Cage Match: Mr. Darcy vs. Captain Kirk
We were much amused by a column in the Utah State University’s student newspaper about (traditionally) chick flicks vs. guy flicks.
I had to watch all six hours of “Pride and Prejudice” and she had to watch three “Star Trek” movies. And I swear on my death bed that she got the better end of that trade.
Now, I was nice and had her watch Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and Star Trek: Generations. But if she had made me watch all six hours of her movie in one sitting, I was going to break out Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek: Insurrection. If you got that joke, you are definitely a Trekkie.
*cough* We got the joke.
She admitted that she was pleasantly surprised with how good the nerdy movies were, even complimenting the “soap opera” twist in “The Wrath of Kahn.” However, as hard as she tried, she just could not keep a straight face when I tried to explain why the Klingon Bird-of-Prey couldn’t shoot its torpedoes while it was cloaked.
But it went both ways. I must admit, “Pride and Prejudice” was much better than I thought it would be. I was expecting a “Sleepless in Seattle” or “Titanic”-type of chick-flick. You know, girl meets boy, they fall in love, but live on different sides of the country, boy drowns on a big boat, girl still looks for him on the top of the Empire State Building but finds Cary Grant instead. The usual story.
But “Pride and Prejudice” actually had a relatively decent plot. A really, really long plot, but a good one. It didn’t take long to see why girls like this movie. It has romance, relationships, Colin Firth, soldiers, relationships, Colin Firth, romance, guys in uniform, relationships and, did I mention, Colin Firth?
We are fond of Star Trek here at AustenBlog World Headquarters (we suspect Dorothy of a crush on Data but she denies it) and certainly we do not think such an interest precludes an interest in Jane Austen’s work. In fact, the Editrix was a Star Trek geek long before she was a Janeite. 
January 26th, 2006 at 3:02 am
I’m not a trekkie, so what’s the joke?
January 26th, 2006 at 3:15 am
Me neither…I didn’t get it. I’m a Star Wars fan..but not a Trekkie.
Anyways, I read an article recently about why women love Mr. Darcy. It’s an old article, but I thought i was pretty interesting. If anyone is interested, it’s at http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1315216,00.html
January 26th, 2006 at 6:28 am
A very amusing article indeed. Even though I don’t have any problems watching both P&P and “The Wrath of Khan”, either. (And it’s probably very evil to snicker because the author, as a self-proclaimed fan of nerdy guy movies, can’t spell “Khan” correctly, but I can’t help it.)
By the way, the common joke among Star Trek fans is the fact that the Star Trek movies with even numbers (e.g. “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan”) are fairly good, while those with odd numbers like “Star Trek V” really suck. “Star Trek X: Nemesis” was the proverbial exception to that rule, however.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:55 am
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
hee hee!
Yep, what Aervir said. Khan and Generations are my two favorites. I remember dragging friends to see Khan when I was in university. “You HAVE to see this!” They didn’t get why it was so good. It’s just so much campy fun.
I still haven’t seen Nemesis, which for a Jean-Luc Picard (and Locutus of Borg) fangirl is saying something.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:47 am
I love the fact that on the internet, it is acceptable, nay - normal even - to greatly appreciate all of Jane Austen, Star Trek and Harry Potter. In person, if I meet a Trekkie, he/she is not likely to be a Janite. And vice versa. And to someone who does not belong to any of the above fan bases, a triple love of “High Lit Austen”, “Geeky Camp Trek”, and “Jeuvenile Pottermania” seems practically dangerous. And regarding Nemesis; it’s not an amazing film, but essential to any Picard fan.
January 26th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
I have been reading this blog for quite some time, and I had no idea there were so many Janeites-Trekkies-Potterheads in this world! I had always thought I was quite an oddity. I’m happy to be proved wrong!
January 26th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
There’s lots of us, actually– Janeites-Trekkies-Potterheads, that is. There’s also lots of Janeite-Trekkie-Potterhead-Wimseyite-Browncoat-Househeads, too. And more. If there’s one thing I’ve realized through being in online fandoms, it’s that obsession with one fandom predisposes you for obession with others.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
The only time I have full-out sobbed while watching a movie was when Spock died in Khan. I can watch dry-eyed while Julia Roberts dies a thousand Steel Magnolia deaths, but when you kill Nimoy I’m a shuddering mess.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
This article gave me a grin because it came from my Alma Mater! Too cool.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
I’m another strange crossover of brontëite-trekkie-tolkienite-babylon5 (yep, that last one is for real geeks :P), just waiting for the day in wich Heathcliff will challenge Gandalf in a Vorlon suit somewhere near Vulcan.
M.
January 26th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Okay;
Browncoat = Firefly
Househead = ?
Wimseyite = ?
(I’m suddenly feeling sheepish and uncultured)
January 26th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Househead - I would imagine a fan of the series HOUSE, starring Hugh Laurie as a very cranky doctor. I love House. He’s my hero, along with Simon Cowell.
Wimseyite - A fan of the Lord Peter Wimsey books by Dorothy L. Sayers. I am a Wimseyite myself. When Peter talks piffle I plotz.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Oh my! You Janeite Trekkie types must see this site: .
January 26th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Oops! Here’s the link to “Galactic Jane Austen”: http://hem.passagen.se/anna6810/austen/austen.html
January 27th, 2006 at 6:36 am
I never understood the Star Trek “thang.” My brother was a big fan so, since we only had 1 television, I ended up watching it far more often than I wanted.
But I do understand having preferences that are, shall we say, diametrically opposed. I am equally as obsessed with baseball as I am with JA or Trollope. It’s a safe bet to say I’m the only person in Shea Stadium with a copy of an Austen, Georgette Heyer or Anthony Trollope novel in her bag.
I’m currently stitching a Mets logo (I’ve already given one to a friend who used to play for the team — this one is for a friend of a friend and I’m being paid for it) and I do get looks when my stitching group gets together. They’re all doing these very artistic pieces, and I’m stitching a giant baseball.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Mags, Hugh Laurie yes, but Simon Cowell…?! It’s difficult to take him seriously when he usually has his trousers up round his armpits, but maybe he has a better style adviser in the US!!
January 27th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
I meant that I enjoy his snark, though I don’t think it is always well-placed. I don’t really look at his trousers!
January 31st, 2006 at 8:35 pm
The same author wrote a follow up to that story, quoting someone who responded to the previous one, any of you by any chance?