Star Trek versus Star Wars

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Akerkhof (talk | contribs) at 18:27, 3 April 2007 (→‎Post AOTC:ICS era: spelling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Star Trek versus Star Wars typically refers to an ongoing polemic between fans of the Star Trek and Star Wars franchises, considered "a rivalry more fevered than any other in the universe."[1] Primarily an online phenomenon, the debate emerged from its roots in the Usenet culture to spawn numerous websites and online communities.

A post on a newsgroup or Web board might pose a question such as:

"Which would win? The Enterprise-D or a Star Destroyer?"

In July 1997, the alt.startrek.vs.starwars newsgroup was created to try to shift these (often heated) debates off the more "mainstream" Star Trek and Star Wars groups. As of 2005, some 448,000 posts had been made to the group. One of the earliest threads, discussing the stereotypical question provided above, reached 1,200 posts without the participants coming to a consensus.

Some problems faced by those who enjoy indulging in such analyses include the internal inconsistencies in both fictional universes, definitions of which "evidence" should be acceptable from the plethora of books, comics, and other published materials, and how (or even if) real-world physics and engineering should be used to analyse this evidence.

Major issues

Technological and military superiority

Debates are often centered on which faction would win in various military encounters. Technological, strategic and tactical considerations all come into play, as well as a diversity of side-issues. However, the technology and settings in the two universes are usually very different, making comparisons difficult. For example, warp drive works on different physical principles than hyperdrive, and the terminology used to describe speed is different.

Arguments are further complicated by seemingly minor quibbles, such as what types of sources take precedence within the canon. For example, if a character says they are traveling at 'lightspeed' but special effects or plot events heavily imply that they are not, whether the dialogue or visuals took precedence would be crucial to producing an estimate of the speed at which that character is traveling.

One school of thought treats the television shows and movies as "documentary" footage, where on-screen events are considered more reliable than what the characters say and think. Statements of characters on technology which seem too far out of line with what that technology has been demonstrated to be capable of are dismissed as exaggeration or error. This approach can be problematic too, however. Often the visuals are inconsistent or even contradictory and do not match easily with the realities of physics or the demands of the plot.

Some go on to argue that it was never the intent of the creator for the material to be treated in such a manner, and therefore visuals should be treated as unreliable; others invoke suspension of disbelief and argue that all events on screen should be rationalized within the story rather than treated as errors in a film.

Usually there are no clear cut statements regarding performance in the primary sources. Some fans then attempt to derive lower and upper estimates of weapon yields and starship speeds based some combination of visuals, dialogue and the various literature published for both series. This is the source of endless debate. For example, if a film or show depicts a character destroying a large rock with a hand held weapon, an attempt to calculate how much energy is required to accomplish this feat can be made. However, the resultant numbers rely on many assumptions. In this example, one could ask what type of rock was destroyed; whether it shattered, disintegrated, or was vaporized; whether the shot or shots demonstrate the highest output the weapon is capable of or indicate the weapon was deliberately set on a lower level; and whether there were extenuating environmental or situational circumstances that would make this a unique event.

Artistic merits and popularity

Both groups claim that their opus has better writers and accuse the other of inferior dialogue and plots. Star Trek is frequently claimed by its proponents as being a more realistic science fiction depiction of the future, and Star Wars is dismissed as a mere science fantasy (Although Star Wars was never actually meant to be a depiction of our future and in fact the original movie begins with the famous "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."). Star Wars proponents argue that their favorite series follows the classical forms of mythology as documented by Joseph Campbell and employs Jungian archetypes, making it the more serious and mature form of entertainment. These discussions also cover the origin of one side in broadcast television and the origin of the other side in feature film production, with one or the other having more self-evident importance. Often comparisons are made as to which series has made more money, or which one has had the longer, more enduring appeal, which has inspired more real life figures in space-related fields of study, which has more fans, or which fan group is more or less geeky.

Philosophical and political concerns

Although usually focused on technical matters, the debate also rages in philosophical and political territory. Debate is generated over the motivations or agendas the creators and writers of the series appear to endorse. For example, some have accused Star Trek writers of using their series' aliens as allegories for races or nations during the Cold War. Others have accused Star Trek of promoting an overtly atheist and communist society with limited social, political and economic freedoms. The plot framework of Star Wars has been suggested to endorse an elitist viewpoint of society, and some have accused George Lucas of using aliens to depict racial stereotypes, or Jedi mysticism to promote deathism [1].

In 1999, David Brin, a science fiction author, wrote a number of very critical articles on The Phantom Menace, Star Wars and George Lucas for the website salon.com [2], with a follow-up on his own website [3]. Brin focused on what he called an "agenda" on the part of Lucas, examining the four films released to date from a social and political point of view. He claimed that the basis of the Star Wars universe was profoundly anti-democratic. In contrast, Brin saw the universe presented by Star Trek as pro-democratic and based on a faith in technological progress. Brin's articles were significant for two reasons; his focus on political concerns sparked fresh debate within the versus community in an area that had been mainly untouched, and it was the first time the versus debate was aired before a much larger, mainstream audience. Many in the pro-Wars camp were critical of his article; they argued that his articles did not address the Star Wars Expanded Universe and that several of his points seemed to be founded on misconceptions. In 2006 Brin added more to the debate by editing and writing in Star Wars on Trial : Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Debate the Most Popular Science Fiction Films of All Time . The book was filled with text from noted science fiction authors taking both sides of the debate.

Canon policy

An issue that affects the nature of the debate is canon, that is, which sources are considered "official". Both Paramount and Lucasfilm have issued statements as to what is considered canon in their respective universes.

Paramount

Paramount's policy is that only the live action movies and TV shows are Star Trek canon. The novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture is not considered canon by Paramount, even though it was written by Gene Roddenberry himself.

Lucasfilm

Star Wars canon has varing levels. There is the so-called G-Canon which comprises the six feature films, along with all the screenplays, scripts, and novelisations. The writings of other writers that are officially licenced by Lucasfilm are referred to as C-Canon and are part of the Expanded Universe. Lucasfilm's canon policy for Star Wars can be complex and is dealt with in more detail at Star Wars canon.

Any debates between Star Trek and Star Wars invariable differs on this, as those arguing for Star Wars can bring up points from the Extended Universe canon that the Star Trek lobby would discount as not properly official and are therefore not relevant to the debate.

History

Pre-usenet era

Impromptu debates over the merits of Star Trek versus Star Wars have been going on since Star Wars debuted in the late 1970s. Prior to the development and widespread adoption of computer networks, they would often take place at fan conventions and among small groups of friends. The VS arguments steadily increased in volume and frequency during the early days of the internet and BBS communities. Groups such as rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc and rec.arts.sf.tv would be taken over by long flamewars dedicated to VS arguments for weeks on end. The intensity of these disputes were often sufficient to wreck the harmonious atmosphere of a previously friendly and easygoing newsgroup. As a way to get this contentious and distracting topic off of their network space, the new hierarchy of alt.startrek.vs was created in 1997. It was populated by other groups such as alt.startrek.vs.balylon5, but the Star Trek versus Star Wars branch has traditionally been the most heated and active of the versus newsgroups.

Usenet era: ASVS

From 1997 until roughly 2002, the highest-traffic site [citation needed] to engage in battle with other Star Trek and Star Wars fans was the Newsgroup alt.startrek.vs.starwars, or ASVS. True to its combative origins, ASVS prided itself on the level of hostility and general chaos that it promoted and encouraged. Attempts from outside agents to troll and disrupt the group were either co-opted by the participants or greeted as welcome diversions. During this time many of the cultural aspects of the debate that remain to this day, such as speculative fan fiction, the ascendancy of the more technological, scientific, and documentary-style approach to evidence, and smash-mouth style of "discussion" was established.

In the beginning of the Usenet era pro-Trek arguments based on examination of dialog and technical manual stats held sway. As the documentary-style approach began to gain favor, Star Wars proponents with backgrounds in mathematics and physics were able to put together calculations derived from the film evidence pointing to lower-level power estimates of Star Wars capabilities that were far greater than had been previously accepted. They adopted apologetic arguments regarding negative assumptions about the Star Wars universe, such as that the elite Imperial Stormtroopers seemed to be sub-par marksmen, or that hyperspace couldn't be faster than Warp drive because its speeds were described in terms of 'lightspeed.'"

In less than five years the group went from a solid pro-Trek majority to a clear pro-Wars majority [citation needed]. The group also worked to promote the prevailing approach to analyzing evidence by passing various rules [4] that were enforced by means of peer pressure and shaming tactics. The pro-Wars advocates' general success in debate and politicking was a Pyrrhic victory, as once the majority of remaining debaters agreed that the debate was decided in their favor, and developed rules cementing this consensus, there were few topics left for discussion.

WWW discussion boards era

Starting in 2000, ASVS's status as leader of the versus debate was threatened from other online communities such as Spacebattles.com and Stardestroyer.net that employed World Wide Web-based bulletin boards. Declining levels of access to and familiarity with Usenet and the increase in availability of free and open source implementations of bulletin board software lead to more traffic driven to these sites while ASVS participation dwindled. Many long-time veterans of the debate disliked these new web boards, citing the moderators power to unilaterally ban opposing viewpoints and crack down on trollish and abusive behavior as being contrary to the spirit of the debate. There was less stigma attached to free-wheeling less serious and analytical arguments at many of these communities, which was another cause of friction. Many also disliked the format of the web boards, seeing them as slower and more difficult to navigate and keep track of than the interface provided by their favorite news reader.

Many "invasions" of the populace from one community to another took place during this transitional time. The ensuing personality conflicts and flame wars provided many with an amusing diversion from the basic problem of stagnation that faced ASVS. Despite this, the changeover was nevertheless irreversible. Where once ASVS received thousands of posts per week, as of 2005 it has slowed to a few dozen or less, while the various web-based communities have thousands of participants and hundreds of messages per day.

Post AOTC:ICS era

The technology-related debate took a turn in 2002 after the publication of Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross Sections, better known by its acronyms AOTC:ICS, EP2: ICS, or E2ICS. Dr. Curtis Saxton, who holds a doctorate in astrophysics and was previously known for his scholarly discussions of Star Wars technology, was hired by LucasFilm, Ltd. to do the research and technical write-ups for the book. The book had figures for Star Wars weaponry that confirmed many of the upper estimates of the pro-Wars advocates, which were far higher than what the pro-Trek side had been able to field.

The book was immediately controversial. Some pro-Trek debaters doubted the accuracy of the book, questioning the author's objectivity and personal integrity. Suspicions were raised in part because of the thanks offered by Dr. Saxton in the Acknowledgments section of his book to several prominent pro-Wars debaters. This led to allegations that the book itself was written in order to win the Star Trek vs Star Wars debate. Defenders of the book said that LucasFilm hired Dr. Saxton based on the strength of his earlier works, and that this was thus a tacit blessing of his firepower calculations. They also pointed to his education, which they argued made him more qualified to do the requisite mathematical and scientific analysis of the films than any previous technical writer of the Star Wars series.

The various communities have since divided into two groups, mostly identified along Star Wars / Star Trek party lines. The first group accepted Dr. Saxton's book as an accurate and valid part of Star Wars canon. Many taking this view held that the book decided the debate in favor of Star Wars. A number of pro-Trek debaters agreed and retired from the field. As a consequence, the debate receded into areas of esoterica or died out altogether in some communities.

The second group consisted of those who rejected the book for three main reasons. First, they doubted its accuracy, believing that many of the numbers were derived from research and from conclusions that they disagreed with. Second, they refused to consider technical books of this type as being genuine Star Wars canon. Finally, they stated that Dr. Saxton's book contradicted other sources of equal or higher authority, specifically the movies and their novelizations. Thus, they concluded that the book was inadmissible as evidence.

See also

References

  1. ^ Ewalt, David M. (2005-05-18). "Star Wars Vs. Star Trek". Forbes. Retrieved 2006-11-26. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

External links

Links hosting the debate

Sites favored by Star Trek proponents

  • ST-v-SW.Net - A st-v-sw website maintained by Robert Anderson. Site includes technical commentary pertinent to the debate and Robert Anderson's blog.
  • Starfleet Jedi - A versus site featuring technical commentary pertinent to the debate. Site also features a wiki.
  • Daystrom Institute Technical Library - Graham Kennedy's technical discussion of the Star Trek universe. Site also features the author's fan fiction.
  • TrekWars: The Furry Conflict - A fan fiction parody of the Star Trek vs. Star Wars debate through the lens of the furry fandom, featuring original characters, role play, technical discussion, and an extensive central story.

Sites favored by Star Wars proponents

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_versus_Star_Wars&oldid=120030509"