Sunday, May 10, 2009

For trekkies also.


I am among the Star Trek devotees bracing with nervous excitement as the new film prepares to blast onto cinema screens next week. I was influenced to become a trekkie by an angry american, so yes, I too am excited to see this new offering, ha ha ha!

I used to be a Star Wars fan and just last week I again watched the whole series - 6 of 'em now! So who has the edge? Let's see... both have warp speed travel, good medical scanners, pretty good prosthetics (hands in Star Wars, eyes in Star Trek), androids, blasters/phasers, etc. I think Star Trek wins because their phasers come in handy as they fit in your pocket with still deadly power,plus they travelled through time!

And even when I like that STar Wars has THE FORCE, Star Trek is more realistic in a sense, because of better and more practical gadgetry. I foresee gadgets (some already have occurred) coming from Star Trek more likely to materialize in real life, than ANYTHING from Star Wars. Besides the fact, that most of the gadgets in Star Wars are weapons rather than anything useful for bettering human life. True, it doesn't make them any less cool, but it's less likely and practical for a lightsaber to be created than say a tricorder, or a transporter.

Star Trek is technology with magic mixed in, while Star Wars is magic with technology mixed in. Why, I couldn't help laughing thinking of Darth Vader pulling out his lightsaber and flicking it on. Brandishing it, then advances on Mr. Spock, who, calmly, draws his class II Phaser (set to kill), and promptly vaporizes Darth in mid-step. Trekkies Rule!!

Um, ok, you may say : "Did you forget that Darth can use the force and take the Phaser away from Mr. Spock?" No, actually I did remember that, but Spock, being emotionless, does not display his weapon too soon, and, being both strong and agile, whips it out and shoots while Darth is busy making some sort of speech-warning-heavy breathing advance... Get the picture?!

Ok you might argue that people seem to forget that all of SW's tech is from "a long time ago..." which makes it that much more impressive. Hmm,.. a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away... or, to boldly go where no man has gone before?

But of course the first Star Wars Trilogy still reigns as the best sci-fi saga of all time. The amount of time it took them to make the original Star Wars movies with old fashioned animation techniches deserves respect. Besides, I will always love a good light saber duel complete with force thrown in. But when I need my logic fix, Star Trek provides the tech that's more firmly grounded in physics.

How about you, which do you think is better? Star wars or Star Trek?

4 comments:

Sid Brechin said...

I don't look at the two as competition for each other ( other than for box office dollars ). Star Trek is or at least tries to be Science Fiction. Star War falls into the Science Fantasy category. As an avid fan of Science I was to learn the difference young. The best SF is written by engineers or hard scientists. Heinlein and Asimov are the first examples to pop to mind. Arthur C Clarke springs to mind next and if you getting this via satellite you may be surprised that this SF writer of 2001 A Space Oddessy and more is the person who calculated the Clarke band for geosynchronis orbits which telecommunications satellites use.

Having had a sword in the Army I would love to have a light sabre. However without having the force to know a split second before needing it where to put it the thing would not be of much use so I had better ask for a large dose of the Force. Can you get if from a transfusion. After all if Anakin and Yoda have all those force germs in there blood couldn't they pass it on by transfusion. Then again I'm O+ so a universal donor not repcepient. Darn

While Santa how about a Galaxy Class Starship, a Delta Flyer, A variety of tricorders and a class II phaser. Which makes me wonder. Why is it that if he was security officer Worf was issued a Dustbuster when everyone else had phasers.

While we are at it how about a couple of Babylon 5 fighters and gorgeous female halucinations from Battlestar Galactica.

Angry American said...

Sid,
I like the way you think. There never was enough sex in sci-fi series or movies such as star trek and the like to make it worth expecting. But, I like to think I'm as entertained by a good plot, good actors, by science, by logic and stratagy (war scenes) as I am by action, sex, fighting, sex, chaos, sex, blood and guts, sex, etc, etc, etc (ok maybe that's stretching the truth a bit). :D

Oh, did I mention sex? :o

Odette said...

AA,
for the sake of argument. Since Star wars is a "long time ago". If they were still around and in power, would the empire's technology so massively outclassed the federation?

Patricia Monica said...

for the trekkies out there, globe's giving away star trek shirts. in case you're interested, email me patriciamonica69@yahoo.com. I'll email you the link. ciao!

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin