Star Wars, Star Trek - Technology, ethics, and social impact

[Max]

I have been trying to search through the threads in order to find some help on the differences between Star Wars/Trek in order to better discuss it with someone else, who seems to be a very passionate Trekker. I prefer Star Wars, myself. This is the discussion that basically started with his lamenting over the casting of the Star Trek prequel...


I basically said that Hollywood is probably casting all the young hip actors, because they want to appeal to a new generation...then I MAY OR MAY NOT have said "Star Wars > Star Trek"

Yes, let's twist everything to appeal to as pedestrian and uneducated a populace as possible.

Cry about it to Hollywood..do you think people are really giving two shits about Star Trek (see Enterprise). The execs want to cater to a the young hip HEROES crowd.

Star Trek, unlike Star Wars, has always spoken intelligently and seriously with its audience-- not dumbing down or diluting anything for the sake of ratings. Sure, they flashed some boobage now and then, and there were some fanboyish explosions, but the core of the series, the drama, the art, the story, the casting, the writing were always mature and intelligent.

Right, beacuse we all know the technobabble in that show caters to peoples intelligence. They constantly make up their own laws of physics (sonic weapons in space), or just pull words out of thin air.

Furthermore, most of the technology in ST seems very impractical. They overuse technology to the point that it's laughable. Touch screens on a dumb bell?

THAT is why Star Trek has so many steadfast fans and why it is one of the most influential franchises in media history.

Star Wars has had way more impact than Star Trek I'd wager. You could show a teenager a picture of Captain Kirk and Picard and a picture of a Yoda and Vader, and they will will most likely not know who Picard or Kirk are but know exactly who Yoda and Vader are. Not only that, Star Wars has had a more influential presence at the Box Office as well. Instead, Star Trek's last big screen adventure (Nemesis) practically tanked.

Star Trek's basic premise has always been "We can do better." We can demand better of ourselves, we can hold ourselves to an astronomical standard and exceed it. I can understand the desire to broaden Star Trek's appeal, but trying to reforge it to pander to a younger audience just feels wrong.

Technobabble?

To which he responded with...

I never once made reference to technobabble. And if all you see in Trek is technology, that's your tremendous loss. Even if I had brought it up, Trek has inspired more than one piece of modern technology to the benefit of all. What I was referring to was the drama and human stories which Trek so eloquently captured, reflecting the concerns and struggles the era(s) in which it was produced. Trek blended these issues into its narrative with a code of ethics which is now famous.

It's a sad commentary that in an era of fear, hatred, and suspicion we are no longer a willing audience for this kind of story. I take consolation in knowing how far Star Trek has seeped into our cultural consciousness, giving credence to the space opera as a genre, paving the way for Star Wars.

As for Star Wars, there was and is nothing revolutionary about it. Remove a few key pieces of inspiration (including Trek), and Lucas had nothing. In terms of literature and film, it is an abysmal, banal, piece of fluff grand only in scale and not in substance. Star Wars is an incredible story, but it is weighed down by its own self-importance and lack of vision. It is a story of fate and dualism, old and broken theories rooted in myth and bereft of thought and logic. Why do people relate to Star Wars? They don't have to think about it to enjoy it. Just like Maid in Manhattan.

I don't consider money, ticket sales, or ratings to be a measure of success in art, film, or literature. If box offices determined what was "good," then we'd all watch Shrek and Will Ferrell movies as our brains melted away in the wasteland of popular culture. You don't have to stray into art films and absurdism to find meaningful stories, but don't get out box office receipts when trying to tell me what's good and what's not.

To paraphrase from another thread, "... what matters in art is how many lives you've touched," and frankly, I've seen a lot of movies which were great in that single moment-- explosion for explosion-- and then passed out of my mind, my memory, and my consciousness forever. I frankly don't care what people see in the theater, and frankly, I'm surprised you even mentioned that nonsense. Will this new Trek film do any better than the last one? Probably. Will it be better? That's subjective, and pointless. Will it extend and enrich the existing narrative? Guess we'll find out. Is it bettered by sexy young actors, exciting name-dropping, and big explosions? No.

The link is to the Ethics of Star Trek by Judith Barad. So I guess I'm at a loss at how to approach this discussion, or if I should just let it go. Not only that, I didn't say Star Wars was better because of box office success, just that having box office success like it has, has made it more of a staple in human pop culture.

While he didn't outright suggest technobabble, the way I read into it was that the show is much more intelligently written...and I disagreed because of the blatant massacre of science in the show.

[BountyHunterSAx]

He's making a lot of very strong claims that cannot be supported because they aren't true. For example, to say that Star Wars does not have any ethics discussion to it is to entirely ignore Episode III (or at least the novelization of it) in which the concept of "truth from one's own perspective" is emphasized greatly. In which Palpatine actually makes solid arguments to sell the evil empire as being a non-evil empire, but rather just another group that seeks power ("Much as the Jedi do.")


If you claim that ST - in which every world ever visited after TOS has humanoid aliens (or even humans) that speak in fluent English (with the notable exception of Darmok) is well cultured, then you must take your hats off to SW in which we have the Hutts, whiphids[sp], Toydarians, and other races that do not resemble humans at all; and each have their own attitude.


While you do have ST episodes that make one sit back and enjoy a good bit of Roddenberryenism, you also have a whole slew of episodes that most pointedly do not. While TNG is full of politics, ethics, human-nature and other moral-of-the-story episodes, I dare you to prove the same for TOS and Enterprise. Those two were action-based, and the only revolutionary thing was to choose an interracial crowd at a time where diversity was viewed as impossible.


Something along those lines....or just look at the threads on this site that discuss the cultural significance of Star Wars.

-AHMNAD

[Starglider]

TOS and TNG both had plenty of cool concepts for pieces of technology. Not the made up physics of how they worked, what they actually did and what it would be like to have them available on a daily basis. They were very rarely original in the domain of sci-fi as a whole (certainly not written sci-fi), but TOS and TNG had the first portrayals on TV as everyday tech people just used, instead of being the mad scientist's one-off invention in a B-movie. As such things like phasers, transporters, holodecks, tricorders, communicators, PADDs and replicators stuck in people's memory.

I can't think of a single iconic piece of tech like that in DS9, Voyager or Enterprise. The technobabble ramped up but the interesting conceptual design vanished.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I basically said that Hollywood is probably casting all the young hip actors, because they want to appeal to a new generation...then I MAY OR MAY NOT have said "Star Wars > Star Trek"

They are, Kirk, who became the youngest Federation Captain at age 34 is being played by 26 year old.

[NecronLord]

I'll give a more detailed reply in the morning, but as for 'Star Trek opening the door for Star Wars' one might remind him that Star Wars is based fundamentally on Flash Gordon, not Star Trek. What's more it was Star Wars that caused Paramount to dash off to the 'stuff we're barely supporting' and rush out The Motion Picture, resulting in everything Trek after TOS.

[Darth Wong]

I take it this idiot has never watched "Forbidden Planet", which was ripped off wholesale to make Star Trek TOS. As for the morality of Star Trek, it's completely fucked. The morality of Star Trek is based upon rules (including one particular "prime" rule) which, once written, become sacred. Worse yet, the characters know that this rule is bullshit, which is why they break it on a regular basis, yet they still swear obedience to it and proudly speak of its virtues to anyone who will listen.

Now what does that remind you of? Does it remind you of Christians who quote the Bible, refuse to subject it to criticism (never mind revision), look with contempt upon those who reject it, yet cannot follow its rules? In short, Star Trek practices a quasi-religious style of ethics; it merely replaces Judeo-Christian dogma with its own.

Star Wars, on the other hand, depicts a priestly order with priestly rules which receives a deadly comeuppance, during the course of which its leadership realizes that it has been wrong. The pre-eminence of rigid rules is shown to be a bad idea in Star Wars. Ethics are defined by cruelty or the lack thereof, rather than adherence to rules which are so fucked that no one could practically obey them even if they tried.

In a more direct sense, Star Wars preaches balance, while Star Trek preaches slavish adherence to sacred rules. I can see why someone might prefer Star Trek's take on ethics ... if he's a fundie.

[Elfdart]

This yo-yo sounds like a David Brin fan, which is to say he's a loser.

[Darth Servo]

ITrek blended these issues into its narrative with a code of ethics which is now famous.

Put the prefix 'in-' in front of famous.

Its rather ironic that this guy insists that box office results means nothing and then turns around insisting Trek ethics must be a good contribution to society simply because they're "famous"

It's a sad commentary that in an era of fear, hatred, and suspicion we are no longer a willing audience for this kind of story. I take consolation in knowing how far Star Trek has seeped into our cultural consciousness, giving credence to the space opera as a genre, paving the way for Star Wars.

In the mid 70s, sci-fi was nothing. TOS was doing re-runs on local channels. Paramount was considering doing a second series but little, if anything was happening prior to 77.

Star Wars is an incredible story, but it is weighed down by its own self-importance and lack of vision.

A trek-fan is complaining about a show being 'self-important'? Irony is this guy's middle name.

It is a story of fate and dualism, old and broken theories rooted in myth and bereft of thought and logic. Why do people relate to Star Wars? They don't have to think about it to enjoy it. Just like Maid in Manhattan.

Me thinks I detect a bit of jealousy over said Jennifer Lopez flic beating Nemesis.

I don't consider money, ticket sales, or ratings to be a measure of success in art, film, or literature.

of course not. This guy obviously has swallowed Treks "capitalism is evil" message wholesale.

If box offices determined what was "good," then we'd all watch Shrek and Will Ferrell movies as our brains melted away in the wasteland of popular culture.

I found the messages in Shrek far more moral than those in Star Trek. Of course I was mildly irritated by Shrek 1's message. Hollywood is the LAST place that should be preaching to anyone about judging by appearence.

[Max]

Ugh...this is almost as bad as debating a fundie....

In Star Trek, the Prime Directive is not a law. You can't be "punished" for breaking it. It's a guiding principle at best, which is why it is flexed and bended to suit the situation. This is done in every Trek series, even Enterprise, where there is no Prime Directive yet.

And I don't know how you can say that Star Wars doesn't have rigid rules. While a lot of the Star Wars universe appears to be a "wild west," the Jedi stories in particular are full of rigidity and a strict and arbitrary moral code. Jedi's can't be in love, Jedi's can't show anger, Jedi's can't cut their hair. But it is only in violation of those rules that the narrative potential of the series comes to pass--- Anakin falls in love and sires Luke and Leia, while driven in anger to the Dark Side. The saga continues as it is LUKE who rises to challenge the emperor, inspiring Anakin to do what he should've done 4 movies earlier. The moral of the story? Stay faithful or suffer a terrible fate. Even though it all works out in the end, as it frequently does in heroic tragedies, the cost to the hero is immense. Lucas should thank Aristotle and Homer for writing Star Wars for him.

The ethics of Star Trek, on the other hand, do not stem from policy as you suggested. Those are as much an affectation as the ships, the uniforms and the aliens. Rather, the ethics of Star Trek has to do with non-interference, universal acceptance of all mankind, unwavering dedication, exploration, self-improvement, and self-determination.

These examples are best thought of when comparing the humans in Trek to the adversaries (and allies) who challenged those notions. The Borg, for example, were so terrifying because they sought the pinnacle in law and order. A synergy of enslaved voices working towards the same perverse goal. These contrasts exist with almost every species that is encountered, reminding us of our failings and potential as humans through unique examples. What do the Ferengi tell us about ourselves? Ferengi is the Arab word for European traders. What about the Vulcans? The Bajorans? The Jem'Hadar? The Xindi? The Maquis?

What's funny about your argument is that you're trying to pigeon hole a massive franchise which spans almost 800 hours of film. It doesn't fit nicely into any one little box.

[Peptuck]

These contrasts exist with almost every species that is encountered, reminding us of our failings and potential as humans through unique examples. What do the Ferengi tell us about ourselves? Ferengi is the Arab word for European traders. What about the Vulcans? The Bajorans? The Jem'Hadar? The Xindi? The Maquis?

I find it illuminating that he thinks that a resistance group who broke away from the Federation primarily because the Feds signed over their land to the Cardassians, and now wage war on the Cardassians and are hunted by the Federation mostly because they broke away, as something that shows the failings of humans.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Ugh...this is almost as bad as debating a fundie....

In Star Trek, the Prime Directive is not a law. You can't be "punished" for breaking it. It's a guiding principle at best, which is why it is flexed and bended to suit the situation. This is done in every Trek series, even Enterprise, where there is no Prime Directive yet.

And I don't know how you can say that Star Wars doesn't have rigid rules. While a lot of the Star Wars universe appears to be a "wild west," the Jedi stories in particular are full of rigidity and a strict and arbitrary moral code. Jedi's can't be in love, Jedi's can't show anger, Jedi's can't cut their hair. But it is only in violation of those rules that the narrative potential of the series comes to pass--- Anakin falls in love and sires Luke and Leia, while driven in anger to the Dark Side. The saga continues as it is LUKE who rises to challenge the emperor, inspiring Anakin to do what he should've done 4 movies earlier. The moral of the story? Stay faithful or suffer a terrible fate. Even though it all works out in the end, as it frequently does in heroic tragedies, the cost to the hero is immense.

That's such bullshit. Did you sleep through the fact that the Jedi Order at the end of Book 3 was devastated - just short of exterminated and Yoda was forced to realize soemthing - that his over-rigidity in the rule-making, his years of believing all things were black and white and that love ought to be forbidden as must anger was the CAUSE of the downfall of the order?

Quoted from Star Wars Revenge of the Sith the Nvelization:

"Finally, he saw the truth. The truth: that he, the avatar of light, Supreme Master of the Jedi Order, fiercest and most implacable, most devastatingly powerful foe the darkness had ever known...
just-
didn't-
have it.
He'd never had it. He had lost before he started.
He had lost before he was born.
The Sith had changed. The Sith had grown, had adapted, had invested a thousand years' intensive study into every aspect of not only the Force but Jedi lore itself in preparation for exactly this day. The Sith had remade themselves.
They had become new.
While the Jedi-
The Jedi had spent the same millennium training to re-fight the last war.

You see? Yoda clearly makes the realization that his rigidity and rule-making is a source of his own FAILURE. Further proof? In Empire Strikes Back rather than barring Luke from defying him in his old-way understanding he pulls the X-Wing out of the swamp; he could easily have put it back in if he hadn't wanted to let Luke try to rescue his friends - risking his own capture. Yoda learns not to restrict himself to the rules.



-AHMAD

[BountyHunterSAx]

Re-reading my previous post I can see my point isn't clear - so I'm just going to re-state it:

The Jedi-Order is portrayed as an unbending unshakable no-compromise set of rules, and that non-changing nature is portrayed as wrong. You can cite proof after proof that the Jedi Order that was had overly-rigid and seemingly arbitrary rules; but never once will you be able to show that this rigidness is a source of strength.

In fact, by your own admission (assuming you agree with the person you quoted):

But it is only in violation of those rules that the narrative potential of the series comes to pass

-AHMAD

[Darth Servo]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, SW only appears "superficial" to those who are superficial themselves; inable to read between the lines. How many trekkies don't seem to realize rather obvious plot points like "Leia and company were delibrately allowed to escape the DS1" just because it isn't explicitly spelled out for them?

Star Trek OTOH, invariably spells out every little detail (as every fanatical Trekkie can tell you) and yet this is the one that supposedly "makes you think"

[NetKnight]

It's a sad commentary that in an era of fear, hatred, and suspicion we are no longer a willing audience for this kind of story. I take consolation in knowing how far Star Trek has seeped into our cultural consciousness, giving credence to the space opera as a genre, paving the way for Star Wars.

Aparently he never saw TMP. Who's imatating the sucess of whom, hmm?

[BountyHunterSAx]

Star Trek OTOH

OK - I'm stumped, forgive my newbishness, but I can't figure out which Star Trek matches that acronym.

There's Enterprise, TNG, VOY, DS9, TOS, TAS, STFC, ST-GEN, ST1-6; What's OTOH?

-AHMAD

[Ghost Rider]

Star Trek OTOH

OK - I'm stumped, forgive my newbishness, but I can't figure out which Star Trek matches that acronym.

There's Enterprise, TNG, VOY, DS9, TOS, TAS, STFC, ST-GEN, ST1-6; What's OTOH?

-AHMAD

On

The

Other

Hand

Not a ST acronym whatsoever.

[NecronLord]

In Star Trek, the Prime Directive is not a law.

That is correct. In Star Trek it is not. It is General Order No.1 regarding interaction with less advanced cultures, and basically boils down to 'don't exploit people' it is not the code of immorality it is later that demands Starfleet sit back and watch other cultures die. It's a general rule for which the Captain may employ discression.

In Star Trek: The Next Generation and onwards, it has become the rule that makes them sit back and watch asteroids smack right into primative worlds rather than firing a photon torpedo to save them (The Last Outpost) what's more, it is a law. Jean Luc Picard has said on several occasions that it is 'our highest law.'

The immorality of the (TNG) Prime Directive is compounded by the fact that TOS clearly shows that humanity itself only survived to get into space because it was the beneficiary of alien inverventionism to prevent the species destroying itself (Assignment: Earth). It's not just an immoral rule, it's a hypocritical rule.

You can't be "punished" for breaking it. It's a guiding principle at best, which is why it is flexed and bended to suit the situation. This is done in every Trek series, even Enterprise, where there is no Prime Directive yet.

That's the Enterprise series with the particularly infamous episode where they refuse to cure a race of a plague because if they do, they might stop another race one day becomimg sapient beings. One can see one excuse for the Prime Directive.

These people are too dumb to take on the role of Gary Seven's interventionist alien employers.

And I don't know how you can say that Star Wars doesn't have rigid rules. While a lot of the Star Wars universe appears to be a "wild west," the Jedi stories in particular are full of rigidity and a strict and arbitrary moral code.

The Jedi Code is 'arbitrary' is it?

Jedi's can't be in love, Jedi's can't show anger, Jedi's can't cut their hair. But it is only in violation of those rules that the narrative potential of the series comes to pass--- Anakin falls in love and sires Luke and Leia, while driven in anger to the Dark Side.

We will ignore that the Jedi have reasons for thier rules against 'attachment' as shown quite handily in the films...

Never mind that the Jedi who are most positively depicted are often the mavericks (See Qui Gon Jinn, or for some more obscure examples, Master Nico Diath, who freed thousands of slaves from the Hutts, and Republic law be damned... or Master Fay, who's pretty much compassion incarnate, right down to sacrificing herself for others¹).

¹ I would say 'Christ like' but in her case, as with real examples, it's far less hollow. Specifically, she gives up immortal life in order to help Obi Wan escape with the cure to a biological weapon.

The saga continues as it is LUKE who rises to challenge the emperor, inspiring Anakin to do what he should've done 4 movies earlier. The moral of the story? Stay faithful or suffer a terrible fate.

Really? I thought it was 'Don't trust politicians, they're evil.'

Even though it all works out in the end, as it frequently does in heroic tragedies, the cost to the hero is immense. Lucas should thank Aristotle and Homer for writing Star Wars for him.

The ethics of Star Trek, on the other hand, do not stem from policy as you suggested.

Bollocks.

Those are as much an affectation as the ships, the uniforms and the aliens. Rather, the ethics of Star Trek has to do with non-interference, universal acceptance of all mankind, unwavering dedication, exploration, self-improvement, and self-determination.

I like that he's got 'non-interference' in there along with the others...

These examples are best thought of when comparing the humans in Trek to the adversaries (and allies) who challenged those notions. The Borg, for example, were so terrifying because they sought the pinnacle in law and order.

No, that was the Vorlon Empire. The Borg are scary because they consume your identity in a (probably agonisingly torturous) surgical violation.

A synergy of enslaved voices working towards the same perverse goal. These contrasts exist with almost every species that is encountered, reminding us of our failings and potential as humans through unique examples. What do the Ferengi tell us about ourselves? Ferengi is the Arab word for European traders. What about the Vulcans? The Bajorans? The Jem'Hadar? The Xindi? The Maquis?

Very few of these races, of course, have failings or potential. Much as I like them, the Jem'Hadar are knock-em-over expendable warriors whose culture is minimal and whose only effort at 'self improvement' is destroyed by Sisko when he helps the Dominion crush a Jem'Hadar rebellion in the name of Federation Self Interest.

What's funny about your argument is that you're trying to pigeon hole a massive franchise which spans almost 800 hours of film. It doesn't fit nicely into any one little box.

Quite true. One box it doesn't (all) fit into is 'ethically sound.'

[QuentinGeorge]

Uh....Jedi aren't "forbidden from cutting their hair"...compare the hairstyles of Quinlan Vos, Anakin, Kenobi, Mace Windu....there's clearly a fair amount of leeway.

And they're not as inflexible as people like to claim - rules on marriage were overlooked in several cases (Ki-Adi-Mundi was a Councillor despite having seven wives). Anakin never even ASKED if he was allowed to take a wife. He just did it....had he approached the Council, they may have actually compromised.

[Darth Wong]

I like how this moron gives a list of what ethics Star Trek promotes and includes things like "exploration". How is "exploration" an ethic? That's a desire, not an ethic. Are people in Star Trek considered immoral if they don't feel like becoming explorers? What an idiot.

I don't think he even knows what "ethics" means. He simply cites things he doesn't like about Star Wars and things he does like about Star Trek, and calls them "ethics".

[DoomTrain]

And they're not as inflexible as people like to claim - rules on marriage were overlooked in several cases (Ki-Adi-Mundi was a Councillor despite having seven wives). Anakin never even ASKED if he was allowed to take a wife. He just did it....had he approached the Council, they may have actually compromised.

But it wasn't just Anakin whose position would be in jeopardy, it was also Padme. In RoTS, when they talk about their marrage, she makes it sound like her office would be threatened (though it might be because Anakin was a Jedi, it's been a while since I have seen the movie).

[NetKnight]

But it wasn't just Anakin whose position would be in jeopardy, it was also Padme. In RoTS, when they talk about their marrage, she makes it sound like her office would be threatened (though it might be because Anakin was a Jedi, it's been a while since I have seen the movie).

The ROTS novelization, as I recall, does indeed cite the potential scandel of a marrage to a Jedi (and a famous one, at that) as the reason her position would be threatened, should the news become public.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Purely speculative here, but does anyone else think it's quite possible that Yoda already knew about the marriage as well?

You might say that Obi-Wan knew because he had let his jedi-guard down with Anakin and become his close friend. However, realistically, Anakin wasn't exactly the most careful at keeping the secretive nature of his marriage either. He, in fact, on several occasions did things that made Padme worry they'd be discovered. How many "not here, it's too public." type lines does she have?

With Yoda's deep force perception, and Obi-Wan's close relationship with both him and Mace Windu in RotS, doesn't it seem unlikely that Yoda wouldn't have known?

-AHMAD

[Peptuck]

If that was the case, we wouldn't ave this epic line of lulz from Mike's RotS reactions page:

Yoda, if so perceptive you are, why notice not did you that Anakin was boinking Padmé?

[BountyHunterSAx]

I'm just saying; there's only one scene I can think of off the bat where it seems pretty clear that Yoda doesn't know what's going on - and that's the scene where Anakin asks how to deal with fear of loss, and Yoda asks "Is it someone close to you?"

I forget if Yoda specifically names Obi-Wan, or if Anakin assumes that's whom he's talking about and he decides to keep that a secret from Yoda.

And in either case - you could easily make the argument that Yoda was doing exactly what Obi-Wan was; sparing Anakin the worry and embarrassment.

-AHMAD

[Max]

Is there a way to find out where someone is copying text from? There's no way that this is coming from a 23 year old who posts pictures of lolcats all day...

Let's just toss out all novelizations, fan fiction, apocrypha, and other such bullshit, shall we?

And by famous, I meant obviously that those ethics were common with academics, not popcorn sucking zombies.

The Maquis do not show a "failing" in humans, but rather a condition of human life. The Maquis plot had a complex socio-cultural message. You could write an essay on the topic, and I think that's really my point. The Maquis, compared to say the Rebel Alliance, brought a lot of threading, layering, and nuance to Star Trek's plot. The Rebels in Star Wars, are merely the "good guys" fighting against the "bad guys." Their reasons were obvious. You didn't have to think about it. It was a convenient and necessary plot device.

As you stated-- the Maquis had multiple rivals-- the Federation, the Cardassian government, the Cardassian colonists, and ultimately the Dominion. The Maquis origins come from the already messy regional politics, and reaches further into the individual cultural differences between Bajor, the Federation, and Cardassia.

As for Yoda's realization, this doesn't change the dualistic nature of Star Wars' most fundamental premise-- the good vs. evil dichotomy. This broken philosophy confines the story and the audience into rote archetypes. Will the hero turn evil? Who will win-- good or bad? It's as hackneyed as He-Man and Skeletor.

Now even though I said I wanted to cast aside all apocrypha, I think the only good example of Star Wars breaking out of this psychotic pattern was in the Jedi Outcast games. Kyle Katarn was able to use both "good" and "evil" Jedi powers, thus enabling him to defeat Desann. His padawans, Jaden and Rosh both flirt with the dark side, enabling them to also utilize both powers. But even in this instance, there is that cliched moment of choice where Jaden must choose to be good or evil. The only thing missing was Bob Barker asking what the actual retail price was.

I thought the novelization was canon, so wouldn't that be legit as part of an argument?