www.ditl.org

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I dunno, Bryan. Superman, Batman? I think by sheer weight of years alone they surpass Star Wars.

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.

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.

What about Mickey Mouse? Is he comparable to Star Wars?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Might it be that Adam Savage chose Star Wars over Star Trek, since he worked for ILM, building models for the various films?