I view the world as divided into two parts: "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" geeks, and never the twain shall meet. It's like the University of Michigan-Michigan State rivalry -- you're either one or the other. If you ask me, there's no place for fence-sitting or wishy-washy I'm-a-fan-of-both bull puckey.
Perhaps a better metaphor would be Christians and Muslims, considering how dogmatic fans of "Trek" and "Wars" can be, how their reverence borders on the religious. Who is your one true god? George Lucas or Gene Roddenberry?
10. Chewbacca is the superior co-pilot. Sure, Spock is ruled by logic, and has a nasty nerve pinch, and both are fiercely loyal. But Chewie is the man-beast I'd want by my side in a scrap. At more than 7 feet tall, he strikes an intimidating pose; his growl strikes fear into the greatest foes; he's accurate with his bowcaster in a firefight. Not to mention his skills as a mechanic, and the heart-on-his-arm-fur compassion he shows -- something Spock keeps buried.
9. Han Solo vs. Captain Kirk. No contest here. Solo is the epitome of cool, thanks to Harrison Ford. Kirk is an uber-suave ladies man, but, let's face it, William Shatner, highly entertaining as he can be, veers into camp.
8. Enterprise or Millennium Falcon? The Starfleet ship is a beautiful and majestic craft, no argument there. But the Falcon is a scrappy little hunk o' junk, easily underestimated by its enemies. It takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'. It's also more versatile, and can be piloted into the heart of a Death Star, while the Enterprise must rely upon its size and ability to absorb a lot of firepower. I'll take the underdog every time.
7. "Wars" is the less bloated franchise. "Wars" parts I-III are weak, I'll admit that -- combine the best elements of all three (including the still-amazing Darth Maul-Qui-Gon Jinn-Obi-Wan Kenobi battle -- more on that later), and you have roughly one good film. I will also concede the godawful "Star Wars Holiday Special" and the Ewok and Jar Jar plagues here. But among 11 "Trek" movies, roughly, what, three of them are worth watching? Who actually paid to see "Insurrection" or "Nemesis"? Did anybody give a flying frak about the "Enterprise" TV series? Could anyone stay awake during "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"? I rest my case -- even with Bea Arthur singing in the "Holiday Special":
6. Bad guys. Darth Vader is one of the greatest, scariest, chilling-est villains in the history of everything. He's an icon among icons. "Trek" has, besides a bunch of creepy Vulcans and Romulans and such, what? Corny ol' Khan, with his feathered mullet and waxed chest? Side note: I was amazed to see, during a revisitation of "Wrath of Khan," that Kirk and the bad guy are never in a scene together. What, did Shatner and Ricardo Montalban not get along? Or was the director afraid the inevitable overacting duel would torpedo the picture?
5. One word: lightsabers. On the gear/tech/weapon end of things, the phaser can't compete. Kids run around mimicking the vwoom-woom sound of a lightsaber, a testament to how deeply its ingrained into popular culture. It's also one of the most symbolic representations of "Star Wars," not to mention the sci-fi genre in general.
4. Fighting. Kirk is good with his fists, and Spock's pinch is impressive. But "Wars" is loaded with epic lightsaber duels, skillfully choreographed and, in the case of Darth Maul, made extraordinary via the use of a real martial artist (that would be Ray Park).
3. Catchphrases. "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" or "Space: the final frontier"? "May the Force be with you" or "Live long and prosper"? "What an incredible smell you've discovered!" or "Dammit, Jim!"? "I am your father" or "He's dead, Jim"? "These aren't the droids you're looking for" or "I've given her all she's got, captain"? So far, it's a draw. But what "Wars" has over "Trek"? Yoda: "Do or do not, there is no try." "Adventure. Heh. Excitement. Heh. A Jedi craves not these things." "That is why you fail." "Size matters not, ... Look at me. Judge me by size, do you?"
2. "Star Wars" probably wouldn't exist without "Star Trek." This might seem contrary to my argument, but hear me out. "Wars" greatly expanded what "Trek" started, reaching massive audiences and selling heaps of merchandise. Meanwhile, Trekkies remained a cult of diehards only. You could even argue that the "Trek" film franchise would never have been launched in 1979 without the success of "Star Wars" in '77.
1. Trekkies are far, far nerdier than "Star Wars" fans. So much so, an entire movie was made about them, and we couldn't help but laugh at the Spiner Femmes and the kid obsessing over the width of the stripes on his Federation uniform. Sure, "Wars" has the 501st Legion as an example of nutty fandom, but at least they look awesome in their stormtrooper gear.
----stolen from John Serba (gotta give credit where credit is due).
Trekkies.... let me know when you get a weapon as awesome as the lightsaber. Also... I did see the Star Trek movie that came out this past spring. Let me rephrase that... I was dragged to see the Star Trek movie this past spring. I was dragged by my boyfriend who is purportedly a bigger Star Wars fan than I am, but at this point I'm not really sure. I am a Zach Quinto fan, because I love him on Heroes, but that didn't seem to me like a reason to see that shitty movie. I didn't even want to see it just so I could make fun of it! But no, I had to go. I'm still pissed, and I have nothing good to say about it except that Chris Pine is kinda hot and made it marginally more bearable and it served to remind me why Star Trek is so shitty.
Thank you very much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment