I came across Mike Wong's site yesterday, and it seems the terms objectivity, tolerance, modesty and sensitiveness have to be redefined. Read me whole flame at news.startrek.com.experforum.ricksternbach (I am Spock), here's an excerpt to give you an impression what I think about it:
"My last contribution to this issue: Thanks for your estimation, Ryan. Nevertheless, I have to essentially maintain my criticism. I have had several discussions with Star Wars fans, also with the kind of fans who don't allow any reasoning about scientific background, storytelling and fandom, because they claim to know everything better. There might be Star Trek fans who think the same, anyway, I'm tired of arguing about it. What makes me especially angry about Mike Wong's website is that 1) He mixes up (Anti-Federation) fan-fiction and sensible scientific discussion in a way that Star Wars does not only have the better, but also the more consistent technology. If it's all only fiction, the latter ought to play no role and vice versa. The Galactic Empire proves Star Trek can't work and thus wins the war. I don't know if I should find such arguments malevolent or just ridiculous. Being a dedicated Star Trek fan, even if he found out quite the opposite, I wouldn't like his way of discussion. 2) He compares Star Trek and Star Wars where it can't be compared. It's obvious that Star Wars will turn out more technically correct, because technology plays only a minor role. This simple consideration renders his whole discussion unnecessary, no matter what he finds out about Star Trek (which is mostly correct, I have to admit). 3) His attitude of striving to prove Star Trek is nonsense does not comply with his scientific approach. I can understand if he wants to discuss his issues with scientifically literate people only, but the way he refuses possible comments and objections, is too arrogant for a scientist. Science is always about considering different possibilities. I have changed my website more than once, after someone had corrected me or provided me with better ideas."
In short, my opinion of Mike Wong, apart from the fact he does continuously insult Star Trek, is that he betrays the basic principles of science fiction, no matter if it's regarded as more science or more fiction.
My questions: 1) What do you think of his website (I guess most of you already know it)? 2) Maybe I'm wrong with my opinion about Mike Wong's ideas. Am I missing or misunderstanding anything?
posted
Take a look at the "Myths" link at the top of the page. It isn't written from the fanfic perspective, and should describe everything more clearly.
Keep in mind that Mike created the page to combat the legions of Trek fans he's spoken to who have little scientific knowledge, and rely on irrelevant concepts or non-physics such as subspace etc.
The general point is that Trek is inconsistent and the writers do a horrible job with regards to scientific factors.
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Quintesson: "You are the Autobot named Kup. You are Cybertron's chief of security." Kup: "Nah, my name's Teaspoon, and I'm Cybertron's chief dishwasher."
posted
I agree with Mike Wong's assessment of both the Star Trek and Star Wars science and technology. Unfortunately, Star Wars is the more consistent of the two. The reason is-why are you making this science fiction fantasy? George Lucas is making the films for lovers of fantasy, for those seeking a spiritual reawakening, and, lastly, profit. Paramount is making Star Trek for profit, profit, and profit. I have never seen a book for Star Wars go for fifty dollars and be inconsistent 30 to 40 percent of the time with the canon material. (I speak of the second encyclopedia in hardcover). Further, look at the star wars site and the star trek site. The star wars site is professional, clean, and shows good quality work. The star trek site is cluttered, has advertisements all over the place, and some of the information is out of date (the transportation list for example). This is a poorly maintain site.
IP: Logged
posted
Actually, the SW Encyclopedia is just as bad as the Trek one. Worse, even.
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Quintesson: "You are the Autobot named Kup. You are Cybertron's chief of security." Kup: "Nah, my name's Teaspoon, and I'm Cybertron's chief dishwasher."
posted
Shadow: Perhaps both books are bad. The Star Wars encyclopedia is using information from canon and official sites. There is bound to be a few inconsistencies. My gripes with the Star Trek Encyclopedia is that the product has episode synopsis which fill pages that could be used for entries, too much commentary and the word "conjecture", and other numerous errors. I expect discontinuity in novels-authors do not work in committee, they work separately. The ST Encyclopedia is completely canon written by people who work on the canon universe. I do not expect this many errors. If I handed this work to a college teacher, the best I could hope for is a C minus. Then Paramount has the gall to ask to pay 50 dollars for this work, 25 dollars for the DS9TM (also full of mistakes), and 8 dollars for the ST Magazine which is a fancy, glossy, slick pulp magazine for the fans. The last purchase I bought was the oft mentioned encyclopedia which I threw into the garbage because of the many errors in the book. Paramount, I believe, knows that people are willing to buy the products and will keep bringing out bad quality merchandise, until the people demand a better product.
IP: Logged
Yes, I can see it now. Lucas the artist, rereleasing his movies...for the sake of the children. Of course. How logical.
What's that? More gold flakes on your cereal, Mr. Lucas?
This consistancy argument...I don't get it. How is it you can compare three movies to hundreds of hours of television and movies? There is simply more Trek product to go through.
Regarding criticisms of the encyclopedia...well, different strokes, I suppose. Seeing as how the most detailed "synopsis" consists of about two lines, and their sole purpose is to let you look up entries by episode...
So why does Lucasfilm control Star Wars to such a great extent? Simple. Lucasfilm is the company that owns it. Paramount owns Trek. Not Roddenberrymount.
------------------ "I'm sick, like Nixon was sick, my defeated heart keeps beating on. I won't die, like Chucky won't die." -- They Might Be Giants
posted
I understand from reading a thread in the starships forum how Mr. Okuda obtains his ideas for the encyclopedia. He goes to sites such as The Expanded Star Trek site by J. Creighton so he can check his references. This is like a historian going to a layman for assistance in his history. He wouldn't. This lowers my opinion of Mr. Okuda. My opinion is lowered even further when I read that the third encyclopedia is going to be the same; this time, however, there will be a 95 page appendix. This is to save money and time. Paramount gets a great deal of money from Star Trek merchandise, spends a prodigious amount of money on two series and a movie (1998-1999), and advertiser revenue. But, they are not willing to spend this money on a quality product. The encyclopedia is for a very specific audience-the devouted followers of Star Trek, not the common person. A devoted follower knows the episodes and the films. A list could be provided at the beginning which lists the episodes and episode abbreviations. An intelligent reader can link an entry to this list. BTW, the special premiere of Star Wars (seats going to 5,000), the money will be going to charities that help children. I trust in G. Lucas' motivations and I respect the man. For the stories to be real, there needs to be continuity and consistency. The Bible is real for many people because there is a strong continuity and consistency. Ex. Jesus born, Jesus preaches, Jesus dies. The writers of the Bible, who lived before computers and were decades and centuries apart, were able to have greater consistency than Star Trek ever has. And didn't the Star Trek producers have people who were hired to be "continuity experts"? Well, if they did, they failed.
IP: Logged
posted
My criticism was not about Star Trek vs. Star Wars or the way of merchandising, but specifically about that website. I did have a look at the "myths" and it was what me annoyed even most (besides his e-mail prevention page). Mike Wong does only accept facts that make Star Trek appear less technical and less consistent. Even where he is right, he does not seem to understand the very basic concept of science fiction (be it science + fiction or science in fiction or fiction of science), or applies it unequally to Star Trek and Star Wars. I would have expected a minimum of objectiveness from someone who is obviously well informed about either show and claims to be a scientist. His website is a sole hate campaign against Star Trek or Star Trek fans (thus I feel personally offended) without the necessary irony (I was desperately looking for it), and unfortunately Star Wars fans may adopt this argumentation for the endless but useless ST vs. SW debate.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Trinculo
Ex-Member
posted
Sol System: Both are have prominent places in the marketplace. I am saying-The TPTB (I hate this phrase, they are not 'gods') at Paramount do not do a quality check and put money on their products. Their products are made like a house with the lowest bidder. G. Lucas products are supervised by him and they show a very good quality check and money is put on their products.
IP: Logged
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
Bernd,
Your objections do not really touch upon the thoroughness or the logic behind Mike's reasoning at all - if it is simply the offensive nature of the presentation, I would personally completely disregard that part; in no way does it affect the validity of the content. Personally, I'm not interested in reading over and over about the good things in Trek (OK, so Ent-nil is 947' long always, it's nice but then what?) - it is the funny inconsistencies which are interesting.
Also, regarding the objection of using science all the time: what can we use? "Hmm, maybe the subspace does this and that..." - this is the way religion approaches questions, by making statements which we are led to believe and have no way of disproving. I don't feel that we should approach the world of Star Trek differently than that of Star Wars, or prohibit one way of understanding it to say the least.
Boris
[This message was edited by Boris on April 21, 1999.]
posted
Actually Trincolo, Lucus made a bit of a blunder. What he wanted was a premiere with a bit of royalty present. What Lucusfilm actually asked for was a Royal Command Performance. Lucusfilm then asked how many tickets they could give away to invited guests, and were politely informed that a command performance is a charity event, and the tickets would have to be sold for �100-�300 each. Made a bit of a boo-boo there George.
posted
Frank, Boris: No, no, no, no, no. Mike Wong does use serious science for particular topics, but his general approach is neither scientific nor logical. It is something like that: He thinks that Star Wars is consistent. Where this can't be maintained, he looks for evidence that Star Trek is more inconsistent. He just picks the facts that fit into his ideology. Moreover, I can distinguish between the fictional comparison between ST and SW and the scientifically based, but obviously he can't. Some people always complain if canon and non-canon ships or real and fictional science is mixed up, which I cannot approve of, either. Wong, however, does the same on nearly all his pages, and no SW fan seems to object.
posted
Fine, then, put up a page with an opposing argument, written however you like.
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Quintesson: "You are the Autobot named Kup. You are Cybertron's chief of security." Kup: "Nah, my name's Teaspoon, and I'm Cybertron's chief dishwasher."
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
Bernd: the non-canon stuff is used only where it doesn't contradict the episodes and the movies. This group of Star Wars tech fans would never use non-canon materials where they contradict the onscreen info. In addition, what I've observed is a high level of opposition towards the "fiction" part of science fiction (often equated with scientific incompetency on part of writers), which means that explanations of tech in these official sources are replaced with more solid, reality-based ones which still fit the onscreen info. The info in the official sources is then included where it doesn't contradict these theories. Star Trek receives the same treatment as far as I know - do you have any specific examples where they diverge?
Maybe the conclusions *are* framed in an unscientific fashion - after all, the page has the Empire's POV, and it would be a little out of place to say anything negative about Star Wars in such a page. Which still doesn't mean that the author doesn't have personal qualms with something about the Star Wars universe as well.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
