Why is Star Trek fandom different than Star Wars?
- Thread starter Shawnster
- Start date
All I wanna get out of any movie or show, no matter how brainy or brawny is to be plentifully entertained, and to have had a good time for my hour or two (or more's) investment. I get that, that's all I need.
Brainy versus brawny? May I please borrow that?
To your heart's content, M'lady.All I wanna get out of any movie or show, no matter how brainy or brawny is to be plentifully entertained, and to have had a good time for my hour or two (or more's) investment. I get that, that's all I need.
Brainy versus brawny? May I please borrow that?
And Blader Runner is a Noir movie that just happens to be set in the future.
And Alien is a horror movie that just happens to be set in the future.
Seriously why do some people act like Sci-fi is something that has preset rules that are carved in stone, and any deviation from said rules marks it as "not really sci-fi" like their definition of the genre is the end all be all of it?
And honestly this is largely where Star Trek went wrong, it stoped being interested in telling all kinds of stories and only interested in telling "true Star Trek" stories.
Well told!!
martok2112, I thank you very kindly.
Hartzilla2007, how do you define a "true Star Trek story"? I'm thinking a solid definition might help us resolve some of the confusion.
Hartzilla2007, how do you define a "true Star Trek story"? I'm thinking a solid definition might help us resolve some of the confusion.
My understanding is TESB was popular among the fans from the very beginning.
There's no great moral ambivalence in TESB, just a cliffhanger ending.
Nor do I recall any great reaction against Vader's atonement in RotJ, though of course intellectually many speculate whether his turning good in the end makes up for the vast numbers of people he murdered. But in story terms, RotJ flipped the script in a way now fairly common in genre fiction, by having the chief baddy demoted to level two and given an emotional tie to the hero to justify them taking out the new Big Bad.
Also, Ewoks = naked Jawas.
Also, Ewoks = naked Jawas.
Well...... they do have the same battle/rallying cry. You might be onto something there.
TESB, has always been the mot popular of the OT for as long as I can remember. And since I saw it as a sneak preview the night before it opened, that means ever since it came out. So in my experience, you are correct.
My understanding is TESB was popular among the fans from the very beginning.
There's no great moral ambivalence in TESB, just a cliffhanger ending.
Nor do I recall any great reaction against Vader's atonement in RotJ, though of course intellectually many speculate whether his turning good in the end makes up for the vast numbers of people he murdered. But in story terms, RotJ flipped the script in a way now fairly common in genre fiction, by having the chief baddy demoted to level two and given an emotional tie to the hero to justify them taking out the new Big Bad.
Also, Ewoks = naked Jawas.
Also, Ewoks = naked Jawas.
Well...... they do have the same battle/rallying cry. You might be onto something there.
I don't know, all that fur and a hooded robe over it on a desert planet would be very hot. Or do Ewoks just not believe in shaving for some reason?
LOL!
As I've always understood it though.... Jawas are rodents... miniature humanoid rodents that smell bad.
As I've always understood it though.... Jawas are rodents... miniature humanoid rodents that smell bad.
Since the EU is no longer canon Jawas can now be whatever Disney wants them to be. Hmm:
Jawa: "Utini!"
Stormtrooper Finn: "Show your face, coward."
Jawa removes hood, revealing Ewok face.
Finn: "...You?..."
Ewok: "Yub-Nub."
Jawa: "Utini!"
Stormtrooper Finn: "Show your face, coward."
Jawa removes hood, revealing Ewok face.
Finn: "...You?..."
Ewok: "Yub-Nub."
I do not believe that the description of Jawas being rodents is EU. I do believe that came straight from the Lucasfilm Archives.
But, back to the Jawok thing:
and the smell of burning fur saturates the Tatooine air.
I reached this conclusion when ep 4 was shown on TV recently. Hadn't seen it in ages, but found the chittering and antics of the Jawas strangely familiar... Anyway, I found it interesting in light of the whole "Ewoks suck" thing. I guess Jawas are cooler because of the hoodies and the landcrawler, which shows accessories do matter.
So does Star Trek.
Yes, such as warp drive, transporters, replicators, universal translators, sound in space, time travel, artificial gravity plating, solid holograms, endless humanoid aliens, and beings like Data and Q.
Kor
I submit that it's generally easier for sci-fi audiences to posit the development of technology than it is for them to believe in the mystical.
Come on. Certainly, Trek is not hard sci-fi, but it's certainly attempted to be more realistic than both Star Wars and general tv/movie sci-fi.
Look at the uproar over midichlorians. The reason for it (a just one) being that Wars shouldn't try to make its archetypal universe overly naturalistic. The Force is a magical energy field; planets are entirely one-environment; heroes wield swords and villains are just that. It's operatic and awesome and right on.
General TV/movie sci-fi owes a lot to Trek as well, and it more often than not cares even less about realism and world-building. What was sci-fi on TV before Trek? Lost in Space? Flash Gordon? Tom Corbett, Space Cadet? Rocky Jones, Space Ranger?
I dunno; Trek often devolved into contemporary versions of those shows, but I take exception to the notion that hard sci-fi shouldn't include "warp drive, solid holograms, beings like Data, etc." They're not hard sci-fi because we can't do them today, but unlike the Force or galactic villains in black pontificating about the power of hate as they blast young heroes with lightning-bolts from their fingertips, they're within the realm of possibility in years to come.
