Spock in 2010? Highly Illogical!
Monday, July 25, 2005
Trek Check: What Was Once Imagined
by William S. Kowinski
The latest news about Star Trek's future hasn't exactly filled me with hope.
There was a new round of rumors on the next Star Trek movie, suggesting that it will be set in 2010 after a nuclear war on earth when "our saviors from the future arrive", and the movie will involve Spock, in a story to be told over two movies. Another claims that it will center on the Romulan war, and that Brannon Braga as well as Rick Berman are involved. Oh, and that Paramount is considering shooting it in Australia.
The best that can be extracted from this incoherent mess is that Paramount is considering shooting a Star Trek movie at all. In recent stories about changes at the studio, Trek is never mentioned in its future plans. It hasn't been disputed that Trek supporters within Paramount are gone, and if any remain they seem to be very quiet.
The two-movie rumor is typical (when Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" was announced, there was a rumor its story spanned two or maybe three movies.) The 2010 date is obviously bogus, and "saviors from the future" suggests a time travel movie, which is possible (since the two most successful Trek movies involved time travel) but unlikely since it's been done to death in the pre-Kirk era, with "First Contact" and the temporal Cold War premise on "Enterprise."
The Romulan War is a bit more credible, given that Enterprise avoided it, and it fits the post-TNG model of when imagination fails, start a war. It offers plenty of opportunity for vast CGI armadas and armies, but if any lessons were learned by the excessive use of them in recent movies, it is that audiences quickly tire of them, and they are more appropriate for video games than feature films.
That's not to say a good Trek movie couldn't be made about that era, but I have little confidence in the usual suspects making it in a way that is truly Trek, and not just another cliché-ridden war movie updated with phasers.
These rumors follow yet another call for a future Star Trek to be more like "the gritty new" Galactica. According to a San Diego writer, that was the consensus of a panel of "Star Trek experts" and enthusiasts at the San Diego Comic-Con. (Or at least, on why Enterprise failed.)
Robert Meyer Burnett, one of the makers of the "Free Enterprise" film, is quoted as saying: ""BATTLESTAR GALACTICA is basically a naval show set in space. It's World War II… "STAR TREK used to be about our world. Now, it's not 'real'."
What's wrong with this picture? For starters, World War II is over---it isn't "our world." Nor is it the world of the 23rd century on Star Trek. Star Trek often told stories that applied to our time, or to any time, including many in the original series that were almost poetic in their allegorical application. But they also showed us our world by using contrast, by taking a different perspective---for instance, ways of solving problems that in the 20th century, or the early 21st, seem "unrealistic."
This call for Star Trek to be another Galactica (which, interestingly, is not the position of Ron Moore, who created the new Galactica) is as easy to parrot as it was to devise it (since it's what every unimaginative and insecure studio executive has said about every project that's different from what is succeeding at that particular milisecond) and it is just as certain to be disastrous.
(more after the photo)
by William S. Kowinski
The latest news about Star Trek's future hasn't exactly filled me with hope.
There was a new round of rumors on the next Star Trek movie, suggesting that it will be set in 2010 after a nuclear war on earth when "our saviors from the future arrive", and the movie will involve Spock, in a story to be told over two movies. Another claims that it will center on the Romulan war, and that Brannon Braga as well as Rick Berman are involved. Oh, and that Paramount is considering shooting it in Australia.
The best that can be extracted from this incoherent mess is that Paramount is considering shooting a Star Trek movie at all. In recent stories about changes at the studio, Trek is never mentioned in its future plans. It hasn't been disputed that Trek supporters within Paramount are gone, and if any remain they seem to be very quiet.
The two-movie rumor is typical (when Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" was announced, there was a rumor its story spanned two or maybe three movies.) The 2010 date is obviously bogus, and "saviors from the future" suggests a time travel movie, which is possible (since the two most successful Trek movies involved time travel) but unlikely since it's been done to death in the pre-Kirk era, with "First Contact" and the temporal Cold War premise on "Enterprise."
The Romulan War is a bit more credible, given that Enterprise avoided it, and it fits the post-TNG model of when imagination fails, start a war. It offers plenty of opportunity for vast CGI armadas and armies, but if any lessons were learned by the excessive use of them in recent movies, it is that audiences quickly tire of them, and they are more appropriate for video games than feature films.
That's not to say a good Trek movie couldn't be made about that era, but I have little confidence in the usual suspects making it in a way that is truly Trek, and not just another cliché-ridden war movie updated with phasers.
These rumors follow yet another call for a future Star Trek to be more like "the gritty new" Galactica. According to a San Diego writer, that was the consensus of a panel of "Star Trek experts" and enthusiasts at the San Diego Comic-Con. (Or at least, on why Enterprise failed.)
Robert Meyer Burnett, one of the makers of the "Free Enterprise" film, is quoted as saying: ""BATTLESTAR GALACTICA is basically a naval show set in space. It's World War II… "STAR TREK used to be about our world. Now, it's not 'real'."
What's wrong with this picture? For starters, World War II is over---it isn't "our world." Nor is it the world of the 23rd century on Star Trek. Star Trek often told stories that applied to our time, or to any time, including many in the original series that were almost poetic in their allegorical application. But they also showed us our world by using contrast, by taking a different perspective---for instance, ways of solving problems that in the 20th century, or the early 21st, seem "unrealistic."
This call for Star Trek to be another Galactica (which, interestingly, is not the position of Ron Moore, who created the new Galactica) is as easy to parrot as it was to devise it (since it's what every unimaginative and insecure studio executive has said about every project that's different from what is succeeding at that particular milisecond) and it is just as certain to be disastrous.
(more after the photo)
There's another movie, apparently closer to being made (though how close is uncertain from the report in SciFi Wire) that's about how the first Star Trek conventions came about. Writer Paul Hernandez, who the story names as the film's director, described “Star Date” this way:
"Picture this: In the opening scene it's 1972, and a couple is necking in this car, and this guy is very visibly a nerd, and you wonder what she's doing with him. Then, he notices the time, and he says he has to run home because there's a rerun of a Star Trek episode that he has missed, and he never saw it. Well, she breaks up with him."
He then decides to organize a Trek-watching event to find like-minded girls, but instead of the 10 people he expects, 10,000 show up. "It's the invention of pop culture and results in the first convention," Hernandez said.
How entertaining this seems to you depends on your taste, but what especially bothers me is SciFi Wire's assertion, based no doubt on something Hernandez said, that it's "based on a true story."
It may be based on the true story of something, but not how Star Trek conventions started. The first major convention in New York City---which as far as I know is the first Star Trek convention of any kind---was organized not by nerdy boys trying to get girls, but by three women who were particularly fond of Star Trek.
As I wrote in a past post, many of the fans responsible for the early conventions, organizations, newsletters, letter campaigns and fan fictions were women. Many had careers, some had advanced academic degrees, and some were mothers.
It's not as serious a deal as the movies that made it seem that the American Civil Rights movement or the South Africa anti-apartheid movement were actually the work of white men instead of the courageous black leaders and the many people of color who sacrificed so much to create them, but it's kind of ugly nevertheless.
Moreover, the Star Trek conventions didn't begin pop culture, whatever that could possibly mean. There had been science fiction conventions for decades, and Star Trek conventions grew out of them. They did become a pop culture phenomenon, and did create a kind of template for fans of Star Wars and other movies and TV shows. But making false claims for them is just another way of trivializing them.
I'm also not fond of this stereotype of the Trek fan as nerd---in fact, I'm seriously not fond of the nerd stereotype at all.
This opening scene might be charming on screen, but as described it seriously bothers me. The stereotype of the Trek fan as "visibly a nerd so you wonder what" a girl is doing with him, is particularly demeaning. Stereotypes like that are destructive, especially when imposed on real people. There are all kinds of combinations of intelligence, social skills and interests. And all kinds of people who find all kinds of combinations attractive. What's particularly insidious and typical about this stereotype is that it puts down intelligence, as well as diversity, which is exactly the opposite of what Star Trek does.
Now I don't think I'm an unreasonable purist on this. Some Trek fans resent the Trekkies movies, but I don't. I enjoyed them and learned from them. I understand they show a certain side of Trek fandom but they are fun and let's face it---they didn't have to make that stuff up. I also thoroughly enjoyed "Free Enterprise" and especially "Galaxy Quest."
But this premise of the nerdy boys accidentally inventing Star Trek conventions plays into every lazy stereotype, and it's false history to boot. Of course, in this story the nerds find they are not alone and they all live happily ever after. Maybe it would make a fun movie, but as Star Trek nears its 40th anniversary, I'd rather see something that's closer to its real history, and its real spirit.
"Picture this: In the opening scene it's 1972, and a couple is necking in this car, and this guy is very visibly a nerd, and you wonder what she's doing with him. Then, he notices the time, and he says he has to run home because there's a rerun of a Star Trek episode that he has missed, and he never saw it. Well, she breaks up with him."
He then decides to organize a Trek-watching event to find like-minded girls, but instead of the 10 people he expects, 10,000 show up. "It's the invention of pop culture and results in the first convention," Hernandez said.
How entertaining this seems to you depends on your taste, but what especially bothers me is SciFi Wire's assertion, based no doubt on something Hernandez said, that it's "based on a true story."
It may be based on the true story of something, but not how Star Trek conventions started. The first major convention in New York City---which as far as I know is the first Star Trek convention of any kind---was organized not by nerdy boys trying to get girls, but by three women who were particularly fond of Star Trek.
As I wrote in a past post, many of the fans responsible for the early conventions, organizations, newsletters, letter campaigns and fan fictions were women. Many had careers, some had advanced academic degrees, and some were mothers.
It's not as serious a deal as the movies that made it seem that the American Civil Rights movement or the South Africa anti-apartheid movement were actually the work of white men instead of the courageous black leaders and the many people of color who sacrificed so much to create them, but it's kind of ugly nevertheless.
Moreover, the Star Trek conventions didn't begin pop culture, whatever that could possibly mean. There had been science fiction conventions for decades, and Star Trek conventions grew out of them. They did become a pop culture phenomenon, and did create a kind of template for fans of Star Wars and other movies and TV shows. But making false claims for them is just another way of trivializing them.
I'm also not fond of this stereotype of the Trek fan as nerd---in fact, I'm seriously not fond of the nerd stereotype at all.
This opening scene might be charming on screen, but as described it seriously bothers me. The stereotype of the Trek fan as "visibly a nerd so you wonder what" a girl is doing with him, is particularly demeaning. Stereotypes like that are destructive, especially when imposed on real people. There are all kinds of combinations of intelligence, social skills and interests. And all kinds of people who find all kinds of combinations attractive. What's particularly insidious and typical about this stereotype is that it puts down intelligence, as well as diversity, which is exactly the opposite of what Star Trek does.
Now I don't think I'm an unreasonable purist on this. Some Trek fans resent the Trekkies movies, but I don't. I enjoyed them and learned from them. I understand they show a certain side of Trek fandom but they are fun and let's face it---they didn't have to make that stuff up. I also thoroughly enjoyed "Free Enterprise" and especially "Galaxy Quest."
But this premise of the nerdy boys accidentally inventing Star Trek conventions plays into every lazy stereotype, and it's false history to boot. Of course, in this story the nerds find they are not alone and they all live happily ever after. Maybe it would make a fun movie, but as Star Trek nears its 40th anniversary, I'd rather see something that's closer to its real history, and its real spirit.
So in view of all this---the worrisome Star Trek future, and the coming anniversary--- I've decided to devote this blog for the foreseeable future to my take on what's most essential about Star Trek: the elements of its legacy, if (as seems entirely possible) the Star Trek we have known is now over, is now all history. Or if there is a future for Star Trek, the essential elements it must have, or at least build on, in order to truly be Star Trek.
These ideas may be even dumber than the ones I’ve just described, but at least I won’t just be carping about somebody else’s notions.
These elements---found in its real-world history as well as in its stories---are also Star Trek's contribution to the real world future. "What is now proved was once only imagin'd," wrote William Blake. The future we get will partly be determined by the future we imagine, out of our dreams and nightmares, especially as expressed in our stories about that future.
That's really been the agenda here from the beginning---this blog is called "Soul of Star Trek", after all. But starting next time, it's going to be more explicitly so.
Some of what I have to say will probably find lots of agreement among Trek fans. But some will not. Which leads me to this final observation: a comment on comments.
I enjoy getting comments on this blog and continue to invite them. Many have been flattering and that's frankly been motivating, since there's no other direct reward involved. I covet corrections, amplifications and contributions, and honor disagreements.
But there is one trend that disturbs me. Because I pointed out what I (among others) felt were the political messages in the latest Star Wars movie---and which George Lucas himself articulated---I was accused of "hating Republicans" and therefore being prejudiced against Republican Trek fans.
In response to a sentence in another post("There is a neocon and Christian fundamentalist fan presence on the net that support political and cultural agendas that GR and most of the Trek writers and actors would not-they'd probably find a lot of it horrifying") I was accused of "apparent bigotry towards Christians and conservatives."
The tendency to call people who disagree with you prejudiced and views that are counter to yours "apparent bigotry" is becoming widespread elsewhere, I've noticed. Some people use it consciously as a form of intimidation, but I do believe that others don't quite understand the gravity of what they are saying.
People are bigoted or prejudiced if they believes that all others of a certain description (race, gender, whatever) are lesser than them by virtue of their race, gender or whatever. It is ugly and inhuman and a very serious charge.
I am not bigoted or prejudiced because I disagree with your political position or interpretation, or your ideas, or if I disagree with the validity of what you assert are facts. I don't assume you are bigoted or prejudiced because you disagree with me.
We are equally human, equal as voices in cyberspace, and we disagree.
The tone of these two responses is otherwise respectful and reasonable, so I believe the writers aren't fully aware that these words are ill-chosen and inflamatory. None of us like to feel we are being excluded because of our views, and I can see that these two statements of mine (which are both observations about others I believe are accurate, but which do reflect my own view) could prompt those feelings. But my intent is not to exclude, though I insist on my right to assert and to disagree.
These ideas may be even dumber than the ones I’ve just described, but at least I won’t just be carping about somebody else’s notions.
These elements---found in its real-world history as well as in its stories---are also Star Trek's contribution to the real world future. "What is now proved was once only imagin'd," wrote William Blake. The future we get will partly be determined by the future we imagine, out of our dreams and nightmares, especially as expressed in our stories about that future.
That's really been the agenda here from the beginning---this blog is called "Soul of Star Trek", after all. But starting next time, it's going to be more explicitly so.
Some of what I have to say will probably find lots of agreement among Trek fans. But some will not. Which leads me to this final observation: a comment on comments.
I enjoy getting comments on this blog and continue to invite them. Many have been flattering and that's frankly been motivating, since there's no other direct reward involved. I covet corrections, amplifications and contributions, and honor disagreements.
But there is one trend that disturbs me. Because I pointed out what I (among others) felt were the political messages in the latest Star Wars movie---and which George Lucas himself articulated---I was accused of "hating Republicans" and therefore being prejudiced against Republican Trek fans.
In response to a sentence in another post("There is a neocon and Christian fundamentalist fan presence on the net that support political and cultural agendas that GR and most of the Trek writers and actors would not-they'd probably find a lot of it horrifying") I was accused of "apparent bigotry towards Christians and conservatives."
The tendency to call people who disagree with you prejudiced and views that are counter to yours "apparent bigotry" is becoming widespread elsewhere, I've noticed. Some people use it consciously as a form of intimidation, but I do believe that others don't quite understand the gravity of what they are saying.
People are bigoted or prejudiced if they believes that all others of a certain description (race, gender, whatever) are lesser than them by virtue of their race, gender or whatever. It is ugly and inhuman and a very serious charge.
I am not bigoted or prejudiced because I disagree with your political position or interpretation, or your ideas, or if I disagree with the validity of what you assert are facts. I don't assume you are bigoted or prejudiced because you disagree with me.
We are equally human, equal as voices in cyberspace, and we disagree.
The tone of these two responses is otherwise respectful and reasonable, so I believe the writers aren't fully aware that these words are ill-chosen and inflamatory. None of us like to feel we are being excluded because of our views, and I can see that these two statements of mine (which are both observations about others I believe are accurate, but which do reflect my own view) could prompt those feelings. But my intent is not to exclude, though I insist on my right to assert and to disagree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)