Faceplams Faceplams:  0
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Star Trek or Star Wars?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)

    Star Trek or Star Wars? From a Science Perspective

    This Sunday's "Parade" magazine insert in the Chicago Tribune (8/6/17) had a cover-story section dedicated to the upcoming total solar eclipse, featuring Bill Nye "The Science Guy."

    In that section, Bill Nye is interviewed

    THAT INTERVIEW IS HERE.

    One of the questions (within the overall "science" theme):

    Star Wars or Star Trek?

    Nye: For me, Star Trek is an optimistic view of the future, with science. But Star Wars is all about fathers and grandfathers and troubled sons…Rogue One was like, oh, the Death Star…again. Come on, really? The Stormtroopers’ armor is completely ineffective; it takes me out of the story. Why do you want to destroy planets? What’s in it for you? And the Force goes faster than light? What’s up with that? The science doesn’t hold up.
    I thought it was a very interesting way of viewing this, from the science perspective.



    Last edited by allegro; 08-07-2017 at 11:11 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Smyrna, GA
    Posts
    6,575
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Star Wars despite the awful prequels, the Holiday Special we dare not speak of, the film revisions, and other things that Lucas did. Plus, I don't want to create any conflict with the Trekkies. You guys are cool.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    10,565
    Mentioned
    528 Post(s)
    two things:

    1) shouldn't this be in the "le cinema" subsection since the primary format of both is movies/television?

    2) why not both? i'm a rare person who has always loved both universes deeply. by the time i was 3 i could quote the original star wars trilogy all the way through, but i also watched every single episode of TNG when it aired with my parents (though i don't remember my original viewing of the first couple seasons, since it started the year i was born, i was still there when my parents watched it). star trek and star wars both have something unique and wonderful to offer. trek is social politics in space/science fiction, wars is a space opera (and not actually science-/speculative-fiction). i have a tattoo of the millennium falcon and i'm planning to get one of the enterprise-D so i clearly care very much about both.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    I've edited my the original post to explain why this isn't about Television or Cinema, but more about science and if it holds up and/or how relative it is to each.

    So this isn't about the medium of delivery but about the science, or lack thereof, and how.

    This is about the "Science" behind Star Trek vs Star Wars (which I thought I indicated with the videos I embedded), and perhaps how they influenced actual science or were influenced BY actual science.

    I'm obsessed with the Bernoulli Equation (a/k/a the Bernoulli Effect) but I certainly wouldn't get a tattoo of that; however, I might consider a plane or a sailboat (examples of Bernoulli).

    I was at the OB/GYN one time years ago, and he was talking to me about the need for an annual mammogram, and I asked him why we did not yet have the instrument that Dr. Crusher used, the :



    And my doctor said, "Hey, we haven't even figured out a way to make an MRI without all that damned loud banging noise!"

    See also this article from National Geographic last year: "'Star Trek’ Is Right About Almost Everything; The epic series—celebrating its 50th anniversary this year—bases its science fiction on scientific fact."

    What were the biggest surprises you encountered in the course of writing this book?

    One thing is just how accurate the science really is, throughout all the different incarnations. The foundation that Star Trek is built on is scientifically sturdy. You can tell that the writers and producers took the time to get the science right.

    They did that by involving real scientific consultants, whose professional opinions were incorporated into the plotlines, the filming of the scenes. And over the decades—as our technology has gotten better, as we’ve pushed the boundaries of exploration, as we’ve learned more about our universe—new knowledge has made its way into Star Trek plots and story lines.

    Nowadays the canvas that all these adventures play out on is almost hyperreal. With the computer simulations we have these days, Hollywood has the ability to re-create any kind of object in space, based on whatever knowledge we have, and give us the ringside seats to the cosmos that all we space geeks wish we had.
    This vs. the science of Star Wars.
    Last edited by allegro; 08-07-2017 at 11:17 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    10,565
    Mentioned
    528 Post(s)
    i didn't actually watch the two videos in your original post, i assumed (given the lack of description) we were just talking about preference for series.

    in terms of SCIENCE, star wars doesn't hold up at all, because, as i said in my earlier post, it's not actually science fiction; it's a fantasy in space. fantasy requires little to no rooting in real-world phenomena, and that is definitely the case for star wars.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by eversonpoe View Post
    in terms of SCIENCE, star wars doesn't hold up at all, because, as i said in my earlier post, it's not actually science fiction; it's a fantasy in space.
    The experts in the above link disagree with you.

    The technologies of tomorrow were on full display as Luke, Leia, Han and the Rebel Alliance fought Darth Vader’s Galactic Empire beginning in 1977. Some have become reality (holograms, heads-up displays, robotic arms). Others are in sight (landing people on other planets, robots in every home). Some may never be (manmade stars and, sadly, real lightsabers).

    Why Star Wars worked for everyone:

    One is an academic. The other is an author. Lisa Yaszek (professor) and Kathleen Ann Goonan (award-winning novelist and professor of the practice) team up to explain science fiction and Star Wars. They discuss the appeal of the series, its role on females and how the original movie changed science fiction forever.

    Kathy Goonan: Before Star Wars came along, science fiction at the movies mostly meant monsters or aliens. But 1977 changed everything, and the film became the first science fiction story to become a major movie franchise. George Lucas made it really easy to understand our genre: you just had to go to the theater. Suddenly print science fiction wasn’t as compelling.

    Lisa Yaszek: It definitely changed the landscape. It showed Hollywood that science fiction could be popular. People didn’t need to have a deep background to understand it.
    Yaszek: Science fiction people love to talk about this thing called the “megatext.” That’s how all the themes and tropes of the genre fit together and get reworked time and time again. In fact, a science fiction novelist from the 1940s, Leigh Brackett, actually wrote the first script of The Empire Strikes Back. So that was cool for us. It’s also obvious that George Lucas knows his science fiction history. You know the scroll of text at the beginning of each movie? That’s an homage to the 1930s and ’40s, when Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers short films scrolled words on the screen before the movie started in order to fill in the back story for audiences.
    Last edited by allegro; 08-07-2017 at 12:40 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,934
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Not really related to the science part of the discussion, but I did do a massive face-off between the two franchises for the movie site I write for if anyone's interested!

    http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/fo-f...k-vs-star-wars

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Toadflax View Post
    Not really related to the science part of the discussion, but I did do a massive face-off between the two franchises for the movie site I write for if anyone's interested!

    http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/fo-f...k-vs-star-wars
    That's a nice balance of information and pros/cons and it does actually contain some references to science and technology. Interesting, thanks.

    Re Star Wars as Science Fiction: https://www.thoughtco.com/star-wars-...antasy-2958030

    MAGIC VS. SCIENCE
    The difference between sci-fi and fantasy is a much-debated subject. One common dividing line, however, is that science fiction is about scientific and technological advancements that could reasonably occur in the future, while fantasy exists only in the realm of imagination.

    Much of Star Wars does deal with advanced technology, which seems to put it in the realm of science fiction. We may not have hyperdrives that allow for interstellar travel, but we can easily see manned spaceships that travel to other planets as a natural progression from traveling to the moon and sending unmanned probes to other planets in our solar system. Some of the technology in Star Wars is not even that far off; for example, scientists have already been able to create miniature lightsaber-like devices.

    The existence of the Force, however, makes Star Wars seem more like fantasy than science fiction. The Force is a mystical energy field which gives Jedi seemingly magical powers, and the study of the Force is more like a religion than a science. The idea of midi-chlorians, microorganisms in the blood, attempts to provide a scientific explanation for the Force; but even midi-chlorians cannot explain how the Force can make bodies disappear or allow beings to become ghosts after death.

    HARD SCI-FI VS. SPACE OPERA
    Sci-fi and fantasy have many subgenres, each with their own common elements. One subgenre is "hard sci-fi," or sci-fi concerned with scientific accuracy. The author of a hard sci-fi work might, for example, do extensive research to make sure the spaceship she created works under known scientific principles.

    The author of a "soft sci-fi" work, on the other hand, might be comfortable just saying that the spaceship works; exactly how is not important to the story.

    Star Wars falls into the subgenre of "space opera," which takes many of its elements from adventure fiction. Space opera involves plots, battles, characters and abilities on a huge, dramatic scale, all of which is true of Star Wars. Technology and other scientific elements in Star Wars are often scientifically inaccurate or merely given a scientific flavor; for example, the midi-chlorian explanation for Force-sensitivity.

    In much of hard sci-fi, the science is the story; in Star Wars and other space opera, the science is a backdrop for the real story. This doesn't make Star Wars any less science fiction.

    SCIENCE FANTASY
    While it may feel like a cop-out, the best answer to whether Star Wars is sci-fi or fantasy is that it's a little bit of both. Calling Star Wars "sci-fi" ignores its fantasy elements, such as the Force; but calling Star Wars "fantasy" ignores its interplanetary setting and sci-fi feel.

    The best label for Star Wars may be "science fantasy," a subgenre that blends elements of sci-fi and the supernatural. There's no need to force Star Wars into a sci-fi or fantasy genre box when its science fiction and fantasy components work together in harmony.
    Last edited by allegro; 08-07-2017 at 02:56 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Man, if ya really want to Sci-Nerd out re Science in Star Wars, this is fascinating: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...ce-movie-film/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,688
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    I'm more of a Trek fan--better writing, more cerebral and the stories are more interesting. Take an episode like "The City on the Edge of Forever" (TOS) or "The Inner Light" (TNG), it doesn't get any better than that in the science fiction genre. Deep Space Nine, especially seasons 4-6 represent Star Trek at its finest. Some of my favorite moments:

    The acting and writing in this scene are especially poignant:

    Gul Dukat is a far more interesting, nuanced character than any character in Star Wars. I mean, I love Vader and Palpatine, but they would never say anything this memorable, something that truly brings out the inner-thinking of the character, something to show what an evil son-of-a-bitch they really are:

    Star Wars has characters like Kylo Ren and Vader, conflicted characters, torn between the light and dark. But compare that with Dukat's inner struggle, someone who is a real evil bastard who justifies all his actions, someone who twists and bends the truth in order to convince himself that he is less evil than he really is. Nothing in Star Wars can touch a scene like this:


    All that said, I feel that right now Star Wars is in far better shape. I absolutely loved The Force Awakens and Rogue One, and am exited to see what happens in the next two movies of the new trilogy. The last good Trek movie, IMHO, was First Contact, and that came out in 1996! I thought the reboot movies were extremely average and the last series, Enterprise, kind of sucked. Voyager was the last Trek series I enjoyed and that has been off the air for 16 years. I'll reserve judgement for Discovery.
    Last edited by GulDukat; 08-08-2017 at 07:56 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    I need to put DS9 on my list of to-watch, I never got into it as much as TNG (although I disliked Voyager even more and I somehow managed to watch that series; I think the Captain was what turned me off, I couldn't get ).

    Good analysis of Trek, above, though.

    I've always wanted a Holodeck. That'd be freakin' awesome.

    And, a hole in the wall where you can say "Computer, make me a frozen daiquiri" and one appears in that hole in the wall (Replicator).
    Last edited by allegro; 08-09-2017 at 01:40 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    10,565
    Mentioned
    528 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    I need to put DS9 on my list of to-watch, I never got into it as much as TNG (although I disliked Voyager even more and I somehow managed to watch that series; I think the Captain was what turned me off, I couldn't get ).

    Good analysis of Trek, above, though.

    I've always wanted a Holodeck. That'd be freakin' awesome.

    And, a hole in the wall where you can say "Computer, make me a frozen daiquiri" and one appears in that hole in the wall (Replicator).
    DS9 was the only one i didn't watch as a kid. i watched half of it by myself a couple years ago, but kind of in the background. then i started it with my wife (on her first trek through all of trek) and we LOVE it. it's like TNG's more mature sibling. it's not always as brilliant as TNG, but it's often more poignant. you'll really enjoy how allegorical it can be.

    whenever someone asks me about 3-D (in terms of my job and them wanting a 3-D TV) i tell them it's a gimmick. i don't give a shit if something is 3-D, i don't want to have to wear glasses to get the effect. call me when i can have a holodeck, dangit!

    replicators are the technology i'd most like to see become real, because (as long as they were accessible to everyone) they would essentially solve so many of the issues we have as a species.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    SF, SD
    Posts
    2,839
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Love em both, nerd 4 life

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Donegal, Ireland
    Posts
    2,924
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Replicators and synthehol, please.

    DS9 is by far my favourite in the series. It's so dark and compelling with wonderful characters.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Black Mountain Side
    Posts
    440
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    I prefer Star Wars because it has always seemed cooler to me. Princess Leia was my idol. I also like the new movies in the series. Natalie Portman was excellent as well. I never cared for Vulcans or Captain Kirk.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    You will assimilate. Resistance is futile.


  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Besides Picard, this is my favorite Star Trek character:


  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,688
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Kylo Ren vs. Khan: Discuss.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Smyrna, GA
    Posts
    6,575
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RhettButler View Post
    Kylo Ren vs. Khan: Discuss.
    Khan.... easily.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    The biggest, absolutely biggest mistake ever made by pseudo fans and people who just want to debate ridiculous subjects was the fact that all of them suddenly began to see Star Wars as science fiction. It is not. It is a Fantasy set in space. It basically destroyed a huge part of Star Wars. Third party creators who try to infuse realism into a fantasy. It would be like taking Conan the barbarian, inventing a new science fiction explanation for the magical scenes, adding a bunch of completely out of place realism, to then sell it as an 'improved continuation".

    That said; I enjoy both. Star Trek has been deeply engraved into my being, while Star Wars shares the same spot. They are just two completely different things.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    10,602
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    Besides Picard, this is my favorite Star Trek character

    Q is an awesome villain/antagonist. However he had a rough time on Breaking Bad with the plane and all.

    I can't compare the two but I easily identify and have more personal connections with the Star Wars characters and sagas.

Posting Permissions