Comparison between Trek Fans and Master and Comander fans

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-11-18 10:11pm

In Entertainment Weekly, they do a comparison between Star trek and Master and Commander and that they both have Rapid fans. Do people agree with this comparison?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-11-18 10:12pm

I doubt the majority of Trekkies are capable of being rapid.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-11-18 10:17pm

Are there Master and Commander fans trying to argue about how they could defeat modern battleships?

If not, the comparison is invalid.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-11-18 10:20pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Are there Master and Commander fans trying to argue about how they could defeat modern battleships?

If not, the comparison is invalid.

One of the specific points is that Master and Commander fans love the Naval Techno-babble with trekkies love Treknobable.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-18 10:24pm

Kitsune wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:Are there Master and Commander fans trying to argue about how they could defeat modern battleships?

If not, the comparison is invalid.
One of the specific points is that Master and Commander fans love the Naval Techno-babble with trekkies love Treknobable.

While the Aubery-Martin novels have a lot of naval terminology/jargon it's not the same thing as technobabble. It's used properly and in an appropriate context.

As opposed to Trek which managles terminology and pisses on science.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-11-18 10:26pm

Stormbringer wrote: While the Aubery-Martin novels have a lot of naval terminology/jargon it's not the same thing as technobabble. It's used properly and in an appropriate context.

As opposed to Trek which managles terminology and pisses on science.

I agree but it might indicate that "People" as the writers of Entertainment Weekly consider the naval terminology to consider naval terminology to be the same as teh twisted stuff that comes from Star Trek.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-18 10:32pm

Kitsune wrote:I agree but it might indicate that "People" as the writers of Entertainment Weekly consider the naval terminology to consider naval terminology to be the same as teh twisted stuff that comes from Star Trek.

Well, the Entertainment Weekly people are a bunch of barely literate gossip whores that have disguised themselves as an entertainment magazine.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-11-18 10:54pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Kitsune wrote:I agree but it might indicate that "People" as the writers of Entertainment Weekly consider the naval terminology to consider naval terminology to be the same as teh twisted stuff that comes from Star Trek.
Well, the Entertainment Weekly people are a bunch of barely literate gossip whores that have disguised themselves as an entertainment magazine.

"Barely literate gossip whores" How does this differ from every other entertainment magazine out there?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-18 11:12pm

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:"Barely literate gossip whores" How does this differ from every other entertainment magazine out there?

Well, once upon a time Entertainment Weekly used to have news about movies and some fairly interesting behind the scenes stuff. It still does on ocassion.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-11-19 12:45am

For some reason EW loves to brand every single movie with two male leads as being gay.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-11-19 12:49am

The EW writers are unlettered morons who've just shown their great, gaping ignorance as to one of Star Trek's primary sources.

The joys of living in an illiterate culture, eh?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-19 01:10pm

Patrick Degan wrote:The EW writers are unlettered morons who've just shown their great, gaping ignorance as to one of Star Trek's primary sources.

I think you're confusing the O'Brian's Aubrey-Martin novels with C.S. Forester's Hornblower novels. The latter were among the inspirations for Star Trek, where as the vast majority were of the former were published well after TOS was cancelled.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2003-11-19 01:24pm

i'd say it's rather stupid to compare two fangroups of various subjects as having things in common unless the shows themselves have something directly in common. Otherwise it's just idiotic and pointless. kind of like comparing Football fans to trekkies. there just is no real comparison. on the other hand, if you want to compare football fans to basketball fans, then you have a possible valid topic of comparison. both are major sports venues.

same as star wars vs. star trek fans. both are widely recognized sci fi phenomena, and both are effectively the similar genre, and make sense to compare. but comparing the fans of a movie about naval battles to the fans of a sci fi series? it's lame.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-11-20 05:57am

Stormbringer wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:The EW writers are unlettered morons who've just shown their great, gaping ignorance as to one of Star Trek's primary sources.
I think you're confusing the O'Brian's Aubrey-Martin novels with C.S. Forester's Hornblower novels. The latter were among the inspirations for Star Trek, where as the vast majority were of the former were published well after TOS was cancelled.

Not quite. I was referring more to the general literary genre rather than specific series/authour.