Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Trek Books, Games and General chat
Post Reply
User avatar
Nutso
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
Posts: 9614
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:58 pm

Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by Nutso »

http://io9.gizmodo.com/adam-savage-turn ... 1797107746

The problem began when the question “Which
franchise you would eliminate from existence: Star Wars or Star Trek?” was asked. Barrowman’s suggestion that they eliminate only certain movies from both was rejected.

Savage took the position that Star Trek should be eliminated, to the boos of the entire crowd. His explanation:

Star Trek lures you into a false sense of positivity that the world can be a utopia and recent events have proven it cannot. Star Wars’ dystopic vision is far more realistic and prepares our children for their future.
Well, damn.
"Bible, Wrath of Khan, what's the difference?"
Stan - South Park
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by Graham Kennedy »

I think he's actually mistaken about that. For one, Trek's future isn't really that utopian. They do love to describe Earth as a paradise, and occasionally the Federation, but I don't think even the characters take that to mean literally every single person on Earth lives a life free of problems. If they did, they wouldn't need a penal colony in New Zealand. And the planet wouldn't be in imminent danger of being blown up / assimilated / pattern stored / irradiated every few years.

But I can certainly believe we will solve the kind of material and social problems that plague the world. Partly just on historical precedent - if you compare the state of the world today to the state of the world a thousand years ago, we are incomparably better off. I don't think things will be perfect in another few hundred years, but I can certainly see them being far better still.

Plus, when you get down to it, most material problems boil down to energy availability. If we presume that vast quantities of clean energy become available, most of the problems that face us now could be solved.

I've even seen it argued that interstellar technology must inevitably lead to a non-authoritarian, somewhat utopian government. Though not, it must be said, in the Star Trek mold. But there are attempts out there to depict realistic mostly utopian societies.

But for me, I'd delete Star Wars. Just because Trek is so damn awesome to me.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
RK_Striker_JK_5
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 12986
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:27 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence
Location: New Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by RK_Striker_JK_5 »

I'm pretty much entirely with Graham's answer. Also, I can remember down to the second when I first saw Star Trek and the circumstances. Star Wars? Maybe June or July of 1987. :P
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by Mikey »

To me, it's like comparing apples with submarines. Star Wars is sweeping melodrama; Star Trek is morality play. They are both nominally science fiction, but (like all good genre fiction) that's just the vehicle. 'Wars wouldn't be what it is if it tried on the ethical and philosophical underpinnings of 'Trek; likewise 'Trek would suffer if it attempted to be the straightforward space opera that is 'Wars.

My recollection is opposite that of Striker, because of my age. A young Mikey was incredibly impressed when he saw SW in a theater when it came out in '77... much like a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster, it was akin to getting hit with a gold brick wrapped around a slice of lemon. OTOH, I was introduced to 'Trek first by TMP as a child and then as a teen the same way as I was to Doctor Who - inconsistent and poorly-timed reruns on UHF channels interspersed with four-ep runs of 'Allo, 'Allo. That is, much more gradually. I think the point is that one would be an idiot if he had a volume of Edgar Rice Burroughs and one of Sartre, then bitched about the lack of adventure in the latter and the lack of epistemology in the former.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Bryan Moore
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2729
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:39 am
Location: Perpetual Summer Camp
Contact:

Re: Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by Bryan Moore »

Trek fan, through and through - always have been, always will be. It is by far my favorite of the two. But I do not believe there is a single cultural phenomenon in recorded history that is as iconic, recognizable, and socially transcendent as Star Wars. I've had this discussion with a few people over the years - Is there ANY media in the last 500 years as prolific as Star Wars? Next to the Bible and Shakespeare, I'm not sure if anything even comes close to the amount of people that Star Wars has in some way reached. Darth Vader is as recognizable as any person, brand, etc., in recorded history, and I don't know if a single music piece is as instantly "Oh, that!" as the opening to Star Wars.

This doesn't necessarily add up to "Star Trek" should disappear, but no one in their right mind can deny Star Wars as the ultimate cultural phenomenon on the modern era.
Don't you hear my call, though you're many years away, don't you hear me calling you?
RK_Striker_JK_5
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 12986
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:27 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence
Location: New Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by RK_Striker_JK_5 »

I dunno, Bryan. Superman, Batman? I think by sheer weight of years alone they surpass Star Wars.
User avatar
Bryan Moore
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2729
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:39 am
Location: Perpetual Summer Camp
Contact:

Re: Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by Bryan Moore »

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:I dunno, Bryan. Superman, Batman? I think by sheer weight of years alone they surpass Star Wars.
But have ANY of those movies been a cultural experience as universally renouned as Star Wars? Have either had the pop cultural transcendence with the consistent references in all forms of media? I think both are high up on that list, but when a new Superman or Batman debut, is it world wide news? Small sample size here, but just polled the 9 people in the room here this question, and not a single one even blinked at Star Wars as THE recognizable media of modern times.
Don't you hear my call, though you're many years away, don't you hear me calling you?
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by Mikey »

Agreed - Superman and Batman have had their effects on pop culture by dint of being around for 84 years and 78 years, respectively. However, in agreement with Bryan, no one instance in either of those franchises have had the immediate and huge-scale impact that the release of SW in 1977 had, or a way of changing the entire medium the way TOS did.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Nutso
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
Posts: 9614
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:58 pm

Re: Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by Nutso »

What about Mickey Mouse? Is he comparable to Star Wars?
"Bible, Wrath of Khan, what's the difference?"
Stan - South Park
User avatar
Bryan Moore
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2729
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:39 am
Location: Perpetual Summer Camp
Contact:

Re: Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by Bryan Moore »

Nutso wrote:What about Mickey Mouse? Is he comparable to Star Wars?
Another one that has come up in talking to people. I think there's an argument there, but with the millennial generation, I bet he'd be FAR behind on the list of currently most relevant Disney characters when you start factoring in Pixar movies and modern staples like Frozen.
Don't you hear my call, though you're many years away, don't you hear me calling you?
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by Mikey »

I think the Disney cache in general more than Mickey himself... I know guys who have multiple bravery medals from 'Nam who turn into gibbering eight-year-old fangrrls when someone starts discussing Disney movies.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by Teaos »

The world is so much better in almost every way than it was 100 years ago. Why can't it be like the Federation in 200 years?
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
User avatar
Nutso
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
Posts: 9614
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:58 pm

Re: Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by Nutso »

Teaos wrote:The world is so much better in almost every way than it was 100 years ago. Why can't it be like the Federation in 200 years?
I don't know where Savage is coming from with his "recent events" statement and what about our current world is so insurmountable.
"Bible, Wrath of Khan, what's the difference?"
Stan - South Park
Talondor
Master chief petty officer
Master chief petty officer
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:38 am
Location: San Diego County, CA

Re: Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by Talondor »

I believe one thing you have to take into account when comparing Batman and Superman to Star Wars is that you are comparing characters to a overall franchise. Batman is a individual character, from the guy who played him in the early 40s serials to Adam West to Michael Keaton to Ben Affleck. The guy in the suit may change, but the character remains the same (more or less).

Star Wars is a overall setting, with a cast of characters, many of whom, on screen or in real life, are dying off. Han Solo died in the last movie. Darth Vader, Yoda, and Kenobi died in the first series. Carrie Fisher dying last year leaves Princess Leia's future unknown. And as far as I know, Lando was absent in Episode 7 completely. I have no doubt that future Star Wars movies will continue to be box office blockbusters. But can Rey and the next generation of characters surpass what the first generation did in being cultural icons? Can Darth Vader and the other first generation characters retain their level of icon status without having prominent roles in future movies?

Star Wars hit the American (and the world's) pop culture scene as nothing had or has sense as a whole, and will probably continue to have lasting success at the box office for many movies to come. But Darth Vader and R2-D2 have a long way to go before catching up to the longevity of Batman and Superman.

I also agree that at the time Mickey Mouse had as big a cultural impact as Star Wars did. I see his merchandise from the 30s on Antiques Roadshow (both the American and British versions) all the time. It would have been interesting to see what Walt Disney could have done with Mickey if he had the media and merchandise resources at his disposal that George Lucas had. Even today, despite not having a prominent role in a movie in years, Mickey Mouse is still the face of Disney known by just about everyone in the world.
User avatar
T'Pau
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: New York City, NY USA

Re: Adam Savage's depressing "Star Wars vs Star Trek" answer

Post by T'Pau »

Might it be that Adam Savage chose Star Wars over Star Trek, since he worked for ILM, building models for the various films?
"This is the Vulcan heart. This is the Vulcan soul. This is our way."
Post Reply