Clash of the titans
‘Star Wars' ceaselessly kicks ‘Star Trek' butt
TODD MUNSON is a
junior broadcasting major
and a Daily Nebraskan
columnist.
The Daily Nebraskan.
The final frontier, separating you
from actually having to learn some
thing in class.
These are the ramblings of a per
son who has too much time on his
hands.
His mission, to seek out new
ideas and enlighten, while simultane
ously providing mindless enjoyment.
To boldly go where no opinion
columnist has gone before.
a long time ago in a place tar,
far, away, somebody in the entertain
ment industry had an idea. Why not
\ take the stars of one film and have
them meet the stars from another?
You know, a “crossover” of sorts. It
would be great for maximizing prof
its by taking the audiences of two dif
ferent genres and having them con
verge in the same theater.
My humble amount of research
puts the first crossover somewhere in
the time period of the Universal
films of the 1940s where Dracula,
Frankenstein and the Wolfman all
shared screen time in the same films.
From these modest beginnings,
the crossover grew and grew. Abbott
, and Costello met the Mummy and a
host of other horror characters.
Laveme and Shirley boogied down
with the*Fonz. Godzilla demolished
Tokyo with King Kong. Wrestling
met boxing when Hulk
“Thunderlips” Hogan grappled with
the Italian Stallion in “Rocky III.”
But there is one crossover that is
missing from the dubious list above.
It is one that would result in sold-out
! theaters for years to come. The one to
which all others would be compared.
I’m talking about the intertwining of
“Star Trek” and “Star Wars.”
Oh, wait a second, that could
never happen. To make a crossover
successful, the films, or TV shows,
•
should be of equal stature.
This is something “Star Trek”
and “Star Wars” are not.
They are not equals simply
because “Star Wars” puts the whup
on “Star Trek,” including the “Next
Generation,” in every facet.
Let’s get on with the bludgeon
ing.
First off, the creators. Gene
Rodenberry vs. George Lucas. With
the exception of “Howard the Duck,”
everything Lucas touches turns to
gold. All Rodenberry has is “Star
Trek” and some TV movies. Trekkies
owe a lot to Lucas; without his
Industrial Light and Magic providing
the effects for the films, the
Enterprise would still be suspended
from a fishing line. Also, Lucas
would never make a sequel as lame
as “Star Trek IV: The Voyage to Sea
World.”
How about the titles? “Star Trek”
sounds too much like the journey of
intergalactic boy scouts. “Star
Wars”? Oh yeah, baby, war rules.
Lei s move 10 money, i ne eignt
“Star Trek” films grossed $888 mil
lion. It only took three films for “Star
Wars” to make $1.56 billion.
Now here’s the fun part.
In both sets of films, there are
many similarities and comparisons
that can be made between leading
actors, characters and other things.
As you’ll see, “Star Wars” rules.
Trekkies may say that “Star Trek”
is inherently better because they have
better technology (e.g. transwarp
drive, cloaking devices and the abili
ty to beam on up). “Star Wars” has
none of these, but it was set a long
time ago in a galaxy far, far, away.
That means that in the 23rd century,
the “Star Wars” folks would have
much better technology.
The ships in “Star Wars” have
better names: Executor, Slave One,
Death Star. The ship with the keenest
name in the “Star Trek” universe is
the Excelsior, and that sounds too
much like a laxative.
Captain Kirk vs. Luke
Skywalker. The two farm boys.
William Shatner gets the early edge
for his between-sequel portrayal of T.
J. Hooker, compared to Mark Hamill
in “Corvette Summer.” But Hamill
wins out simply because he never
had to slip into a girdle to squeeze
into his uniform.
Jean Luc Picard vs. Obi Wan *
Kenobi. The Frenchman and the
Englishman. Kenobi wins because
the actor who portrayed him shares
the same last name as the greatest
beer in the world - Guinness.
Chewbacca vs. Worf. If you had
them fight in the squared circle of a
steel-caged wrestling ring, Worf
better learn to climb out with his
feet. Chewie would pull Worf’s
arms out of his sockets before he
could brandish a puny phaser. A
little trivia
though. Before he v
was Worf, Michael
Dorn had a
minor roll on
“CHiPs.”
“Star Wars”
has a better Zen
philosophy in
resident deity
Yoda. Trek’s
idea of deep
thought is
having a guy
with paste
on ears
.. .1 _ fKMf
wiiu can i
under
stand the
Shakespeare he is
quoting because it is
totally illogical.
“Star Wars” has better
villains. The Dark
Lord of the Sith
would take one iook at
the Borg and would
remove its existence
with the help of the
Dark Side of the
Force. Or if he
were lazy, he’d
just use the Death
Star to blow
away the moth
ership.
Lando is
much cool
er than
Geordi.
In his
free
time, Billy Dee Williams peddles
Colt 45. Where’s LeVar Burton? On
“Reading Rainbow”? Come on. No
contest.
The final reason why “Star Wars”
is so much better: You could put all
the women who’ve ever been in “Star
Trek” and they still look like they
were hit with the ugly stick when you
compare them to Princess Leia a la
enslaved by Jabba the Hutt.
That said, I’ve got to go. I hear
the Witness Protection Program call
ing my name.
Matt Haney/DN
Cold comfort
Consequences of Pepsi deal reach life-threatening proportions
KASEY KERBER is a
junior news-editorial
major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
It’s often the little things that
make you think in life.
• Those scattered bits of your exis
tence make a more complete picture
of life. But how often do you look
tinder the microscope? How often do
you find that tiny piece of the puzzle
that’s been missing all along?
And while this might just sound
like the rambling of another colum
nist, there’s a message to it. And a
story behind it.
| I thought more about the little
- things recently when I was walking
through campus on my way back to
class. And I probably don't need to
Convince you that it was cold, seeing
as we’re constantly living in what I
like to refer to as “Mother Nature’s
Meat Locker.”
And on my way back to the
dorm, I walked past a homeless man
digging through a trash can.
You’ve probably seen him before.
He’s an older man who often rides a
bike with wire baskets for the collec
tion of crushed aluminum cans he
manages to scrounge from our trash.
Yet his collection of cans was
lacking a little that day. Only three or
four of them so far. He was still dig
ging in the trash when I had walked a
block past him. And I have few
doubts he was digging in a garbage
can while I was unlocking a door to
warmth and comfort.
And this story can be told again.
Another day passes, and another
glimpse is given at what seems to be
desperation wormed into an already
grim situation. It’s like trying to
cling onto hope with icy, numb fin
gertips.
But what’s the point?
So he’s homeless. So he’s recy
cling cans to stay alive. That’s not my
fault -1 had nothing to do with it.
And you’re right Whatever
occurred to place this man in his
predicament is in the past. But do
you care what happens to him now?
Yes? No? Maybe? No opinion?
OK, another question.
Do you care about the beverage
alliance?
No opinion?
Not a chance. We all cared
whether Coke or Pepsi would be
allowed on campus. We all cared
about the financial benefits and loss
of choice. We all cared whether we
were a part of the process.
And even now, we complain
about empty machines, choices that
don’t taste die same, or the constant
marketing plug for Pepsi. We still
complain that the alliance affected us
negatively.
And please notice the “we” in
every sentence. You and I.
But there are other little pieces to
the puzzle. Other things we have to
look at under that microscope to cre
ate a more vivid picture of our own
lives.
Like that elderly man hunting
through a garbage can right now,
wondering why he can’t find alu
minum cans anymore. He doesn’t
know most Pepsi machines carry
plastic bottles now. He doesn’t real
ize cans are a thing of the past.
All that man knows is that cans
are worth three times as much as
plastic, and that he’s got to find more
cans if he wants to stay alive.
It’s getting colder outside. And he
knows it.
It’s ironic really. You and I whine
and gripe about having to pay for
more bottles, but there’s someone out
there who might be dying in a few
months because of them.
Some of you might be saying:
“yeah Kerber, whatever. Take the
‘save the homeless’ dramatics else
where. I don’t care.”
And so you don’t care. But
maybe you will one day. Maybe
when one of your friends is crawling
through trash, you’ll care. Or maybe
it will have to happen to you before
that emotion is possible.
I can’t make you feel compas
sion. It’s something that has to be in
your heart. And if it’s not there, I can
only hope that one day you will find
it.
But if you feel compassion,
you’ll realize that there’s a human
being out there who’s been potential
ly damaged by the puzzle.
Sufe, he is just one little piece.
And yes, you can tell what the puzzle
will form without him. But if he dis
appears from what we’ve created,
wouldn’t it be a shame?
Yeah, we made the best choice
for UNL. We made a soft drink giant
even richer and gained some finan
cial benefits for ourselves. We made
money and hey, what’s wrong with
money?
What is wrong with money?
Would you like to put a price tag
on your life for me? How much is it
worth? How much green-colored
paper pulp would it take to convince
you to stop living? Can anyone buy it
from you?
No.
Of course not.
Life is precious. Priceless, in
fact. And it shouldn’t be taken from
us for any price.
Well, just remember that the next
time you buy a pop. Sure, it might
sound dramatic, but the choices of
this university has put a price tag on
another person’s life.
And if this column does nothing
else, then let it serve as a reminder
that the little things do matter. That
everything needs to be considered
before forming die complete picture.
Because it’s the litde things that
make up the big thing we call life.
And life, by any means, is price
less.