From: mabw0164@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars,rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: STAR WARS vs GALACTICA vs STAR TREK
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:05:23 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Nov4.230113.1@uwovax.uwo.ca>, 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (Dark Lord of the Sith) writes:
>      Back in grade seven (around the same time as ST: The Wrath of Khan), I
> had a running debate with fans of the original Star Trek (and the movies).
> We debated the merits of Star Trek vs Star Wars, and to a lesser extent,
> Battlestar Galactica. Ten years later my opinions of changed little.
> 
>      I have seen every episode of ST:TNG and 90% of the episodes of Classic 
> Trek and find not one shred of evidence that this show is somehow better
> than the unpretentious adventure SF that inspired Star Wars, Battlestar
> Galactica, and even Buck Rogers. (That's right Trekkies, you are being
> flamed!)
> 

Please don't flame Trekkies indiscriminately, they are highly flammable. :-)

The first Trek suffered from too much producer input, ie Desilu Studios. Hence,
we got such marvels as rehashed WWII Germany on another planet, Captain Kirk
going out in every landing party where no captain should be allowed to go,
and some rather stupid situations evolving that defy logic, even in a 
chaotic universe. 

And let's not forget that old favorite, the Prime Directive! (We come in 
peace, shoot to kill) :-)

The Second Generation may suffer from some of the opposite, perhaps as 
compensation for the first series. It is more cerebreal, less athletic,
and has much more than its share of ambiguous endings. It's plot generation
seems to be more in the realm of written SF, but the 1 hour format and
televised medium doesn't really allow for much character or plot development.

At least the Prime Directive has been modified somewhat. (We come in peace,
raise the shields) :-)

As for arguing releative merits, its a bit of the apples and oranges thing,
isn't it? Star Trek and its successor are(were) rooted in science (at least
by a foot on one side of the fence), whereas Star Wars and Battlestar 
Galactica were more interested in entertainment value.( space opera)

> ace@krypton.UUCP writes 
>>Star Trek had so much more intelligence, much better writing and it was
>  much better SF...
> and MLINDROOS@finabo.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos) adds:
>> Larson's (Galactica's) conservative crap almost makes me throw up...
> 

Horse puckey, in the words of Col. Sherman Potter.
The first series was lucky for its first season, and about the same for its
second. The third season was, generally speaking, garbage. Gone were the 
original ideas that brightened the first and second seasons, gone was the
consistency of scriptwriting, gone was the show. (which is why the third
season was this way). The Outer Limits and Twilight Zone beat it hands down.

As for Galactica, Please let's keep politic
> will eventually triumph. This should be more than apparent to anyone who has
> watched Star Trek.
> 

Believe it or not, this also had a lot to do with the television censorship
board.

>      In the episode "Arena" (based on an Astounding SF story from 1944!) 
> the episodes ends with the federation triumphant and the inferior Gorn race
> condemned never to rise up above the evolutionary ladder. In the ST:TNG
> episode Redemtion II, human values triumph again as Worf shies away from
> the little putz who conspired with his aunts to humiliate family. Star Trek
> is in essence a liberal version of the philosophy that Marcus Lindroos
> flames in Battlestar Galactica, a benelovent imperialist attitude that says
> "We know what is good for you".    

I always thought the Star Trek universe bore more resemblance to the British
Empire in the early 1800s than the U.S.

> 
> INTELLIGENT SCI-FI 
> 
>      If you want real Science Fiction and real Science fiction stories,
> try reading Galaxy magazine from the 1950's, something Roddenbery probably
> didn't like. (Incidently, ex Vice President Quayle is something of a Star
> Trek fan). This magazine is the first to include sophisticated stories of
> REAL literary value: Pohl, Kornbluth, Dick and numerous others. This 
> magazine had a political awareness not found in Astounding SF and Star Trek: 
> Both Generations.
>

Most TV production companies can't support political or social awareness. It's
bad for advertising.


> REAL SCIENCE FICTION TV
> 
>      If you do not like reading, try watching REAL intelligent science
> fiction TV - the original Twilight Zone, with much writing from Charles
> Beaumont, 1950's writer. (Incidently, Roger Corman turned one of his anti-
> racist novels into a movie called Intruder where William Shatner stars as
> a racist bigot!). Or try watching Outer Limits, with contributions from  
> Harlan Ellison (better than City on the Edge of Forever, chopped up by
> Roddenbery for TV watchers). This show was produced from Leslie Stevens,
> the man who with Glenn Larson produced the 1980's version of Buck Rogers
> and Battlestar Galactica.
> 

Here! Here!

> REAL SCIENCE FICTION MOVIES
> 
> 1. Fritz Lang's METROPOLIS and VOYAGE TO THE MOON
> 2. THINGS TO COME (1936)
> 3. Stanley Kubrick's DR STRANGELOVE, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and 2001 SPACE ODYSSEY
> 4. SILENT RUNNING
> 5. SOLARIS
> 6. Ridley Scott's BLADE RUNNER

> If you want intelligent SF, ignore STAR TREK at all costs!
> 
> REAL ADVENTURE/SCIENCE FICTION
> 
>      On the other end of the Science Fiction world, real adventure movies 
> which inspired Star Wars, are the original Flash Gordon serials and Buck 
> Rogers. DESTINATION MOON, from George Pal (SF King), WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE,
> INVADERS FROM MARS, THE THING (from Astounding's Campbell), and all of the
> giant atomic mutations from the US and Japan (Godzilla lives!). Harryhausen's
> BEAST FROM 20000 FATHOMS, 20000000 MILES TO EARTH. 'Nuff said.
> 
> WHAT YOU MISSED FROM GENE RODENBERRY
> 
>      Star Drekk is pretentious pablum for people who do not know science 
> fiction, science adventure or science fact. The only thing which saves the    
> original show is the cheesy special effects, the soap opera, and the
> personality of its leading characters Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty et al.
> If you want REAL GENE RODDENBERRY, please rent out PRETTY MAIDS ALL IN A
> ROW (1971), featuring Rock Hudson as a homicidal, sex-mad school counsellor.
> This is a must see! 
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
>      Long Live Flash Gordon, Star Wars, Galactica, Buck Rogers, V, 
> Alien Nation, Quantum Leap et al. Unpretentious entertainment for real 
> people. Long Live the Twilight Zone and Outer Limits, real thinking person's
> science fiction. Star Trek ... great FX and/or soap opera.. but SF never.
> 
>      Every time you buy a Star Drekk Pocket Book from Gene's professional 
> hacks, you are taking away valuable time from reading real SF. Save your
> money. Only the books from the 1970's (from Blish and others) are worth your 
> time.
> -- 
Don't listen to this last one. While I agree about the personnal pool of 
writers, more than a few of them have gone on to become very good authors
in their own right. (everybody's gotta start someplace) And not all of them
are drivel (especially those who take on new characters as the centerpieces of
the plot)

> 
> John P. LaRocque
> J.LaRocque@uwo.ca
> 
> "Farm chores sure could be dull, and Luke Skywaker was bored beyond belief. He
> yearned for adventures out among the stars - adventures that would take him
> beyond the furthest galaxies to distant and alien worlds.
> 
> "But Luke got more than he bargained for..."
>                             from Star Wars the paperback (1976, first edition)


Joe Chiasson
01fortec@ac.dal.ca
mabw0164@ac.dal.ca

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars