'Trek' vs. 'Star Wars': Too much does John Hood protest
"Star Trek" turned 40 Friday.
To guys like me and John Hood, that's a big deal
Hood, president of the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, generally likes to talk state politics, but between you, me and the bedpost, he's as much a sci-fi geek as I am. Maybe even more.
And he's got good taste to boot.
He and I may disagree more often politically than we agree, but you gotta give him credit: John's got impeccable taste when it comes to quality sci-fi.
He and I both agree that "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" may have been the best Trek of all.
He and I also like "Star Wars," but concur that George Lucas can't write a syllable of decent dialogue and that early stuff was far superior to the slicker but dramatically lame second trilogy.
And he and I will argue you to the ends of the universe that the new "Battlestar Galactica" is one of the best dramas on TV, period.
Not that we agree on everything.
For instance, John suggests that "Star Trek" is liberal and "Star Wars" is conservative and he even wrote a column about it.
And he lists a litany of arguments that he believes make it so.
For instance, he has written in what I'll grant him is a funny, whimsical column:
"In 'Star Trek,' storylines and characters make a fetish out of diversity, dwelling on differences and sometimes questioning whether a universal morality can truly be asserted across racial lines. In Star Wars, which is a fictional world of mind-boggling diversity, alien species work together and fight together with little self-conscious sermonizing or pontificating. It's obvious, at least visually, that the freedom-seeking rebellion against the Empire is a multicultural one. But the rebels aren't seeking to defeat the Emperor simply because he won’t hire enough Toydarian storm troopers, or because he prefers officers with proper English accents, or because he is Trent Lott with a (black) hood. They want to defeat him because he is an evil tyrant, period."
John also picks a bone with "Star Trek" for being too sympathetic to bad guys, from the Klingons to the Borg -- for its preoccupation with zapping bad guys with phasers set on stun rather than slicing them into pieces and being done with them. (Of course, BJ Barnes has his own take on stun guns.)
John writes: "In 'Star Trek,' law enforcement is armed with phasers. Officers stun people, then lock them up, then subject them to intensive psychiatry until they are 'cured' of their criminal impulses. In 'Star Wars,' law enforcement under the Galactic Republic appears to be the job of Jedi Knights — who try to avoid violence but, if pressed, will cut you in half with a light saber."
John adds that "Star Trek" endlessly rationalizes bad bahavior to misunderstandings or bad environments.
John writes: "It turns out that Captain Kirk and the other original cast members just didn't understand the Klingons, for example, or the Romulans. The Gorn, a lizard-like race that does a Pearl Harbor on the Federation and kills many innocent people, are later excused from culpability because they say that they saw peaceful Federation colonists as "invaders" in their territory."
So, presumably Kirk should have bashed that Gorn leader's head with a rock with he had a chance rather than sparing him.
Oh, please. John's thesis has more gaping holes than an alien babe's outfit in Classic Trek (the original TV series).
John conveniently forgets the ultimate redemption in "Star Wars," Darth Vader's return to good from evil just in time to save Luke from the evil Emperor.
And he gives "Star Trek" way too much credit -- or condemnation, depending on where you stand -- for being politically correct.
To begin with, the original series was so pumped with testosterone and so dismissive of women ("Oh, Captain, I'm afraid") that it was laughable.
Then there's Kirk, exploring strange new worlds and pursuing strange new women from one corner of the universe to the other.
There also was Kirk's firm belief in pre-emptive war: Launch the photon torpedoes first, ask questions later.
OK, John, you'd probably respond that Kirk was Bill Clinton with a phaser pistol and that the original series did air in a less enlightened time when it comes to gender issues, the late 1960s.
But flash forward to the more contemporary "Star Trek: Voyager," which featured a woman captain -- but which also dressed a female Borg crew member in a skintight uniform and HIGH HEELS.
As for "Star Wars," has John forgotten the criticism from some conservatives that Episode 3 likened the emperor's abuse of power to the Bush administration?
One conservative Web site even called for a boycott of "Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith."
The best rebuttal John could give me recently on that point is he didn't like "Sith."
Anyway, "Star Trek" still holds a special place in pop culture despite its cheesy special effects and William Shatner's flair for overacting.
By the way, Comedy Central did no favors for either Shatner or "Trek" when it aired a roast of Shatner last month. What a lewd, crude, unfunny affair.
Among many cringworthy moments were the mean jokes about "Trek" cast member George Takei, who has revealed he is gay.
It was enough to make even me want to set my phaser dial a few notches beyond "stun."
Comments (9)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
And you knew, Allen, you just knew I would have to defend myself.
First of all, thanks for the appellation "whimsical," which the Star Wars/Star Trek column was certainly intended to be. However, as you correctly intimate, sci fi is far more important than politics. So if the proper tax rate on capital gains is a legitimate issue for serious debate (the proper answer is "zero," of course), then surely my liberal/conservative thesis must be defended.
Your fancy footwork in denying the liberal trend in Star Trek, at least of the J. Tiberius Kirk period, is about as fleet as a tribble. The fact that female officers in Star Fleet were usually found quivering behind the nearest red-shirted guy, their miniskirts hiked up revealingly, is merely a reflection of a 1960s attempt to draw young (and perhaps not-so-young) male viewers. Yes, of course, this continued through the shameless display of Seven of Nine. But liberalism and sexism are entirely compatible. I would see Kirk as more of a Kennedy, not a Clinton (for reasons I shouldn't have to explain).
There is also the point to consider that Gene Roddenberry, according to various accounts, was a rather-promiscuous fellow himself. He got a charge out of putting pretty young things on screen.
Turning to Star Wars, the redemption of Darth Vader is a classic moment of family-values cultural conservatism: faith and family ties overcome the temptations of evil. Notice that the real villain, Palpatine, is not sent away to prison to watch Spike TV and file endless appeals alleging that the Skywalkers failed to read him his rights. He is, instead, tossed, screeching, into a purplish reactor core. Don't know if that would be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
Now, to a better argument: the suggestion that Kirk believed in preemptive war. You may be right. Many JLF-type liberals in this mould supported the campaign in Iraq. Some are wavering under pressure, yes, but then again JLF didn't stand up as well as originally advertised during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Is Joe Lieberman the senatorial version of Jim Kirk? Except for the skirt-chasing, shirt-ripping, and ability to talk computers to death, I'd say yes.
Now to the key matter on which we wholeheartedly agree: that horrible Shatner program with the gay jokes about Takei. Absolutely tasteless. Here Sulu comes out, after so many years, seeking to set a good example and expecting his fellow thespians to be supportive, and instead they subject him to needless, national ridicule. I sense the need for a little republican justice here. Where's my light saber?
Posted on September 11, 2006 7:07 PM
Um, sorry, John, I already borrowed it and went Vader on half of Hollywood.
Posted on September 11, 2006 8:32 PM
As for Roddenberry, you're also right. He was a notorious skirt-chaser, according to all accounts, with a legendarily cosmic libido.
(Remember, he cast his mistress, Majel Barrett, as Nurse Chapel.)
But you didn't address the dust-up about "Star Wars'" alleged barbs at the Bush administration.
Posted on September 11, 2006 8:37 PM
I think it is entirely possible that George Lucas or one of his screenwriters intended some of Sith to work as an anti-Bush tirade. Unfortunately for them, their writing skills proved so bad that it's hard to tell just what they were trying to do. In any event, comparing Bush to Palpatine is so ham-handed and preposterous that it arguably works best as a satire of Hollywood's leftish proclivities.
That's my [current] story and I'm sticking to it. Now, if you wouldn't mind returning said light saber, I have some fast-growing bushes in my front lawn that need pruning.
Posted on September 11, 2006 9:37 PM
Actually, the most controversial line in question invovled Anakin, who says at one point, "You're either with me or against me."
But you're right, John, the dialogue in the movie is so insipid that maybe they just got desperate.
Posted on September 12, 2006 6:00 AM
If anybody else is reading this, try to imagine sitting in a room with these guys listening to such a conversation. I wanted to say, "Scotty, beam me the heck out of here."
Posted on September 12, 2006 5:30 PM
Use the Force, Doug. Use the Force.
Posted on September 12, 2006 5:34 PM
Doug, I just read through the exchange and I feel somehow--dirty. What goes on behind the closed doors of a sci-fi convention is none of my business, but not in a public forum like this! And I don't get the thing about "Scotty." And if I did, I wouldn't admit it.
Posted on September 12, 2006 5:59 PM
MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE
Posted on November 7, 2006 11:43 AM