The new Star Trek movie is...

[mmu1]

You know, reading some of these discussions about the new Trek movie has made me realize something:

If I liked Star Trek, it was despite all the things many "hardcore" fans are so passionate about, not because of them.

I grew up with TNG and DS9 (the original series was just too campy, old and low budget to really register with me - I'd probably have liked it if I'd seen it as a ten year old, but alas...) and for me, it was only worth watching when they broke away from cornball moralizing by people in silly pajamas standing around an awful-looking low budget set, and had the characters actually do something. Preferably something involving spaceships, and explosions...

 

[Mallus]

The characters are just there to be a sounding board for whatever piece of humanity is being explored.

Whatever gave you the idea that this isn't happening in the new film?

I said the new movie really captures the essence of the original characters. The original characters were so good and resonant and enduring exactly because of their humanity, because of how they spoke about the human condition.

Should I have been more clear?

Capturing the original characters = exploring the human condition.

How can have successful characters that don't do that. It's a requirement.

edit: I wouldn't be heaping kudos on a glorified piece of fan fiction. At least I think I wouldn't...

 

[Mallus]

I really wantedto go see this movie with my dad this weekend, but this week's tirade of Abrham interviews has left me disgusted.

I suppose what Abrams said in interviews is more important than the actual film he made.

He loves saying, thisis not a trek movie, i don't like star trek, this movie is everything the other star trek movies wasn't.

He's lying. Wait, he's marketing. Wait, they're the same thing.

The film is remarkably faithful to the original. You'll note I'm not the only person saying this.

I have to take offense to it.

That's silly. At least wait until you see the finished product before you get offended by it. Listen, if your dad's an old time Trek fan, I could think of no nicer way to spend some time this weekend than seeing the new movie.

 

[Mallus]

And Wrath of Khan wasn't about humanity, it was about the characters - Kirk and Khan

It was about humanity via the travails of Kirk and Khan; the desire for revenge, the fear of aging and impotence, the response(s) to loss.

Isn't that how fiction works? Individual characters used to comment on/elucidate/explore the human condition.

 

[Viking Bastard]

This is definately the most Trek-like Trek since the end of DS9. I captures the essence of the original perfectly, but updated for modern times. Just like TNG and DS9 did and ENT failed horribly at* (and VOY didn't even try).

The TNG movies tried very hard to combine classic Trekalities with action movie tropes, but aside from First Contact, which is among my favorites, they failed. The new movie tackles humanity in very much the same way the TOS movies did, through the trio of Kirk, Spock and Bones and their different reactions to the universe.

I was quite apprehensive at the idea of a reboot, but over time I have become excited at the idea of a Star Trek multiverse. May the universe hopping ShatnerKirk/PineKirk slashfiction commence!

* At least until the much superior last season.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Have you seen the film yet? At least I haven't, so I can't really comment on that.

But the "exploring humanity" issue is one that really blossomed during TNG. TNG addressed a lot of themes in a very forward fashion (for its time), TOS was much less about sending a message - the biggest message there was the crew itself, that a coloured officer, an alien, a Japanese and a Russian worked together.

TOS focused a lot more on the characters and how they did work as a crew. TNG was the step afterwards - assuming a working Federation and starting to explore other things and starting the diplomacy and peace approach.

Kirk blew up stuff good. And Wrath of Khan wasn't about humanity, it was about the characters - Kirk and Khan. And one of the best TOS episodes, Balance of Terror, was about a duel between Kirk and the Romulan commander. And from the trailer, I'd say the film is definitely in-vibe with TOS - not so much TNG, but Kirk was no Picard.

EDIT: Also, there is no "humanity" as a single entity. Every exploration of character is an exploration of humanity, varied as the characters are. It's in the characters where we see what decisions we as humans make. If this is done well, if they nailed the Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al. well, then they have represented a lot of things, how alpha males function, the conflict between our ratio and emotions.

Cheers, LT.

Lets see what kind of episodes there where that were more about exploring humanity than action, for example TOS had

Where No Man Has Gone Before: A look at what happens when someone is given absolute power

The Enemy Within: Looks at the multiple sides of an individual

Mudd's Women: What is beauty

Miri: What is civilization and what happens without it.

Dagger of the Mind: Whats acceptable punishment for criminals, and what makes us human

The Menagerie: When is it ok to disobey orders and for what reasons.

Balance of Terror: How far people will go in war.

Shore Leave: How our preconceptions effect our own reality.

This is just the first half of season one. I will agree that TNG picked up where TOS left off, but TOS and Roddenberry were all about exploring humanity as was TNG. TOS just had to layer that message under more common tropes in order for the networks to show it at all. While it may seem trivial to us, the Kirk/Uhura kiss in Plato's Stepchildren was the first Interracial kiss on TV and quite scandalous at the time and would never have been allowed except for the cloaking it had in Sci-Fi. While Let that Be Your Last Battlefield dealt with the American race relations and the folly of prejudice.

 

[Viking Bastard]

As for the dating issues someone brought up:

Spoiler

The timelines diverge 25 years before the movie's main timeframe, at Kirk's birth. The Enterprise is constructed a decade later and Christopher Pike is the ship's first commander, not Robert April as in the original universe.

I expected the movie to try to shoehorn the film's plot into the established timeline and just use the timetravel angle to explain whatever inconsistencies that were bound to come up (minor wrinkles in the timeline, etc.) but the movie makes it very clear right from the start, that no, everything you knew is off the table and we're starting anew.

 

[Mallus]

This is just the first half of season one.

Thanks for reminding me how good the 1st season was. TOS Season 1 on Blu-ray just arrived from Amazon. It's going to be taunting me all afternoon until I get it home.

Also, I'd summarize the new movie in the terms you did like this:

How does a child honor the parent? How does a child of mixed heritage honor both when they are in conflict? These questions would be perfectly at home in classical Greek drama.

It's not just a big blockbuster, you know.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

By the way, here is the Newsweek take Has Star Trek Lost Its Moral Relevance? | Newsweek Entertainment: Movies | Newsweek.com

 

[Mallus]

By the way, here is the Newsweek take Has Star Trek Lost Its Moral Relevance? | Newsweek Entertainment: Movies | Newsweek.com

The article makes a valid point, but it's a little early to decry the loss of Trek's moral relevance after a single film which also bore the burden of restarting a moribund franchise. This was not the time for preachy-Trek (and yes, I like preachy-Trek). Let's see what happens over the course of the next few movies.

Also, the article neglects to mention some of the best-loved episodes were free of any allegorical or inquisitive content, like when Kirk and Co. bamboozle some wily space gangsters on Chicago IV, or how one of the better movies was a comedy about saving the whales.

And let's collectively pray the new films never descend to the levels of moral and cultural relevance displayed in "The Way to Eden"...