Star Wars vs. Star Trek

Star Wars vs. Star Trek

  • 1 Replies
  • 661 Views
*

Lidija

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 1.174
Star Wars vs. Star Trek
« on: July 19, 2016, 08:39:51 AM »
... da i mi ispratimo jednu zanimljivu disekciju fenomena koji nikad ne zastarevaju... :)

Quote
That question came up briefly in my chat with Cass Sunstein, though we didn’t get much of a chance to address it.  In the Star Trek world there is virtual reality, personal replicators, powerful weapons, and, it seems, a very high standard of living for most of humanity.  The early portrayals of the planet Vulcan seem rather Spartan, but at least they might pass a basic needs test of sorts, plus there is always catch-up growth to hope for.  The bad conditions seem largely reserved for those enslaved by the bad guys, originally the Klingons and Romulans, with those stories growing more complicated as the series proceeds.

In Star Wars, the early episodes show some very prosperous societies.  Still, droids are abused, there is widespread slavery, lots of people seem to live at subsistence, and eventually much of the galaxy falls under the Jedi Reign of Terror.

Why the difference?  Should we consult Acemoglu and Robinson?  Or is it about economic geography?  I can find think of a few factors differentiating the world of Star Wars from that of Star Trek:

1. The armed forces in Star Trek seem broadly representative of society.  Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to the Imperial Storm troopers.

2. Captains Kirk and Picard may be overly narcissistic, but they do not descend into true power madness, unlike various Sith leaders and corrupted Jedi Knights.

3. In Star Trek, any starship can lay waste to a planet, whereas in Star Wars there is a single, centralized Death Star and no way to oppose it, short of having the rebels try to blow it up.  That seems to imply stronger checks and balances in the world of Star Trek.  No single corrupt captain can easily take over the Federation, and so there are always opposing forces.

4. Star Trek embraces analytical egalitarianism, namely that all humans consider themselves part of the same broader species.  There is no special group comparable to the Jedi or the Sith, with special powers or with special whatevers in their blood.  There are various species of aliens, but they are identified as such, they are not in general going to win human elections, and furthermore humans are portrayed as a kind of galactic hegemon, a’ la the United States circa the postwar era.

5. The single individual is much more powerful in the world of Star Wars, due to Jedi and Sith powers, which seems to lower stability.  In the Star Trek world, some of the biggest trouble comes from super-human Khan and his clan, but fortunately they are put down.

6. Star Trek replicators are sufficiently powerful it seems slavery is highly inefficient in that world.  In Star Wars the underlying depreciation rate, as you would find it measured in a Solow model, seems to be higher.  More forced labor is drafted into use to repair all of that wasting capital.

What else?

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/07/why-did-the-stars-wars-and-star-trek-worlds-turn-out-so-differently.html

*

Lidija

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 1.174
Re: Star Wars vs. Star Trek
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2016, 07:31:52 AM »
 jedno jaaako zanimljivo ŠBBKBB ";)


What if Star Trek Had Never Existed?




The original Star Trek was a failure.

CBS passed on the show during the pitch process. NBC saw the first pilot, an episode called “The Cage” starring Jeffrey Hunter as Captain Christopher Pike, and rejected it. The network asked for another pilot, but creator Gene Roddenberry was already working on other projects, including a cop show called Police Story. And even though NBC asked for a second pilot, the show’s studio, Desilu Productions, didn’t want to pony up any cash to make it. Star Trek, it seemed, would never make it to air.

But it did. Lucille Ball, who co-founded Desilu with her then-husband Desi Arnaz, agreed to help finance a new pilot over the objections of her own board of directors. A new episode—”Where No Man Has Gone Before,” starring William Shatner as James T. Kirk—was filmed, NBC picked up the show, and Star Trek eventually hit American living rooms on Sept. 8, 1966.

But what if it hadn’t? What if NBC hadn’t wanted another pilot? Or if Roddenberry had been too busy producing the first season of Police Story to make one? In that mirror universe, the next 50 years of sci-fi TV and movies look much different. So does the cultural breadth of television casts. So does your yearly pilgrimage to Comic-Con International. Our lives would be very different without Trek—and we almost didn’t get it.