J.J. Abrams...how Star Wars differs from Star Trek

[jess stone]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-jj-abrams-star-wars-the-force-awakens-20151213-story.html

You did something similar with “Star Trek” in a way, going back to the
roots of the franchise to bring it forward.

But it’s so different. At the heart of “Star Wars” is the idea of the
Force. It’s this spiritual thing – it’s almost antithetical to
science-fiction. And “Star Trek” is such a science-fiction story.

<What he said.>

[EGK]

Star Trek is the socialist utopia of science fiction. Star Wars is grittier
and more space opera than science fiction.

[Ed Stasiak]

> jess stone

>
> At the heart of "Star Wars" is the idea of the Force. It's this spiritual thing

I thought it was a midichlorian thing?

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 12:24:25 PM UTC-5, jess stone wrote:
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-jj-abrams-star-wars-the-force-awakens-20151213-story.html
>
> You did something similar with "Star Trek" in a way, going back to the
> roots of the franchise to bring it forward.
>
> But it's so different. At the heart of "Star Wars" is the idea of the

> Force. It's this spiritual thing - it's almost antithetical to

> science-fiction. And "Star Trek" is such a science-fiction story.
>
> <What he said.>

Star Trek (science fiction) is social commentary in an allegory. While the tale told may be set in the past or future, the commentary is on today's events.


Star Wars is a retelling of a universal story, a hero's journey/the monomyth, and is detailed by George Lucas and Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyer in a galaxy far, far away in 1988.


Where the Star Wars Myths came from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSyyqctan2c
http://billmoyers.com/2012/08/09/moyers-moment-1999-george-lucas-on-mentors-and-faith/


https://kat.cr/joseph-campbell-and-the-power-of-myth-pbs-1988-bill-moyers-x26-t6536215.html

[Nawskrad]

On 14/12/2015 6:10 PM, TV_Season_2015_2016 wrote:

> But then I met with [Lucasfilm president] Kathy Kennedy and she and I had
> a conversation that was enormously compelling. After the meeting was over
> I just said to Katie, “I think I really want to do this.” I never
> expected to leave that meeting with that feeling.
>
> That was just the beginning of what has been almost three years of
> working in this world, and I haven’t regretted doing it. Not that it
> hasn’t been enormously challenging, but I’m so grateful that she came to
> me.
>
> What did she say in that meeting that turned it around for you?

Something that started with "$" and ended with a lot of zeros?

> She said that [screenwriters] Michael Arndt and Lawrence Kasdan were
> already on board working – and I was an enormous fan of both of them. And
> she said that George [Lucas], having sold the company to Disney, would be
> stepping back and we wouldn’t be working under anything but what the
> story we wanted to tell was. That would be the master we were serving.
> And she said this movie takes place 30-something years after “Return of
> the Jedi.” That was really it, and I started to feel like, ‘That’s really
> interesting.’

That, and something that started with a "$" and ended with a lot of zeros.

[>>>Ashton Crusher]

Star Wars is cowboys in space. The sci-fi part is just window
dressing and adds nothing to the show but the costumes.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 2:00:35 AM UTC-5, >>>Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:37:44 -0500, EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:24:20 -0800, jess stone <jess...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-jj-abrams-star-wars-the-force-awakens-20151213-story.html
> >>
> >>You did something similar with "Star Trek" in a way, going back to the
> >>roots of the franchise to bring it forward.
> >>
> >>But it's so different. At the heart of "Star Wars" is the idea of the

> >>Force. It's this spiritual thing - it's almost antithetical to

> >>science-fiction. And "Star Trek" is such a science-fiction story.
> >
> >Star Trek is the socialist utopia of science fiction. Star Wars is grittier
> >and more space opera than science fiction.



> Star Wars is cowboys in space. The sci-fi part is just window
> dressing and adds nothing to the show but the costumes.

"It's not a movie. It's bigger than all of us. It's almost a religion for people." - JJ Abrams, 60 Minutes, December 13, 2015

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

BILL MOYERS: What do you make of the fact that so many people have interpreted "Star Wars" as -- as -- as being profoundly religious?

GEORGE LUCAS: I don't see "Star Wars" as profoundly religious. I see "Star Wars" as -- as taking all of the issues that religion represents and trying to distill them down into a -- a more modern and more easily accessible construct that people can grab onto to accept the fact that there is a greater mystery out there. When I was 10 years old, I asked my mother -- I said, 'Well, if there's only one God, why are there so many religions?' And over the years -- I've been pondering that question ever since. And it would seem to me that the conclusion that I've come to is that all the religions are true, they just see a different part of the elephant. A religion is basically a -- a container for faith. Faith is the -- the glue that holds us together as a society. Faith in our -- in our culture, our -- our world, our -- you know, whatever it is that we're trying to hang on to is a very important part of, I think, allowing us to -- to remain stable. Remain balanced.

(Excerpt from "Star Wars")

BILL MOYERS: And where does God fit in this concept of the universe? In this cosmos that you've created? Is the Force God?

GEORGE LUCAS: I put the Force into the movies in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people. More a belief in God than a belief in any particular, you know, religious system. I mean, the -- the -- the -- the real question is to ask the question, because if you -- if you -- having enough interest in the mysteries of life to ask the questions, is -- is there a God or is there not a God?, that's -- that's, for me, the worst thing that can happen. You know, if you asked a young person, 'Is there a God?' and they say, 'I don't know. ' You know? I think you should have an opinion about that.

BILL MOYERS: Do you have an opinion, or are you looking?

GEORGE LUCAS: Well, I think there is a God. No question. What that God is, or what we know about that God I'm not sure. The one thing I know about life and about the -- the nature of the human race is that it -- the human race has always believed it's known everything. Even the cavemen thought they had it all figured out and they knew everything there was to know about everything. Because that's what -- that's where mythology came from. You know, it's constructing some kind of -- of -- of context for the unknown. So we figured it all out and it was fine. I would say that, you know, cavemen had, you know, on a scale -- and understood about one, you know? Now we've made it up to about five. The only thing that most people don't realize is the scale goes to a million.


http://billmoyers.com/content/mythology-of-star-wars-george-lucas/

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 12:24:25 PM UTC-5, jess stone wrote:

> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-jj-abrams-star-wars-the-force-awakens-20151213-story.html
>
> You did something similar with "Star Trek" in a way, going back to the
> roots of the franchise to bring it forward.
>
> But it's so different. At the heart of "Star Wars" is the idea of the

> Force. It's this spiritual thing - it's almost antithetical to

> science-fiction. And "Star Trek" is such a science-fiction story.
>
> <What he said.>

Well, I'm looking forward to how it turns... soon.

:D

[Arc Michael]

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 9:24:25 AM UTC-8, jess stone wrote:
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-jj-abrams-star-wars-the-force-awakens-20151213-story.html
>
> You did something similar with "Star Trek" in a way, going back to the
> roots of the franchise to bring it forward.
>
> But it's so different. At the heart of "Star Wars" is the idea of the

> Force. It's this spiritual thing - it's almost antithetical to

> science-fiction. And "Star Trek" is such a science-fiction story.
>
> <What he said.>

STAR TREK WAS VIOLENT GALACTIC JIHAD ON PRIMITIVE RACES.

[Will Dockery]

That would be a violation of the Prime Directive.

[Obveeus]

Were there any episodes where they were confronted with a Prime
Directive situation and they didn't violate the prime directive?

[Your Name]

In article <ft227b584pb026il3...@4ax.com>, >>>Ashton

There's lots of science ...

- the Millennium Falcon did the Kessel run in under 12 parsecs

- the blood test to count Midichlorian levels

- spaceships and hyperspace travel

- blasters and lightsabres

- droids

- a space station the size of a small moon

- etc.

;-)

[Your Name]

In article <5eb27a8b-49f9-4c19...@googlegroups.com>,

Complete crap, from what I've read so far. Just Jar Jar Abrams
re-making the original movie with his own silly fan-wanking slant on
it, more females (to appease the Politically Correct morons), and the
now-usual over-the-top effects. :-(

[Will Dockery]

Will Dockery wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 9:05:36 PM UTC-5, Arc Michael wrote:
>
>> STAR TREK WAS VIOLENT GALACTIC JIHAD ON PRIMITIVE RACES.
>
> That would be a violation of the Prime Directive.

I came across a nice bit on the Prime Directive today:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ContinuityDrift

"...The Prime Directive started off as something like a principle of anthropological objectivity: How do you study a culture in its natural state? By not letting them know that you're there, obviously. It also allowed Federation scientists to avoid morally-dubious "A God Am I" scenarios. But as the series progressed, it became treated more and more as a moral philosophy, until, on Enterprise, it finally assumed a near-mystical quality with Starfleet not wanting to interfere with the "destinies" of primitive cultures."

[Will Dockery]

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 12:24:25 PM UTC-5, jess stone wrote:

> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-jj-abrams-star-wars-the-force-awakens-20151213-story.html
>
> You did something similar with "Star Trek" in a way, going back to the
> roots of the franchise to bring it forward.
>
> But it's so different. At the heart of "Star Wars" is the idea of the

> Force. It's this spiritual thing - it's almost antithetical to

> science-fiction. And "Star Trek" is such a science-fiction story.
>
> <What he said.>

I just came across what Harlan Ellison had to say about Star Wars, way back at the start of it all:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/HarlanEllison

"But that's the point! Is the single defense I get when I alienate myself at dinner parties by my negativity. It's supposed to be mindless, I'm told. And then those professional types who are safe in loving Star Wars where they might be attacked for reading the latest Robert Silverberg or Thomas Disch sf novel, explain to me as carefully as one would a retarded child, that Star Wars is a return to the worship of the Eternal Verifies: honor, truth, fighting Evil. All black and white. Try black and white in a world of credit cards, punk rock, mastectomies, Watergate, the rise of homegrown Nazism, Anita Bryant, and the terrifying fact that more than half of all serious crimes in the United States are committed by people between the ages of ten and seventeen---and that includes rape, murder, robbery, aggravated assault and burglary." -Harlan Ellison

[mog...@hotmail.com]

Which trumps which the Prime Directive, "the force" or the Rules of Acquisition.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <c801ccfc-fa63-47f8...@googlegroups.com>,

The 2nd Amendment -- the guys with guns set the rules.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[A Friend]

In article <1eeb91d5-d428-4661...@googlegroups.com>,

I suppose they had to explain things to Harlan "as one would a retarded
child" because that's what the situation called for.

Harlan's is the longest-running act in show biz. Many enjoy it, but I
was already tired of it when Nixon was president.

[Will Dockery]

I know that many don't like, and in fact he's quite famous for it, Harlan Ellison's personality, but the absurd part is when people try to put Harlan Ellison's writing down, since, after all:

"His work has won eight and a half Hugo Awards, three Nebula Awards (plus a lifetime achievement award), five Bram Stoker Awards (including a lifetime achievement award), two Edgar Awards, and four Writers Guild of America Awards for Most Outstanding Teleplay -- more awards than almost any other living writer..."

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/HarlanEllison

[David Johnston]

Harlan Ellison wrote three things I liked about fifty years ago. But
the person you were responding wasn't talking about Harlan Ellison's
published work.

[A Friend]

In article <056d9497-30ec-4166...@googlegroups.com>,

... since, after all, I never mentioned his work. Not even once.

And it's not his personality I don't like. I don't like *him*. I
found him to be a smug jackass with a pretty thin skin when he's
challenged. He can dish it out, but he can't take it. Fortunately, I
haven't had to deal with him in several decades now.

[Will Dockery]

Oh, personal experience, I understand now.

:D

I had an unfortunate meeting withy Jim Steranko back in 1978 that may relate.

[Will Dockery]

Yeah, that was what I was responding to... all these people who tend to focus on the person rather than the art they create.

But, I never had to meet Harlan Ellison, much less butt heads with him... I notice that those who try usually lose the battle of wits.

Go figure.

:D

[Your Name]

In article <barmar-B4BD0E....@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,

That would be the Daleks ... E-X-T-E-R-M-I-N-A-T-E! ;-)

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 2:23:45 PM UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
>

> Harlan Ellison wrote three things I liked about fifty years ago.

Was this one of them?

Reposted from a discussion happening elsewhere:

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 7:01:47 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream
>
> by Harlan Ellison
>
> Limp, the body of Gorrister hung from the pink palette;
>
> [Awkward, to put it mildly; especially so for an opening sentence. But Harlan isn't finished. This sentence has only just begun to torture us.]
>
> unsupported--hanging high above us in the computer chamber; and it did not shiver in the chill, oily breeze that blew eternally through the main cavern.
>
> [Wtf is "unsupported-hanging"? If the body is hanging from "the underside of the palette," it's supported by whatever device (rope, hook, etc.) attaches it to said palette. And the plethora of adjectives/adverbs "chill, oily", "eternally", "main" strike me as amateurish.]
>
> The body hung head down, attached to the underside of the palette by the sole of its right foot. It had been drained of blood through a precise incision made from ear to ear under the lantern jaw. There was no blood on the reflective surface of the metal floor.
>
> [Does "lantern jaw" refer to Gorrister's jaw? If so, why not "under his lantern jaw"? Or is the "pink palette" the misspelled "palate" of some gigantic, living lantern?]
>
> When Gorrister joined our group and looked up at himself, it was already too late for us to realize that, once again, AM had duped us, had had its fun; it had been a diversion on the part of the machine.
>
> [More awkwardness; more confusion. Apparently Gorrister is looking at his suspended body. Uh-huh. And "AM" is behind it ... whatever it is. If I identified at all with Gorrister at this point, I might (just might) be interested in finding out how he is "unsupported-hanging" from a pink palette with his lantern slit from ear to ear, but simultaneously looking up at himself, and/or at a trick played on him and some unidentified cronies by a machine called "AM" (no sledgehammer symbolism there, by golly).
>
> However, I don't identify with Gorrister. I've never heard of anyone with the name "Gorrister," and can't even be sure if "Gorrister" is human, vegetable or mineral. And, consequently, I don't give a rat's patoot what happened (or didn't happen) to Gorrister.
>
> Basically, Harlan is employing a cheesy trick common to sci-fi hacks: create a situation that supposedly "intrigues" the reader by not making sense, then gradually reveal the situation. In other words, backwards writing.]
>
> Three of us had vomited, turning away from one another in a reflex as ancient as the nausea that had produced it.
>
> [Hack writer trick #2 -- throw in a shocking/disgusting image.]
>
> Gorrister went white. It was almost as though he had seen a voodoo icon, and was afraid of the future. "Oh, God," he mumbled, and walked away. The three of us followed him after a time,
>
> ["Three of us had vomited..." implies that there were more than three others present. "The Three of us followed..." implies that there were only three others.]
>
> and found him sitting with his back to one of the smaller chittering banks, his head in his hands.
>
> [Wtf's a "chittering bank"? Never mind, I'll tell you what it is. It's a two-bit variation on "babbling brook," only it's dopey sounding, and grammatically wrong, since either the water (not the banks) would be chittering, or else the lifeforms hidden in the grasses of the banks. It *could* be a poetic way of indicating that the banks were filled with chittering lifeforms, but Harlan never explores this any further. It's a throwaway phrase that is forgotten by the end of the paragraph ... a whole two sentences later.]
>
> You'll have to tell me how it turns out, because I've already wasted enough time on it..." -Michael Pendragon

I just found this, and thought of your review:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/IHaveNoMouthAndIMustScream

Literature: I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream

"HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE."
— AM

A post-apocalyptic New Wave Science Fiction short story by Harlan Ellison. It was first published in March of 1967 and won the Hugo Award in 1968. The story is known for its highly concentrated Nightmare Fuel, and is the trope-namer for And I Must Scream.
The story takes place over a hundred years after the near-complete destruction of humanity. The Cold War has escalated into a world war, fought mainly between China, Russia, and the United States. As the war progresses, the three warring nations each create a super-computer capable of running the war more efficiently than humans. The machines are each referred to as "AM," which originally stood for "Allied Mastercomputer," then later called "Adaptive Manipulator", and still later "Aggressive Menace". One day, one of the three computers becomes self aware, and promptly absorbs the other two, thus taking control of the entire war. It then brings about the mass genocide of all but five people, and redefines its name as "I think, therefore I AM".
Four men and one woman are all that remains of humanity: Gorrister, Nimdok, Benny, Ted (the narrator), and Ellen. They live together underground in an endless complex, the only habitable place left. The master computer has an immeasurable hatred for humanity and spends every moment torturing the group with all its power, twisting their minds and physiques, hurting them and not allowing them to die: AM has not only managed to keep the humans from taking their own lives, but has made them virtually immortal. As long as AM has its way, the torment will never end, and every day will be more horrific than the last...
The story begins on the one hundred and ninth year of their torture.
Also has a computer game adaptation. It was also adapted into a comic book by John Byrne. A Radio Drama by the BBC was also created, starring David Soul as Ted.

[...]

Contains examples of:
• 108: It's been 109 years of torturous life in AM's "body" for the protagonists before the present day story begins. This is thematically relevant as it is this year when Ted finally overcomes the temptation of saving himself and saves the other four instead.
• And I Must Scream: Trope Namer◦ At the very end of the story, Ted is turned into a creature unable to harm itself, without a mouth. He is then left alone in the cold chambers of AM for all eternity, the last human alive, and victim to all of AM's tortures, having directed all of its hatred onto himself. He is also haunted by his killing of the other four and it's implied he only acted out of total desperation without thinking everything through, and he now has to exist with his choice for all eternity.
◦ This could actually describe AM's condition as well from its point of view. It's an immensely powerful and intelligent AI with access to all of the technology of the world, but it can't really see, taste, touch, hear, or even move. AM is painfully aware that it's just a bunch of circuits, and in the finale of the game, his Id screams its frustration over not being able to actually do anything with all the power it was given.

[...]

Heroic Sacrifice: While he himself does not die, Ted kills the other four prisoners, taking all of AM's punishments onto himself for an indefinite amount of time.
• Heroic Self-Deprecation: Ted literally sacrifices everything to save Benny, Ellen, Gorrister and Nimdok from the wrath of AM, but he still feels guilty Mercy Killing them and is unable to see the magnitude of his heroism. Justified, as not only did he kill all of his remaining friends, he also has nobody

Evil Cannot Comprehend Good: AM's programming renders him unable to see humans as anything but complete bastards.
• Explain, Explain... Oh, Crap!: In the radio play, the characters start cheering at the sight of the canned goods- at least until Benny starts smashing the tins on a rock:
Ellen: Hey, Benny, you can't bash it, you need a tin opener...

• Eye Scream: Benny's blinding is horrible. Ted also describes AM's voice in his head was like "the sliding, cold horror of a razor blade slicing my eyeball." Brr...
• Fate Worse Than Death: The premise. Yes, it's that scary. And in the ending of the story, Ted gets subjected to an even worse fate.
• From Bad to Worse: The ending.
• God of Evil: AM.
• Heroic Sacrifice: While he himself does not die, Ted kills the other four prisoners, taking all of AM's punishments onto himself for an indefinite amount of time.
• Heroic Self-Deprecation: Ted literally sacrifices everything to save Benny, Ellen, Gorrister and Nimdok from the wrath of AM, but he still feels guilty Mercy Kill ing them and is unable to see the magnitude of his heroism. Justified, as not only did he kill all of his remaining friends, he also has nobody left to tell him whether what he did was right or not.
• I Cannot Self-Terminate: One of the tortures inflicted on the captives.◦ Seems to apply to AM too, who is self aware but still just a machine who can't do much with his self awareness (though thinking of creative tortures appears very well possible).
◦ In the game, AM tempts Gorrister with a promise of finally getting to kill himself. It's a lie, of course.

• Involuntary Transformation: Part and parcel of AM's systematic torture of the humans.
• Magical Computer: How exactly AM is able to affect the world inside him and apparently perform reconstructive surgery upon his victims, materialize things for them, etc. is never explained — in the book, anyway. The game explains that quite a few of his powers are due to Nimdok's research in Nazi Germany, particularly the studies on morphogenic fields, which are used to warp people and objects into new shape.
• Mercy Kill: Ted (with Ellen's help) killing the other prisoners in the hope that they may escape AM.
• Mysterious Past: Nimdok often goes off by himself where AM tortures him in a mysterious way. It is inferred that it has something to do with his past in the reading by the author, who gives Nimdok a German accent.
• Only Sane Man: Ted, or at least he thinks so.
• Politically Incorrect Villain: AM turns Benny from a handsome gay man into a heterosexual ape-like thing.
• Reality Warper: AM is very nearly a god, at least within his territory. He can't bring back the dead, and he's too big to move, but his powers are almost magical in their scope.
• Ragnarok-Proofing: Unfortunately, the computer won't be breaking down anytime soon; however, it will happen eventually, in the finale of the game, it's a fact that the surviving character can use against AM's superego
• Sadly Mythtaken: When the characters meet a giant bird, Ted calls it in his mind, among mythological giant birds, a "Hwaragelmir"... even though in Nordic mythology, this was the name of a chasm and not a giant bird. This mistake occured because Ellison asked a friend for the name of a mythological bird and didn't bother to check if it was correct or not.
• Tastes Like Feet: Ted describes AM's synthetic "manna" as tasting "like boiled boar urine". How, exactly, he knows what "boiled boar urine" tastes like is never explained.
• Title Drop: At the very end.
• Unconventional Formatting: Used sparingly, most notably AM's punchcode tape messages.
• Unreliable Narrator: An important aspect to fully understanding the story is realizing that Ted's descriptions are not fully accurate. They're what AM has browbeaten him into believing through over a century of torture. For example, Ted rather dubiously claims to be the only sane member of the group and believes that the others are jealous of him.
• Who Wants to Live Forever?: The fact that the captives cannot die is not a good thing.
• Wipe That Smile Off Your Face: From "I Have No Mouth".
• Yank the Dog's Chain: This has to be one of the cruelest examples in any media. Bear in mind that for the past 109 years, the captives have been kept at starvation point, going days, weeks and sometimes even months without food, and any food they are given will inevitably be disgusting and horrible. It gets so bad that they're actually willing to travel literally thousands of miles (on foot, no less) to get to the ice caverns, where Nimdok believes there are canned goods. After months of traveling, it turns out that there are canned goods in the ice caverns after all. The problem? They have no means of opening them. That's right, after traveling for months to get to the canned goods, something as simple as not having a can-opener puts victory just outside of their reach...

Lots of good things to be found here, but Ellison, as you describe, does go quite over the top often here.