|
|
|
|
|
Star Trek Versus Star WarsStar Trek versus Star Wars debates are indulged in by a minority of fans of the Star Trek and Star Wars series who enjoy discussing with (and/or trolling) one another on the Internet and in other venues. 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 and shift these (often heated) debates off the more "mainstream" Star Trek and Star Wars groups. As of 2004, some 265,000 posts had been made to the group. One of the earliest threads, discussing the stereotypical question provided above, dragged out over 1,200 posts without reaching any kind of conclusion. 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. Value of the debate The value of this debate had often been doubted by non-participants. Its place in popular entertainment, in print and other media, and its presence on the Internet are historical realities. The debate sheds light on the profound social emotions underlying popular literary activities in the 21st century. In this it is similar to other heated debates around popular fiction, such as the debate between the proponents of classicism (or sometimes Neoclassicism) and the proponents of Romanticism in the 19th century. These conflicts could take on violently emotive tones, and bear witness to the links between society and popular Art. When we talk in scholarly tones about the rise of romantic opera in the 19th century or the displacement of poetry by the novel in that same century we often forget that the great classics that came out of these activites also had many potboilers as companions and that theater venues of the period were often filled with rowdies of the Classicist and Romantic camps, ready to start scuffles and fistfights during perfomances. On the Internet the violence is verbal only. Instead of throwing opera programs and other handy objects at partisans of the other camp the combatants representing the Roddenberry and Lucas universes throw insults, in an interaction known as flaming. Instead of dressing up in a provocative manner, typical of the allure of their group, when going to a representation (of opera or plays) the participants in a Star Trek/Star Wars flame war post flamebait to provoke angry responses. In all these Internet specific matters, the Start Wars/Star Trek debates offer endless breaches of Netiquette. Because of the high volume involved and the spread of the debate over lists, forums blogs and other Internet media the debate also sheds light on the social nature of the Internet. Major issues One of the issues in the debate has to do with technological considerations: Star Wars and Star Trek are set in entirely different universes with technology that are completely mismatched. Star Trek is trying to represent the society and technology of a human civilisation not so distant from now, while Star Wars is set "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away", which gives it more liberty, in a sense. Another issue has to do with form: Both groups claim that their opus has better writers and accuse the other of dire writing and bad scripts, to say the least. Form discussions also cover the origin of one side in Broadcast Television and the origin of the other side in Feature film production. Occasionally, the debate delves into more philosophical or political territory over motivation on the part of the creators and writers. In 1999, David Brin, a famous science fiction author wrote a number of very critical articles on The Phantom Menace, Star Wars and George Lucas, for the website salon.com. Brin focused on what he called an "agenda" on the part of Lucas, and treated the SW vs. ST debate from a mostly political point of view. Michael Wong wrote a rebuttal of Brin's article here. 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 stated what they consider canon for their respective universes. Paramount For the most part, Paramount's policy is that only the live action movies and TV shows are Star Trek canon. There are three exceptions to this: the Voyager novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways", and one episode of the animated series. The novelization of is not considered canon by Paramount, even though it was written by Gene Roddenberry himself. Lucasfilm Lucasfilm's canon policy for Star Wars is more complex and dealt with in Star Wars canon The AOTC:ICS and the debate Some of the debate by the fans took an important turn in 2002 due to the publication of Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross Sections, better known by its acronyms AOTC:ICS or EP2:ICS. It was co-authored by Dr. Curtis John Saxton, a Doctor of theoretical astrophysics and long-time Star Wars fan. This is a children's illustrated book. It targets grades 4 to 8 according to the Library Journal, a respected source of rating and evaluation of play books for youngsters as well as serious publications for adults. The Library Journal praised Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross Sections. AOTC:ICS had a major effect on some of the debaters because, unlike most other sources, it gave extensive statistics on Firepower, Shield Dissipation and Power Generation, instead of the more usual and fuzzy qualitative descriptions. After a brief period of discussion, the main debate came to an end in some forums. Pro-Wars debaters claimed that all the pieces were there before, and that all the AOTC:ICS did was put it in a complete picture that shattered the illusions of the pro-Trek side. Pro-Trek debaters, however, doubted the authenticity of AOTC:ICS, claiming that the information in it was invalid because it contradicted other canon sources (see ). Some on the pro-Trek side took to questioning or even loudly deriding the author's objectivity, scientific competence (a quality for which he had specifically been hired by Lucasfilm) and even his personal integrity. But whatever the side taken, Star Trek vs Star Wars activity clearly slowed, by as much of an order of magnitude. Most debates had turned to esoteria of little strategic importance, hopelessly mismatched scenarios (such as TIE Defenders vs Federation Ships), and educating newcomers before they were flamed to a crisp on many of the less moderated boards. References - Reynolds,David West. Hans Jenssen, Richard Chasemore Incredible Cross-Sections (Star Wars, Episode I: The Phantom Menace) Dorling Kindersley Publishing, 2002. ISBN 078943962X
- Saxton,Curtis John, Hans Jenssen, Richard Chasemore Star Wars: Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross Sections Dorling Kindersley Publishing, 2002. ISBN 0789485745
External links - alt.startrek.vs.starwars The newsgroup created to debate this issue, it has suffered a steady loss in membership since about 2001, as the consensus there switched to one of decisive Star Wars advantage. Most of the former regulars have moved on to other web-board communities such as Stardestroyer.net or Spacebattles.com.
-
-
- Daltonator.net - Rob Dalton's site hosts two vs.-debate-related sections: the alt.startrek.vs.starwars Fanfic Archive, which contains nearly sixty megabytes of Star Trek versus Star Wars crossover fanfiction, and the Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQ), a collection of SWvST cultural idiosyncrasies and anecdotes gathered mainly from alt.startrek.vs.starwars and the SDN BBS. Reading most of this site's content does not require knowledge of SW or ST esoteria, as it focuses more on the personalities and culture of those that participate in the debates.
- Spacebattles.com - A website showing fan based movies on Star Trek and Star Wars, amongst other science fiction universes. It also contains forums for discussion on Star Trek vs. Star Wars debates amongst other topics pertaining to science fiction.
- The Ultimate Star Wars vs. Star Trek Database - Wayne Poe's Star Wars vs. Star Trek website, one of the first to arise in the debate and the inspiration for others. The content of the site is based almost exclusively on actual posts and emails that Wayne has accumulated over the years.
- StarDestroyer.Net - A Star Wars-themed website by mechanical engineer Michael Wong that compares the technologies of the two universes. The website also contains award-winning fan fiction and a BBS community.
- ST-v-SW.Net - A site by Robert Anderson, a controversial figure in the versus debate. This site uses different standards of evidence and canon criteria not usually accepted among more mainstream sites.
- STrek-v-SWars.Net - The newest of the websites, similar in position to ST-v-SW.Net. The webmasters also maintain a board similar to the SDN BBS, but with more exclusive focus on the Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate.
- Star Wars Technical Commentaries - By astrophysicist Curtis Saxton, who has since begun writing extensive Star Wars "non-fiction" works for Lucas Licensing. There is no explicit Star Trek vs. Star Wars content on the site, though the observations and calculations found within are often cited.
- Daystrom Institute Technical Library - By educator Graham Kennedy, this is also not a Star Trek vs Star Wars site, instead focusing on Star Trek technology. The text is generally color coded to discriminate between Canon and Speculation. The site does contain a Star Trek vs. Star Wars fanfic entitled "Portal" in which Trek technology is superior.
- TrekWars: The Furry Conflict - A lighter take on the Star Trek vs. Star Wars niche, featuring original characters, role play, technical discussion, and an extensive central story.
|
 |
| |
|
|