That Star Trek rant

[selenak]

Regarding the impending Star Trek movie: I've got people on my flist who loved the trailer and people who were horrified. Me, I'm somewhat amused by the concept of troubled teen Kirk, but willing to wait for the execution to see whether or not this is the most groanworthy retcon in ST since Spock aquired a half brother and his father Sarek a previous marriage (with "a Vulcan princess", no less, never mind the Vulcans don't do royalty) in ST V. However, what genuinenly ticks me off are the following quotes in the Empire article I've read on the train:

"How do you watch Galaxy Quest and then go make a Star Trek movie?" - Way to fail realizing the point of Galaxy Quest, JJ and reporter James Dyer.

"Mention Star Trek to the avarage man on the street, and their immediate thoughts will likely stray to overweight fanboys waring prosthetic foreheads and taking evening classes in conversational Klingon." Not if that man is Patrick Stewart, whose classy smackdown of this type of journalistic cheapness can't be bettered (on page 2 of the article I linked).

"Star Wars was everything to me when I was a kid. It was this mind-expanding, visually stunning emotional ride. Like with Star Trek, though, I think the original films are what Star Wars really is. With the prequels, the endless books and now the tv series, it's diluted what Star Wars means in much the same way as what's happened to Star Trel. (...) Star Wars was always full of action. If I had one criticism of the original Star Trek, it's that the show was often a lot of discussion about things that were happening and not a lot of action depicting it. That needed to change." - Leaving aside my different opinion about the SW prequels for the moment: what made Star Trek what it was, in various incarnations, was that no, it wasn't like Star Wars. That "seeking out new life and new civilisations" bit in the freaking opening narration of both TOS and TNG? Was actually a big part of the appeal. And when the format changed, in DS9, which took place on a space station instead of a ship, the writing staff used this to explore different alien societies in ways the shows set on space ships couldn't because they were in a different place each week, but again, those Bajorans, Cardassians, Ferengi were quintessential to the appeal. And yes, there was a lot of talk. That would be why moments like Spock, in The Naked Time, talking about his human mother, or Picard in Measure of a Man (aka the one about whether Data is a toaster or a sentient being) pointing out that they were talking about slavery, or Garak telling Sisko the cost of his alliance ("four lives, and the self respect of a Starfleet officer") are the ones that are engraved in the fannish mind. If you take that away from Star Trek, it becomes a generic space opera. You want to talk about "diluted"? That's diluted. Not the post-TOS shows. I have my own preferences there, but each of them tried to capture this about ST - new life, moral dilemmas, and absolutely, talk.

And now excuse me. I'm going to get my Galaxy Quest dvd out and will watch this film again. Which is, among other things, an absolute love declaration to those uncool, weird fans whom the "avarage man on the street" so looks down on. And a great sci fi adventure, mixing character exploration, humour and action. Never once believing its audience to be dumb. Which, you know, is what "Star Trek really is".

Comments

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Not "bitchy", bloody RIGHT. Cretins. Galaxy Quest is all about the fans saving the day when the actors don't believe in it.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

You'd think that was glaringly obvious, but nooo...

[greenpear.livejournal.com]

I remember when the Stewart quote came out. It was great him sticking the interviewer like that.

I like Star Trek but everytime I said I liked it I got "funny looks" from people who proceeded to start labeling me "Trekkie" and "Geek" and lots of other names. Why do people have to plaster labels on someone just cause they like something. There's lots of things I like where I don't get labeled...

Must now go watch my VHS tape of GalaxyQuest...

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I get funny looks, too, complete with "but you're a woman!" sexism. Good grief.

[greenpear.livejournal.com]

Have you seen the trailer for "5-25-77"? About a couple of teenagers trying to get to the opening of Star Wars. It's the film which I think puts every geek reference into one trailer. And since you mention "being a girl who likes Star Trek" there's this little bit of dialog.

girl: Oh yeah. Like I'd waste my time on some dorky sci-fi movie.
Pat: So you don't have your little Star Trek parties anymore?
girl: Shut Up!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

:) Aw, that is one geeky trailer. When is this movie going to be released?

[crossoverman.livejournal.com]

And I thought this...



...was a geeky trailer!

[greenpear.livejournal.com]

I've hard of this one too but haven't seen it till now.

Geeky is the new "chic"... :p

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Oh Wow! I have to see that film!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

*watches and giggles helplessly*

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

This movie looks amazing. (I love that Mr Blue Sky has become the go-to song for geekery.)

[greenpear.livejournal.com]

I want this so bad to be finished.

[trobadora]

Wow, That is bloody offensive. Even if I hadn't seen the trailer and read the spoilers, this would not give me confidence. But I was already pretty sure they understood nothing of the spirit of Trek. :-(

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Doesn't look that way in the publicity, that's for sure!

[snarkel.livejournal.com]

I stand by my opinion that Galaxy Quest is actually the best Star Trek movie.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Well, except for Wrath of Khan and... okay. You're right. Galaxy Quest is best.

[rivrea.livejournal.com]

I was actually going to post exactly the same comment, but then, I never was a Star Trek fan to begin with...

[bhadrasvapna.livejournal.com]

Sometimes, I wonder if they listened to the beginning of the show. Star Trek boldly goes where no man/one has gone before. If the movie doesn't do that, it's not a Star Trek movie. It's that simple. Origin stories are little more than fan fiction wish fulfillment. I wanted to throw something at the screen when they showed Kirk looking at the Enterprise being made. Excuse me, I wasn't aware that Kirk could ride his motorcycle in space, because that's where the Enterprise was made. If they are going to play loose with canon, this might as well be AU Star Trek. If you want to pay homage to all the Trekkers and Trekkies out there, get canon right. That is the best way to respect us and Roddenberry's masterpiece of social commentary. Where did that go? You know, the social commentary that was the heart of the series.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I somehow suspect that this particular director cared more about whether or not the Enterprise could take on a Star Destroyer. *sigh* And no, they obviously didn't listen.

[ladyaeryn.livejournal.com]

If you take that away from Star Trek, it becomes a generic space opera. You want to talk about "diluted"? That's diluted.

This. Not all important "action" is the alien-shooting-up kind - sometimes it's Picard in a courtroom arguing with Q about the future of humanity. That emphasis on shoot-em-up for shoot-em-up's sake was a huge of part of why Nemesis irks me so much. (Among many other things.) I've got no trouble visualizing Picard kicking physical ass when he needs to - but when that's all he's doing? No. That's not only missing the point, that's warp 9-ing right past it. If this new film is going to be just another Nemesis, I've got no interest in it. And if JJ thinks the mass-proliferation of movies/books/TV is what's destroying SW, why is he making yet another ST film anyway?

And because I can't set aside the SW swipe... there was no "action" in the PT (or the new series), then? What-the-fuck-ever. *eyeroll* And as far as the action of the OT, what made the OT a classic wasn't just those big action sequences. It was the moments like Luke staring out at the sunset, Vader just walking away silently at the end of ESB, or Luke burning his father's armor. But then, I'm one of those fans who use scenes like the Obi/Jango AotC fight for pee breaks.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

It was the moments like Luke staring out at the sunset, Vader just walking away silently at the end of ESB, or Luke burning his father's armor.

Exactly. Yes, of course action is a big part of SW. But if it hadn't been for those emotional action-less moments, we never would have cared.

(BTW, also with you re: Nemesis - but it seems they've drawn the wrong conclusion from it.)

[artaxastra.livejournal.com]

WORDY MC WORD!

I need to find my copy of Galaxy Quest again. And watch some old episodes. Yeah.

And my one hope is this: Please don't screw up Vulcan!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I just finished watching Galaxy Quest, and it is just a joy from beginning to end. Now these producers knew what they were doing.

Amen to the not screwing up of Vulcan, yes indeed.

[bagheera-san.livejournal.com]

Completely OT: Someone really should have shown the people in BSGverse "Measure of a Man". It could have prevented wars!

That third quote is head-desk inducing. Explosions are good. Talk is better.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

No kidding. But then, BSG is worst case scenario ST in so many ways...

[rivrea.livejournal.com]

A friend of mine who happens to be a huge ST fan calls BSG "Star Trek for suicidal depressives..."

[misachan.livejournal.com]

For as long as I live I will never, ever understand the compulsion to compare Star Trek and Star Wars. I sometimes wonder if SW had been called Space Rebellion whether this would ever come up.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

If it had the same amount of audience success, probably, because as senseless as the comparison is, it's presumably based on the "two most successful sci fi franchises" thing. Still, apples and oranges.

[nomadicwriter]

I had a guy once try to explain to me that Star Wars was a complete rip off of Trek in every way. When challenged to explain how, he fell at the first hurdle by saying, "They're both set in the future." Heh.

[mymatedave.livejournal.com]

That icon is so appropriate to your comment, I'm nearly speechless.

[leviathan0999.livejournal.com]

I love you, and want to have your babies.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Do we send them to public school or private school? A parent has to know these things!

[crossoverman.livejournal.com]

And yet one of my biggest problems with this new Trek trailer is it seems to have been inspired by Lucas' directing of the SW prequel trilogy - why have a simple, quiet moment when you can throw a lot of unappealing CGI in! Of course, it's a trailer - so that's a little unfair. But I still think the trailer looks more like the Star Wars PT than Star Trek - complete with very young version of our protagonist and shoddy dialogue.

[thesecondevil]

*sigh* Whenever I read interviews with JJ about Trek it always gives me flashbacks to his horrible Superman script that completely mangled the mythos. I just hope the screenwriters for this movie remember what Trek is really all about rather than just throwing the fans continuity references as if that's the most important thing.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

To be fair: it can't be worse than ST V. Or ST I. (Both of which had their individual fun moments but by and large were dreadful films.) So yes, here's hoping the script is better than what this interview makes it sound like...

[thesecondevil]

True, though it's been so long since I've seen The Motion Picture I can't remember anything noteworthy about it. At least ST: V had the camping scenes with Kirk, Spock & McCoy.

Oh, and on the subject of Trek just being all talk I saw In The Pale Moonlight again today. It is entirely devoid of action sequences and a significant part of the episode is just Avery Brooks talking to camera and it is awesome.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

What I thought good about The Slow Motion Picture: it actually dared to critisize (and hence humanize) Kirk by showing that his ego-driven need to comand the Enterprise nearly leads to disaster when it turns out he doesn't know all the changes the refitting brought, while Decker Junior, who was there, of course does. And then Kirk comes through by admitting this to Decker. That's the sequence I'd like to keep, and abandon the rest, including Spock on Vulcan.

The Pale Moonlight is exquisite, and not on everyone's list of best Trek episodes of all time for nothing. *treasures*

[willowgreen.livejournal.com]

A Star Trek movie made by somebody who apparently doesn't like Star Trek very much... that's kind of like a Republican-appointed EPA director. How depressing.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

I actually think that Star Trek Six is the best film. Anyway, you know I'm there with you. I've moved on from 'hate' to 'can't really be fucking bothered'. I said I'd go see it with my movie-watching/geek-watching buddies, but I'm sincerely wondering if I will at this point.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Six? With the "we won the cold war, so there, Russians Klingons!" and the complete ignoring of how the Klingons had been developed on TNG (by then in its fifth season) and the embarassing Uhura searches through dictionaries gag which Nichelle Nichols hated with a vengeance (and I don't blame her), not to mention the Valeris coming out of nowhwere thing (if it had been Saavik, it would at least have had some emotional resonance)? Naaaah. I'll grant you the gag with Kirk and the Kirk-looking shapeshifter was fun, plus good for Sulu to finally get that promotion, and the end with Kirk quoting Peter Pan was cute, but other than that, I really didn't like that film. It's II, III, IV for me, in that order, but the others never lived up to the quality of the tv show. (Oh, and First Contact for the TNG movies, obviously.)

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Your list of films are really the only Trek films worth discussing, since the rest of them are complete wastes of time. The Klingons=Russia at the end of the Cold War thing really works for me, given that the analogies on TOS (and TNG) were never exactly subtle. Also, it's been a while since I sat through the really early TNG Klingon episodes, but I don't recall there being a very large canon gap in that film.

I take points off for the Nichelle Nichols bit, but there are more embarrassing things they've made Uhura do over the course of the films. (Sexy fan dance.)

All's fair, though. I must be the only fan in the universe that thinks TWoK is overrated.*

*Except, obviously, for the bit where Spock dies. Often times I fast forward just to watch the last half hour.

[futuresoon.livejournal.com]

Well, now I feel guilty for looking forward to it so much. I do remember narrowing my eyes at the interview a bit, but--doesn't it also mention something about trying to make the movie very character-oriented? So it's not just all shiny explodey action all the time? The promise of shiny explodey action is what will get non-fans into the theaters, after all; perhaps they are using it as a cover, and when we actually see the movie they will spring the good stuff on us. And JJ Abrams is just pretending to be a dick to keep up the cover. This is my theory and I am sticking to it.

Galaxy Quest is one of those movies that never fails to make me cry every time I see it. It's just...it's perfect. And people who don't see it as the love song it is don't know what they're talking about.

[wemblee.livejournal.com]

I want to leave a longer comment, and I actually am excited for the new TOS-revamp movie (it probably helps that I'm not a TOS fan), but:

new life, moral dilemmas, and absolutely, talk.

THANK YOU, OH MY GOD. I read one of the Bad Robot guys talking about how they wanted to inject a little more Star Wars into Star Trek, and I'm like, "But... WHY?"

I can't help reading this stuff as gendered, even though I probably shouldn't. This and the Batman revamp -- not knocking the quality of the Batman revamp, I'm just saying -- it feels very much like, "I'm not a nerd! I am a manly, manly DUDE that likes ACTION! YEAH!"

And, like, I don't have some masculine identity wrapped up in Trek being sexyawesomeactionsplosions, so I'm like, "BRING ON THE DIALOGUE, IT IS WHY I LIKE THIS SHOW. FOR ITS TALKY TALKY GOODNESS." To be fair, this is a movie and a movie should be... cinematic. (I wish a lot of TV was lesscinematic and more talky these days, but that's a whole 'nother rant.) But yeah. Devaluing the talkiness of Trek is stupid.

That said, I never watched TOS, so maybe it was more action-oriented, I don't know. TOS always felt like a different show to me, even though they were all ostensibly Star Trek; they felt like two different animals, TOS and the latter-day Treks.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

TOS' third episode was a pure character study - The Naked Time - and I'd say for a 60s tv show, it was definitely talky throughout. With the individual episodes ranking from great (City at the Edge of Forever) to horrible (good old "Spock's Brain" or "Patterns of Force" come to mind), which is true for every good show, I suppose. I love two of the later shows more, but I'm fond of TOS, and still have some of the media tie-ins on my book shelf to this day.

The gender question: this reminds me of the gender-stereotype joke that fanboys debate whether the Enterprise-D could take a Star Destroyer whereas fangirls debate whether Han Solo/ Tasha Yar would be good pairing. Which on the one hand is unfair and clichéd, but on the other not completely without a grain of truth. I think female fans like explosions and fight scenes, sure, but they're not inclined to write fanfic about them, and one reason why TOS became the granddaddy of modern tv fandom and Kirk/Spock the granddaddy of all slash pairings was because the characters got the audience hooked and the mostly female part of it writing. It definitely wasn't the not so special effects or the Kirk versus Gorn fighting scene.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Hear Hear! Love Trek, Love Galaxyquest. Because Galaxyquest shares the love.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

It so does. It laughs with the fans, not about the fans, and it makes me sad to think some people apparantly didn't see that.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Wow. So they handed Trek off to a man that not only has no respect for the original Star Trek canon and what made it great, or the fans, but actually just wanted to make a Star Wars film instead? I thought the mention of destiny in the trailer sounded fishy, but this just confirms that Abrams was not the right man for the job.

Not that I really expected to enjoy the film anyway, since I'm not much of TOS girl and reboots horrify me on general principle.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I'm not against reboots on principle - Casino Royale and Batman Begins were two good examples as far as movie franchises were concerned. But I'm not sure that whatever Abrams came up with is going to be good if what he really wanted to do is making a Star Wars film and simply got stuck in the wrong franchise. Whatever it is you're doing, you have to be in love with it in order for it to spark.

TOS isn't my favourite Trek - I probably would feel the urge to write protest letters if he was busy making a DS9 movie with this attitude - but I am fond of it, which makes me at the very least annoyed by these type of articles, and rather uncertain of whether or not to see the film.