Why do people think Star Trek is scientific?

[Baffalo]

I found myself wondering this the other day. I saw a while back the History channel special on Star Trek and it's contributions, but they listed among it such things as "Star Trek helped invent the cell phone" and that scientists are tracking down actual cloaking technology and stuff. Ok that's fine... but then they aired the Star Wars stuff not long after, and when viewed side by side, the same fantastical bullshit that Trek gets away with was dashed apart as being "unrealistic" by the EXACT same people when talking about Star Wars. So my question has to be why Star Trek gets the green light for having all manner of magical bullshit, but Star Wars, which was proven by Wong, has more basis in science and technology, gets told that they're just fantasy? Is it the lightsabres? It's the lightsabres, isn't it?

[Alyeska]

I would say its partly because Star Trek pretended to be scientific. They used big words people don't understand with a sprinkling of ones they did. Most people have a poor understanding of science in the first place. Add on top hero worship of the original cast, especially someone like Spock.

[Galvatron]

I think it's the TNG-era technobabble. They peppered it with just enough credible-sounding scientific buzzwords that the viewers actually started believing it was grounded in reality.

[Uraniun235]

Because a lot of the fans thought so, and a lot of the fans were told so by their idol Gene Roddenberry and by various writers and producers at conventions and on those self-promotional TV "anniversary specials" or whatever.

[Alyeska]

I will say TNG seemed to have an idea for what computer tech might be like. The PADD and the graphical interfaces built around touch use. The PADD certainly has an iPad feel to it. And with the new windows interfaces getting built for Windows 8, that has an LCARs feel with the included touch interfaces. Seamless cloud storage between device and central processing with wireless interface. Flat panel technology.

Not sure if it was simple deduction, or the people behind it were merely lucky in their creativity.

[Cesario]

"Luke, you switched off your targeting computer! What's wrong?"

That line set Star Wars thematically as anti-technology. It didn't help that we have a religious order of Sword-wielding monks being the key to fighting a technologically advanced evil empire.

This also probably didn't help in avoiding the conflict:
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."

In Star Trek, whatever mystical bullshit they run into, they solve their problems with the trappings of technology.

When the Greek Gods come calling, you nuke their temple with a phaser blast from orbit. When powerful psychics force you to dance for their amusement, the problem is solved by the doctor isolating a chemical in the food responsible for their abilities. The magic ghost in the candle is vanquished by understanding how his energy is held together and depriving him of his power with science and yet another phaser blast to his candle.

[Baffalo]

Star Wars wasn't anti-technology, they were just so used to it that they didn't make a big issue of it. A giant vehicle approaches the farm and offloads robots far in advance of anything we'll see in Star Trek, and they're bought no problem because they're common enough that even simple farmers can afford them. Luke then hops in a vehicle that hovers above the ground and they go get one of the robots. Later, they get on a ship that engages in Faster than Light travel across the galaxy. They play a game of holo-chess, and then have a little ball float around trying to zap Luke. They arrive and find a moon-sized battlestation. Later, they hop in fighters and engage in a fight performing maneuvers that are pretty impressive.

The main issue with technology as seen by Star Wars seems to be when you lose your humanity to machinery. Luke had no problem with his new hand, and he had no issue with the medical droid. The reason the line was dropped about Anakin was because he was no longer a man in terms of what he once was. He had fallen, and fallen hard enough that he was no longer a man in both mind nor body. When Luke turns his targeting computer off, it's the same as taking a leap of faith. Sure it was a gamble, but they'd already tried once and still missed, so Luke was taking a risk not much bigger than the one they'd just done. It worked, so they're not going to complain.

Now look at Star Trek. It could be argued that Starfleet is almost as reliant upon technology as the Borg. When you see the crew of the Enterprise and Voyager rely on technobabble to pull a solution out of their ass, they're becoming more and more dependent on the same technology. They're no longer able to function without their technology and have to pull out more and more convoluted ideas trying to best their enemies rather than out thinking or out fighting. So yes, you're right that they solve their problems with the trappings of technology, but could it possibly hurt them more in the long-run?

[VF5SS]

was proven by Wong, has more basis in science and technology

That's like saying Hokuto no Ken has more basis in actual martial arts than Naruto.

ILM may have a more practical view of prop making and model work when it comes to Star Wars but all I think it points to is they are more aware of classic film making and the imagery they borrowed from much older films.

[Cesario]

You asked why people interpret Star Wars as unrealistic mysticism and Star Trek as scientific. The thematics are important to that.

How much technology is present doesn't change anything about how that technology is presented thematically. Droids and hovercars get a pass because, as you noted, they aren't technologically advanced in-universe. There's nothing special or impressive about them, they aren't cutting edge, and thus they don't register with the audience as anything more than part of the background.

It's one of the greatest things about Star Wars that the world is lived-in, and the technology is just a part of the setting and background, rather than serving as set-pieces and excuses to show off spectacle style special effects every time.

The Death Star is obviously the product of science. A "technological terror" to quote the movie. It is destroyed my mysticism, Luke Skywalker deliberately abandoning the tools of science in the form of his Targeting Computer, and relying on the Force.

Vader's corruption is tied to his dependence on technology, and when he's redeemed, his technological life-support fails him. He's only human in the end, in part, because he's not relying on the machines that keep him alive. "Let me see you with my own eyes."

Who cares what is or isn't more advanced? If you want to debate that, we can head over to the versus forums. The reason Wars is treated as magic and Trek as science is because science is what Trek purports to be about.

Our heroes are explorers and scientists researching at the farthest reaches of human knowledge. They seek out new forms of life, and solve the problems that arise out on the hostile frontier with their knowledge of science and the technology at their disposal.

When magic is apparently presented, there's almost always a man behind the curtain. Even with the psionics that exist in both universes, Trek treats them as an understandable and cataloged phenomenon, a biological process tied to known structures in the brain, and subject to physical laws and energy constraints. Wars treats their psionics as a religious phenomenon, accepted as unknowable, even when we get into midiclorian territory, with a will and consciousness outside human ability to understand even if we wanted to. Even the Q are presented as ultimately understandable, even if they aren't currently understood.

[Stofsk]

ooh i like this new guy :3

[Baffalo]

I'm not particularly religious (just one small step under atheist) but I do feel the need to point out that religion and science aren't the enemies commonly portrayed. Galileo was arrested not because of his observations but rather his attempt to interpret scripture after his revelations. Newton and Einstein were both religious men, Einstein himself unhappy with needing to convince Roosevelt to develop the atomic bomb because of his personal beliefs. There is an observatory atop the Vatican constantly monitoring the stars and many clergymen are interested in astronomy. During the dark ages, which were caused mostly by the bloated, corrupt Roman government rather than the growing Christian movement, clergymen dutifully copied many texts that would otherwise be lost to time.

I'm not a very religious man, but I do oppose the war most atheists try to wage against religion.

[Baffalo]

One thing I found interesting was the minor character development they had in Mass Effect with Ashley Williams. Her family is a military one and yet she is still religious, and talks about how people find it strange that she is. Then I think of the Babylon 5 episode with the myriad of religions that suddenly appear on B5 just to show the aliens how culturally diverse we are.

I know it'd be a huge pain in the ass to come up with twenty or so different religions for every alien of the week, but what we do see consistently is when characters grow, hopefully in at least one of three ways: Bodily, Mentally and Spiritually. Now I'm not saying you have to be religious to grow spiritually, since we saw Worf grow spiritually when confronted with Khaless. The clone made Worf think, wondering if Khaless was real and what it means to be a Klingon. When he begins to believe in Khaless and then has that hope shattered, he's naturally angry.

And in reference to your comment a second ago Destructionator, about having faith but continuing to pursue what you want, definitely sums up Einstein. Einstein hated the concept of a dynamic, expanding universe. Yet the evidence he saw in front of him suggested that there was nothing else but a dynamic universe. There was a competing theory where the universe was in a steady state, and Einstein's personal views reflected this. Yet when confronted with the evidence, despite his displeasure for it, he accepted that it was true.

I will give Star Trek kudos for promoting art as well as science, because I think Mordin on Mass Effect 2 summed it up best. Without art, a culture stagnates, withers, and dies. Technology pushes the limitations, confronts them, overcomes them. Star Trek may go at it with a ham-fisted approach, but at least they're trying damnit.

[Cesario]

BTW, I watched "Who Watches the Watchers" a while ago, and talk about anti religion!

*snip*

One of the things I really liked about that episode was it was the Prime Directive done right. In this one, our heroes have screwed up while trying to do the right thing, and as a result, they've inadvertently altered the course of a civilization.

This is exactly the sort of situation the Prime Directive was warning them about, and it shows that rather than being a morally bankrupt philosophy at its core, the Prime Directive is a good idea that's been taken too far on a few occasions.

Here we have the spirit of the Prime Directive on full display, while in other episodes, our heroes come off poorly because they cleave too closely to the letter.

[Baffalo]

Any philosophy taken too far can end up being more damning than if they'd not bothered at all.

[Freefall]

I think the idea that Star Wars has any kind of real anti-science or anti-tech message is pretty nonsensical. Let's look at a couple of things:

1) Luke blew up the Death Star by switching off his targeting computer.

No, Luke blew it up with PROTON TORPEDOS. What do you think those were made of? Midichlorians? Not likely. For that matter, how did Luke even get in range to shoot them? By flying in an advanced combat machine. And why wasn't he dead in the vacuum of space? Life support technology. Heck, he even had a flight helmet on to protect his noggin. It's not like he just ditched his whole fighter craft and blew up the Death Star with a giant kamehameha or something, he just eschewed a single aspect of a highly sophisticated spacecraft. Given that the force is real in that universe, I don't see anything wrong or anti-tech in this. The Force is somewhat better at certain things than tech seems to be, but at no point is it made out to completely replace or surpass tech in all ways.

2) The good guys are Jedi.

Yes, and the Jedi's primary weapon is some kind of highly advanced plasma sword. They also routinely make use of spacecraft, communications devices, data storage devices, hologram projectors, and droids with no complaints whatsoever. The only things any of them seem to actually dislike are guns. But then, there are a lot of people in real life who consider guns to be utterly barbaric without otherwise being anti-tech in the least.

3) Vader is the bad guy, and he's "more machine than man."

Threepio is 100% machine and is probably the nicest character in the entire series. Vader being a cyborg is more a matter of circumstance. After all, he fell to the Darkside before he became a cyborg.

On the other hand, the Emperor is 100% organic, and he's the actual Big Bad Evil Dude of the series. In fact, the Emperor looks far more like a typical warlock or sorcerer than anyone else in the films that I can think of, and he relies on tech less than anyone besides Yoda (originally the Emperor had no lightsaber, and was all about just zapping people with the force. Well, and the Death Star, I guess).

4) Vader is redeemed and his life support fails.

Actually, Vader was probably redeemed the moment he turned on the Emperor. It's just that turning on the Emperor turns out to be really bad for your health, because he's a freaking Sith Lord and can fry your ass with magic lightning, which is what actually destroyed Vader's life support.

Anyway, just a little something I wanted to get off my chest. The Star Wars universe is absolutely steeped in advanced technology, sometimes to a ludicrous degree (like the missile that explodes into smaller missiles that are actually droids with little lasers), and it is virtually never called out as being bad, wrong, or evil. It's only when used a certain way, or overly relied upon, that any of that becomes the case, but that's actually a pretty reasonable stance. But cherry picking a very few examples of someone either choosing not to use tech, or choosing not to use it quite as much as they could, really doesn't do much to demonstrate an actual anti-tech element for the series as a whole.

[Cesario]

I think the idea that Star Wars has any kind of real anti-science or anti-tech message is pretty nonsensical. Let's look at a couple of things:

1) Luke blew up the Death Star by switching off his targeting computer.

No, Luke blew it up with PROTON TORPEDOS. What do you think those were made of? Midichlorians? Not likely. For that matter, how did Luke even get in range to shoot them? By flying in an advanced combat machine. And why wasn't he dead in the vacuum of space? Life support technology. Heck, he even had a flight helmet on to protect his noggin. It's not like he just ditched his whole fighter craft and blew up the Death Star with a giant kamehameha or something, he just eschewed a single aspect of a highly sophisticated spacecraft.

A sword is technology too. As are the carving tools needed to put runes in a wooden staff.

Do you know the reason those aren't celebrated as the technological marvels they are in a standard fantasy universe? Because thematically, the only thing that counts as "technology" or "science" is the stuff that's advanced by the standards of their universe.

If you have a magic arrow that never misses, but shoot it out of a perfectly normal bow, you don't get to claim that the bow (which was still absolutely vital to the operation) was the true hero here.

Given that the force is real in that universe, I don't see anything wrong or anti-tech in this.

In any actual magic-versus-science universe, you can claim the fact that magic is real makes it actually just a subset of science, but thematically, it doesn't work that way.

The Force is somewhat better at certain things than tech seems to be, but at no point is it made out to completely replace or surpass tech in all ways.

"The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant compared with the power of the Force."

2) The good guys are Jedi.

Yes, and the Jedi's primary weapon is some kind of highly advanced plasma sword.

Which is described as ancient in-universe, thus not being treated as highly advanced at all by the narrative.

They also routinely make use of spacecraft, communications devices, data storage devices, hologram projectors, and droids with no complaints whatsoever.

Which are all nothing more than part of the background, and not "technology" as far as the narrative cares.

The only things any of them seem to actually dislike are guns. But then, there are a lot of people in real life who consider guns to be utterly barbaric without otherwise being anti-tech in the least.

Obi-wan's dislike of guns has nothing to do with a dislike of technology, even thematically. His dislike of guns is more about yearning for a lost, civilized age where disputes were settled with formal duels and words rather than military hardware.

3) Vader is the bad guy, and he's "more machine than man."

Threepio is 100% machine and is probably the nicest character in the entire series.

He's also not treated as a person in-universe. That makes a difference when you're talking things like good and evil.

Vader being a cyborg is more a matter of circumstance. After all, he fell to the Darkside before he became a cyborg.

Except that we're talking thematics not technicalities of in-universe history.

On the other hand, the Emperor is 100% organic, and he's the actual Big Bad Evil Dude of the series. In fact, the Emperor looks far more like a typical warlock or sorcerer than anyone else in the films that I can think of, and he relies on tech less than anyone besides Yoda (originally the Emperor had no lightsaber, and was all about just zapping people with the force. Well, and the Death Star, I guess).

Now if it weren't for those pesky superadvanced weapons systems he keeps ordering built to solve his problems, this would be a great argument.

4) Vader is redeemed and his life support fails.

Actually, Vader was probably redeemed the moment he turned on the Emperor. It's just that turning on the Emperor turns out to be really bad for your health, because he's a freaking Sith Lord and can fry your ass with magic lightning, which is what actually destroyed Vader's life support.

Suspension of disbelief is a great thing for the versus type analysis, but for a literary analysis, you have to look at things other than what objectively happened, and more at what things mean narratively. Because it isn't what literally happened that gives people the impression Star Wars is anti-tech. It's the literary aspects.

Anyway, just a little something I wanted to get off my chest. The Star Wars universe is absolutely steeped in advanced technology, sometimes to a ludicrous degree (like the missile that explodes into smaller missiles that are actually droids with little lasers), and it is virtually never called out as being bad, wrong, or evil. It's only when used a certain way, or overly relied upon, that any of that becomes the case, but that's actually a pretty reasonable stance. But cherry picking a very few examples of someone either choosing not to use tech, or choosing not to use it quite as much as they could, really doesn't do much to demonstrate an actual anti-tech element for the series as a whole.

It'd be cherry picking if I were to grab obscure one-off events, but I'm grabbing iconic moments from the most well known and emotionally powerful films of all time.

[Stofsk]

EDIT: this is in response to Freefall

Actually all your rebuttals fail to answer the specific charge in those examples.

1) Luke did ride a space ship, with technology designed to keep him alive, and the devices that were used to bomb the Death Star were technological devices, this is true. But those bombs needed to be aimed in a specific way in order to actually do the job they were designed to. Hence why they had the targeting computers. Red Leader made his run and got far enough in to fire his payload, using the targeting computer; and he failed. In that sense, experienced piloting and the technology he employed failed. Luke, who is not experienced and who switched off his computer, relied upon the Force. Ergo, only someone with superpowers could have made that shot. Han himself even said 'Great shot kid that was one-in-a-million!' I mean not to be rude or anything, but it's fucking crystal clear what the theme was from that scene.

2) I am not even sure what your point here is. You seem to be saying that the Jedi cannot be anti-science because they use technological instruments. That's a non sequitur. The Jedi are a religious organisation not a scientific one. Many of their teachings stress the importance of feeling your way through life, trusting the Force to drive their actions, and making moral decisions rather than the 'quick and easy path' of the dark side. Saying that they use laserswords ergo they are not anti-technology is irrelevant. For that matter, they can be completely for technology and indeed, this is depicted in the films, while at the same time also being religious or mystical. Many religious people use iPhones and drive cars in today's world so again, your comment makes no sense.

3) Again, it's like your point just gets away from you. You acknowledge that the Emperor relied on the Death Star to carry out his will. That's the very definition of 'bad technology'. Vader being more machine than man was a commentary on the loss of his humanity more than anything else. Obviously the droids were signs of good technology, but hey while we're talking about the droids there is some anti-droid prejudice in the Star Wars galaxy so it's not all good. What about the torture bot Vader brought in Leia's prison cell? There's also the Imperial Probe Droid that betrayed the Rebel's base to Vader. Also that droid boss Jabba had who tortured an underling?

4) You're wrong here but the EU is inconsistent so maybe it would be charitable to suggest you're only half-wrong. Shadow of the Empire showed that the dark side was what kept Vader 'alive'. There was one point where he let his pride and love for his son affect him momentarily and it actually caused him an injury. Frankly I find this more believable than Vader getting his life support systems shorted out by Palpatine's magic lightning - as though Vader never thought 'shit I might have to go up against Palpatine one day, as is the Sith Tradition, so maybe I shouldn't wear a suit of armour that's vulnerable to his magic lightning attack'. There's also the other thing that just because it looks like lightning, doesn't mean it will behave like lightning or electricity would normally behave. Sith Lightning is merely a visual representation of the Dark Side. It's not actual electricity.

Finally it is not 'cherry picking' that is going on here; what is being described is very much the thematic quality of the films. When Luke switches off his targeting computer, he is making a conscious choice to eschew technology in favour of mysticism. This is backed up because of Red Leader's example. So what if there are examples of 'good' technology as well as the 'bad'? Or Jedi Knights using technological gizmos to carry out their duties? What, they have to live in caves and use stone tools before you can say that they make use of mysticism over technology and science? They're a monastic order for crying out loud! The hilarious thing is that stone tools would still be an example of technology anyway. What about the ewoks fighting against the Empire's forces? Everyone and his dog hates the ewoks winning that fight because to them, technology should have won. But it obviously didn't. That's not what the theme was about in that conflict.

[Metahive]

3) Again, it's like your point just gets away from you. You acknowledge that the Emperor relied on the Death Star to carry out his will. That's the very definition of 'bad technology'. Vader being more machine than man was a commentary on the loss of his humanity more than anything else. Obviously the droids were signs of good technology, but hey while we're talking about the droids there is some anti-droid prejudice in the Star Wars galaxy so it's not all good. What about the torture bot Vader brought in Leia's prison cell? There's also the Imperial Probe Droid that betrayed the Rebel's base to Vader. Also that droid boss Jabba had who tortured an underling?

That's not even mentioning that the bad guys from the PT use a massive droid army, an army of unfeeling, faceless machines to do their bidding. Or that the eventually traitorous clone-troopers have also been products of advanced science. Or the fact that Anakin's slip into darkness goes hand in hand with the robotic replacements he's given. Then there's the Clone Wars series where Palpatine attempts to artificially inject babies with the Dark Side, a full-blown mad scientist attempting to deploy biological agents, the freakin' TECH union undertaking genetic experiments on unwilling subjects, the CIS developing "kill-all-fleshbags" weapons and on and on and on.

Science and technology are more often than not the domain of the bad guys in the SW universe.

[Eternal_Freedom]

A slightly trivial note here; on the matter of lightsabers not being advanced by the standards of the age, there is an amusing exchange from one of the Black Fleet Crisis novels on the amter:

Luke is arriving incognito on a new planet. His companion asks what he will say when his lightsaber is detected by the automatic weaopn detectors at customs. He explains that msot weapon detectors read a lightsaber as a type of shaver.

I find that funny.

[Freefall]

A sword is technology too. As are the carving tools needed to put runes in a wooden staff.

Do you know the reason those aren't celebrated as the technological marvels they are in a standard fantasy universe? Because thematically, the only thing that counts as "technology" or "science" is the stuff that's advanced by the standards of their universe.

If you have a magic arrow that never misses, but shoot it out of a perfectly normal bow, you don't get to claim that the bow (which was still absolutely vital to the operation) was the true hero here.

I also wouldn't claim that the story had some sort of anti-archery message because you used a magic arrow rather than relying purely on your own skill. Plus, I don't think your analogy works so well here, because in Luke's case, both the bow and the arrow were normal, the only thing "magical" that he used were his own instincts instead of something like a sniper scope

In any actual magic-versus-science universe, you can claim the fact that magic is real makes it actually just a subset of science, but thematically, it doesn't work that way.

Maybe, but what is the theme here? You're saying it is anti-tech just because Luke eschews the use of the targeting computer (though still relying on very high-tech bombs to actually do everything). But it only worked at all because Luke basically has superpowers to fall back on. It's not like he was a normal person or anything. So what, is the movie supposed to be, pro-force powers? Pro-super powers? It can't just be "don't rely on technology, it isn't as good as your own instincts," because Luke's instincts are basically magically enhanced to superhuman levels.

I mean, it feels like it would be kind of like taking the TPM and saying that the pod racing scene is trying to convey a message about how children are people too and shouldn't be barred from doing the things they love or something, when really it is quite obvious that it only applies to Anakin because he is a truly exceptional individual.

"The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant compared with the power of the Force."

Yeah, nobody takes that seriously. He may not have even meant it literally.

Which is described as ancient in-universe, thus not being treated as highly advanced at all by the narrative.

Isn't all their tech ancient? I'm not that familiar with the EU, but I was under the impression that the average tech base of their galaxy had been pretty consistent for something like tens of thousands of years.

Also, it's very common in science fiction for ancient tech to actually be more advanced than newer tech, for whatever reason.

Which are all nothing more than part of the background, and not "technology" as far as the narrative cares.

Which is actually kind of my point. The tech in Star Wars is so ubiquitous that most of the time it's not even worth commenting on, until someone opts to use force powers instead of some particular kind of tech. Then all of a sudden it's an anti-tech movie.

He's also not treated as a person in-universe. That makes a difference when you're talking things like good and evil.

You and I must have different ideas of what "people" are. Threepio (and Artoo) has a personality, feelings, and relationships to other characters. He is very much a person.

Now if it weren't for those pesky superadvanced weapons systems he keeps ordering built to solve his problems, this would be a great argument.

Yeah, the main point here is actually that you are claiming that cyborg=evil and corrupt, except Palpatine is much more evil and corrupt than Vader ever was. Tarkin was also arguably more evil and corrupt than Vader, even if he didn't have the force. So there is plenty of indication that evil and corruption exist independently of technology in the universe.

Suspension of disbelief is a great thing for the versus type analysis, but for a literary analysis, you have to look at things other than what objectively happened, and more at what things mean narratively. Because it isn't what literally happened that gives people the impression Star Wars is anti-tech. It's the literary aspects.

I have never gotten the impression that Vader's death was a result of anything other than Palpatine frying him with Force Lightning. Not as a child, a teen, or as an adult, nor have I ever heard such an interpretation from anyone other than here. Vader was being zapped hard enough you could see his skull glowing through his helmet, there were sparks flying off his armor, and he could barely stand afterwards. I don't see how anyone could watch that and not come to the conclusion that his death was pretty much entirely a result of being zapped by the Emperor.

It'd be cherry picking if I were to grab obscure one-off events, but I'm grabbing iconic moments from the most well known and emotionally powerful films of all time.

I call it cherry picking because there is significantly more to the movies besides those scenes and lines, regardless of how iconic they are, and I do not see an anti-tech bias anywhere. To me, to get a sense of "anti-tech" or "anti-science," a movie has to actually go somewhat out of its way to suggest that humanity would be better off without advanced technology, that humanity is actually already better than advanced technology, or that advanced technology is extremely dangerous and poses inherent risks, physical or of the dehumanizing sort. I do not think Star Wars does this to anywhere near a large enough degree to actually view it as having an actual anti-tech message to it. There is lots of tech used by the bad guys, and lots of tech used by the good guys. There is mysticism used by the good guys, and there is mysticism used by the bad guys. Yes, the bad guys have better tech, but that is shown as purely a matter of resources, rather than philosophy or lifestyle.

Of course, the bad guys also have better force powers, so maybe the movies are anti-lightside too.

Avatar would be blatantly anti-tech. Battlestar Galactica and Dune have a lot of it too. Terminator arguably (arguably because the first was mainly just meant to be an action movie). Star Wars? I really don't think Lucas was trying to convey any kind of message about tech one way or the other (other than, "hey, this stuff can be really cool!"). It's not like we get Yoda saying that living in a hut in a swamp is actually better than living in a city. There's probably a stronger message about the evils of insane dictators who think they can see the future than about technology as a whole.

EDIT: this is in response to Freefall

Actually all your rebuttals fail to answer the specific charge in those examples.

It's possible I didn't quite understand things, or did not express myself well, so let's see.

1)

Yes, Luke used superpowers. Luke needed superpowers. I don't see how substituting advanced tech with advanced superpowers makes it an actual anti-tech theme. It does not show normal people being better off without technology, just someone who is far beyond normal anyway. During the mission briefing someone commented that the shot was basically impossible, even with a computer. I don't see that as anti-tech either. Maybe their targeting computers just aren't that great for whatever reason. Just because the movie doesn't portray all tech as being better than all other options at all times doesn't mean there is actually an anti-tech theme running. In fact, doing so would basically be more like tech-wanking. If anything, Star Wars has a fairly neutral stance on tech's place and utility.

And since we're also mentioning thematics, thematically that scene was basically just analogous to Luke taking off his training wheels. It's not anti-tech, it's just a tool to establish Luke as something special.

2) The Jedi are a religious organisation not a scientific one. Many of their teachings stress the importance of feeling your way through life, trusting the Force to drive their actions, and making moral decisions rather than the 'quick and easy path' of the dark side.

I do not see how any of that makes them anti-science. Not embracing science is not the same as considering it inherently evil or destructive. There's also nothing "quick and easy" about science. It took us most of recorded history just to figure out F=ma.

Saying that they use laserswords ergo they are not anti-technology is irrelevant. For that matter, they can be completely for technology and indeed, this is depicted in the films, while at the same time also being religious or mystical. Many religious people use iPhones and drive cars in today's world so again, your comment makes no sense.

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought the fact the Jedi were basically a kind of mystic monk was being submitted as evidence that the movies have an anti-tech/science message. I do not believe this to be the case, and submitted that there is nothing about the Jedi order that seems to actually reject either science or technology as a category. It looks like you agree with me, since the above paragraph seems to indicate you accept that there is no inherent or portrayed clash between their mystical beliefs and having a respect for science.

3) Again, it's like your point just gets away from you. You acknowledge that the Emperor relied on the Death Star to carry out his will. That's the very definition of 'bad technology'. Vader being more machine than man was a commentary on the loss of his humanity more than anything else.

The Death Star itself isn't evil though, it is just built with an evil purpose by a thoroughly evil person. One who, I might add, is essentially just as "mystical" as the Jedi themselves. So again, both forces can be used either way. In the case of the Death Star, it is simply a matter of the Empire having far more resources than the Rebels.

I feel like we actually kind of agree on Vader as well. You are right; the heart of the matter is the loss of his humanity. The cybernetics and armor are used to illustrate this, but I don't think it has any deeper meaning there than just looking cool. Making him a werewolf or mutant would have also worked well for conveying his loss of humanity, but would have been quite silly and out of place in Star Wars. Of course, I don't think most people view werewolf stories as being anti-wolf or anti-nature.

Obviously the droids were signs of good technology, but hey while we're talking about the droids there is some anti-droid prejudice in the Star Wars galaxy so it's not all good. What about the torture bot Vader brought in Leia's prison cell? There's also the Imperial Probe Droid that betrayed the Rebel's base to Vader. Also that droid boss Jabba had who tortured an underling?

Sure, you can find plenty of examples of both good and evil droids, but to me it seems like that simply balances things out and indicates there is probably no real bias one way or the other.

4) snip

I don't really care what Palpatine was shooting; if the Dark Lord of the Sith tries to kill you, you're probably going to at least get hurt in the process. And it's pretty clear Vader was hurt in that process. Badly. For that matter, so was Luke, so it's clear that Force Lightning hurts like hell, regardless of what it actually is.

I've also heard that some parts of the EU actually stated that Palpatine deliberately gave him poorly insulated cybernetics and suit, to make clear how vulnerable Vader was to him, or something like that. I don't know. It doesn't really matter to me. Since the EU was all written by different authors, they have to be taken on a case by case basis. I'm sure some of them had an anti-tech bias. Some of them probably had a pro-tech bias as well. Some of them probably love huge numbers, some love small numbers. Apparently some of them have a huge crush on Boba Fett. I don't know. But what I do know is that they are not George Lucas, and what they have written doesn't really have anything to do with what he himself meant to convey in his movies.

snip

I don't see how any of that makes for a strong anti-tech message. We have one instance of picking the force over technology. We have many instances of them working together with no qualms, or of many people just liking tech. I don't see how a small handful of examples overwhelms everything else; that's what I mean by cherry picking. The Jedi have no anti-science attitudes. Neither does Luke. Neither does anyone else. Palpatine uses tech for evil, but at the same time he is just as much a mystic as the Jedi, while the Jedi and Rebels freely make use of technology with no qualms or reservations of any kind. The only real difference is Palps just has better resources and thinks bigger. Otherwise it all evens out pretty well. The one clear instance of picking mysticism over tech is actually completely consistent with what it is supposed to do in the universe. The Force is all about perception. It allows people to sense death family members from kilometers away, mass death from lightyears away, glimpse the future, deflect blaster bolts with a thin beam of energy, allows a small child to compete in pod racing, and allows an older Anakin to fall a few thousand feet and land on a relatively small, very fast moving object. Perception and accuracy is actually one of the most common, albeit subtle, manifestations of the force.

Ewoks? Well, they had Harrison Ford on their side.

@Methahive
This may sound argumentative, but to be perfectly honest, I always felt that the main reason Lucas used droids in TPM instead of ordinary soldiers was so that he could have the Jedi cut them in half without making them look like cold blooded murderers. Essentially the same reason the Foot Ninjas in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon were all robots, or why the GI Joes could never hit anything with their guns except the BAT androids. It always felt to me it had a lot more to do with getting around sensorship issues than with any particular view on the ills of technology.

The Clones were made with technology, but again, the clones weren't evil because they were clones, they were evil because they were created by and for an evil man, who chose to use them for evil purposes. Not to mention the guy they were cloned from was kind of evil too. But the people who actually created them, the Neimoidians, seemed perfectly fine, and the clones themselves were fine and likely would have stayed that way if they had been under the absolute control of Yoda instead of Mr "I-may-as-well-have-'Evil Sith Lord'-branded-on-my-forehead-you-morons" Palpatine.

I haven't seen the Clone Wars show, but I would say I view it a lot like the books, meaning if it wasn't written by George Lucas, then it doesn't necessarily reflect on what he intended to portray with Star Wars, and probably varies with the writer.

[Metahive]

This may sound argumentative, but to be perfectly honest, I always felt that the main reason Lucas used droids in TPM instead of ordinary soldiers was so that he could have the Jedi cut them in half without making them look like cold blooded murderers. Essentially the same reason the Foot Ninjas in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon were all robots, or why the GI Joes could never hit anything with their guns except the BAT androids. It always felt to me it had a lot more to do with getting around sensorship issues than with any particular view on the ills of technology.

Think about it, even heroic people can do all sorts of cruel things to machines they couldn't do to fleshy beings, and that isn't some clear-cut anti-technology bias for you? I think that only reinforces my argument. Add to that that a lot of the droids, including the various war droids, in Star Wars are at least semi-self aware and we're heading into quite disturbing territory here.

The Clones were made with technology, but again, the clones weren't evil because they were clones, they were evil because they were created by and for an evil man, who chose to use them for evil purposes. Not to mention the guy they were cloned from was kind of evil too. But the people who actually created them, the Neimoidians, seemed perfectly fine, and the clones themselves were fine and likely would have stayed that way if they had been under the absolute control of Yoda instead of Mr "I-may-as-well-have-'Evil Sith Lord'-branded-on-my-forehead-you-morons" Palpatine.

The Kaminoans (not the Neimodians) are portrayed as immoral and sleazy (with one single exception), caring only for their bottom line and not at all who wants an army and what their artificial warriors will be eventually be used for. You couldn't get a clearer anti-science and hi-tech message if you tried.

I haven't seen the Clone Wars show, but I would say I view it a lot like the books, meaning if it wasn't written by George Lucas, then it doesn't necessarily reflect on what he intended to portray with Star Wars, and probably varies with the writer.

It's canon (second only to the movies even) and personally approved of by Lucas. Either deal with it or concede.

[FaxModem1]

The Kaminoans (not the Neimodians) are portrayed as immoral and sleazy (with one single exception), caring only for their bottom line and not at all who wants an army and what their artificial warriors will be eventually be used for. You couldn't get a clearer anti-science and hi-tech message if you tried.

I'm curious, who was the exception?

[Metahive]

One Kaminoan who appeared in the Malevolence trilogy of the Clone Wars series. The only one to actually show concern and sympathy for the clones to the point of choosing to rather die with them than retreat to safety.

[Baffalo]

It might simply be that the Kaminoans view the clones exactly as they are: cloned, disposable soldiers. They knew that even if the clones survived the war (unlikely as it was) that they would have very short lives compared with normal humans. Also, they were human clones. It's one thing to clone members of your own species, but breeding humans for that purpose makes them think, "Oh well, it's just a worthless human who's meant to die anyway. Why should I care what happens to him?"

[Alyeska]

This is the PST forum. I'm seeing a lot of Star Wars discussion.