12-01, 03:16 AM
In my opinion Star Trek 2,3,4,6 all together form a story arc that makes more sense if you ignore 5, and that the only odd numbered trek films really worth watching are 3 and 11. That being said 1 isn't that bad, just kind of overly long and boring.

Elfinor
2011-12-01, 08:12 AM
Yeah, because the scores given to the Star Wars prequels TOTALLY reflect their actual quality. I actually liked the Star Wars prequels, and I'm sure a lot of other people do as well. Action scenes were awesome. They were given those scores for a reason. I'm aware I've just lost nerd points for saying they're good but I don't care! *hugs prequel trilogy*

I also vote Star Wars over Star Trek. It's really the only sci-fi series that I've ever developed an obsession over.

EDIT: I do think Shatner wins the video debate, though.

Derthric
2011-12-01, 02:05 PM
What wasn't?


One line from ST:V always makes me crack up "what does God need with a Starship?". Also, its not Nemesis, so it has that going for it too.

Tirian
2011-12-01, 02:23 PM
What's wrong with Star Trek V: The Final Frontier? :smallconfused:

I don't know what movie you watched that you thought was Star Trek V, but by all means don't try to figure it out. Every night just as I go to sleep, I remember what was wrong with Star Trek V and it comforts me that some people are spared that horror.

No brains
2011-12-01, 02:47 PM
She got... Shatted? Shatzed? Shattacked? I need a verb to properly convey the level of destruction I just saw.

But lets be fair to Carrie, at least she wasn't in the prequels.

She was Shat upon.

RED ALERT, ALL NERDS!
This is a thread on a battle of witticisms between Carrie Fisher and William Shatner. Retired Sci-fi actors calling each other fat. The situation is hilarious enough that it does not need a 'winner'! Shatner. :P

Karoht
2011-12-02, 01:47 PM
I'm not entirely certain that Star Wars could have functioned as a syndicated TV show. I'm not entirely certain that it couldn't though.
Then there is the special case of the show Droids. The Clone Wars thingy was kind of cool, I only caught 2 episodes of it.

The Clone Wars CG animated film stands out as a really glaring example, and alone could swing my vote to Star Trek. But Star Trek had it's low points all the same. TNG was pretty awesome though, for it's time.

Ravens_cry
2011-12-02, 03:20 PM
What I find funny is how the universe hypes up how beautiful Princess Leia was, but in my opinion, she wasn't terribly exceptional.
Oh, she was pretty, but almost everyone who acts in Hollywood in a leading role is beautiful to some degree. But she wasn't, even for the time, in my opinion, the humminah, humminahm woo-hoo, wolf howling hottie it seemed to think she was.
Of course, when you grow up watching Star Wars throughout puberty, I guess it would colour ones tastes.
And to be fair, while I am a Trekkie, I found Councillor Trois outfits to be often just plain unprofessional looking.

Karoht
2011-12-02, 03:49 PM
Yeah, I was rather glad when they put Trois in proper uniform and had her exert a bit of her officer-ness to justify her position on the bridge. For the first few seasons I just couldn't figure out why a councilor (or shrink) would be on the bridge of an official naval vessel, even if Star Fleet was that into peace and communication.

No brains
2011-12-02, 04:43 PM
Which do you mean? The 'space cheerleader' (a term she used herself), or the WOW spandex?:smallamused:

Ravens_cry
2011-12-02, 04:46 PM
Yeah, I was rather glad when they put Trois in proper uniform and had her exert a bit of her officer-ness to justify her position on the bridge. For the first few seasons I just couldn't figure out why a councilor (or shrink) would be on the bridge of an official naval vessel, even if Star Fleet was that into peace and communication.
It would make more sense if the aliens were typically more alien in appearance so that having someone been able to read their emotions regardless of facial expression and cues would be invaluable in negotiations.

H Birchgrove
2011-12-02, 08:35 PM
I've never heard anyone say that, actually. Sure, there's the whole idea that it's the even-numbered films that are the better one, but I don't know of anyone who's stated you should only watch the even-numbered ones. Search for Spock generally is considered an okay (albeit average) movie, and probably the best of the odds.
Maybe it was just Orvar Säfström (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orvar_S%C3%A4fstr%C3%B6m) who thought so.


Put Galaxy Quest between Insurrection and Nemesis and the problem is solved.

Gif inside:
http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/clap%20clap%20clap/grand/star_trek_clap_clap_gif.gif
:smallbiggrin:


One line from ST:V always makes me crack up "what does God need with a Starship?". Also, its not Nemesis, so it has that going for it too.

That and Mr Spock blasting the false god with a Klingon Bird of Prey. :smallbiggrin:

Ravens_cry
2011-12-02, 11:58 PM
In the spoiler is my favourite uniform for for Councillor Troi:
Blue Science Officer with her hair up.
She looks serious, business like, a member of the team, not a piece of eye candy with two bonuses to Diplomacy and the Flaw: State the Obvious.
http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/8259/negotiations.jpg

Dr.Epic
2011-12-03, 12:42 PM
I actually liked the Star Wars prequels, and I'm sure a lot of other people do as well. Action scenes were awesome. They were given those scores for a reason. I'm aware I've just lost nerd points for saying they're good but I don't care! *hugs prequel trilogy*

So an action scene that lasts a few minutes make up for a little over 2 hours of horrible movie filled with bad acting, over abundance of CGI, one dimensional characters, and plot points that make no sense. And to address the action scenes, what made the action scenes in the original trilogy so great was we cared about and understood the characters involved. With the prequels, can you really say the same?

SDF
2011-12-04, 09:50 AM
Yeah - she's 56, he's 81, and frankly I would guess the other way round by looking at them.

When your autobiography is titled Wishful Drinking can anyone be very surprised?

Marnath
2011-12-04, 03:22 PM
Yeah - she's 56, he's 81, and frankly I would guess the other way round by looking at them.

Harrison Ford is only 69, not 81.:smallconfused: That's probably why he doesn't look so old as you expect.

The Glyphstone
2011-12-05, 09:46 AM
Harrison Ford is only 69, not 81.:smallconfused: That's probably why he doesn't look so old as you expect.

..you do realize I was talking about Shatner, not Ford, right?

Ravens_cry
2011-12-05, 09:49 AM
Sir Patrick Stewart is 71 and still damn fine and sexy.

Chen
2011-12-05, 10:47 AM
So an action scene that lasts a few minutes make up for a little over 2 hours of horrible movie filled with bad acting, over abundance of CGI, one dimensional characters, and plot points that make no sense. And to address the action scenes, what made the action scenes in the original trilogy so great was we cared about and understood the characters involved. With the prequels, can you really say the same?

Whenever someone brings up the acting in the prequels I always remember Luke's Tachi station line in A New Hope. The acting in the original trilogy was also pretty bad. Nostalgia tends to make them seem better than they are. As for plot holes, have you watched the Family Guy or Robot Chicken Star Wars specials? They do a fairly good job at pointing out plot holes (and they're damn funny).

Marnath
2011-12-05, 01:36 PM
..you do realize I was talking about Shatner, not Ford, right?

The person you quoted was talking about Harrison Ford stealing the youth from the other two actors, by all appearances the "he" in your statement referred to Ford. O.o

But yeah, I had since realized that. I just never fixed it. :smalltongue:

No brains
2011-12-05, 07:52 PM
Sir Patrick Stewart is 71 and still damn fine and sexy.

Patrick Steward has stopped aging because he's a robot. He was originally typecast as Data, but he was so good they let him have the part of captain. Brent Spiner was the second most inhuman actor they could find and he's just damn weird.

dehro
2011-12-06, 03:27 AM
are we now going to get some horrid cross over with Bill Shatner playing.... Ham Solo, I suppose... and Carrie Fisher playing what..Leia Picard, the weird offspring of cpt Picard and dr Crusher?

Ravens_cry
2011-12-06, 03:38 AM
She's have to dye her hair red and shave it like Queen Elizabeth I to get the right look for the offspring of those two loins.

dehro
2011-12-06, 06:45 AM
on a sidenote, what's up with career paths in starfleet?
you're ensign, then you become lieutenant, commander, then captain and then admiral? and by the end of it there are more admirals than passengers...is that it?
and every one with a screwdriver or a bandaid can become captain and tell other people how to fly and where to fly to?
medical officers can pilot ships (or at least give the orders as to how to), engineers can do security work, security grunts can command and pilot ships, and so on...
whyyy?
it's just as bad as "energy" being used for anything from crafting bahama mamas to shielding the craft, powering it, shooting it/with it.
might as well call it midiclorians while you're at it.

Chen
2011-12-06, 09:57 AM
on a sidenote, what's up with career paths in starfleet?
you're ensign, then you become lieutenant, commander, then captain and then admiral? and by the end of it there are more admirals than passengers...is that it?

This is no different than the current military. There's no certainty you rise above any rank. If there are no room for more admirals no captains are going to get promoted.



and every one with a screwdriver or a bandaid can become captain and tell other people how to fly and where to fly to?
medical officers can pilot ships (or at least give the orders as to how to), engineers can do security work, security grunts can command and pilot ships, and so on...
whyyy?

Where's all this coming from? There's a standard chain of command and presumably when things get bad and there are no captains around you start having to rely on lower ranking officers. Recall in Battlestar Galactica how Roselin, the secretary of education became president? There's a real basis for that. In the US, the current secretary of education is 16th in line to become the president should everyone above them die or be incapcitated (note the secretary of agriculture is 9th :P)



it's just as bad as "energy" being used for anything from crafting bahama mamas to shielding the craft, powering it, shooting it/with it.
might as well call it midiclorians while you're at it.

I fail to see what's far fetched about this. We currently convert energy into a TON of different things. Its just that our current processes are far less efficient than a replicator which does it directly.

Emmerask
2011-12-06, 10:20 AM
Well he has a point, the overall education and skillset in star trek seems pretty unlikely ie pretty much everyone has some (or even pretty good) amount of expertise/skill in pretty much everything.
While it is far more likely that with the increased amount of knowledge one has to have in one field most likely would mean that each crewmember will be specialized in one field and has very little knowledge in others...

Though this can simply be explained by a much higher intelligence and capability to learn in future human beings.

pffh
2011-12-06, 10:36 AM
Yeah - she's 56, he's 81, and frankly I would guess the other way round by looking at them.

Aye years of drug abuse will take it's toll.

Karoht
2011-12-06, 12:10 PM
Well he has a point, the overall education and skillset in star trek seems pretty unlikely ie pretty much everyone has some (or even pretty good) amount of expertise/skill in pretty much everything.
While it is far more likely that with the increased amount of knowledge one has to have in one field most likely would mean that each crewmember will be specialized in one field and has very little knowledge in others...

Though this can simply be explained by a much higher intelligence and capability to learn in future human beings.

The Federation doesn't use money. We can speculate the economics and social impacts pretty broadly. Everyone on Earth (and likely many other Federation planets) gets the best education that money can't buy. Now this doesn't mean that kids are graduating university at age 12, but I would wager that by age 12 they are exposed to more types of knowledge that some adults of today are. They also likely have access to wiki, and it's probably much much bigger than ours.

For most of the stuff you typically see on Trek, they mostly present knowlege of/about a subject, usually enough to know that if you mix X with Y we should see Z result.
Ex-You don't need a BA in Chemistry to know that the combustion of gasoline in a car engine is an exothermic reation. And anyone who knows much about internal combustion engines will tell you that if you add Nitrous Oxide you get a more potent combustion, albeit with some drawbacks.

I would assume that an engineer in the ships engine area would have knowledge of warp field theory, much the same way as a car mechanic knows the difference between how a diesel engine VS a gasoline engine VS a propane engine works.

Then there is the "picked it up in a game of cards" factor. Namely, the notion that working on a starship in the middle of space, even if you are a security personel, you still see and hear things about how it works, even if you only learn about it from a condescending engineer (or Wesley Crusher) giving you an analogy of how a warp drive works, possibly in the ship's bar or galley. If one is not thick as a post, one does absorb such info at some point. Or maybe that security personel learns how a transporter works because a transporter was used in a security breech. And don't forget interest in a subject. If I were a security person on a starship, and I had access to starfleet wiki, my downtime would likely be spent reading about the ship I'm on, how it works, where everything is, and at least the basic theories of how the thing hurtles through space at speeds faster than light.

Just my two cents on the matter.

No brains
2011-12-06, 12:39 PM
On the topic of Starfleet education, recall that in one episode a sixth grader was whining about having to take calculus. I guess they have a really good education system... v:smallsmile:v

Emmerask
2011-12-06, 12:46 PM
The Federation doesn't use money. We can speculate the economics and social impacts pretty broadly. Everyone on Earth (and likely many other Federation planets) gets the best education that money can't buy. Now this doesn't mean that kids are graduating university at age 12, but I would wager that by age 12 they are exposed to more types of knowledge that some adults of today are. They also likely have access to wiki, and it's probably much much bigger than ours.

For most of the stuff you typically see on Trek, they mostly present knowlege of/about a subject, usually enough to know that if you mix X with Y we should see Z result.
Ex-You don't need a BA in Chemistry to know that the combustion of gasoline in a car engine is an exothermic reation. And anyone who knows much about internal combustion engines will tell you that if you add Nitrous Oxide you get a more potent combustion, albeit with some drawbacks.

I would assume that an engineer in the ships engine area would have knowledge of warp field theory, much the same way as a car mechanic knows the difference between how a diesel engine VS a gasoline engine VS a propane engine works.

Then there is the "picked it up in a game of cards" factor. Namely, the notion that working on a starship in the middle of space, even if you are a security personel, you still see and hear things about how it works, even if you only learn about it from a condescending engineer (or Wesley Crusher) giving you an analogy of how a warp drive works, possibly in the ship's bar or galley. If one is not thick as a post, one does absorb such info at some point. Or maybe that security personel learns how a transporter works because a transporter was used in a security breech. And don't forget interest in a subject. If I were a security person on a starship, and I had access to starfleet wiki, my downtime would likely be spent reading about the ship I'm on, how it works, where everything is, and at least the basic theories of how the thing hurtles through space at speeds faster than light.

Just my two cents on the matter.


I don´t doubt the transporter usage, thats pretty much "consumer" electronics in st (warning exaggeration) but for example the engineer writing a very intricate cardassian computer program, or the tactical officer suggesting the use of the deflector phalanx to create an inverted warpfield that might detect the tachyon emission from xyz which would both require a good knowledge of engineering and particle physics and many more such examples.

dehro
2011-12-06, 12:54 PM
my little sister has been sitting in cars all her life, often next to who is driving. she's been watching people drive and knows a little about cars...but still,
should I give her my car keys, she most likely would crash into the nearest parked car provided she even managed to turn the engine on correctly.
I haven't played volleyball in years. she plays competitively. should I take her on in a direct match or even a training session, she'd spank me in several ways despite me knowing the theory as well if not better than her, and having played in the past.
I don't see that a cook on a submarine would also be able to pilot it into battle...no matter how nice his quiche lorraine may taste.
I'm not talking about emergency situation chains of command either. I remember episodes where dr crusher commands her own med ship. I figure that the doctor gets to decide what hospital to drive to or which patient must be transported first...but I expect the ambulance driver to know the best route and manage the steering wheel. if I remember correctly, Uhura, a glorified interpreter, rose to become capitain of a starship too.
a military chaplain may rise in the ranks of his particular clergy and raise to high ranking official ranks..but that doesn't make him the guy you want leading you into battle.
also..yes, an expert in cultivation of peas may take the lead if he happens to be the senior ranking officer...that doesn't make him automatically good or even competent in steering the starfleet's flagship, firing it's phasers proficiently, repairing the engine core, or disarming a pissed off klingon.

most starfleet personel seems to be at the very least competent in most of the tasks that any of their many colleagues perform... and to know the science and operational jargon behind it...well enough to be almost interchangeable..

way too often I've seen first officers, medical officers or security personel being tasked, in an emergency to "go deactivate/disassemble/repair this or that"...and never even asking "what does it look like/how do I do that"

Karoht
2011-12-06, 01:21 PM
I don´t doubt the transporter usage, thats pretty much "consumer" electronics in st (warning exaggeration) but for example the engineer writing a very intricate cardassian computer program, or the tactical officer suggesting the use of the deflector phalanx to create an inverted warpfield that might detect the tachyon emission from xyz which would both require a good knowledge of engineering and particle physics and many more such examples.
Data was a walking talking computer, I would expect that of him any day.
Wesley Crusher is listed as a well educated kid (I think he was specialized in warp systems and particle physics, and he spent a lot of time working with the ship's chief of engineering) and is implied by the series to be a child prodigy. Not to mention a series Deus Ex Machina or Harry True.
Miles O'Brien was the station's head engineer. I would hope that before visiting the station he would have at least brushed up on his cardasian, knowing full well that most or all of the station's systems would be in cardasian. And I'm really hoping he was smart enough to get his hands on an instruction manual, let alone some instruction on their programming languages.
Dr Crusher pilots a shuttle. As do most of starfleet. Pilot training is basic training for all starfleet. At no point does she pilot the enterprise, merely commands it's officers to do their jobs.

All that aside, there are in fact headbanger moments none the less.

H Birchgrove
2011-12-06, 02:23 PM
Since Star Trek is partially inspired by A.E. van Vogt's "Voyage of the Space Beagle", it's likely that in the ST Universe, something like General Semantics, and possibly education machines (developed from B.F. Skinner's stuff) and hypnosis are used to educate people in very broad fields to avoid over-specialization, and manage to make people actually remember most of what they've been taught.

WhiteHarness
2011-12-10, 03:46 PM
I can't believe that this is even an issue.

Star Wars is much better than Stark Trek. By several orders of magnitude.

My mother is a "Trekkie" and I grew up being dragged to Trek conventions; that's probably why I'm so burned out on it, and on science fiction in general.

But Star Wars doesn't feel like dull, boring old sci-fi. It's "Space Opera," and is actually entertaining.

I mean, Star Wars was full of action at every moment, while a typical episode of Trek, on the other hand, usually drags on and on, revolving around some fake point hard pseudo-science. Boring.

I watch a film or television program hoping to be moved/inspired/uplifted/etc. Star Trek, with its depiction of the Federation as a dreary anticapitalist dystopia, doesn't do that for me, but Star Wars deals with epic-scale civil war and its space battles don't look as amateurish as Treks do.

Star Wars features bad@ss psychic space knights triumphing over their equally badass adversaries from one end of a galaxy to the other, while Trek just follows the bumbling exploits of some communist space anthropologists around (one section of) the galaxy.

No contest. Star Wars hand down. I absolutely cannot understand how anyone could favor Star Trek over Star Wars.

...even with Jar-Jar taken into account. :smalltongue:

Selrahc
2011-12-10, 04:01 PM
But Star Wars doesn't feel like dull, boring old sci-fi. It's "Space Opera," and is actually entertaining.


Give me sci-fi over space opera any day of the week.

TheArsenal
2011-12-10, 04:05 PM
Give me sci-fi over space opera any day of the week.

I agree. I love star wars but I prefer star Treck.

The Glyphstone
2011-12-10, 04:08 PM
Thirded. Star Trek, for all its ham-handed morality, actually pushed social/moral boundaries of its time, and did bring some poignant questions in between the hammy acting and awful fight scenes. Star Wars is just the Hero's Journey IN SPAAAAAAACE - a popular formula because it's so time-tested, but nothing original.

WhiteHarness
2011-12-10, 04:35 PM
See, "pushing social/moral boundaries" is not something I require from my entertainment. It's supposed to be entertaining--nothing more or less. I get enough of "social/moral boundaries" in my daily life; why should I want my fun-time intruded upon by that?

That's probably another reason I don't care for Trek: the pushy humanistic preachiness. I've never cared for entertainment that overtly tried to shove its morals down my throat, even on the rare occasion that I happened to agree with the message.

TheArsenal
2011-12-10, 04:37 PM
Even though its pretty stereotypical by our time, I can safely say that THOSE stereotypes are more fleshed out and likeable then the bland casts that play in recent films.

Seriously: I love Scotty. NUCLEAR VESSELS!

And the idea behind it is beautiful. The world united in a peacefull future- Exploring the stars on a mission of peace.

and TNG was a building on the previous stuff and was very good.

Reverent-One
2011-12-10, 04:41 PM
Seriously: I love Scotty. NUCLEAR VESSELS!

:smallannoyed:

That's Chekov, dang it.

Ravens_cry
2011-12-10, 04:46 PM
@WhiteHarness:
Yeah, challenging our preconceived notions and ideas is such a bad thing.
Lets just keep the extruded book-like, television-like and movie-like products. Let's not stop to think.
I don't always agree with Star Trek, I found Picards idea (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8205kJSig4A) of a human goal being to eventually evolve into gods basically to be a truly frightening and unappealing notion. But it made me ponder, consider, do more with my brain meat besides vegetate.
I am not saying all fiction has to be like this, but it is a good thing to see nonetheless.

Tiki Snakes
2011-12-10, 04:51 PM
To be fair, the amount of actual social/moral boundry pushing fell off rapidly after the original series.
And once Roddenberry was out of the picture, that was pretty much it and it was safe WASPy caution from there on in, really. Compared to how brave the The original run was at times, it's really quite depressing.

TheArsenal
2011-12-10, 04:51 PM
:smallannoyed:

That's Chekov, dang it.

I know. Its simply unrelated...WE HAVE WHALES CAPTAIN!

Seriously? Was this the first show NOT to portray russians are child eating monsters?

Ravens_cry
2011-12-10, 05:00 PM
To be fair, the amount of actual social/moral boundry pushing fell off rapidly after the original series.
And once Roddenberry was out of the picture, that was pretty much it and it was safe WASPy caution from there on in, really. Compared to how brave the The original run was at times, it's really quite depressing.
And other areas improved markedly once he left.
:smallsigh:
Hopefully we can get something in between. There was episodes that were still intriguing and even superior in many ways.
Darmok comes to mind; The Inner Light as well.

Selrahc
2011-12-10, 05:11 PM
See, "pushing social/moral boundaries" is not something I require from my entertainment. It's supposed to be entertaining--nothing more or less. I get enough of "social/moral boundaries" in my daily life; why should I want my fun-time intruded upon by that?


Maybe you wouldn't. That's fine. However I think saying that you have literally no conception as to why somebody prefers entertainment which does is pushing the point well past breaking.

TheArsenal
2011-12-10, 05:13 PM
I like a message.

Let me change that:

I like a well told message.

Star treck told a message well every once in a while.

dehro
2011-12-11, 05:06 AM
See, "pushing social/moral boundaries" is not something I require from my entertainment. It's supposed to be entertaining--nothing more or less. I get enough of "social/moral boundaries" in my daily life; why should I want my fun-time intruded upon by that?


entertaining means different things to different people. fart jokes are entertaining, a bach concerto is entertaining, the movie Ghandi can be entertaining as can 4 weddings and a funeral be.
monty python, benny hill or godforgiveme csi miami..
using "entertanment value" as some sort of objective measure of quality doesn't work.

on that note, star wars has the better soundtrack and the better parodies.
...imho.

WhiteHarness
2011-12-11, 04:25 PM
I'm not sure where you're seeing a claim to objectivity in the portion of my post you quote. At every point therein, I refer only to my own tastes: "...not something I require..." and so on...


entertaining means different things to different people. fart jokes are entertaining, a bach concerto is entertaining, the movie Ghandi can be entertaining as can 4 weddings and a funeral be.
monty python, benny hill or godforgiveme csi miami..
using "entertanment value" as some sort of objective measure of quality doesn't work.

on that note, star wars has the better soundtrack and the better parodies.
...imho.

Weezer
2011-12-11, 04:54 PM
I'm not sure where you're seeing a claim to objectivity in the portion of my post you quote. At every point therein, I refer only to my own tastes: "...not something I require..." and so on...

I think it's the below statement that makes the objective claim people are objecting to. It is from an earlier post than the one he was directly responding to, but still part of the conversation. That's pretty absolute language, you aren't speaking as if you are expressing an opinion, but rather you seem to think you are demonstrating fact.

" can't believe that this is even an issue. Star Wars is much better than Stark Trek. By several orders of magnitude...I absolutely cannot understand how anyone could favor Star Trek over Star Wars."

H Birchgrove
2011-12-12, 12:51 PM
Will George Takei create peace between Star Wars and Star Trek and unite them against a common enemy? (http://youtu.be/mvTCr5Z-0lA)

TheArsenal
2011-12-12, 02:02 PM
HURAAAAAH!

Let us unite ancient fans! Gather your lightsabers and Phazers! This menace must be stopped!

H Birchgrove
2011-12-12, 05:40 PM
It has hit mass media! (http://uk.eonline.com/news/feud_alert_mr_sulu_smacks_down_twilight/279969) Sort of.

pendell
2011-12-12, 06:10 PM
K'plah! Death to sparkly vampires!


Yes, as posted upthread, George Takei hits it on the head. Why beat each other up when there's Twilight to take on?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

dehro
2011-12-12, 06:24 PM
george takei is second to nun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAEhp2Uzl9Q)

Ormur
2011-12-12, 08:07 PM
I'm kind of conflicted, I was a big fan of Star Trek but my enthusiasm has been tempered and now it's mostly nostalgic kitch for me. As science fiction it's not that good, the technology is just a plot device and makes no sense. It doesn't have to make actual sense of course but it doesn't even operate on internally consistent fictional guidelines, it just does anything.

The plots were not really that good with the exception of DS9 which was the only series to have an actual running plot arch (maybe not a fair accusation for it's time though). Also see above for reliance on technobabble nonsense for resolution. There were good episodes but a lot more of mediocre ones and even the good films aren't that tight. Some of the characters were memorable and maybe it was always more character driven than plot driven but with the uneven writing and lack of continuity there wasn't much depth or development.

What Star Trek was perhaps all about and sometimes did pretty well was in examining moral issues. It may not always have been successful but it tried to be progressive and optimistic. The best episodes are the ones that successfully deal with complicated moral issues that have direct connotations with real life ones. Some resolutions were pretty out of there though.

The Star Wars films are very different beast, it's supposed to be an adventure that happens to take place in space. Star Trek wasn't much of a science fiction show but at least had some pretensions of being one. So in Star Wars we can pretty much ignore any of the technology, it's just supposed to be a story. Star Wars also has the advantage of just being films. 12 hours of material versus more than 500, it's a lot more concentrated. As a result it probably rises higher, the old trilogy is very successful at doing what it aimed to do, being iconic and entertaining. I don't think Star Trek every told as engrossing a tale.

I know the old films are far from perfect but the not so hot acting and Lucas' sillyness doesn't ruin the big picture. I'll stick by The Empire Strikes Back being one of the best adventure film ever. The prequels of course fail completely at this, the plot doesn't make enough sense, the characters aren't sympathetic and it just really lacks that spark. So correspondingly Star Wars also stoops lower than Star Trek.

So, I think the good parts of Star Wars have lasted me longer than the good parts of Star Trek.

H Birchgrove
2011-12-13, 09:53 AM
Star Trek has been fairly consistent in it's world-view, while Star Wars contradicted itself with the silly "Only Siths (the Sith?) think in absolutes!" in the prequels. Eh, first of all, the original trilogy was fairly absolutist in its values. Second, lots of ideas ideas several people take for granted like human (inherent) rights and human dignity stems from moral absolutism.

I wish philosophy was something everyone had to study, just like math, language, history etc. :smallsigh:

pendell
2011-12-13, 10:03 AM
Star Trek has been fairly consistent in it's world-view, while Star Wars contradicted itself with the silly "Only Siths (the Sith?) think in absolutes!" in the prequels.


Given that the Jedi drew their lightsabers as soon as they saw a Sith, I would say either Obi-wan was being hypocritical or G. Lucas rammed the line in a hamfisted fashion to make some sort of point to the audience, outside the movie. If he did, it was done badly.

This is a world where the bad guy wears black. This is a world where the villains blow up planets, kill and torture prisoners during interrogation. This is a world where the Force has a Light and a Dark side, and the Dark side is eeeevil. This is a world where Lucas explicitly declared the EU "Grey Jedi" to be misguided -- there is no "unity to the force", there is only light and dark, good and evil. And then, after six movies and countless EU tie-ins, Lucas wants to throw in a line such as 'only Sith believe in absolutes'? Balderdash!

But then, I watch Star Wars for the pretty explosions, not for intellectual coherence. :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.



I wish philosophy was something everyone had to study, just like math, language, history etc. :smallsigh:[/QUOTE]

polity4life
2011-12-13, 11:01 AM
I would love Star Wars if it was less fantasy space western and demonstrated a bit more faux hard science like Star Trek attempts to do.

Honestly (to me), nothing would be more entertaining than a story about a Star Destroyer written and performed like a story from the Augrey-Maturin series.

Karoht
2011-12-13, 12:41 PM
The Force is all knowing and perfect.
But there is an evil side to it.

If the Force is all knowing and perfect, then the Dark side is part of that perfection. Ergo it isn't evil, it's users are simply misguided. Or, the Force is in fact not all knowing and perfect afterall, meaning the Grey Jedi are exactly misguided as every other Force user.

dehro
2011-12-13, 12:56 PM
The Force is all knowing and perfect.
But there is an evil side to it.

If the Force is all knowing and perfect, then the Dark side is part of that perfection. Ergo it isn't evil, it's users are simply misguided. Or, the Force is in fact not all knowing and perfect afterall, meaning the Grey Jedi are as exactly misguided as every other Force user.

who says perfection has to be "good"? why can't perfection not encompas good and bad, or transcend either?

Karoht
2011-12-13, 01:52 PM
who says perfection has to be "good"? why can't perfection not encompas good and bad, or transcend either?
Exactly.
Hence why stating that Grey Jedi are misguided (or similar nonsense) is a remarkably odd statement.

I always thought of the Force just like any other Force in physics. Gravity isn't light or dark. Gravity doesn't care if you are good or evil.

Though that Weak Nuclear Force... I dunno, thats a shifty character right there.


But, since the Force comes not from the universe and instead from tiny microbes called (I refuse to say it) maybe those tiny microbes are just very very picky?

Tiki Snakes
2011-12-13, 05:29 PM
I think the problem with the concept of 'Grey Jedi' is that it's treating alignment as a continuous scale, like something that you can cherry-pick from. Whereas the other view one might subscribe to is that it's more like the two sides of a coin, or a card with one side darkly shaded (http://youtu.be/hD7EKZ32ODQ).

Personally I always liked the idea that there is something wrong with the Dark Side. It almost seems to have a will of it's own, sometimes, and not in the same sense that the Force can guide those who listen. Which to my mind would mean that at one point, there was nothing evil about the dark side. It was simply the part of the force concerned with red, vibrant emotions like anger. Equally, it now clearly is actively evil, almost as someone or something had joined their will to the dark side of the force, ala Sephiroth and the life-stream.

Holocron Coder
2011-12-16, 10:58 AM
Eh, I always took Obi-Wan's statement about only sith speaking in absolutes to mean something along the lines of "only sith say option 1 or option 2, no exceptions", since it was in response to Anakin's statement of "You're either with me or against me."

Essentially, a jedi can see a spectrum of possibilities, where sith normally only see "useful or problematic" in relation to everything. Yes, jedi almost always draw a lightsaber immediately when they encounter a sith, but it is usually a precaution against attacks (if they have not yet met the sith) or because they know the sith relatively well and know an attack is coming. Most of the time the jedi doesn't strike at the sith first unless the beginning of combat is obvious (see Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi versus Darth Maul).

So, the absoluteness of the statement "Only a sith speaks in absolutes" is not necessarily hypocritical, when taken from that perspective.

Tyndmyr
2011-12-16, 11:35 AM
I like a message.

Let me change that:

I like a well told message.

Star treck told a message well every once in a while.

This summarizes my opinion of it. Most of it's morals were pretty weak. Even if the moral itself wasn't, the way they got to teaching it was often pretty contrived. I've always considered Star Trek to be inexplicably overrated.

Karoht
2011-12-16, 12:07 PM
Eh, I always took Obi-Wan's statement about only sith speaking in absolutes to mean something along the lines of "only sith say option 1 or option 2, no exceptions", since it was in response to Anakin's statement of "You're either with me or against me."

Essentially, a jedi can see a spectrum of possibilities...Light side good, dark side evil, no exeptions, those grey jedi over there are idiots.
Jedi see a spectrum? Pfft.



Essentially, a jedi can see a spectrum of possibilities, where sith normally only see "useful or problematic" in relation to everything. Love is largely a positive emotion. Their powers in cannon are fueled by emotions. The light side Jedi don't see love as a 'useful' emotion and view it as 'problematic' and as such try to ban it. That doesn't strike me as giving equal weight to a spectrum of possibilities, and would fall into the same absolutism of the Sith.



So, the absoluteness of the statement "Only a sith speaks in absolutes" is not necessarily hypocritical, when taken from that perspective.Robot Chicken did a song called "A certain point of view" as a Star Wars spoof. Change 'point of view' to perspective and it pretty much sums it up.
So far the Jedi VS Sith are equally hypocritical and closed minded. Meh.