Set Transporter Coordinates to…
… Centauri Dreams, where my friend Paul Gilster is graciously hosting my more extended take on the new Star Trek film. I think that the mixed reactions are universal among those who loved the original Star Trek’s optimism and civility. Here is the closing paragraph of my extended essay, to whet your appetites:
ST|| is an odd-numbered film in the series, so I’ll give it a long space tether. However, if Uhura degenerates into the Angel in the House or if the certain-to-come sequels become more generic, I will put ST|| permanently in the same category as Star Wars. Those who have read my essay on Star Wars know how dire a fate this is. And though my wrath may not equal that of Khan, if enough of my ilk get disaffected we may abandon all the old lumbering dinosaurs and manage to relaunch the real McCoy — the Firefly-class starship Serenity, with its true love of endless skies and its persistent aim to misbehave.
This Web blog, which wonderfully took apart the terrible ending to
the reimaged Battlestar Galactica series, does an equally good job
with the new Star Trek film, both by itself and linking to other sites
which also called this piece of dreck and an insult to the original
series as it is.
Here:
http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2009/05/star-trek.html
Here:
http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2009/05/trek-dump.html
and here:
http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2009/05/trek-dump-addenda.html
Abrams and his gang has dumbed down Star Trek. Will the
series that we originally knew arise again one day, or is this
the end of Roddenberry’s vision?
Yes, Abigail Nussbaum’s analyses of SF/F work are incisive, though they tend to be on the long side.
I don’t mind long-windedness so long as it is interesting, and her
stuff definitely is interesting and well written.
She and the ones she linked to said it all about the new film, so far
as I am concerned.
I could have taken all the light elements of Abrams ST a bit better
if the plot wasn’t just so utterly light but outright DUMB so much of
the time.
If nothing else, Star Trek was about SOMETHING of at least some
substance bolstered by an interesting world with characters we
cared about because they cared about others.
I saw virtually nothing of that in this summer popcorn flick. Heck,
even the interior of the Enterprise looked and acted ridiculous.
In the original series, the starship was logically consistent enough
that someone could and did make detailed blueprints of the vessel.
The new Enterprise reflects the film: An illogical mess that is there
merely to dazzle and entertain on a base level.
Yes, it is — but you, like me, also happen to agree with her, which makes reading these essays a double reward. However, even if you agree completely with someone, brevity still counts as does the seriousness with which ephemeral cultural phenomena are treated: at some point it becomes a bit like trying to kill a midget with a SAM missile.
By the way, Larry, don’t think I’m pooh-poohing your concerns. I’m more inured to such abuses, that’s all. How would you like to be Greek like me and see all your myths get constantly mangled? Hmmm… I see an essay coming on the topic!
Excellent, spot-on essay, Athena, as always.
With ST’s flaws in mind, I’m hoping that in the event of sequels, Uhura’s character doesn’t drastically devolve as well (among other factors that could potentially detract from said sequels).
Also, thanks for the links to Abigail Nussbaum’s blog; her writing is indeed detailed and interesting.
Yes, Uhura is already a cause for concern — but what can we expect of a high-budget, high-concept Hollywood film? On the other hand, I think both of you will spend happy hours browsing Abigail’s blog!
This article by Marc Bain in the May 6 edition of Newsweek
hits a lot of nails on the head regarding the new Star Trek
film in comparison to the original series:
http://philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.com/2009/05/old-new-star-trek-philosophy.html
The quotes from the film’s writers show they want to reflect
the people and issues of the early 21st Century just as the
original series reflected the era of the 1960s. Not exactly a step
up in the world.
Either the writers “got” the original Star Trek but stripped out
whatever they didn’t care for (or what they considered would
drive away the money – I mean the potential new fans), or they
didn’t really get it to begin with and didn’t care, despite the
constant declarations of being “huge” fans – which producer J. J.
Abrams admits he is not.
The more I have been thinking about Star Trek lately, the more
it has been hitting home that the Enterprise and its mission as
dictated by Starfleet and the United Federation of Planets is far
more of a military and political one than it is about pure
exploration and understanding new and alien cultures.
It’s not that I didn’t realize it before, but seeing the new film
which got me back into the original series for a bit again with
a more mature and worldly perspective really hit home how
much the mission of the Enterprise is to secure new territories
(galactories?) and resources for the UFP while finding potential
new allies to strengthen the Empire – I mean Federation –
against its many enemies.
I will be the first to say that the first groups of humans to
physically move out into the galaxy some day will probably
not be the (mostly) noble and talented astronauts we have
been used to since 1961. However, in the case of Star Trek
going back to the beginning, the assumption is that our
explorers will really be working for a new version of the
military with scientific exploration going along for the ride.
Then again, the Apollo lunar missions were first and foremost
about geopolitical and technological showmanship, despite
NASA’s efforts to make it look like noble exploration was the
real purpose.
So maybe ST will be right – assuming we have FTL drives – but
that is kind of sad and nearsighted on our part, too. Even more
so if the ETI we encounter have taken similar routes as well.
You’re exactly right on both points, Larry. I wrote about this issue extensively in my book. The last chapter (Is Every Day a Good Day to Die? Marooned in monochromatic societies) discusses the fact that behind the pretty words the Federation is as militaristic as its enemies and as punitive as the Roman or American empires to those who resist its “goodies”.
While you can still count on one hand the number of science fiction
films that portrayed science and its practitioners with any level of
accuracy, it appears that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is
finally making an attempt to help Hollywood do a better job in this long-
neglected area of cinema history:
http://www.scienceandentertainmentexchange.org/index.html
To quote:
The Science & Entertainment Exchange is a program of the National Academy of Sciences that provides entertainment industry professionals with access to top scientists and engineers to help bring the reality of cutting-edge science to creative and engaging storylines.
Their blog is interesting:
http://blog.scienceandentertainmentexchange.org/
Not that guys like Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay won’t continue to
ignore physics and other aspects of scientific reality at their whims
(Armageddon has to be one of the biggest violators of science I have
ever seen in terms of a film with lots of resources and money that could
have done better if they so chose, and the similar film Deep Impact which
came out in the same year – 1998 – proved that), but now they will no
longer have an easy excuse when they say they didn’t have the time,
money, or people to get the science right.
People get a lot of their visceral “education” about science and the world
in general from films, whether they or anyone else want to realize it or
not. So the least those responsible and able can do is throw in a few facts
now and then with their cinematic product while the public consumes their
five dollar container of popcorn.
There isn’t much hope for this year’s crop of crap, but maybe by next
summer, or maybe 2015….
Meanwhile, the original Captain Kirk refuses to go quietly into that dark night:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1193938/Star-Trek-actor-William-Shatner-turns-nightmare-guest-U-S-chatshow-makes-series-rude-hand-gestures.html
Phil Plait, Mr. Bad Astronomer, recently posted two new items on
the latest Star Trek film here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/05/more-trekanalia/
One is a review of the science in the film, such as it was, and the
other is a review of the original script and what did and did not make
it to the final version.
FYI – The two writers for Star Trek 11 also wrote Transformers 2,
the other overblown and nonintelligent megablockbuster of this sad
cinematic summer.
Having seen both films now, I am convinced that these writers are
teenage males at least mentally if not chronologically. And they
are definitely NOT snatchmos. :^)
Either that or they know where to aim the moneymakers at. Or both.
Why does this not surprise me? Then again, the belief that the 15-25 male demographic holds a lot of financial clout may explain why Hollywood films are getting increasingly awful and decreasingly profitable.