Star Wars vs Star Trek - the ultimate nerd battle

[grumbler]

It masqueraded as a credible source, which is an affront to everyone.

Wikipedia has never masqueraded as a credible source.  That's what is so funny about the Barristers of the world; their own source says "Wikipedia is probably the wrong source to cite unless the researcher is a primary school pupil.(1)"  I would disagree about even the primary school pupil bit, but will let that go if Barrister claims that he is a primary school student and wants the exemption.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_an_acceptable_citation - though note that I can cite Wiki in this case, according to Wikipedia: "If the topic under research is Wikipedia itself, then Wikipedia is the preferred source of information."

[Grey Fox]

Credibility can only come with time for wikipedia. I don't know but I doubt Encyclopædia Britannica achievement instant credibility on its first day of publication.

[The Larch]

Voted Star Wars, I never really got into Star Trek at all.

[jimmy olsen]

I thought Quinto did a good job. Blobby?

Quinto did OK when he just tried to emulate Nimoy.  Violent reaction to pent-up emotion or not, he overacted the temper tantrums.  Badly.  Spock Prime didn't even go that nuts during Ponn Farr.

Check out the side profiles of the ships here: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/stxi_ships.htm

The Enterprise's nacelles remind me more of the original Planet Killer than the original Enterprise.  The Mayflower is the only type visible on screen that makes sense (as a predecessor of the Miranda class); the Newton's also an okay design, but there's no sensible reason to have two engineering hulls, especially connected that loosely on outriggers.  As near as I can figure, the ships amount to remakes of the following:

Armstrong: Nebula
Kelvin: Challenger
Mayflower: Miranda
Newton: Springfield

The problem with that is that half of those are embarrassing kitbashes that were designed for the battle aftermath of Wolf 359 and never were intended to see screen time as anything other than wreckage.

Damn, that guys Trek2009 faq is rantastic!

[grumbler]

Credibility can only come with time for wikipedia. I don't know but I doubt Encyclopædia Britannica achievement instant credibility on its first day of publication.

  Credibility will never come to Wikipedia because of its structure.  I suspect you don't understand what Wikipedia is and how it works.  It is nothing like Encyclopedia Britannica.

[Grey Fox]

Credibility can only come with time for wikipedia. I don't know but I doubt Encyclopædia Britannica achievement instant credibility on its first day of publication.

  Credibility will never come to Wikipedia because of its structure.  I suspect you don't understand what Wikipedia is and how it works.  It is nothing like Encyclopedia Britannica.

On day 1 of EB, how different was it from todays Wikipedia?

Who are those people that write for EB? Why should I trust them more then I do Wiki?

[Ed Anger]

Grumbler, wth did Wikipedia ever did to you? Did Jimmy Wales touch you in a bad way?

  Wikipedia did nothing to me, and I did nothing to Wikipedia.

[citation needed]

[grumbler]

On day 1 of EB, how different was it from todays Wikipedia?

Who are those people that write for EB? Why should I trust them more then I do Wiki?

The people who write for EB are subject matter experts.  If you were a physicist, you would recognize the names of the people writing the physics articles, and their professional reputations were at stake in getting it right.

Wikipedia is written anonymously.  There is no consequence for writing things that are even deliberately wrong.

That is a fundamental difference.  Wikipedia is not trying to be like EB.  It trades away credibility to gain comprehensiveness and contemporaneousness.

[grumbler]

[citation needed]

Got a cite for that?

[Fate]

Credibility can only come with time for wikipedia. I don't know but I doubt Encyclopædia Britannica achievement instant credibility on its first day of publication.

  Credibility will never come to Wikipedia because of its structure.  I suspect you don't understand what Wikipedia is and how it works.  It is nothing like Encyclopedia Britannica.

Wikipedia is already more credible than EB.

[Grey Fox]

Well, that's a good explanation.

I still like reading wikipedia aimlessly tho.

[Lettow77]

Link.

Star Wars is basically a cocktail of Dune, Campbell, early 20th Century Sci-Fi/Fantasy serials and The Hidden Fortress.  This is common knowledge.

' Its common knowledge.'

Common to who? Your the first i've seen express that opinion. Dont say something is common if it is not.

[Caliga]

Common to who? Your the first i've seen express that opinion. Dont say something is common if it is not.

Spellus can't be sheltered enough to think it's 'common knowledge' among the general public, so I assume he means it's common knowledge among giant Star Wars nerds like I guess he may well be.... and, while I believe it's common knowledge (within that crowd) that Lucas borrowed heavily from The Hidden Fortress, I hadn't heard the Dune connection thrown out there before.

It always amuses me when we have threads about stuff like Star Wars or LOTRO and people start with the whole "that's a giant ripoff of xyz!" arguments.  Virtually everything 'original' that comes out is similar enough to something else that already has been written that someone can credibly make this argument, so I'm never impressed by people thinking they are Sherlock Holmes and 'discovering' these super-secret orgins.

[Syt]

I hadn't heard the Dune connection thrown out there before.

I think he was even sued for alledged plagiarism.

[grumbler]

Common to who? Your the first i've seen express that opinion. Dont say something is common if it is not.

Spellus can't be sheltered enough to think it's 'common knowledge' among the general public, so I assume he means it's common knowledge among giant Star Wars nerds like I guess he may well be.... and, while I believe it's common knowledge (within that crowd) that Lucas borrowed heavily from The Hidden Fortress, I hadn't heard the Dune connection thrown out there before.

It always amuses me when we have threads about stuff like Star Wars or LOTRO and people start with the whole "that's a giant ripoff of xyz!" arguments.  Virtually everything 'original' that comes out is similar enough to something else that already has been written that someone can credibly make this argument, so I'm never impressed by people thinking they are Sherlock Holmes and 'discovering' these super-secret orgins.

Just as it amuses me to see people try to be cool by slamming those who point out the origins of various popular "original entertainments" and distinguish between original and derivative thinking.

I don't think anyone who was actually knowledgeable and paying attention when Star Wars came out missed the homages to Dune (the book, obviously, not the movie) as well as the direct lifting of The Hero's Journey from Campbell, and the Hidden Fortress influences.  It didn't particularly bother me or anyone I talked to about it, though.

However, I think that you are right this is no longer "common knowledge" because no one except the fanboiz cares enough about Star Wars any more to even think of it, and the fanboiz are generally not bright enough.