Star Trek or Star Wars, Ginger or Mary Ann, and Lots More
76Who Would You Choose--and Why?
My friends, don’t look for anything too deep here because you won’t find it today. When folks play the “either/or” game, perhaps the most frequent comparison centers on which young lady from Gilligan’s Island a guy would prefer: Ginger or Mary Ann. In fact, the game is sometimes referred to as the “Ginger or Mary Ann Quiz!” Selecting from two similar (or sometimes dissimilar) choices is fun and often reveals quite a bit about our character. Life offers many tough choices, but rarely do we commit to them out loud. I will make known my preferences here, and ask whoever reads these words to offer a unique comparison of your own in the comment field, if you would.
The Classic Age of Television at Amazon.com
 | Amazon Price: $20.64 List Price: $44.98 |
 | Amazon Price: $1.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $44.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $73.50 List Price: $149.99 |
Which would you choose?
Take the quiz! This is how I voted...
Ginger or Mary Ann: Mary Ann. She was just as hot as Ginger and a lot less intimidating. I have nothing against Ginger and in fact I love redheads, but Mary Ann was equally beautiful and far more nurturing.
Fox News or CNBC: My political affiliations more closely mirror the opinions offered by CNBC than Fox News, but I must confess I watch Fox before CNBC. Both stations feature delightfully absurd “news” programs, but somehow it comes across better on Fox.
Paper or plastic: Once the folks that made plastic sacks realized the bag has to be strong enough to hold your groceries without busting open, the choice became obvious. While my stuff kept rolling around in the parking lot when the bag broke before I reached the car, it wasn’t as clear-cut.
Samantha or Jeannie: Samantha. Samantha was just as beautiful as Jeannie, seemingly more powerful and far less ditzy. Most of Darrin’s problems came from Samantha’s relatives, while Major Nelson’s came from Jeannie herself. Except for Jeannie’s costume, this one was a no-brainer.
Baseball or football: Football wins by a mile. Baseball is too long, too slow, and the integrity of the game has been compromised by supermen on performance-enhancing drugs posing as players. To set the record straight, I prefer basketball to either baseball or football. I also prefer tennis to hockey.
A Charlie Brown Christmas or How the Grinch Stole Christmas: Watching these two classic cartoons has kicked off the holiday season for me ever since I was a child. I’ve loved both shows so long it seems a betrayal to pick one, but I have to pick Charlie Brown over the Grinch. (Frosty the Snowman barely wins out over Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer also…)
Sarah Palin or Tina Fey: If Sarah Palin showed up missing, they could get Tina Fey to stand in and perhaps no one would notice. Sarah Palin could never do comedy unless one counts her ability to be unintentionally funny. Tina Fey is my choice.
Batman or Green Hornet: This is from their respective ‘60s television shows, of course. I don’t know how Green Hornet could win a fight wearing that topcoat all the time. In their secret identities, they almost seemed clones of each other. My vote goes to Batman.
Robin or Kato: Kato (played by Bruce Lee) was probably whipping it up on guys before he was old enough to walk. Robin never was very tough, except if you count the guts it took to wear that costume. Kato wins easily—there’s no contest.
Star Trek or Star Wars: Both made serious contributions to science fiction and popular culture. While it’s tempting to give the nod to Star Wars for showing the world Harrison Ford’s star potential, I’m going with Star Trek, for longevity, volume of work and for giving us Spock and Data.
Jennifer Aniston or Angelina Jolie: The ultimate girl-next-door compared with amazing physical beauty, Brad Pitt chose the beauty. In this case I probably would, also, but who knows who I might choose if you asked me again tomorrow...
Mac or PC: After many years I gave up trying to use my Mac in a PC world, but Apple’s products to this day are years ahead of Microsoft’s operating systems. They are easier to use and more aesthetically pleasing, and if I had my way, 95% of the United States would be using a Mac instead of a PC, rather than the other way around.
Jennifer or Bailey: You can’t go wrong with either of the gorgeous women who starred on WKRP in Cincinnati. I go back and forth—as a young man it was hard to ignore Loni Anderson as Jennifer Marlowe, but then Jan Smithers’ soften-spoken portrayal of Bailey Quarters won me over. Like choosing between Ginger and Mary Ann, ultimately Bailey’s more approachable and nurturing personality won me over.
Captain Kirk or Captain Picard: Both men were captains on the Enterprise and Captain Picard is my choice between the two. He made logical decisions in most situations; Kirk went with his gut every time. Kirk needed Spock and McCoy to keep him in line—Picard could run a ship without his subordinates babysitting him.
Spock or Data: They fulfilled the same role in their respective Star Trek programs by providing commentary on the human situation from an outsider’s point of view. Both became the star of their shows in many ways. I have to go with Spock, by an ear—uh, I mean nose.
Morning or evening news: Whether it comes from television or the newspapers, I always prefer to catch the news early in the day. For some reason, evening news always seemed like “old” news to me.
Partridge Family or Brady Bunch: It used to be Partridge Family, but somewhere in the last fifteen years I switched to the Brady Bunch. If I have to watch the episodes where the Brady kids sing, however, I’m going to switch back. At least David Cassidy and Shirley Jones had acceptable singing voices.
X-Files or Supernatural: Both were really enjoyable television shows, but I give the edge to X-Files because Mulder and Scully seemed more personable to me. Supernatural is still a story about weird events to me, while X-Files ultimately became the story of Mulder and Scully.
Kathie Lee Gifford or Kelly Ripa: It took a few years for Kelly to come into her own, but she can make me genuinely laugh—Kathie Lee never could. It sometimes seems Kelly defers to Regis too much while KLG stood up to him.
Coke or Pepsi: Very much like choosing between the Partridge Family and the Brady Bunch, I preferred Pepsi for years until I switched sides about five years ago. For the sake of practicality, I buy whichever is on sale at the grocery store and hope they don’t bust through my plastic bag.
LeBron James or Kobe Bryant: LeBron James is just as good a player and seemingly a nicer guy. I know Kobe has all those NBA championships, but LeBron is younger than he is, too.
College or Pro Basketball: I enjoy watching college basketball more than the NBA. The players’ skills aren’t as great, but the effort is more consistent. After watching the Washington Wizards fail to rebound for the entire second quarter in a game against the Celtics and almost win anyway, I could not in good conscience vote for the NBA.
Marvel Comics or DC Comics: You can’t go wrong with either, but as a child, the allowance money that originally went toward DC Comics started to be spent on Marvel. Jack Kirby’s Fantastic Four won me over, and Marvel has remained the slight favorite for me.
Beatles or Rolling Stones: Longevity has given the Stones a great opportunity to transcend the Beatles as the preeminent band of the ‘60s, but they still haven’t quite done it in my mind. Perhaps it was the movies, which made the Fab Four appear to be lovable lads that had a good time, while the Glimmer Twins reveled in their bad boy image.
Sean Connery or (pick one) George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, or Daniel Craig: Sean Connery was still the best James Bond. Roger Moore shared Connery’s humor; Timothy Dalton maintained his ruthlessness; Brosnan balanced them all in a watered-down, moderated way. Connery had the whole package. Connery was James Bond.
Italian or Chinese food? Ford or Chevrolet? Harry Potter or Twilight? Charmed or Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Coffee or tea? The list can go on and on. So, now it’s your turn. Make your choice and let the world know where you stand.
Take the Quiz Now!
Ginger or Mary Ann?
See results without votingFox News or CNBC?
See results without votingPaper or Plastic?
See results without votingSamantha or Jeannie
See results without votingBaseball or football?
See results without votingSarah Palin or Tina Fey?
See results without votingBatman and Robin or Green Hornet and Kato?
See results without votingJennifer Aniston or Angelina Jolie
See results without votingKirk and Spock or Picard and Data
See results without votingPartridge Family or Brady Bunch?
See results without votingBeatles or Rolling Stones
See results without votingCommentsLoading...
Thanks, Sabreblade. You're right, Kirk would probably have tried to start a fistfight with Q, and the results wouldn't have been pretty.
Y'know, I've always wondered why they never made a Next Generation movie with Q. Maybe they felt after the series finale there was nothing more for him to do with the Enterprise, but still....
Anyway, thanks again for the comments. Always a pleasure to have you visit my humble hubs.
There is absolutely not contest between college basketball and NBA. College players are still striving to get to the next level and they play with their hearts. Plus, March Madness always brings the best drama of the year (take that, Oscar-nominated garbage!). The NBA hasn't been the same since Michael Jordan retired--the 15th time :0)
Great hub! Gave me lots to think about.
Thanks, Megavitamin, I agree completely. The college game has much more heart than the pro game, and it shows every time they take the court. Playing for something more than a paycheck makes a big difference.
Thanks again.
Great hub Mike Lickteig, I pick Star Wars. The Ginger or Mary Ann thing seemed like a question that could get a different answer depending what day you might ask it. Today I would pick Ginger. I prefer the NBA, because the game is at a higher level of talent, but it is a close call for me just from the stand point that the games in college are called much more fair by the refs and it is more team oriented. I do think there are teams that play for more than a paycheck (Celtics, Spurs) but I admit that those teams are few and far between. For me it's Kato, Kelly Ripa, Fox News, and Coke. And I have a similar take on Coke over Pepsi, as years ago I preferred Pepsi. As far as Lebron and Kobe go I would take Kobe I think he is more clutch. But my biased opinion would have me take Paul Pierce over both of them as I think he is under rated and he out played both of them the year the celtics won the championship. I would take the Rolling Stones over the Beatles, in a close call for me. Thanks this was enjoyable.
Thanks for commenting, Truth.
I will admit, I watched Oklahoma City play Dallas last night, and even though they lost to the Mavs, I thought Oklahoma City played hard and tried to win. I think the teams with the youngest players and the teams that know they have a shot at the title play hard, but the teams in-between take a lot of nights off during the season.
BTW, I am a Celtics fan and live in Kansas where Paul Pierce went to college, and I think Pierce is very underrated when discussing the best players in the game.
Thanks again, Truth!
You really hit a homer er, touchdown with this one Mike, lots of fun to read, and I quickly realized as I went down the detailed list, that I learned something new about myself.
For me the most difficult was Beatles v. Stones. I saw McCartney and his first wife at the original Milwaukee Brewers County Stadium at the end of the 80's, saw the Stones for the Steel Wheel tour at Alpine Valley nearer where I live now in I think it was 91'? Makes me feel old. Both were great shows, the Stones was better. In the end though, my heart goes out to George Harrison (which come to think of it could be a test of it's own) his music has got me through some tough times, but really all of the Fab Four have at one time or another. The Stones were more about good times for the moment. I agree with you about the staying power of the Beatles.
Well done, kudos
Ben
Ben, I'm glad you enjoyed the hub. I've been trying to achieve a balance between serious topics and light-hearted ones--I'm glad so many people have enjoyed reading this one.
It is interesting to see what can be learned by asking ourselves to make simple choices and, as in your case, a simple choice led to self-discovery.
Thanks for reading, Ben, and come back anytime!
I liked the polls. The kirk or picard was probably the toughest for me to decide. because I thought Kirk wasn't as serious as Piccard, and I liked Spock better than data.
The Tina fey and Sara Palin was a gimmie. But as for Ginger and Mary Ann, I liked both of them. And, I had no idea who Samantha and Jeanie were until it sunk in. I like both too.
What a fun hub! I totally enjoyed it.
Brimancandy, thanks for your comments. The Kirk/Spock Picard/Data was a tough one for me, also. And, I guess I should have mentioned that Samantha and Jeannie were from two '60s sitcoms. I'm probably showing my age a bit by assuming everyone was familiar with Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie.
Thanks again.
Habee, thanks for your comments. I'm glad you enjoyed my quiz.
Nice poll, there were some hard choices.
rml, thanks for reading. Hope you enjoyed my little quiz.
Love the quiz - and what a way to get to know folks. Personally,I prefer Data with his constant quest to understand humanity and sentience.
For me, choosing between Spock and Data was perhaps the most difficult choice on this list. I liked Data's journey toward humanity, also. They were interesting in that the characters were so similar, yet Data wished to embrace humanity fully while Spock chose to deny his human half.
Dolores, thanks for reading, your comments are appreciated.
Ahhhh life is always about choices... heheeh
Fun to read! Fun to vote!
How can people choose the Brady Bunch over the Partridge Family? It's sacrelige.
Ghost Whisper, you are correct. Life is indeed about choices. I wonder what the choices I made on this hub say about me? It's kinda scary to think about....
Uninvited Writer (can I call you UW?), I admitted to waffling on the Partridge Family/Brady Bunch choice. When I was young, Partridge Family was my choice. Those zany Brady Bunch movies in the '90s made me go back and watch Brady Bunch reruns, and I liked them better than I did originally.
At least David Cassidy and Shirley Jones had talent.
Thanks for commenting.
Good Quiz but since the James Bond question was not on the quiz I just have to voice my opinion. Sean Connery was the consumate Bond suave, sophisticated and handsome! My next pick for Bond is actually the lastest Daniel Craig. He's rugged, totally hot, smart, and even a bit vunerable as we saw in Casino Royale. My least favorite Bond would be Timothy Dalton
Chris, thanks for reading. I agree that Sean Connery was the best of the Bonds, and I also agree that Timothy Dalton was the worst of them. There are aspect of each of the others that I like, and I have to admit Daniel Craig has breathed new life into the Bond persona. At first I was skeptical of his being selected to play the role, but it was a fine choice.
Thanks again for your comments.
Mike
I can't believe you made this into a hub, but it was fun to take the quiz. Not to generalize, but I choose the women based on who seems more sensible. Also, I find baseball easier to follow.
Betty, thanks for reading. This is actually one of my more popular hubs. Lots of folks seem to want to weigh in on whether football is better than baseball or Mary Ann was more approachable than Ginger. I tend to prefer more sensible women also, although it is hard to guess whether Angelina Jolie or Jennifer Aniston would more easily fit that definition. Baseball is too slow for me, but I realize it is America's pasttime for a reason, and I would not debate its appeal.
Thanks for taking the quiz, Betty, and I'm glad you enjoyed it. Come back any time.
Mike
Angelina Jolie?! She's mentally disturbed! And Jennifer Aniston is a little drama queen. Brad Pitt should look for better women.
Oh, and Jeannie all the way!
DavitosanX, thanks for reading. I understand what you're saying about Angelina and Jennifer, but Brad seems to be comfortable with his choices in women--at least most of the time.
Jeannie is a fine choice, also. Thanks again for reading.
Mike
You forgot to include a poll on the Star Wars/Star Trek issue! Regarding that choice, I must side with Star Wars. Yes, Star Trek, at least a lot of the time, dealt with more serious issues, and most of the Next G episodes were well done with good production values (the original version, which I remain very fond of, suffered by comparison due to their puny budgets and sometimes ridiculous screenplays--though a few episodes were excellent), but there is such a thing as a rip-roarin' good time, and on this score, Star Wars (the original trilogy) delivered the goods as few other movies have. Well cast, with characters that have reached iconic status, with a simple but well constructed and exciting plot with mythic overtones, incredible set designs (Wow! The light sabers and the costume of Darth Vader are worthy of never ending accolades by themselves), and a score that is just terrific (I still get shivers when I hear that opening fanfare and see the words receding across the screen). It's absolutely top notch entertainment that delivers on all fronts (well, except complex characterizations, but hell, that would just have gotten in the way of the fun). As action/adventure/Sci-Fi/fantasy—there are virtually no films that can hold a candle to it. Though the more recent trilogy was a let down, George Lucas will be immortalized for his creation in episodes IV thru VI. Star Wars by a several parsecs—even though I continue to hold Star Trek in high esteem.
Cheers!
PS-- As regards the issue of Picard or Kirk—I agree with the individual who opined that it would depend on the situation as to who I'd want commanding my ship. Picard was clearly more intellectual and circumspect and in the real world would clearly make the better captain. But Kirk was much more fun. So, each in their way. Real world—Picard. Fantasy—Kirk by a nose.
Your hub here, as you note, wasn't “deep” but it was fun. Kind of like Kirk over Picard.
Hey, Tom, thanks for stopping by. I am a fan of Star Trek and Star Wars, so of course it was a close call but I went with Trek. The breadth of the Trek universe and its history made the difference for me, but I love both and it is difficult to choose one over another. And, you hit the nail on the head regarding the differences between Kirk and Picard. I am sure Kirk was more fun to beam down to a planet with for shore leave, but I'm not sure he could run his ship with Spock and McCoy. One gets the feeling Picard would have done fine without Riker, but Data might have been tougher to replace.
So.... Samantha or Jeannie? Jennifer Aniston or Angelian Jolie? Who did you pick????
Mike
To tell truth--most of the polls above were, since I generally wasn't much of a TV fan, of little interest to me, and the ones that were, the choice was only too obvious, e.g., while I'm a big fan of the Rolling Stones, even with their longevity, they haven't scraped together the number of quality songs the Beatles managed in just 8 years--not to mention the number of flat out masterpieces put out by The Beatles far exceeds those of the RS or anyone else. They had three bona fide geniuses and Ringo was a stellar performer/personality. Again, I love the Stones, but its like comparing Haydn with Beethoven. Haydn was a towering genius who forever changed the course of music, but Beethoven turned it inside out, and EVERYTHING that came after him was altered in some way by his having been. Same with the Beatles (though I wouldn't put them in quite the same class as Beethoven ;-)--but then, that's a class occupied by a tiny handful of human being--Newton, Micheangelo, Shakespeare, a few others).
Cheers!
Okay, Tom, spill it--Angelina Jolie or Jennifer Aniston? Charlie Brown or the Grinch? Inquiring minds want to know!
I'm not trying to start another debate but I would say that, while I am a big fan of the Beatles and George Harrison, I am not sure I would categorize George as a genius. The Beatles could not have been the Beatles without John and Paul, but it's possible John and Paul MIGHT have been able to do it without George and Ringo. They wouldn't have been exactly the same, but they might have produced nearly the same sound. Ringo had a presence about him that would have been missed in the movies and live performances, but it could have been done without George and Ringo.
That being said, I still prefer them to the Rolling Stones, as well.
Mike
Hey! Well, I'd agree that George wasn't in QUITE the same class as John or Paul, but the Beatles wouldn't have been the same without him. He contributed an awful ot the last several years of their existence as his song writing matured. "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," "Something,: and "Here comes the Sun" are 3 of the Beatles' best. Not to mention he was their best guitarist. So, the Beatles without John and Paul would have been great, but they would have been less.
And OK--Angelina.
And Charlie Brown by the merest hair's breadth.
Hi, Tom! Ultimately I would agree, and I wasn't trying to start a new round of debates. In fact, I thought George's post-Beatles solo work was nearly as good as John and Paul's. Everyone has heard "My Sweet Lord," and he had a nice catalog of songs that no musician would have to apologize for. And, of course, you are correct that "Here Comes the Sun" and the rest was certainly good enough to hang with what John and Paul were producing at the time, "Let it Be" notwithstanding.
While George's voice wasn't as versatile as Paul's or even John's, I found Harrison's singing voice to be unique and I liked it a lot. The early tunes the Beatles let him sing, such as "Do You Want to Know a Secret," "Don't Bother Me" and "I'm Happy Just to Dance with You" were also among my favorite Beatles songs, largely because I liked his voice.
Have a ever mentioned my "Ringo rule" for rating modern bands to you? It is essentially this: I consider Ringo to be the fourth best singer in the Beatles. If the singer of a contemporary band doesn't have as good a singing voice (in my opinion) as Ringo's, well--I probably won't like the band. You wouldn't believe how many songs don't pass the test of the "Ringo Rule"..... it is kinda sad. If Ringo were twenty years old now, he would probably be in high demand as a vocalist, and he certainly has the presence to make a band successful without John or Paul's help. Imagine if Ringo were in his prime during the MTV heyday! He would have ruled.
Regarding Charlie Brown and Angelina--I agree.
Mike
Sounds like we're actually in close alignment regarding the "George Harrison" controversy. I'm glad you were able to make sense of my particularly fractured entry above. Wow. If I didn't know better I'd think I'd written that after downing a couple of six packs and a couple of lines of coke. "[T]he Beatles without John and Paul would have been great"????? Yes, I actually wrote those bizarre words, though I guess you were able to figure out that I had actually meant without George. That was the most grievous error in my note, but not the only one.
Not incidentally, I'll stand by what I MEANT to write, that the Beatles would have been great if they'd picked up an able guitarist with no song-writing ability and not much of a voice instead of George, but I don't think they would have been the incredible phenoms--the cultural earthquake that they turned out to be. They had a chemistry between them that was part of the allure, and each Beatle was somebody's favorite. Take away George and there still would have been the awesome song-writing talents of the Lennon/McCartney brand, but they wouldn't have been the same, and not being the same would certainly have meant less (how could they possibly have been more?). Take away EVEN Ringo and the Beatles phenomenon wouldn't have been the same (no disrespect to Ringo who definitely had talent, projected personality maybe better than even John, and had a unique voice that was absolutely perfect for some songs [e.g., "Yellow Submarine" and "With a Little Help From My Friends" would not have been nearly as good with one of the others in the lead--in fact, another voice is pretty much inconceivable]). I always suspected that getting rid of Pete Best and bringing on Ringo was the final piece of a delicate puzzle that allowed the group to scale heights no group had ever ascended before . . . or since.
Can you tell that I'm a fan? Sadly, I wasn't until about 4 years after they broke up. All of the hysteria that they generated just turned me off at the time, preventing me from really listening to the music. Now, of course, I look back and would give a great deal to have been amongst the screaming throngs in their performance in Kansas City (wasn't that their last concert?). Oh well. Just one regret among many.
No, didn't know about the "Ringo" rule--but it certainly underscores what an impossibly talented band The Beatles really were.
Cheers!
Hi Tom. I knew what you meant when you said the Beatles without John and Paul would have been great, and resisted stirring the pot responding to that. The idea that the Beatles could have existed without George and Ringo was something John once said in an interview. He admitted at the time he was angry with George, and that might have affected his opinion when the remarks were made. The Beatles sound would have been similar without George and Ringo, but it obviously wouldn't have been the same.
By the way, do you recall the Beatles' Saturday morning cartoon show? That was a long-forgotten but totally cool part of marketing themselves to American fans.
Thanks again for stopping by.
Mike
I always find "what if" situations interesting, also. What would either band have been like if George Harrison was in the Who and Pete Townsend was in the Beatles???
Mike (again--or still)
More classic products from Amazon.com
 | Amazon Price: $17.21 List Price: $24.98 |
![George Harrison: Living In The Material World [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516-4dv1hRL._SL75_.jpg) | Amazon Price: $16.54 List Price: $24.98 |
 | Amazon Price: $8.28 |
![Yellow Submarine [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QvbylrYOL._SL75_.jpg) | Amazon Price: $18.99 List Price: $34.98 |
sabrebIade Level 2 Commenter 2 years ago
Interesting Hub!
As far as Captain Kirk or Captain Picard, it depends on the situation.
Out manned and out gunned, surrounded by enemy vessels, I'll take Kirk over Picard.
BUT, if someone like Q showed up on Kirk's Enterprise, Kirk would have gotten himself and the whole crew killed in about 5 minutes.
In that case, I'd want Picard because he was the consummate diplomat.