SDG here with two new Decent Films pieces for the second week in a row (woo hoo!).
One is about why Star Trek is worth getting excited over. Whether you’re a Trekkie or a skeptie, the new film will probably offer you something to cheer about.
The other is an essay fact-checking Angels & Demons (both the book and the movie). Turns out a bunch of stuff Dan Brown says is really truly true actually isn’t. Who knew?
P.S. Comments, suggestions, corrections and expansions to the fact-check article are welcome. (Masked Chicken and any serious science types: I would particularly welcome your insights to my comments on the story’s science. [Dan Brown’s story, I mean.])
P.P.S. Next week I’ll have my film review of Angels & Demons, as well as another piece focusing on anti-Catholicism in the book and the film.
Dear SDG,
One of my students saw the movie last night and recommends it (he is young and has fewer attachments to the original series – I am just an old grump and miss the comfortable feel of the original).
I don’t see any real science in your review to comment on. From what I have gathered of the plot, this is not, strictly speaking, a reboot, which would leave us with Kirk as a baby growing up in the same universe, but rather, it is, as we say in computer programming, a fork of the original program. Now, we have Star Trek and Star Trek prime. Technically, since the old Spock came first, it is Abrams’s universe which is the prime universe. Thus, this movie should, technically, be renamed, Star Trek I’.
According to temporal logic and the laws of thermodyamics, the original universe no longer exists; according to the many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics, it might, but throwing time travel and parallel universes into the mix together is iffy. Parallel universes have a 50/50 change of existing. We haven’t found a way to prove or disprove the hypothesis, yet. Time travel, so far as we know, doesn’t look like it can be done through normal means.
Postulating that time travel creates an alternative universe which splits off from the original really does not work either logically or from conservation laws. The only person who survives from the original universe is the time traveler. Technically, everyone but Spock no longer exists from the original universe, if what I think is correct as far as the plot is concerned.
The original series was always careful to reset the original universe, as best they could. I say this because every instance of time travel always creates at least one point of paradox. Take, for instance, the Babylon V episode (third season), War without End. Sinclair shows up with a letter that he addressed to himself thousands (? – can’t remember how long) of years ago telling him what he must do. He goes back in time and in the process, takes the letter from the future with him. Since this must be the letter he reads in the future, the question then becomes: when did he write the letter? Apparently, it came into existence ex nihilo, hence violating the law of conservation of matter. I am reasonably certain that such a focal point paradox exists in the new movie, as well.
I can, however, buy the device for narrative reasons, if not scientific ones. Stargate: SG1 did something similar in a two part season seven episode entitled, Moebius and Moebius, part II, although in that case, the modified universe was reset a second time back to approximately the original one. Notice that Daniel Jackson is virtually identical to the Spock character as far as narrative significance in the SG1 fork. This technique is not really new. Abrahms is just very very good at giving it energy. The difference is that, as Jack O’Neill prime says at the end when there are fish in the pond: close enough. The Star Trek prime mantra may be: close enough, but not too close.
It is, I am sure, an exciting film, but it sends an interesting meta-message: if life gets too boring or complicated, give up and reboot. I would much rather, personally, have seen someone come up with a really ingenious plot that doesn’t essentially, give up on the old universe, which is what I think this film does. I haven’t seen it, yet, so I will reserve judgment and grumpiness on that issue.
Are there any points on the science that either I or Thomas or Hans (the only readers I know with science backgrounds, although I am sure there are others) that you specifically want comments on?
The Chicken
Dear Chicken,
Thank you. I was referring to the science in this piece. (Cf. esp. the section subtitled “Bad science,” hopefully accurately describing Dan Brown, not me.)
Steve,
You might point out that when there’s matter/anti-matter annihilation, they are converted into pure energy, i.e., photons. However, such high-energy photons are referred to as “gamma rays”, the most lethal form of radiation. So, far from being clean, it results in extremely dangerous radiation, making the core of a nuclear fission reactor a Caribbean beach by comparison.
Saw Star Trek. The effects were great. I didn’t have a problem with the re-boot plot per-say. Roddenberry would have hated it and I would agree with him. Why? One thing he use to say was that if you wrote a scene for Star Trek and if you then stripped out the science fiction element and presented the scene as occuring in the modern world would it make sense or seem stupid?
So SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
So imagine that due to a war the U.S. Navy suddenly decided to early graduate all of the midshipmen in the Academy and assign them to ships. One of these middies is then selected by the ship’s captain as the executive officer, over other experienced officers and middies who are senior to him. At the end of the battle the Navy then gives permanent command of the their flagship to this middie, over other experienced officers, at least one who is a commander. Would that make sense? If so the plot is reasonable. If not go to another writer.
Also It seems less than reasonable to me that cadets who attend a school in San Francisco travel to Iowa to party. I guess in the future Iowa is just a more happening place than San Fran. Who would have guessed?
Dear SDG, [I hope the links work -Typepad has been finicky]
Sorry. Since the Star Trek picture was on the post I ignored the rest of the post and assumed your question was about Star Trek đ
Let’s see, where to begin? First of all, CERN has debunked Dan Brown”s pseudo-science quite nicely (and they should know). Let’s look at his comments in detail.
Absolutely. Antimatter is the ultimate energy source. It releases energy with 100% efficiency (nuclear fission is 1.5% efficient.)
First of all, what does he mean by 1.5% efficiency? In the original A-bomb, about 1.38% of the original fissionable material (Uranium-235) went critical, which may have represented a 1% energy output, but this was because of the technique used – the so-called, gun-type fission method. This was the type of bomb dropped at Hiroshima. A second, more efficient method of triggering a chain reaction, called the implosion method, was developed side-by-side with the gun-type method. The second method used a spherical shape charge to created a spherically uniform shock wave that compressed plutonium leading to a chain reaction. This method was sufficiently sensitive to the imperfections of the shape charge, should it not be perfectly spherical, that a test was ordered: the so-called Trinity test at Alamagordo, New Mexico. It worked and the bomb dropped on Nagasaki used the implosion method. This method resulted in 20% of the plutonium fissioning. There are other, more complicated delivery and fissioning systems: two stage, three-stage (fission-fusion-fission) and others. Many of the processes are classified, so the exact efficiencies are unknown.
Antimatter is 100,000 times more powerful than rocket fuel.
Antimatter isn’t more “powerful” than anything. Matter or antimatter by themselves are just types of matter. Matter isn’t “powerful”. Matter is anything that takes up space and has mass. Rocket fuel is not powerful, either, by the way, until it undergoes a chemical reaction which releases chemical energy.
A single gram contains the energy of a 20 kiloton atomic bombâthe size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Actually, the blast at Hiroshima was equivalent to 13 kiloton tons of TNT as measured against the calibration blast of 108 kilotons of TNT some months earlier; Nagasaki was a 21 kiloton equivalent blast. I do not know what a 20 kiloton atom bomb is, since by this one would ordinarily mean the bomb weighted 40,000,000 lbs – truly an impressive bomb đ Oh, and by the way, any gram of matter contains the same amount of energy, even ordinary matter!
In addition to being highly explosive, antimatter is extremely unstable and ignites when it comes in contact with anything ⌠even air.
Antimatter is not, in itself, explosive. It is unstable, but it does not, “ignite” – that implies burning in oxygen. It undergoes particle-antiparticle annihilation. It only does this with particles of matter. Antimatter may be perfectly stable when coming in contact with other antiparticles. What is this, “even air,” business? Air is a collection of (primarily) diatomic nitrogen and oxygen. So, its matter. Big deal.
It can only be stored by suspending it in an electromagnetic field inside a vacuum canister. If the field fails and the antimatter falls, the result is a âperfectâ matter/antimatter conversion, which physicists aptly call âannihilation.â
Perfect? Conversion? Conversion to what? Energy and particles are both produced in certain cases. Perfect? What does this mean? I think he is confusing matter and antimatter with negative and positive numbers.
CERN is now regularly producing small quantities of antimatter in their research for future energy sources. Antimatter holds tremendous promise; it creates no pollution or radiation, and a single droplet could power New York City for a full day.
What is this man smoking? CERN is not researching future energy sources. Antimatter holds no promise because we do not know how to produce large quantities. Particle annihilation sure as heck can produce radiation – extremely lethal gamma and x-rays as well as other particles, such as neutrinos.
With fossils fuels dwindling, the promise of harnessing antimatter could be an enormous leap for the future of this planet. Of course, mastering antimatter technology brings with it a chilling dilemma. Will this powerful new technology save the world, or will it be used to create the most deadly weapon ever made?
I think he is confusing fusion with matter/antimatter particle annihilation.
Basically, SDG, you are correct, although the matter (no pun intended) is much more complex and since I do lower energy physics, I will defer any more comments to Thomas Vaughn or someone else, who might be more up on high energy physics than I.
The Chicken
The only reason anti-matter is unstable is that our immediate surroundings are made up of anti-anti-matter. If instead, we were also made up of anti-matter (the luck of the draw?), anti-matter would be ordinary. Come to think of it Dan Brown himself is made up of anti-anti-matter. There’s enough energy in him to power an entire film franchise. Fortunately, the conversion happens at a very low efficiency.
TerryC,
Who wouldn’t want to party down in Iowa?
MUCH better than San Fran.
Some of the storms out here are more exciting than any thrill ride I’ve ever seen.
Great food, nice people, cows.
I love it here.
A few more comments on the science of Dan Brown’s latest film…
When he says that antimatter can create 100,000 times more power than rocket fuel, this is actually an understatement. The energy ratio is 10^10: 1 for conventional chemical fuel, 4:1 for fission processes, 2:1 for fusion processes, but only half of the energy would be usable. The rest would be carried away by neutrino formation, He is off by a factor of 5 x 10^9 in his comparison to rocket fuel, according to Wikipedia.
Also, a single gram would produce raw energy of about 47 megatons of TNT and assuming half the energy could utilized, for reasons stated, above, this would result in a yield of 23.5 megatons, not kilotons, as Brown states.
It is hard to see where he got anything right.
The Chicken
There’s enough energy in him to power an entire film franchise. Fortunately, the conversion happens at a very low efficiency.
Mike Melendez, thanks for a chuckle this morning.
Hey Steven. Your article was very well detailed and a fascinating read. I look forward to your review next week, which I’m sure will be typically engrossing.
I was just wondering (off topic) if you have seen the film “Gran Torino.” If you have, would it be possible to write (1 or 2 paragraphs) in a comments box describing whether or not you liked the film?
First, SDG, thanks for reposting (from some time ago) the CERN myth-buster link. I sent it to my modern physics students as a “one last thought” now that they’ve had their final and are waiting for grades. (Yes, I should be grading the final now, but I expect to finish tonight anyway.) A number of them replied, having enjoyed it.
“Are there any points on the science that either I or Thomas or Hans (the only readers I know with science backgrounds, although I am sure there are others) that you specifically want comments on?”
I also do low-energy physics (mostly superconductors and other magnetic systems), but there was a time when I played in the minors of the particle league. From everything I understand, the time-travel-through-a-black-hole device is extraordinarily unlikely, rather like Alice’s rabbit hole. Even if it did work, you’d likely end up as an extremely elongated version of your former self. But just as with Alice’s rabbit hole, it is a well-established SF device. There are other physics quibbles I had that I won’t go into, lest I spoil others’ enjoyment. I did, nonetheless, enjoy it very much, though perhaps more as an action movie.
Also, SDG, have you ever seen/reviewed the dystopian genetic engineering movie [no spoilers there, I think] Gattaca (1997)?
I have to disagree: an alternate-universe Star Trek wasn’t all that necessary. The galaxy’s a big place, and there are lots more that we can get to with nothing more difficult than writing in a technological breakthrough.
Maybe I’m cynical, but to me the most significant aspect of the plot of this Star Trek episode is that it provided a plausible way to shuck actors that are either too busy, too well off, or too long in the tooth to be interested in filming more episodes. This new group of young actors has been introduced with enough skill to allow almost anyone to suspend disbelief at seeing a non-Shatner Kirk or a non-Nimoy Spock, and now the franchise can continue for another 40 years.
There’s plenty of good money still to be made. Sulu, warp factor 10.
Hey Steven. Your article was very well detailed and a fascinating read. I look forward to your review next week, which I’m sure will be typically engrossing.
I was just wondering (off topic) if you have seen the film “Gran Torino.” If you have, would it be possible to write (1 or 2 paragraphs) in a comments box describing whether or not you liked the film?
I have to disagree: an alternate-universe Star Trek wasn’t all that necessary.
I’m extremely upset with this film for precisely this reason. I’m a Star Trek sedevacantist now, more or less.
To me, Star Trek was always about the characters, and now we have a group of what I consider ontologically different characters. They may have the same biology, but they each have, and will have, a very different set of experiences from the crew we were familiar with. That’s important because those experiences are what makes us care about the characters. Look at it from this “analogy:” in a good film, there is character development – a series of events, interactions between characters, etc. – and so we care about the characters. In a bad film, there is little or no character development, and so we don’t so much care about them.
Now there’s been 93 hours of character development that many fans have “been through” with Kirk, Spock, etc. People care about those characters because they “were there” when this happened, or when that happened, for that funny moment, that sad moment, that touching moment, etc. These “new” characters lack all of that, and will forever lack it, so I just don’t care about them. More than that, I’m offended by them (or as offended as a person can healthily be over fiction đ ). Imagine if someone made a perfect clone of your mother, and managed somehow to give her the same personality, appearance, and everything else except that this clone had not been through the shared experiences with you. You’d probably be deeply offended by her because she’s not your mother but she’s being presented as and presenting herself as your mother. Again, this is only fiction, but the sentiment is similar.
The worst part is just what Tom said: it wasn’t necessary. I’ve been following the story about this film for quite a while, and I’ve heard all the explanations that Mr. Abrams, Mr. Orci, and Mr. Kurtzman (the director and writers) have given for taking this path: people look at Star Trek as a niche product that isn’t for them; people see Star Trek as boring and technobabbily; we already know what’s going to happen so the only way to tell original stories is to start over; Star Trek as we knew it had run out of gas; etc. The thing is that not a one of these things couldn’t have been corrected without rebooting, creating an alternate universe, etc. The average Joe out there who’s going to see this movie doesn’t even know that the film is set in an alternate universe, and if he did he’d just consider that more boring technobabble. Rather, the average Joe sees a big budget film with nice looking effects, an exciting looking story, a well-known director, and a little bit of sex thrown into the trailers. To put it as I did on a Star Trek board, they’re basically telling us that the average person who doesn’t know anything about Star Trek won’t see Star Trek because of all the minor details like Kirk serving on board the Farragut in his youth, but now that these people, who know nothing about Star Trek, know that that’s not in this new movie, they’ll flock to the theaters. It’s nonsense! đ
Or, look at it another way. If you took every single piece of marketing that’s been done for this film, is there any of it that couldn’t have been done if they didn’t create a new universe? There isn’t. Moreover, there are a lot of folks now hoping that the planned sequel will be done in such a way that it could be interpreted to be in either timeline. That is, just tell an interesting story with those actors, those effects, etc., but don’t specifically mention any of the major changes that took place in film one. Then, everyone can be happy. The question is, why couldn’t they have done that with this film? Just make an interesting, exciting story with all of the effects, the “modern story telling,” etc., and just not mention any of the minor “canon” details that supposedly bother some people (as if all these people who know nothing about Star Trek would notice such references anyways). Again, it would have worked fine.
In the end, there was just no need. The only thing I can think of has to do with the, *ahem*, how do I make this spoiler free… the most significant change that happens in this new universe. That event makes me wonder if the attitude that the creators took to this film was simply one of, “Star Trek is OURS now and we’ll do with it whatever we well please, and just to show you how it’s gonna be with the new sheriff in town…” Of course I don’t know that this is the case and can’t accuse them of doing so. It’s just the sense I get.
God bless,
Shane
I’ve got to agree with Shane about the alternate-universe stuff. Well, atleast I’ll save a few dollars.
I think the last series (or two!) as well as the last two or three movies argue otherwise, Tom P. Certainly many people who followed “Enterprise” realized how boxed-in the writers were all the time by all the established history. There were always so many things you couldn’t do, so many things that couldn’t be changed or that viewers knew wouldn’t happen, because everyone already knew they hadn’t happened at that point in Trek history.
To me, it felt like the “Enterprise” writers were wearing straitjackets. Can we bring in the Borg? The Romulans? Um, no. Or, if we do, we need to do all sorts of retconning, bracketing, explaining away, yadda yadda yadda, in order to preserve our precious continuity. Is it worth it? Not IMO.
If you’re J. R. R. Tolkien, you can write the history of Middle Earth in a dozen volumes and editions until the day you die, but I think there’s a reason Tolkien only wrote one great epic of Middle-earth. The same historical continuity does not support an endless number of equally grand narrative possibilities.
If that’s how you feel, Shane, that’s how you feel, but I’d hate for my fondness for, say, Golden Age Batman to ruin my ability to appreciate Batman: Year One, or for my appreciation of the latter to wreck Batman Begins for me. I love Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur, but I’m hardly going to pit The Once and Future King against it, even on those points where they differ.
Star Trek is essentially a mythology, and a good mythology is robust enough to withstand multiple reboots. If you said, Shane, that you don’t like this particular reboot, I could understand that, but the way you phrase your objections makes it seem as if you would reject any departure from “canon” in principle, which is an attitude I just don’t understand at all.
Especially since — as I pointed out in my review — “Star Trek” carries within its own continuity the inherent openness to other possibilities and continuities. The “Mirror, Mirror” Spock is just as much Spock as “our” Spock — he’s just not our Spock, that’s all. How can you say there’s something wrong with telling a story about one of those alternate worlds?
You can choose “not to care” about those characters, because they aren’t the same characters you’ve invested in in the established “Trek” continuity, but in the first place, that’s like saying that because Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne isn’t Bob Kane’s Bruce Wayne (or Adam West’s, or Denny O’Neil’s, etc.), he’s not the character you’re invested in and so you don’t care about him. Why not give another take a chance?
In the second place, if you were a TNG fan, did you not care about the alternate-world Tasha Yar in her one appearance in “Yesterday’s Enterprise”? I thought it was her finest moment (or at least one of the top three).
Heck, in “Parallels” there was a Riker from a Borg-decimated universe that we see for about thirty seconds, and I totally cared about him. How could you not?
And in the DS9 episode “Visionary,” “our” Miles O’Brien — the Chief O’Brien from TNG who went on to DS9 — actually dies, and is replaced by a future version of himself from another continuity. Without necessarily defending that creative choice, I don’t think it prevented me from caring about that O’Brien afterwards.
Now, here’s one I’ll give you. The 2000 film The Family Man spends a long middle act introducing us to an alternate-reality version of the Tea Leoni character — a character that we get to know and care about — and then in the end rips her away and replaces her with the version from the “original” version from the “main” reality, which is not a character we are invested in, and not one I could care about.
But that’s a case of a single dramatic presentation giving us one character to care about in the second act and then replacing her in the climax. Totally doesn’t work. If someone wants to make another movie about the “original” Leoni character, I’m not going to not-care about her in advance. Go ahead and make your movie, and I’ll watch it and then decide.
Dunno why you single out the marketing, but yeah, there is. One of the trailers shows James T. Kirk driving a vintage Corvette. TOS episode “A Piece of the Action” establishes that Kirk can’t drive stick. QED.
Anyway, looking at the film as a whole, it is part of this Kirk’s characterization that he grows up fatherless, in contrast to Shatner’s Kirk. And of course there’s a slightly huge event in the film (which I guess is what you’re referring to) that completely contradicts “canon” for the next however many centuries. Something you could never have done in an “Enterprise”-style prequel set in the same continuity. Which is the whole point.
SDG – I’m glad you brought up Batman, because Batman is actually the example I give to deepen my explanation of why this bugs me so much.
You see, Batman, to me, has no depth. No don’t misunderstand what I mean by that. I don’t mean that each individual incarnation of Batman lacks depth. Each has depth. I mean that to me Batman has no depth precisely because I can’t follow 15 different Batman incarnations (or however many there are; I was using hyperbole).
I enjoy Batman, a great deal. However, there’s always so much more I can’t get out of it because of the way it’s been redone so many times. To me, this is Batman: a rich man with a butler dons a bat suit and fights villains. That’s it. There’s nothing more to it than that, because anything you add to it is something that may not be consistent between different Batman representations. All of the character development between, for example, Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson that happens in one version of the story, is lost when you move into a different version, where there may be a different character development between the two, or there may be no Dick Grayson at all.
Now, if I had the time the follow every rendition of Batman, I could theoretically just keep that in mind and appreciate each one for what it was. However, I don’t think I really could. The reason is, as human beings, we’re not made to see multiple instances of the same person. I know my friend James, and he is who he is. It doesn’t make sense that there might be a different James who is still James but different in ways X, Y, and Z. Now that’s fairly obvious when it comes to reality, but for me, it’s the same way in fiction. It really, really cheapens the character for me to see 4 different versions of that character… they lose a tremendous sense of their realism exactly because in the real world, you can’t have 4 different versions of the same person. In other words, doing it that way just puts it right in your face that Batman is not in fact real. It destroys the suspension of disbelief that is necessary to really enjoy a story to it’s fullest.
So when I watch Batman, there’s just so much depth that isn’t there. There’s an exciting story about a guy in a Bat suit fighting crime, but that character can never leave that one story. All of the depth of appreciating the development of a character over time is lacking in Batman… it’s just a “bottle story,” as it were.
As far as the marketing is concerned, you’ve misunderstood my point. My point was not about the trailers, etc., staying consistent with established “canon,” but about how the general, don’t know much about Star Trek public, will view the films. The people JJ Abrams et al. are trying to reach with this film are not the Trekkies – they already have them – but the people who’ve never seen A Piece of the Action, or if they have don’t remember it. They’re trying to reach the people that don’t nitpick a film they see but just enjoy it, at least that’s what all of their comments have indicated. My point was that an alternate universe was not necessary to generate the excitement, and ultimately the profits, from this film, because all of those people paying the theaters to see the movie didn’t know from the trailers and marketing that this was now an alternate universe.
Ultimately, this is only fiction. I have no problem with some minor thing like Kirk knowing and then not knowing how to drive a standard transmission. Heck, the original Star Trek series existed before people were concerned about “canon” and contradicted itself quite a bit. I can live with that, and I think most Star Trek fans can, though obviously there’s also a large group who would be up in arms over such things. I do want broad continuity, continuity of obvious things, important things. If you can preserve the minor, “Kirk once ate a burrito and got sick so he’s allergic to Mexican so don’t show him in a Mexican restaurant” continuity, I’d like that too, but the point is it’s not the most important thing in the world – it’s only a TV show.
So I really don’t buy for an instant that any new film would be so tied up by previous continuity that they couldn’t do anything. A person can get a doctorate in history and yet still fail to know an almost “infinite” number of events from the past that didn’t relate very much to what he has learned. I certainly think that a writer would be capable of finding room to tell some original stories that aren’t “straitjacketed” by a mere 90 some odd hours of television.
Saw it last night with the family. Everyone loved it. A movie worth the ticket price, for once! We will no doubt see it again and buy the DVD, to boot.
My kids have become overnight fans of Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Chekov, Scotty… which is oddly very gratifying to me. This is the best re-boot EVER!
BTW, I agreed with every word of your review, including your notes on the Kobayashi Maru test, the tone of which was all wrong. It would have been much more affective had Kirk played it straight, rather than being just a snot.
I’ve purposefully stayed away from Star Trek boards re: the new film. Mostly because I didn’t want to know Abrams’ take on it but also because I knew there’d be folk with Shane’s view. To each their opinion & all a valid. But I became . . . disenchanted with ST during the Voyager period. It simply lost all steam with me. TNG was good, for what it was, but it actively pushed Roddenberry’s Godless universe so much that it was, eventually, a total turn off & I have no desire to watch more than about 20 episodes, total, from that series. I just can’t stomach most of it any more. DS9 was far better but Babylon 5 out DS9’d it, IMO. (I think, though I’m frequently wrong, it was Joe Straczynski who wrote about how ST’s lack of religion hamstrung the universe in the long run. I agree; it’s devotion to humanism caused the franchise to become bland & repetitive to me.)
With each successive ST show & film, I was hoping for a new, fresh approach to the universe. It never came (aside from DS9, to a point). And what it became was the same ol’ formula from the same ol’ creative teams.
I’ve been a fan of Batman practically since birth. As with ST:TOS, I cut my teeth on the campy 60’s series reruns in the 70s. Batman resonates with me in a way ST never did, even then. I find, in any Batman incarnation, a depth that you apparenly don’t, Shane. Again, to each their own. (I know of some Batman fans who hate the Chris Nolan version whereas I hated Tim Burton’s.) I think it’s the character’s ability to be adapted to virtually any other time period that proves his depth. I think the same is true with the new ST & I think it was a brilliant choice to set it in an alternate universe, leaving the Prime U effectively untouched. I don’t at all like where Batman is headed in the comics but that’s OK. The other Batman incarnations I do enjoy will always be there.
Sure, I watched ST reruns multiple times as a kid but when Star Wars came out in 1977, I realized what ST was missing: heroes. For me, ST has never had larger than life heroes that appealed to just about everyone. Selfless, selfsacrificing heroes. I’ve never really seen that in ST. ST just had a smart crew of people who could work their way out of difficult situations & that, in itself for the most part, was pretty satisfying within the ST universe. But I never left a ST film or TV episode feeling the same way I feel after watching SW, or LOTR, or SpiderMan or Batman, etc. Until now.
In the new ST, I saw imperfect people who rose to occasion in the face of an impossible situation & overcame it. I saw all the things I like to see in a hero. And . . . it was in the basic context I enjoyed when I was growing up. Win/win for me! These “new” ST characters resonated with me in ways the “classic” ones did now. In fact, Spock Prime & his expression of his friendship with Kirk Prime (if I may) resonated in a way that relationship never did before which will color my viewings of those old shows & movies. Again, win/win. That’s how the many incarnation of Batman works for me, too. That, IMO, is depth.
If, in say 25 years, they choose to reboot/remake Star Wars & update the storytelling & make changes, I’d welcome it. (And not just because I think Lucas blew it in a number of areas.) Maybe it’s my acting background & all the Shakespeare I’ve done but I don’t think anything’s written in stone or should be immutable. IMO, this ST is far stronger than Roddenberry’s. (Blasphemy, I know.) But I think it both honors & suprasses Roddenberry’s vision at the same time. Perhaps even fulfills it. Only time will tell.
Thanks for your views, Shane – I appreciate them. I hope you take mine in the spirit they were intended: 1 fan to another.
I wonder what Jimmy thinks of the new ST?
I was going to post some more comments on Star Trek, but I have realized how passionate I am on the subject and it is usually dangerous to write, uncensored, in a passionate state. In my earlier posts, I maligned Abrams and I apologize. I do not know the man.
The only thing I can say without getting too far into my zone is that in real life, when we have boxed ourselves into a corner, we seldom get to push a reboot button. Sometimes, we must slog on and hope that grace will touch the situation. That is part of the virtue of hope. I, probably, could have come up with five different ways to revitalize the original Star Trek universe without a reboot before breakfast, but, then again, I would never want to work in Hollywood. Art, true art, also, thrives when constrained. Mozart only had the sonata form to work with, but he not only was not hamstrung, he perfected the form. Where was a Mozart for Star Trek when we needed one, sigh.
The Chicken
While I’m not offended by the idea of an alternate universe– standard Star Trek fare, after all– I do share the (around here, anyway) common sense that when you’re dealing with an entire universe, it seems a bit weak to say you’re “boxed in” creatively. All right, so you can’t put the Borg onscreen, or the Romulans, or the Ferengi, but how many other races must there be out there?
On the other hand, I’ve never had to try to write an episode. I can certainly understand that it would be laborious to try to write under the weight of an ever-increasing pile of prior precedent that you can’t contradict. Could this be the real issue? Is the problem not that creativity in the old ST universe is impossible, but just that it’s impractically expensive given the weight of continuity?
In reverse order:
But what exactly can those races do, Patricius? Any story that threatens to become too important, to have too much of an impact on Federation history, may either contradict known history outright, or else raise the inevitable question: How could we possibly not have known about this before?
Bah. My dear Chicken, if Mozart got to the third movement of a piece and decided that what he wanted to do required ripping the first two movements apart, he wouldn’t hesitate.
Neither did Tolkien hesitate to rewrite the history of Middle Earth to suit his purposes. Heck, he even revised The Hobbit after it had already been published in order to better dovetail with what he wanted to do in The Lord of the Rings.
And that’s artists dealing with their own work. When it comes to reworking other people’s material, fuggedabaddit. Shakespeare freely rebooted his sources. So did Malory.
That may be, Gene, but I think Straczynski also made the same point I’ve made here — that ST had become hamstrung by its long history, that a reboot was needed.
This is a side issue, Shane, but aren’t you missing the defining thing about Batman — the reason why he’s Batman at all. And why, given that he wears a mask and fights crime, it’s a bat mask, i.e., why he goes in for grim?
Batman is not just a rich man with a butler who dons a bat suit and fights villains. He’s a rich man with a butler who spends his nights wearing a bat suit and fighting villains because he was orphaned as a child by a thug with a gun in a street holdup. Even in the campy 1960s series, that’s who he is — just a vaudeville version of the character.
He goes in for grim because his childhood was stolen from him. Peter Parker may have lost Uncle Ben, but he always had Aunt May — and the ordinary problems of growing up that Bruce Wayne never had to worry about.
I don’t think anyone expects you to, Shane. I don’t see why you wouldn’t just take each one on its own terms.
Of course, there is no “canonical” Batman, whereas it’s fair to say that there is a “canonical” Kirk. For that matter, on an infinitely higher level, there’s a “canonical” Jesus; there are also a lot of cinematic takes on Jesus, with great divergences between them. Compare the Jesus of “Jesus of Nazareth” with that of The Miracle Maker, or of The Gospel According to St. Matthew with The Passion of the Christ, or of the silent The Life and Death of Christ with the silent The King of Kings. Then there’s other dramatic presentations, like Dorothy Sayers’ The Man Born to be King, as well as imaginative presentations like Lewis’s Aslan.
Of course, we compare and contrast all of these with the “canonical” Jesus of the Gospels. (Even there, are there no surprises or tensions comparing Mark’s portrayal of Jesus with John’s?) Sometimes a film’s divergence from the Gospel text may bother us. Other times I don’t think it has to.
On an infinitely lower level, something not entirely unlike that applies to “Star Trek.” There is a canonical Trek, and, in any other take, some divergences will annoy us (as the Kobiyashi Maru business annoyed me — even though, come to think of it, it didn’t violate anything we actually know about the episode from previous tellings).
But not all need to. It isn’t an in-principle objection. At least, not for me.
I think it is necessary, in order to keep storytelling options open. Not for the general viewer, but for the writers and for me. I appreciate Star Trek more knowing that anything could happen, that we aren’t living in the exact same continuity where I already know when and where the Federation meets the Romulans. It could happen differently this time. In fact, it did.
And yet, Shane, when it comes to your fictional friend James Kirk, the story itself tells you that there are different Jameses out there who are still James but different in ways X, Y and Z. The “Mirror, Mirror” Kirk to begin with, and unless you write off “TNG” there’s an endless supply of other implied Kirks in other parallel universes. To appeal to “canonical” “Trek” as the standard for the one and only one James Kirk seems to me a little like a Protestant appealing to the canon of scripture for sola scriptura, when scripture itself rejects sola scriptura. 8-D
Wow. And here I thought I was just supposed to be excited. ;-P
Dear SDG,
You wrote:
Bah. My dear Chicken, if Mozart got to the third movement of a piece and decided that what he wanted to do required ripping the first two movements apart, he wouldn’t hesitate.
Bah? Bah?? My, such language đ
On the Mozart issue, he might have re-written the thematic material of the first two movements if he didn’t like how they blended with the third movement, but he would have kept the form because he had to. Up until late Beethoven, there was only so much flexibility to what one could call a sonata and get away with. My comment was about the form being constraining, not the content. In any case, Mozart almost never revised. His works were almost always written, in toto (not strictly true, but he was really that good). The third movement (and the sonata form was originally three movements that expanded into four movements) usually had its own themes as did all of the other movements. A reprisal of earlier themes was not so common in Mozart’s era. It was a bit moreso in Beethoven’s. I know this is beside your point, but I just wanted to keep the history correct [sorry to be pedantic – my inner musicologist emerged].
My only point was that, in my opinion, the original Trek had not worked itself into a creative corner anymore than life does. It ran out of creative people, perhaps. We will never get to test the hypothesis, however, because what is done, is done.
I think it would be ironic, indeed, if, in the twenty-fourth century, somebody named James T. Kirk went back in time and re-booted Paramount Pictures.
Too snarky?
I hang my head and retreat in shame for, verily, I could not contain my overwhelming moral shortcoming of hip-shootingitis. I have been a Doc Holiday of the comboxes – the man who shoots [his mouth off] on sight.
The Chicken
But what exactly can those races do, Patricius? Any story that threatens to become too important, to have too much of an impact on Federation history, may either contradict known history outright, or else raise the inevitable question: How could we possibly not have known about this before?
Well, you’re right. If you want both meticulous continuity and galaxy-in-jeopardy suspense, you probably have to go forward in time, as the series had generally been doing till recently. But you know, the original Star Trek managed to have plenty of drama without often putting the future of the Federation in the balance. Come to think of it, I’d bet that most episodes of TNG were that way, too. And, when it comes to maintaining continuity as to “big” events, it seems to me that (1) non-Trekkers don’t know the continuity, and so will be in perfect suspense even though the outcome is preordained in-universe, and (2) the junkies will relish the chance to get to see famous events unfold before their eyes, and don’t need the suspense.
Again, I don’t really have any aesthetic objection to alternate universes. But neither do I see them as creatively necessary.
Oh, and I agree that making atheism the quasi-official religion of humanity was a horrible mistake, especially in DS9 where other races were more often allowed to have actual beliefs. It drained the characters of personality and the series of depth.
I can’t resist one more remark, in regard to the “you can’t put the Federation in jeopardy” point– how often in just about all of the ST series do the writers overtly threaten to kill the captain or first officer, despite the fact that the viewers know the whole time that they can’t do it and won’t do it? Now, I don’t think those episodes are particularly good, which proves your point, SDG. Just sayin’ it’s nothing that hasn’t been done before.
Wow.
I have to say that though I’ve enjoyed (or not, as the case may be) Star Trek in its various forms over the decades, I’ve just never cared enough about it to write, or read, that much about it.
I am impressed, in all seriousness, by the interest and passion elicited; I just don’t share it.
Dear Hans,
You wrote:
I am impressed, in all seriousness, by the interest and passion elicited; I just don’t share it.
This is nothing. You should have been around during the wild and wholly days of the Usenet group rec.arts.StarTrek. Now, that was passionate arguing. I, of course, being a chicken, did not post.
The Chicken
True, but a feature film is a different animal from a TV show episode.
I’m thinking more of the filmmakers’ perogative to create (or to threaten) “big” events that don’t necessarily fit with previously established continuity.
Regarding continuity and big events, let’s consider two examples, one from the Star Trek universe and another from the real world.
While I did not really like the arc so much, the Enterprise creators told a sprawling set of original stories about the Xindi conflict, creating a season-long rather important event which, thought it took place in the “past,” we’d never heard of in any of the other series. Clearly, the pre-established continuity did not prevent them from producing original stories.
Now in response to this, someone might argue that that’s exactly the point: it’s ridiculous to think that the Xindi had never been mentioned before in Star Trek if they were involved in something so important. This is what the writer’s wanted to avoid.
To that, I would respond in two ways. First, if the writer’s wanted to tell completely original stories so much that they came up with this reboot to do so, then what difference ought something like this to have made? What would be the problem with making a story that was pretty important and yes, you’d think would have come up at some other time, but it didn’t, but which was original and creative and didn’t explicitly contradict established continuity? If the premium here was creativity over continuity, then why go to such great lengths? Just write an original story and don’t contradict anything, but if it seems out of the blue, well, so what?
Were the makers of Star Trek V and Star Trek VI constrained by The Next Generation? In the fifth film, the Enterprise goes on a journey to meet *God* and ends up discovering an incredibly powerful and evil entity living in the center of the galaxy. You’d think those events might draw some attention in the future. In the sixth film, the creators turned this whole idea of constraints on its head in that they used the “constrains” put on them from the Next Generation to tell one of the best Trek tales of all time. They looked at the “future” and said, “Ok, so the Klingons are allies with the Federation now, how did that happen?” and they told the story and made it great. Heck, they blew up Praxis at the beginning of the film, crippling a race that is quite clearly very powerful in the future. They didn’t see the future as constraints, and they made an extremely large creative decision with Praxis to boot.
Second, I want to bring up that real world event I mentioned. The French and Indian War was, I think we can all agree, a fairly substantial and important event. That said, I don’t seem to recall having heard it mentioned in my own life in, well, years. I don’t recall it ever coming up on JAG, or MASH, or Hogan’s Hero’s or any of the other military programs. Clearly, then, the French and Indian War doesn’t fit with our modern continuity!
The point I’m making is that there can be very important events which just don’t turn out to be that important in the long run, or that is, that important in the sense that they come up in conversation, they have an impact on what ends up happening a few hundred years down the line, etc. It’s perfectly reasonable to think that the Xindi incident could have happened, been as important as it was at the time, and then later been relegated to a few paragraphs in the history books. Therefore, I really see no reason why the creators of this film wouldn’t have been able to make all kinds of interesting stories even though the other shows “from the future” may not have referenced that event.
Well, V was completely inconsequential as well as terrible, to begin with. As for VI, while obviously of major significance to Federation history, its production overlapped with at least a couple of years of TNG, and deliberate dovetailing seems to have been at work. In fact, it was partly written to bridge the gap between the TOS era of Klingons-as-enemies and the TNG era of Klingons-as-uneasy-allies.
But that’s still only one and a half series into what is now a six-series, ten-film franchise that has often looked backward as well as forward. The history of the Federation is now far better established than it was in 1991.
Just how much modern world history do you think you could reconstruct from the combined episodes of “JAG,” “M*A*S*H” and “Hogan’s Heroes”? These are comparatively parochial dramas compared to the epic sweep of the “Trek” franchise.
Whether or not Star Trek V was a good or a bad film is not relevant (though I happen to think it was quite good and contains some of the very best character moments in all of the films, but that’s a different argument). The point is whether or not the writer’s felt like they couldn’t create an original story because it might contradict something that’s already established in the future. They didn’t feel that way.
Just how much modern world history do you think you could reconstruct from the combined episodes of “JAG,” “M*A*S*H” and “Hogan’s Heroes”?
That’s really precisely my point. One of the arguments in favor of rebooting is that there’s just too much continuity already established to come up with any new, exciting stories, at least ones of any real impact. The new Trek film couldn’t have a story about anything too important because if they do, then why on earth wouldn’t it have been mentioned or had some impact on the 24 seasons of television and 10 films that come after it?
My point was that there are all kinds of important events in history that have no importance to a given future time. The French and Indian War was a significant conflict that, 200 years later, is more or less meaningless. Even if we restrict our focus to other military situations, like JAG and MASH depicted, it doesn’t need to be related in any way, despite it’s importance when it happened in the first place. In other words, there’s nothing at all problematic about doing something like the Enterprise folks did with the Xindi. Sure, the Xindi never came up in any of the other six or seven hundred episodes that are supposed to have taken place after Enterprise, but so what? The case of an even like the French and Indian War is real-world proof that there’s no reason to expect the Xindi super-weapon WOULD come up.
So if they had wanted to, they could have created some fantastic, exciting, creative, and original prime universe story about almost anything, be-it a small event or a universe shattering one, and that creates no conflict just because nobody in the future seems to talk about it. That kind of thing happens all the time.
Shane,
My point was that, in contrast to what I called the comparatively “parochial” presentations of “JAG,” “M*A*S*H” and “Hogan’s Heroes,” which by themselves don’t give us much of a glimpse into modern world history, the comparatively “epic sweep” of the “Star Trek” franchise does tell us an awful lot about Federation history. So I don’t think the analogy is all that close.
First, some background on where I’m coming from with Star Trek:
I was a big fan of the Star Trek original series when I was a kid (in the 1980s, watching it in reruns). I never liked TNG very much, though I watched it from time to time. I never watched DS9, and I very much disliked Voyager. I actually liked the last series (Enterprise) a lot, which I guess puts me at odds with many Trek fans. As for the movies, I enjoyed Star Trek II, III, and IV a lot, but I wasn’t crazy about any of the others. I also read many of the novels based on the original series when I was in high school. In summary, I used to be a fairly serious fan of the original series and original characters, but at this point I’m more of a casual fan at best.
And now, to get to the point: I completely agree with Shane. I admit that I haven’t yet seen the new movie, but the idea that they have (in a sense) completely wiped out the entire existing Trek timeline as if it never happened does not sit well with me at all.
I *do* like the idea of taking a fresh approach to Star Trek; perhaps I would even go as far as to support something akin to a “reboot.” But I would rather have seen them commit some minor to moderate continuity violations for the sake of telling a good story, rather than do this alternate timeline thing.
Like Shane, I’m not crazy about the idea that these characters that I loved now supposedly never existed in the form that I knew them.
“. . . the idea that they have (in a sense) completely wiped out the entire existing Trek timeline as if it never happened does not sit well with me at all.”
“Like Shane, I’m not crazy about the idea that these characters that I loved now supposedly never existed in the form that I knew them.”
But that’s not what they’ve done! Previous continuity has not been wiped out in any sense at all. It still exists & the very existence of Spock Prime proves that. Those beloved characters still exist in the exact same form you & I knew & loved – in another timeline. As SDG points out in his review, ST:TOS even set up the idea of a multiverse so I find the new film to be totally in keeping with TOS. Frankly, as I think I said above, the new ST colors the characters & events in the Prime Universe in such a way that I’m more excited about them than I’ve been since Generations came out. That’s saying something! For me, it’s win/win. I’m seriously considering buying ST:TOS on Blue-ray all because of the new film. It’s a best of both worlds thing, I guess.
And . . . speaking of the series Enterprise (not that I was), didn’t they find that they wrote themselves into such a corner that they had to do a “Bobby in the shower” sort of ending for that show? As I recall, our host Jimmy was rather . . . displeased by that. Had I invested in the full 6 series, 10 film ST ouevre, I’d have been piqued as well. IMO, that *plot resolution device* alone shows how little faith the writers had in their show’s (Enterprise) ability to really reach core ST fans or how little faith they had in those core fans to begin with. Either way, I think it’s indicative of how, in the developement of such a mythology, they totally hamstrung the franchise. The same thing has happened with the trashy Star Wars novels I used to read &, I suspect, will happen with each new SW TV series that debuts. Same with Marvel Comics & their strict adherence to thier continuity. They had to “reboot” their U in the Ultimate line in order to tell stories unavailable to them in their classic U. DC, OTOH, will “Crisis” themselves out of their plot continuity issues – but that’s another discussion.
“But I would rather have seen them commit some minor to moderate continuity violations for the sake of telling a good story, rather than do this alternate timeline thing.”
You can, perhaps, but I know quite a number of very hard core ST fans who would have gone positevly apoplectic had they gone this way, Paul! The Usenet boards the Chicken referred to above would be spilling Ascii wholesale over it for the following decade.
Just as when Jackson turned LOTR into films, not all will be pleased with the new ST.
SDG, I think you & I are on the exact same page. BTW, it was your review that made me really want to see the new ST, espeically the first couple paragraphs. Thanks. I’m planning on seeing it again (my 3rd time) in IMAX next week! I fear I’m becomming a . . . Trekkie! (Or would that be Trekker?) Maybe I should just get a life.
But that’s not what they’ve done! Previous continuity has not been wiped out in any sense at all.
I guess this will be clearer one way or the other once I see the movie, though I probably won’t have a chance until it comes out on DVD.
I think it depends on how you interpret time travel though. When someone travels back in time and changes the past, do they create two alternate time lines (one that is changed and one that is unchanged)? Or do they create a new time line and essentially destroy the old time line? To me, the second option makes more logical sense, and this is how I tend to think of time travel. However, neither option is clearly “right,” and there is much room for debate here.
From what you said, it seems that the new Star Trek movie takes the approach that both time lines are still valid, and if so, that is great — but it doesn’t ring true for *me* that both of them could be. (Maybe I will feel differently after seeing the movie.)
You can, perhaps, but I know quite a number of very hard core ST fans who would have gone positevly apoplectic had they gone this way, Paul!
Oh, I absolutely agree, and don’t doubt you one bit. đ
I was stating what *I* think would have been the best thing to do, but I didn’t mean to imply that such an approach would have been popular with the really hardcore Star Trek fans. I mean, wasn’t the whole idea here to draw in new fans, and to take a fresh approach to the same old characters? Given that, I’m just saying that the alternate time-line thing is not, in my opinion, the best way to do it. But I’m very much aware that others will have different opinions. đ
And of course, if you really want to preserve continuity, how far do you go? Are the novels considered canonical? What about the Star Trek cartoon series that came shortly after the original series (and that apparently was pretty good, though I saw only one or two episodes of it)? Not all of the novels are 100% consistent with each other or with the TV episodes.
As for “Enterprise” (the most recent Star Trek series) writing itself into a corner, I don’t know about that. I didn’t have the chance to see the entire run of the show. I started watching in maybe the third season (just a guess), and I think I missed a significant part of the final season (the fourth or fifth season?). But I really liked those episodes that I did see — and I say that in terms of the show’s ability to stand on its own as good sci-fi, without regard for whether it maintained or broke “continuity” with the other Star Trek series.
Paul,
In answer to your question about what is considered Trek canon; traditionally, Paramount has considered only live-action TV shows and movies to be included.
However, as you may know, in recent years there have been novels that continue the story beyond the end of the Enterprise, Voyager, and DS9 series, as well as after “Star Trek: Nemesis” for Picard & co. (There’s also a “Star Trek: Titan” series that continues Riker & Troi’s adventures after “Nemesis”.) In Enterprise’s case, the novels have even come out and portrayed Trip Tucker’s death in that series’ final episode as having been faked. I don’t know to what extent, if any, that Paramount considers these “continuation” novels to be canon.
And . . . speaking of the series Enterprise (not that I was), didn’t they find that they wrote themselves into such a corner that they had to do a “Bobby in the shower” sort of ending for that show?
No. đ There was no corner that the writer’s of Enterprise were in. In fact, they had an entire range of ideas planned for the shows 5th season. Some of them were extremely interesting, and some were somewhat “big deals” as it were. For example, the recurring Andorian captain Shran was planned to become a member of Enterprise’s crew. What happened was that the show was canceled in the middle of the fourth season. However, in a nearly unprecedented move, the studio allowed the creators to finish off the season. For whatever reason, they just chose a lousy final episode. The one’s leading up to it were actually pretty good, and considered by many some of the show’s best. It wasn’t by necessity that the final episode was so disappointing, they just thought it was a good idea for some reason.
But that’s not what they’ve done! Previous continuity has not been wiped out in any sense at all. It still exists & the very existence of Spock Prime proves that.
This is true and false, depending on how you look at it. It’s actually made explicitly clear in the film (and seemingly in the Star Trek: Countdown movie prequel comics that the original timeline goes on unchanged, while a new timeline is created as a parallel universe. The only problem with this is the question of why this has happened in this case when in every other instance of time travel in Star Trek, the timeline was rewritten, that is, wiping out the original timeline, until it was restored by the characters. So far as I know, they try to explain it in the film, and Bob Orci, one of the writers, has tried to explain it using quantum mechanics of all things. I don’t buy it, but that’s not really the point.
Now on the other hand, the old timeline does no longer exist insofar as that there will be no more original timeline stories told. The original timeline technically still exists, but for all practical purposes it’s relegated to our DVDs since any new stories will be set in this new timeline. Now I’ve found that it’s actually very difficult to explain why this really bothers me/people who agree with me. I’ve already given the explanation from the standpoint of these characters being biologically identical but experientially distinct from the originals. Another analogy I make which is most helpful in regards to this question is to memories of an old friend.
Star Trek is like an old friend who in times past, we would get to see weekly. The new stories are like spending time with the friend and having new experiences with him. Watching a repeat or a DVD is like cherishing a memory of him – we’ve already “done that,” but we can enjoy the memory. Now at a certain point, this friend moved off far away so that all we really had were memories, but there was always the possibility of getting together again. In fact, we were recently told that our friend would be visiting us again this May.
But when May came, it turns out that the old friend couldn’t make it. Instead, his brother came out to visit. It turns out that our friend will never be able to visit again, though his brother promises to stop by now and then. Now we may enjoy his brother, but he’s still not that old friend whom we miss.
With this film, we know that the old friend will never be visiting again, and so all we have left are the memories – the DVDs, the reruns, etc. In that sense, the original timeline is wiped out. No new experiences – only memories.
God bless,
Shane
I’m thinking more of the filmmakers’ perogative to create (or to threaten) “big” events that don’t necessarily fit with previously established continuity.
And I agree that they’re at least hampered in their ability to do so. But, as I was saying, there are plenty of ways to spin a good yarn without threatening “big” non-continuity events:
(1) Go forward in time from Nemesis, and you can do whatever you want!
(2) Tell smaller but still interesting stories.
(3) Tell stories that threaten to break continuity, but ultimately don’t. True, part of the dramatic tension will have to come from keeping the hard-core audience wondering how it won’t break continuity, but I would think that would be doable. For the casual viewer, of course, these will be totally fresh.
(4) Most importantly, tell the story of the great in-continuity events that haven’t gotten any screen time! What Trekker wouldn’t have loved to see a satisfying founding of the Federation as the final episode of Enterprise? And what casual viewer wouldn’t have thought it a cool story?
So I agree, SDG, that the writers certainly have the prerogative to do what they’re doing. I just have to reiterate that it doesn’t wash to say that there’s no other creative outlet for the series.
No other creative outlet…?
I would never say that. I’m a creative idealist. I believe in the possibility of creating great and compelling art under almost any conceivable set of constraints. In principle, a live-action Scooby-Doo movie could be a great film.
It could. That doesn’t mean it’s particularly likely to. Artists do great work under significant constraint, but some sets of constraints are less likely to produce great work than others. And while artists do achieve great work under constraint, they also achieve great work by flouting constraint, by redefining the rules.
I would never say that a universe reboot was ever the only possible way. I do think there’s a strong case that it’s the best way forward.
I think it’s reasonable to see a “canonical” continuity like “Star Trek” as having a sort of rough “bell curve” of potential. The first season of a new show is often comparatively weak; the characters and the dramatic possibilities haven’t yet established themselves. As time goes on, creative opportunities build and compound; the mythos becomes richer, supporting more complex and layered stories, drawing depth from what has gone before. At some point the potential peaks, and if the writers are firing on all cylinders the show peaks with it.
But this growth in potential doesn’t continue forever, nor does it remain at the peak. In time, the same history that offered richness can begin to become baggage. Clever writers may still find ways of doing good work in this time of waning potential, but they’re swimming against the tide.
No TV show is sustainable indefinitely. A smart show wraps up while the show is still comparatively strong, though not at its peak.
That’s not to say that the potential ever completely goes away. The most tired and beaten-to-death show could still produce a corking episode. But the potential has faded.
At this point, I think “Star Trek” as a mythology that can be reshaped and reinvented has a lot more to offer than “Star Trek” as a “canonical” continuity. I think there’s a reason Shakespeare and Malory and other storytellers who worked with previously shaped material saw fit to reshape it to their own ends, and I don’t think that creative deficiency is the reason.
Just saw Star Trek. Can’t believe it, so disappointed. I can see how non-Trek fans could appreciate it. On its own, the movie is fine. As part of Star Trek, though, they’ve ruined the reason why Star Trek was superior to comic-book style fantasy: what happened mattered. Every new story was part of a continuing epic, so what happened really affected the characters. (Which is why I never liked time-travel stories in Star Trek to begin with, but, as noted before, they were always careful to restore the original timeline.)
Now, it doesn’t. Every time you re-watch an episode of any of the series, it doesn’t matter because its been erased. All of the touching homages to the original in the new movie? Who cares?! The original never happened!
I don’t care if the science or the setting is unreal, but I do care if the story itself is fundamentally unreal, as in nothing that happens really matters at all. That’s what this Star Trek says.
I’m crying into my Romulan ale.
Michael echoes my sentiments. Star Trek has always been special in that it’s not been a comic book. I HATE comic book style “continuity” with a hardened passion. Crisis on Infinite Earths is the utter antithesis of good entertainment, and this film has basically turned out to be a lesser version of that.
While Michael may be going too far in saying that it’s all been erased, for the reasons I explained above, it’s all practically been erased because this new universe is where all future continuity will take place.
He also hits on another point I’ve not mentioned yet (that I recall): all of the wonderful homages and acting doesn’t make the film better, it really makes it worse because it is a reminder of what’s been lost. Every time I see any of the extended scenes that have been made available featuring Mr. Urban’s spot on performance of McCoy, I am just filled with sadness because I see what could have been.
And the thing is, I think that many people who do not share our opinion on this reboot really haven’t fully assimilated the depth of what this change means yet. SDG is a tremendous case in point when he writes that: “…[The depiction of the Kobayashi Maru] didn’t violate anything we actually know about the episode from previous tellings.” He seems to be speaking about the test as though previous tellings still matter; they don’t, because it’s not the same event.
Similarly, even the creators of the film seem to be making this mistake, saying in countless interviews that they are excited to have been able to tell the origin story for the characters we all know and love. They haven’t done this, of course. They’ve told an alternate origin story for alternate versions of the characters. Leonard Nimoy has said something similar, speaking of how it was very interesting for him to see the how characters that he and Mr. Shatner played came together – but he hasn’t seen this. He’s seen how different versions of them came together, as evidenced most obviously by the fact that he is still playing the “character he played” in this film, and that character sits face to face with the new, different version.
God bless,
Shane
Dear Chicken,
I forwarded your, er, “discussion” of Mozart with SDG to a friend who studied classical piano in Vienna. She was very impressed by your depth of knowledge about Mozart.
Sadly, she loved the film and generally took SDG’s side.
Shane: Hear, hear.
Don’t get me wrong. On its own terms, its a fine film. Well-made and enjoyable. The effects are great, the acting good. The “updating” of technology, etc, is understandable — we’re forty years on from the original. Pine and Urban especially do a splendid job. Their imitations of Shatner and Kelley are great. The references and in-jokes make the move very entertaining to Trek fans.
And I loved the soundtrack. Musical references to previous incarnations get me every time. (The best part of “Superman Returns”, in my opinion, were the musical references to Williams’ original score.)
But that being said, the story fundamentally changes everything. Star Trek’s conceit has always been that a timeline change really changes everything after that point. So this film really does “erase” everything that’s gone before… or after, depending on how you look at it. In any case, forty years of events are now irrelevant.
(To be fair, I’ve never liked the “alternate universe” stories in TOS, DS9 and ENT. History fundamentally changes centuries before and yet all the characters still manage to be born and get together? Please…)
SDG, I don’t know if you’ve written about the importance of stories having some sort of meaning to the characters in them, but that’s exactly the problem with this new Trek. The stories don’t matter anymore. They can just change, snap, like that.
My own approach will be the same as my (and many other fans’) approach to Star Trek V. It never happened. Funny how it jumps straight from IV to VI, eh? (The Undiscovered Country is the best of Trek films, in my opinion — simply unmatched dialogue.)
I can understand the objections of Shane and Michael, and I confess to being a very casual Star Trek OS fan. I have never kept up with DS9 or TNG or really maintained any very detailed awareness of the Star Trek “universe”, the history of Starfleet, or anything like that.
The new Star Trek reboot is, indeed, starting over like nothing happened, bringing the characters and the Enterprise to another generation of fans that may have no knowledge at all of the history of the “franchise”.
And that’s okay, as far as I’m concerned. As SDG pointed out, most series’ have an arc that can’t be continued forever. Just enjoy what has “gone before” and try to think of this as an entirely unrelated concept.
From the perspective of a ST ignoramus like myself, it is just ripping good storytelling.
This is plot-level narrative-logic thinking. I’m thinking on the level of myth and retelling, and how one incarnation of a story relates to another.
Of course the previous tellings still matter. The relationship, the interaction between one incarnation and another incarnation of the same myth matters. Malory matters when you are reading White. The Ilyad matters when you are watching Troy. Batman: Year One matters when you are watching Batman Begins.
If previous tellings didn’t matter, why would they call it the Kobiyashi Maru? Obviously they call it that because their telling interacts with ST:WOK. It just doesn’t interact very well on that point.
Michael,
One important point: while it does contradict everything we’ve seen about time travel from Star Trek, the film and the prequel comic books do make it clear that in this case, the original timeline goes on unchanged, and that this new timeline is independent. Now I don’t think this makes any sense, especially if they’re trying to stay true to the continuity of the original as they have cited as a reason for using the time travel, but we have to be fair and not accuse them of things that, even if incoherently, they reject.
I’m not sure we can say what “everything we’ve seen about time travel from Star Trek” tells us. AFAICT, there is no one “canonical” “Star Trek” approach to time travel and alternate realities — contradictory approaches can be seen in different stories. So while Star Trek (the new film) contradicts some approaches, I think it’s within the pale of possible approaches seen so far in the larger “Trek” universe. More later, maybe.
Dear David Eckel
You wrote:
Dear Chicken,
I forwarded your, er, “discussion” of Mozart with SDG to a friend who studied classical piano in Vienna. She was very impressed by your depth of knowledge about Mozart.
I see you are a new poster. Welcome. In addition to being a scientist, most of the regular posters, here, know that I have 10 years of Ph.D-level work in musicology and a doctorate in music performance.
Jumping into the frey, although I promised myself I would not get drawn in, again,
the old Spock is NOT Spock prime. The new one is. I wish the writers could get their universes straight. The new universe was spun off from the original.
The idea that the old universe still exists is very debatable and citing quantum mechanics does not display an understanding of the quantum mechanical many-world model. Even if the universe splits at each moment, it splits in one direction in time (the forward direction). Time travel involves destroying the past for everyone except the time traveler, even that of an alternate universe in quantum mechanics. The new movie can spin it any way they want, but the original characters, actually, no longer exist in the new universe, sorry to tell everyone. Spock is the only piece of matter left.
There was a piece in the New York Times, today (can’t find the link), comparing the new Kirk to the original and its point was telling: this new Kirk is made in the image of a contemporary, slightly attitudinally maladjusted post-adolescent, whereas the original Kirk had some gravitas. The original Kirk taught at Star Fleet academy and read Spinoza. I doubt the new Kirk will ever use Spinoza in a proper sentence. In my opinion, this movie throws away older people and culture and celebrates youth. It is [controversial statement to follow, be warned – no Rule 1 violation intended], in my opinion, like a younger generation being in a hurry to euthanize an older generation it no longer finds convenient. Maybe this is too strong a statement for a movie, but people tend to take their characters seriously. When Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes, one reader wrote him a letter that started, “You Brute!”
I have no say in the move and I am trying to stay away from discussing the director and writers, since I tend to go too close if not over into sin in that direction. Still, I don’t want my entire youth just invalidated. That is what this movie feels like, to me. I’m just sad and angry and I am beginning to understand the statement, “Stay off my lawn,” more and more.
Must learn to obey Fr. Z’s dictum: Think, then post…
The Chicken
Huh?
Not sure how to parse the first two sentences. Do you mean:
A. “[Contrary to what people here seem to think,] the old Spock is NOT Spock prime. [According to the movie, t]he new one is”?
or
B. “[Contrary to what the movie says,] the old Spock is NOT Spock prime. [On a correct accounting, t]he new one is “?
If you mean A, um, no, in the movie, “Spock Prime” is old Spock, Leonard Nimoy Spock. Check the official website, the production notes, IMDb, Wikipedia, or go back to the theater and check the credits again.
If you mean B, then I don’t understand your correction. Surely the original universe is the “Prime” universe, and the spin-off universe is a secondary universe?
SDG,
The chicken is referring to the fact that use of “prime” to designate an alternate version of something always refers to the new version.
For example, in geometry when a figure, denoted A, is reflected over a line to produce an image, the resulting figure – that is, the new one – is referred to as A prime, or in notation, A’ (an apostrophe following the identifier denotes “prime.”)
Or, in calculus, when the derivative of a mathematical function F(x) is taken, the new function is referred to as F'(x), that is, F prime. Of course, the term “derivative” comes from the idea that the new function is “derived” from the old.
So, he meant B, and hopefully my explanation is sufficient to indicate why.
Ah, hm, thanks Shane.
In multiverse fiction, however, there seems to be a convention of using “Prime” to designate a “primary” world, dimension or universe, e.g., “Earth Prime” in the DC multiverse, as distinct from “Earth-2,” “Earth-3,” etc.
Now, maybe this convention was originally based on a misuse of mathematical convention, but given its existence I don’t mind the film using it.
Reminds me of how John Byrne’s “Alpha Flight” was the A-list team in a program that also included a second-string “Beta Flight” team, followed by “Gamma Flight” trainees. This usage led me to suppose, the first time I heard about “beta version” software, that the next, improved stage would be the “alpha” version, whereas in fact “beta” software is more developed than “alpha.”
Did Byrne make a mistake? Maybe. Doesn’t matter. His use of Alpha-Beta makes as much sense as the software convention. Anyway, “Alpha Flight” sounds cool. They should be the best.
Dear SDG,
You wrote:
Now, maybe this convention was originally based on a misuse of mathematical convention, but given its existence I don’t mind the film using it.
I know there is an Earth Prime in the latest D. C. Universe multiverse, but originally, the first Earth was known as Earth-One, as this cover illustration from the first Justice League issue to feature a multiverse crossover shows. D.C. might have change the numbering system with the, “Crisis on Infinity Earths,” stories.
Now, this may be the current convention in fiction, but this was a science fiction movie and one would think that they would follow standard notation. Spock, who is mathematically trained, at the least should have known this.
The Chicken
Oh, by the way, the Grand Comic Book Database, is a marvel to behold.
The Chicken
SDG,
The Ilyad matters when you are watching Troy. Batman: Year One matters when you are watching Batman Begins.
But Star Trek has never been that kind of a story. Batman fans can watch each new Batman movie without expecting a plot-level connection to the others. Star Trek, on the other had, has had that continuity, or at least tried to, until now.
It’s not like watching different remakes of the Iliad story, it’s like trying to read the Iliad only to find that each new book of the epic ignores previous events. In this chapter, Troy falls, in this one it doesn’t. In this one, Hector lives. In this one, Helen escapes on her own and goes back to Mycenae. If major events can simply be ignored as the story progresses, why should I care about the characters and story? How do I empathize with Spock — as a man whose mother is dead and his world destroyed, or as one whose mother helps nurture him back to life after his “resurrection”, safe on his home planet? And saying that there’s now two Spocks, and two of everybody, with which I have to empathize just seems cheap.
Its why I’ve never enjoyed comic books — or Star Trek itself when it’s ventured too far into the alternate universe/time travel storylines. In reality what happens in your life irrevocably changes you, and good, deep storytelling should reflect that.
G. K. Chesterton, as usual, comes to the rescue and expresses exactly what I mean:
“And the perils, rewards, punishments, and fulfilments of an adventure must be real, or the adventure is only a shifting and heartless nightmare.If I bet I must be made to pay, or there is no poetry in betting. If I challenge I must be made to fight, or there is no poetry in challenging. If I vow to be faithful I must be cursed when I am unfaithful, or there is no fun in vowing. You could not even make a fairy tale from the experiences of a man who, when he was swallowed by a whale, might find himself at the top of the Eiffel Tower, or when he was turned into a frog might begin to behave like a flamingo. For the purpose even of the wildest romance results must be real; results must be irrevocable.”
Orthodoxy
No story is “that kind of story,” until it is. In comics, Golden Age continuity prevailed until it didn’t. Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote the definitive account of King Arthur, until somebody else wrote another one. Homer wrote The Illiad, still the definitive account of the Trojan War, but it didn’t stop Shakespeare from writing Troilus and Cressida.
No, it isn’t. Homer did his thing. Shakespeare was somebody else. J. J. Abrams isn’t Gene Roddenberry. You seem to be saying that forever and ever anything anyone writes about the Trojan War has to assume Homer as canon; Shakespeare can never offer a different vision. Maybe you prefer Homer to Shakespeare, but that’s not the same thing.
Well, then, take it as straight-up revisionism, Abrams’ Shakespeare to Roddenberry’s Homer. So you love The Iliad. Fine. Well, this is Troilus and Cressida. Take it or leave it. If you don’t like it, or if you prefer the earlier, definitive version, that’s fine. But Abrams has the creative right to shape the material in a new way.
Heck, you don’t even have to regard it as “canonical” if you don’t want to. Put it in the same category as the novels and such. What does “canonical” mean, anyway? There’s no reality behind it — not like scripture or something. It’s just the consensus of a bunch of suits at Paramount. It doesn’t have to be “canonical to you” if you don’t want.
Well, then, take it as straight-up revisionism, Abrams’ Shakespeare to Roddenberry’s Homer. So you love The Iliad. Fine. Well, this is Troilus and Cressida. Take it or leave it. If you don’t like it, or if you prefer the earlier, definitive version, that’s fine. But Abrams has the creative right to shape the material in a new way.
Yes, I agree he certainly does — but I don’t have to like it. Revisionism, fine, but it would have been better then if they didn’t try to tie it in to the “previous” version with the Spock crossover. If they want to remake it, just go ahead and remake it straight up. Don’t do it in such a way that it implicates the previous versions.
In any case, if folks like it, great for them — I’m just explaining why I don’t.
This is a fascinating thread, everyone! Thanks so much for your detailed & thoughtful posts. Great stuff that really has me thinking. Not that I’m necessarily buying some of the arguements . . . but I do respect them!
“Now, it doesn’t. Every time you re-watch an episode of any of the series, it doesn’t matter because its been erased.”
Wow. I just don’t get this. I, like SDG, am thinking more mythologically which is probably a product of my acting training in Shakespeare. I’m not used to 1 version of anything being the definitive version. In fact, I enjoy reimaginings of previously told stories.
I like SDG’s point about thinking about the Iliad while watching Troy & Batman: Year One while watching Batman Begins. Very apt. And that’s exactly the point I was making above – though far more succinctly – that this new ST will color previous series & films in a positive way for me. I find that exciting.
“It is [controversial statement to follow, be warned – no Rule 1 violation intended], in my opinion, like a younger generation being in a hurry to euthanize an older generation it no longer finds convenient.”
I can’t say this isn’t done frequently in H’wood, Chicken, or at least they want to. There are many remakes with younger casts that could be named, trying to bring the story to younger audiences or make them more hip or *relavent* or however they spin it. But I really found quite a lot of respect for all that has gone before in Star Trek – for both the work done to create the ST oeuvre & the product itself – in the new film. For me, there was a palpable love/respect for the franchise & the original characters & situations in every frame. Would Roddenberry have approved? Probably not. Would Raphael Holinshed have approved of how Shakespeare used his Chronicles? Not likely. But that’s the risk taken by all who attempt to create drama based on an existing mythology, whether historical or fictional.
We could take it a step further. Would Jean Vigo have approved of François Truffaut copying a scene verbatim from ZĂŠro de conduite for The 400 Blows? (That’s slightly different from the point of the disucssion at hand, I admit.) Many classical composers have used themes of their predecessors in new ways to create fantasias on those themes that depart from the original in both style & intent. Such is common & yet the original is in no way diminished or erased.
Maybe this relaunch (I really don’t think “reboot” applies to the new film) is just too soon for some ST fans or maybe it really is misguided. It will remain to be seen if the new versions of these characters have same staying power as the originals, if audiences connect with them emotionally, too. I’ll wager that the frat-boy behavior of the Pine Kirk will be lessened in sequels in favor of some of the gravitas of the Shatner Kirk. Knowing how typical JJ Abrams series go, we might even see a slightly darker, more intense sequel. We saw no Klingons in the new film & they would lend themselves to a story with darker tone. (Were they even mentioned? I can’t recall. Maybe we’ll see the first encounter?) BTW . . . I think we’re meant to see the Pine Kirk’s frat-boy ways as a detriment, the Greenwood Pike sure does!
Your points, Chicken, regarding emotional investment in stories & characters is well taken. There are many who feel as you do. My sister refuses to see the LOTR films because she fears they’ll subvert the images she has in her head put there by reading Tolkien’s words. More power to her. But Jackson’s films, by their mere existence, did not change what is there in novel form. For me, the films both represent & color the source, even though they depart from them in ways I’d rather they not. And, personally, I connected emotionally with the new film in ways I never did with any previous ST film or series.
If this new ST fails ultimately, I’m sure there will be a quick return to the “Prime” universe!
I don’t have much of a problem with such an approach, except that that does not seem to be exactly the approach taken by the new movie, at least based on the comments here.
Based on what I’m reading here, the new movie’s approach is not just a revisionist take on Star Trek, it is a revisionist take that deliberately alters the timeline, thus figuratively destroying nearly 40 years worth of Star Trek plots and character development, rendering them null and void as if they had never happened.
I also agree with the point about the misuse of “Spock Prime.” The correct mathematical terminology would be to use “Spock Prime” to refer to the “new” Spock, from the altered timeline.
I agree to a large extent with the comments here by Shane, Michael, and the Masked Chicken. I actually am having second thoughts about seeing the movie now. I’ll probably see it anyway, but I think I’m less likely to go out of my way to do so.
SDG — This video illustrates how you probably feel about those of us so upset by the discontinuity, eh? đ
Dear Paul H.,
You wrote:
I agree to a large extent with the comments here by Shane, Michael, and the Masked Chicken. I actually am having second thoughts about seeing the movie now. I’ll probably see it anyway, but I think I’m less likely to go out of my way to do so.
I can’t speak for Shane or Michael, but please, please, don’t let my comments keep you from seeing the movie. In fact, you should see it, at least the first one, before forming a definite opinion. I am arguing at the level of principle and so is SDG, Gene, and those on the other side of the issue. Spend the money – help the economy. Perhaps the next movie will be made in better economic times and when opinions will be better formed from better deliberation of the first film.
That said, I think this debate is important. Not that Star Trek ever was great cinema, but it is a cultural touchpoint and its significance transcends film. I doubt many of the young viewers of the current film could really appreciate just how groundbreaking the original Star Trek was. The moon landing had not yet taken place. The pill had just been legalized for married women, but not unmarried women (talk of how babies were made flustered Spock in the episode, The Apple). Lasers were very expensive and mostly of the pulse type. Men still opened doors for women and women still said, “Thanks”. Most households still owned black and white tube-controlled television sets.
Here was this tv show, a science fiction show made, not in the mold of Rocky Jones, Space Ranger (the last tv space opera show before Star Trek, with female fashion reminiscent of the miniskirts in TOS – a staple of the pulp space operas), but a science fiction show that cared about ideas and philosophy. This show, almost single-handedly, cause a generation of young scientists to emerge. This is one of the telltale differences between the current film and the original series – the new film is just a film; the old series was a manifesto in film for pimply-faced nerds and geeks, everywhere. Because of the original Star Trek, made during the moon race, science was cool. The new film, I predict, will inspire almost no careers in science, which is a pity because the number of new American graduate students in science is falling greatly.
This was the first tv series to discuss probability and anti-matter and space and time with proper science for the time. The science was believable because Roddenberry aimed at believability. When it came time to make the first computer floppy disc, it was patterned after the ones on Star Trek. Who could not notice the resemblance between flip phones and the communicators. Subspace was a mathematicians word before Star Trek got hold of it.
The original series was an outlier for its time – one of the reasons it was misunderstood, but appreciated in syndication.
Why Paramount would try to update two of its most venerable old series, Mission Impossible and Star Trek, I cannot say for sure, but both have been substantially altered in the revision and for what? Money? A debatable new/old setting to tell new/old stories?
The reason some nerds are up in arms might best be explained by this quote from Sirach 9:10:
Forsake not an old friend,
for a new one does not compare with him.
A new friend is like new wine;
when it has aged you will drink it with pleasure.
The new Star Trek is not the old friend I remember.
Obviously, the studio can do whatever it wants, but if they think that little wink, wink references in the film is paying respect to the original series, then I think they need to talk to their parents about why the original Star Trek is held in such high regard.
Sorry to be so passionate. I think I have just about said all I have to on the subject. I hope I haven’t rashly judged anyone involved with the film or posting here in the process. I was not my intention.
On the bright side, I suspect that I will almost totally agree with SDG’s review of Angels and Demons.
The Chicken
Here ya go, Chicken and Shane and Bill — a video that explains your dissatisfaction. đ (tongue firmly in cheek…) http://www.hulu.com/watch/71495/onion-news-network-trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable
All in all, I agree with Tim J. I kind of like the fact that there’s a reboot. Now if we could only obliterate Nemesis from the Star Trek canon, I’ll be happy…
I’ve just come back from seeing it. My opinion certainly won’t have the same weight of those of others, since my knowledge of Star Trek is restricted to the movies, which I’m currently watching again in order after several years. Actually my only contact with any of the series is having seen TOS’s first pilot (the one that remained unseen until its release on VHS in 1986), which I can barely remember now but that I clearly remember made a huge impression on me almost 10 years ago.
Well, let me say that the new one was disappointing on pretty much every level. Not that I was expecting much from the screenwriters of Transformers and from JJ Abrams, who is very good when it comes to television but whose track record on directed features includes only Mission Impossible III, a waste of time with the exception of an insightful and subversive shot that “Mr. Nice Guy” agreed to cut out. I also find Abrams’ modern visual style very unappealing. I thought the new Star Trek ended up not having the thought-provoking elements of the first movie, the great drama of Wrath of Kahn and The Search for Spock, the humor of The Voyage Home, and even something as interesting as the Ingmar Bergman stuff from the otherwise dismal fifth one. Also, the most annoying absence from the movie is what I consider perhaps the best thing on Star Trek, Jerry Goldsmith’s score. Even the folks in charge of the lousy Superman reboot from 3 years ago weren’t stupid enough to dismiss John Williams’ theme.
Now regarding the plot device chosen by the screenwriters that justifies Leonard Nimoy’s supporting role and differentiates this Star Trek from the rest, while I didn’t consider it at all smart (specially if compared to the renewal Harve Bennett/Nicholas Meyer made with the second one) and wouldn’t go out of my way to defend it as SDG, I tend to agree with him when it comes to the reactions against it displayed here. I mean, it’s ultimately just a plot device; the way through which the new Enterprise crew and Nimoy are on the screen; something the scrrenwriters make for themselves, or as SDG said, …”the consensus of a bunch of suits at Paramount”. The discussion here, which I’m following entirely, made me remember that when The DaVinci Code was going to be released about 3 years ago, there was some gossip that its producers would perhaps come up with a plot device that could supposedly mitigate the inherent anti-Christian bigotry of the story. I remember having read a comment from someone at a Catholic blog that said that perhaps the movie could have a final scene showing Tom Hanks waking up, which would mean that the whole story took place in a dream. A plot device wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever in that case, as it makes very little in this one.
And let’s not forget that it’s an exaggeration to talk about continuity and canon when the subject is a huge and old franchise like this one. It’s natural even for individual TV series to have divergences between episodes, that are written by several different people. For example, I see big differences between the characters from The Simpsons featured on the more gross and cynical first season and on the more serious and sentimental fifth (?) season written by Brad Bird.
My bottom line is, if I had liked the movie by itself (which I didn’t), I don’t think the issue in question would annoy me in any way or ruin my perceptionof the rest of the franchise. Having liked Casino Royale certainly didn’t prevent me from appreciating The Living Daylights with even more affection.
Dear JoAnna
I used to think like you, until I read the review of the movie by Jimmy himself and saw it again. For your information, I thought the villain on the new one looked quite similar to the one from Nemesis.
Interesting review by Jimmy – I had never seen that before.
In any case, I agree with his overall premise that Nemesis was a good film. I thought it was good, and highly underrated in a few very important areas. In so many ways, it was a very appropriate ending for the story of the Next Generation crew.
“I also find Abrams’ modern visual style very unappealing”
That is really my only real complaint about the film (aside from the Kobayashi Maru thing)… they just won’t hold the stinkin’ camera still. Visually chaotic rather than visually dynamic.
Still great fun, though.
Dear Tim J.
I was thinking not only about that, but also about the banal dark grey general visual, compared to the great 80’s color palette from the first movies.
I agree with you, but this isn’t really where I’m coming from. I don’t mind so much if the new movie breaks continuity (at least on a minor to moderate level), it’s just the idea of breaking continuity by figuratively wiping out most of existing Star Trek history that bugs me. Perhaps it bugs me more than it should. Perhaps it wouldn’t bug me if I saw the movie. But nevertheless it bugs me. đ
This also does not make me want to see the movie. đ
How bad is the camera movement? Is it like the old episodes of MTV’s “The Real World,” where the camera would move around and rotate constantly, never standing still for even a few seconds? Or is it more like a quick succession of different camera shots, but with each individual shot holding still at least briefly?
Or is it more like a quick succession of different camera shots, but with each individual shot holding still at least briefly?
From what I remember, it’s more a question of editing -quick shots that change before I was able to see them. As a director, JJ Abrams is no Tony Scott or Michael Bay (famous for music video-style direction), but when the scenes are in the Enterprise bridge, he tried, I think, to emulate the kind of moving camera shots that John McTiernan did very well in The Hunt for The Red October that seemed to fly among the sailors in the submarine. On the new Star Trek, though, those shots are not at all that gracious. Perhaps those were the scenes Tim J. was referring to in that quote.
My jerky camera-shaking comment never showed up or maybe it was too “jerky” and got removed?
Post it again, TMC; we’re all ears đ
Dear Matheus,
IIIII ttthhhinnnkk tthhhe cccammmeeraa wwoorrrkeeeddd lllikkeee ttthhhiisss.
The Chicken
I had only one correction to make about the article on the factchecking of Angels and Demons – the author lists the transporter as an “unlikely” scientific invention manifesting from science fiction when in point of fact they are already working on that one. We can transport particles and even encoded messages. We’re a ways from transporting objects and people, but it can theoretically take place.
I absolutely LOVED Star Trek. Yes, it deviated from the original story line but justify it within the boundaries of acceptable Star Trek universe behavior.
I wonder what would you think about the upcoming Transformers… đ
Dear Brandy,
You wrote:
We can transport particles and even encoded messages.
What you are describing is called quantum teleportation. It relies on a property of electron spin called quantum entanglement. Basically, if one electron in a two-particle ensemble is spin up and the other is spin down and the particles are separated to an infinite distance (even), if one of the spins is flipped in the opposite direction, the other particle will, simultaneously, flip it spin in the opposite direction, as well. This process does not violate the speed of light because no information is transfered (the quantum state superposition is unchanged).
That being said, it was thought for a long time that one could not transmit information using quantum entanglement, but recently, it has been shown to be possible if the quantum ensemble is combined with a classical information channel.
The problem is that neither matter nor energy can be transmitted by this method. This is a result of two theorems: the no-teleportation theorem and the no-communication theorem. It might be possible, in theory, to tell where another particle is in the universe by quantum teleportation, but transporting matter in the way that Star Trek does it is, as far as we know, impossible. The term quantum teleportation was poorly chosen by Bennett, et al. to explain the phenomenon.
Although Brown is not totally right on this one, he is more right than wrong.
The Chicken
I do not need to see this film to know that it has basically taken an old and dear friend and figuratively raped her.the need of Hollywood to remake or repackage standbys such as ST for a new and younger market bespeaks the utter nadir that it has reached in terms of creativity,and ideas,talent even,if they have to go to these lengths to make a dynamic new feature.
They have destroyed 40+ years of Trek storytelling,tradition and fan-base loyalty in one fell swoop,”erasing” the history of the Trek universe in favor of their new matrix.they may as qwell have launched a galaxy-wide Genesis Wave,and done it that way.
I saw enough in the trailers to show me that this is NOT Star Trek,either as I know it ,understand it ,or desire it.
It takes liberties that should never have been taken in character interaction,ship design and much more.I do not recognize this abortion as being Star Trek,and never will,let alone pay to see something which betrays Trek in nearly every sense that I can realize.
And I will not be cajoled by entreaties of open -mindedness.
Kirk and Uhura flirting as young graduates?
Sacrilege.
Dominic.
Then, it’s better for you not to see the movie, indeed… đ
“They have destroyed 40+ years of Trek storytelling,tradition and fan-base loyalty in one fell swoop,”erasing” the history of the Trek universe in favor of their new matrix.”
An “Alternate Universe” doesn’t destroy the original one. Furthermore, as SDG pointed out, alternate U’s have been featured on the shows before. Why not try it in a film? Why can’t characters be explored from a different perspective. Frankly, I think JJ Abrams has helped to make the characters more human: with alternate Kirk not being a “predestined saint,” and the backgrounds of Jim and Spock being considered, the film is actually more, not less engaging. Abrams, it seems, is one of the few willing to “Boldly go” where other creative teams have feared to tread.
My Father, an avid fan of TOS, liked this film a lot.
Yes.It does destroy it by having the characters behave in ways that are uncharacteristic of how we have known them.
This film is tripe of the worst kind.
It’s called revisionist history.
JJ Abrams deliberately mucked it up and then tells true Trek fans to lump it?
Someone should sue his sorry ass.
[RULE 1 VIOLATION DELETED]
Dominic, it’s fiction, dude…
“It does destroy it by having the characters behave in ways that are uncharacteristic of how we have known them.”
Really? The story presents a different time line from TOS, and since we believe people have free will, who’s to say that Kirk, et al, wouldn’t have acted as they did in the movie? (IIRC, Uhura didn’t flirt back anyways.) Yet, even with a very different background for 1(!) character, they ultimately become very much like their TOS counterparts, with some interesting, original story-telling in between. How you can call this “tripe” and “offal” is beyond me, so I can’t take your other hyperbole against my dad’s devotion to TOS to heart :-).
Uhura flirts throughout the movie, almost as if she’s a Starfleet hooker, but not with Kirk. I’ve given her a new name, “Uwhora”.
Yes,REALLY.The reason that I can call it tripe and offal is because it is trash masquerading as ST.
And the penultimate insult was Nimoy calling real fans ”dickheads”if we didnt automatically line up to go see this piece of crap.
If the film or TV show or whatever does not measure up to what I and other fans of Trek expect out of it,we will not back it.We will attack it.
It’s just that simple.
Now go play your violin someplace else.
Glork,
“Uhura flirts throughout the movie”
(spoilers) She is romantically involved with Spock. I just saw it yesterday, and I don’t recall her flirting with anyone.
Dominic,
“Now go play your violin someplace else.”
Calm down, sir. Some clarifications:
1 I was engaging in a discussion about a film.
2 If you don’t like my disagreeing with you, that is your call, but
3 it is rude to order me to stop disagreeing with you, and
4 it is rude to order me off this message board.
5 The owner of the blog will ban me, if I am so stupid as to violate the rules he’s put forth.
BTW, this piece of ‘crap’ has a 95% critic approval on rottentomatoes.com. Since this is a film and not a religious discussion, I don’t mind citing popular opinion. đ
[RULE 1 VIOLATION DELETED]
Oh Domi….good to see you my friend.
Since Dominic has taken to insulting me and virtually all other Trekkies and non-Trekkies who disagree with him, (ah, isn’t this about a MOVIE!?!? :-))I will refrain from responding anymore. I probably should have stopped earlier, but I guess I can’t always tell when a discussion has gone to heck.
The conversation went to hell when they decided to make this piece of carefully crafted filth under the title of Star Trek.
[RULE 1 VIOLATION DELETED]
And the penultimate insult was Nimoy calling real fans ”****heads”if we didnt automatically line up to go see this piece of crap.
I find it VERY hard to believe that Leonard Nimoy used that word in reference to Star Trek fans. Do you have a link to an interview where he said that?
And if that was the penultimate (i.e., next-to-last) insult, then what was the ultimate or final insult? đ
DavidB,
“(spoilers) She is romantically involved with Spock. I just saw it yesterday, and I don’t recall her flirting with anyone.”
I was being polite to call it flirting. You’re being polite to call it “romantic”. [DELETED] I suppose that’s “romantic” to some. Others have used words like [DELETED], “cheap”, “dirty”, “sexualized”, etc. Still others consider a “romantic” relationship between teacher and student, or between officer and cadet, to be an abuse of power. Lots of ways to look at it.
Paul H,
It was on Saturday Night Live. Nimoy was pandering to his audience for cheap laughs. A simple google search will find you the video.
It was in a Saturday Night Live skit aimed at all us naysayers.
Look it up.
In answer to your question about what the ultimate insult was,the movie in question has to be IT.
A Star Trek rad-trad?…Funny.
Although his tone is uncalled for and his insults are not welcomed, nevertheless, Dominic is saying what some of us have been saying for a while – this Star Trek film is not an alternate universe story – that would be the case if only dimensional shifting were involved. Just as (old) Janeway destroyed her timeline when she went back in time in the last episode of ST:Voyager, the same thing happened here. Only old Spock is left over from the origianl series. For all intents and purposes, the whole original universe never happened. That is what ticks me off, so much. I have already hashed out the cultural disparagement that the film is, in my opinion, so I guess we all must agree to disagree on this one.
The Chicken
DOMINIC: I don’t believe I’ve ever had to issue a warning or ban someone for discussion in a film thread, but there’s a first time for everything.
Keep it civil and lay off the insults — and obscenity. Glork, that last bit goes for you too.
Some comments above have been deleted or edited for Rule 1 violations.
Obscene? Well, I guess that’s yet another word some may use to describe what went on in the Star Trek movie and what came out of Leonard Nimoy’s mouth. For many, it heralds the death of TOS.
You are certainly free to object to Mr. Nimoy’s reported comments, which are technically scatalogical rather than obscene, as well as to the film itself. Neither scatological nor obscene language is welcome on this blog.
Feel free to critique the film as “obscene” and “blasphemous” if you like, though I would feel better about your sense of perspective if it were clear that such words were meant as deliberate hyperbole, with tongue at least half in cheek. (Obscenity and blasphemy are each, in their own ways, attacks on the sacred … and “Trek,” lingo like “canon” and such notwithstanding, is not sacred. Angels & Demons may verge on blasphemy; Trek does not.)
P.S. Taking off my thread cop hat: “Heralds the death of TOS”? You can’t “herald” something that happened a long time ago. You can debate the wisdom or efficacy of a particular attempted revival, but you can’t blame it for killing what was already long since dead.
Glork, all I remember is Uhura and Spock kissing, and their kissing was less “passionate” than Hollywood often chooses to show. Goodness, to quote another film which had a couple “old timers” upset: Why so Serious, [Dominic and Glork]?
“For all intents and purposes, the whole original universe never happened.”
But it did, just waaaaay earlier when compared to the timeline in this movie.
Glork, all I remember is Uhura and Spock kissing, and their kissing was less “passionate” than Hollywood often chooses to show.Indeed. And far from being needy or carnal, Uhura clearly wanted to offer what solace she could to a significant other who had just suffered an incalculable blow. Judge her actions how you will, it was other-centered, not self-centered.
“Neither scatological nor obscene language is welcome on this blog” but apparently you welcome it on your DecentFilms website where you yourself have repeatedly used the very same word or words which you’ve chosen to censor here. How “decent” is that? And such words have also been used here on this blog elsewhere multiple times, without censorship. And, to note, the dictionary does not cite any of the words I used as being obscene or even vulgar. It does, however, cite the word Leonard Nimoy spoke as being “obscene” and/or “usually vulgar”.
And though you call TOS “long since dead”, and while you can’t herald something that happened a long time ago (unless perhaps you’re writing a Star Trek plot), TOS nevertheless had remained alive in the hearts of many who now say bye-bye to it with this movie. So, yes indeed, I can rightfully say this movie heralds the death of TOS for many.
Dear David B.
I wrote and you responded:
“For all intents and purposes, the whole original universe never happened.”
But it did, just waaaaay earlier when compared to the timeline in this movie.
That’s not the way time travel works. Once you leave the timeline, you destroy the past, otherwise, you violate the law of conservation of matter/energy. The original universe never happened. That may sound counterintuitive, but that’s the way the science works. It doesn’t get spun off into an alternate universe. That would still either violate the law of conservation of matter/energy, or make the absurd proposition that time flows in both directions, equally, which would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
If course, there is that willing suspension of disbelief, thing đ
I’m just grumpy and not willing enough to suspend my disbelief that far. That may explain why you and I are having different reactions to the film. Some day, when I take over the universe, I’m going to have to make sure that Dr. Who shows up in the Star Trek series. That would explain everything đ
The Chicken
Uhura’s “what can I do for you bigboy right now” dialog & action in the elevator can be seen as both needy and carnal in its apparent desire. You can call it “offering solace”, but others have described it as near woman-on-man molestation. Was it really other-centered? Anyone with an “I want you now” libido can mouth words that sound other-centered, but that doesn’t make it so. Likewise, if they’re not married, what’s the center of fornication?
And David B, as to being “so serious”, please, when I think of that movie, I can’t stop laughing.
(thread cop hat on)
Not sure which word or words you may have in mind. If you feel the need to do vocabulary review, please write to me at my Decent Films contact form.
I did my best to pull loose the objectionable threads with minimal damage to the fabric of the combox. Although there were some words (including a two-letter abbreviation for a patently obscene and objectionable term) that called for automatic excision, not everything snipped was snipped for the sake of a particular word.
The Internet being an affect-impaired social medium and all, let me clarify something: I’ve got no beef with you and am happy to let the conversation continue without further interruption. I’m not slapping you down for using some bad words, I’m just doing my best to maintain a level of decorum consistent with what I know of our host’s wishes for his blog.
AFAI’mC, you’re under no obligation to defend anything; we can all just move on. OTOH, if you resent my efforts to maintain decorum and feel the need to militate on behalf of expressions I’ve taken issue with, write to me offline. Or post here, if you can do it without dodgy vocabulary and references.
(thread cop hat off)
I like a social environment in which, say, the Masked Chicken can remonstrate with me for using language like “Bah.” đ
For goodness’ sake, why? Why say bye-bye? Nobody can take TOS away from you. Nobody wants to. The suits at Paramount who green-lit this film would be thrilled to death for you to own the complete TOS on DVD. The Original Movie Collection too. Or just get the Star Trek Trilogy (II, III and IV, natch), and maybe pick up VI somewhere for good measure.
TOS is what it is. The new movie is what it is. A work of art that is completed and released to the public belongs, in a sense, to the audience, not to the artist or the corporation. Oh sure, they own copyright on the work as a property, but they don’t own the audience’s appreciation and appropriation of the work as art and entertainment.
Now, if Paramount wanted to pull a George Lucas and deep-six all original versions of TOS while foisting “improved” Special Editions on us, that I could see getting bent out of shape about.
As it is, though, for all that I’ve been a fairly ardent “Trek” fan for decades, and for all that I respect anyone’s right to dislike the new film in fact or in principle, the sense of anger and betrayal strikes me as bordering on unhealthy attachment. Shatner’s famous SNL punchline comes to mind. MST3K too (“Just repeat to yourself ‘It’s just a show, I should really just relax’).
“…you can’t blame it for killing what was already long since dead. ”
Somewhat off topic, but parallel… the same kind of criticism was made of Michael McDonald after he joined the Doobie Brothers.
You can freely criticize McDonald’s vocal style, or his compositions, or argue with some justification that the Doobies were not the same kind of band after he came along… but the fact is that main songwriter and front man Tom Johnston was burned out – absolutely fried – from fame, touring, drugs… what have you. The Doobies were finished already without him… kaput.
McDonald certainly took the band in another direction (one could argue for good or ill), but to claim he killed the band or ruined/destroyed the band is unsupportable. The Doobies’ discography before McDonald remains permanently intact, and fans of the original incarnation can always listen to THAT material and ignore the subsequent stuff if they like. The later work does not “cancel out” the earlier work in any way at all.
The original Star Trek series is done and will never come back. It has been, and will continue to be, embalmed and revered by fans in its original form. The new movie does not alter the original at all.
Just like the first animated cartoon of Lord of the Rings (or the latest series of feature films) doesn’t destroy or alter the original books in any way, the latest version of Star Trek can not erase the history of the series, and can be taken of left by die-hard fans of TOS.
Some later filmmaker could always construct a scenario whereby the whole new universe/time line ends up being a dream, or some nonsense. It may be stupid, but it could happen. So, feel free to hate the new film, but save the hysteria.
Glork:
Here is the full description of the scene from the very useful and completist parental advisory website Screenit.com: “Uhura and Spock briefly kiss (her comforting his family loss).” (Compare that to their extensive description of the Kirk/Orion-girl bedroom scene.)
Peter Chattaway at Christianity Today Movies likewise describes the bedroom scene in detail in his “Family Corner” content advisory, but doesn’t even bother to mention the elevator scene. (Peter is a good friend and a brilliant critic, BTW.)
I think the rather fevered descriptions you’re citing say more about the people making them than about the scene itself.
“Why say bye-bye?” There are those who see it as Roger Ebert put it, that it’s not boldly going where no Star Trek has gone before, with emphasis on “boldly”. It’s been reloaded, rebooted, whatever, for the younger generation. It’s theirs now. The handoff has been made. As Tim J says, it’s “done”. It’s not coming to life again. Time to let go and move on.
Wow, TMC. That is a really interesting point. But interesting as it was, I don’t mind letting the filmmakers encourage a “willing suspension of disbelief”. đ
Glork,
“And David B, as to being “so serious”, please, when I think of that movie, I can’t stop laughing.”
Oooh, very poor choice of words! đ
Glork wrote:
It’s been reloaded, rebooted, whatever, for the younger generation. It’s theirs now. The handoff has been made. As Tim J says, it’s “done”. It’s not coming to life again. Time to let go and move on.
All I can say is what Seven-of-Nine asked Janeway in the episode, Latent Image, of ST: Voyager when Janeway wanted to expunge the Doctor’s memories after he reached a contradiction in his programming (he was “wearing himself out”):
“It is unsettling. You say that I am a human being and yet I am also Borg. Part of me not unlike your replicator. Not unlike the Doctor. Will you one day choose to abandon me as well?”
The Chicken
Good grief, Chicken. (Or bad grief, rather?)
TOS is not a human being.
It’s. Just. A. Show. 78 episodes. (“About a third of them good.”)
I am a critic and care about fictional worlds about as much as I think anyone should. I’m not saying stop caring about Trek. I am saying that if this Trek isn’t your Trek, you’re no worse off than you were last summer, or the summer before, or the summer before that.
Whatever “moving on” means, if it refers to something healthy and necessary, it’s two to four decades overdue. If it doesn’t, then you don’t ever have to do it if you don’t want. Nobody at Paramount can make you.
SDG, I would not look to parental advisories other than as guide for what children might take from the scenes, not as an expose on what adults might see in the subtext, innuendos and shadows based on their more sophisticated experiences in such matters. You can say the comments speak more about the people making them than about the scene itself, but adults made the film, and they’re not stupid as to what people will see, and they put Uhura in her bra and panties (and chose that scene for a trailer), and they had her “weird kissing” (not entirely consensual) on Spock between floors, pandering for “comfort” (euphemisms), and it’s not unreasonable for adults to see her moves as a sexual come-on, even if your friend Peter didn’t even include it in his content advisory. It was surprising, indeed shocking, to many people, lacking a clear on-screen development of a romance, when she practically threw herself upon him offering/wanting “solace”. That was a choice the film maker made, and choices have consequences.
Paramount,Leonard Nimoy and the Roddenberrys now have the eternal enmity of myself and several thousand die-hard Trek fans.
There will be a reckoning.
Glork,
FWIW, Jim Judy at Screenit.com write as an adult for adults. Although his puts things in the context of the upshot for younger viewers, he is not indifferent to matters of subtlety. A scene with the sort of overtones you describe would have raised serious red flags for his constituency. He’s an experienced guy with finely attuned radar for problematic sexual overtones. He saw nothing to report.
You’re free to interpret the scene however you like. I find your take entirely unconvincing to the point of distastefulness. I doubt if many people will see it your way. I don’t see anything more to say, except that I’d like to see this line of analysis end here.
Dominic: Knock it off. Now.
(thread cop hat off)
Also, anyone who swears eternal enmity for Leonard Nimoy automatically forfeits all Star Trek geek privileges forever. I don’t care if the guy launches a new series teaming up Mr. Spock with the Harlem Globetrotters, Batman and Robin, Sony and Cher and Phyllis Diller. Nimoy. Is. The. Man.
Or what?
You’ll ban me?
It’s happened before when I confronted so-called ”fans” with this duplicity.
Do your worst.
I’ll keep grinding at this on some other site where loyal fans outnumber the wanna-bes.
Dominic: If you have points to make against the film that advance the discussion, by all means feel free to make them. I am not policing for fandom credentials.
If you just want to say “Boo! Star Trek bad!” that’s fine too. You’ve said it. Move on. Merely “grinding” on, repeating what you’ve already said, apropos of nothing (which is what your previous post, stripped of its stylings, essentially does), is not welcome.
Neither is angry rhetoric like “eternal enmity” and “there will be a reckoning,” which crosses a line. Nor is belittling other people with language like “so-called fans” and “wannabes.” Personal dignity outweighs opinions on “Star Trek.”
I understand that this sort of trash talking is par for the course all over the Internet. Not here. This is a forum for respectful discussion. If you know of places with lower standards, and that’s what you want, hang your hat somewhere else.
[DELETED]
Yep, that’ll do it. Dominic is no longer welcome to participate on the blog.
“Or what?
You’ll ban me?”
Hmm. That is classic Hollywood bullytalk. I’m starting to wonder if Dominic isn’t trying to act silly. I would be insulted if I weren’t foremost amused.
Dear SDG,
You wrote:
Mr. Spock with the Harlem Globetrotters,
Now, that I would like to see… đ
When you say it’s just a movie, it think that’s like saying Beethoven’s Ninth was just a symphony. It is a symphony, sure, but it had a lasting artistic and cultural impact. Is Star Trek art? In a loose sense of the term, yes, I would say it is. Has it had a lasting artistic and cultural impact – yes, I would say it did. If someone wanted to re-write Beethoven’s Ninth and say they improved it, they better have a darn good reason for doing so and the technical expertise to pull it off. Is there a Beethoven’s Ninth for a new generation? Did Mahler re-write Beethoven’s Ninth for his gneration just so they wouold have more Bethoven to play with? No. There are different interpretations of the original, but they do wind up making Beethoven sound like Mahler or else they get laughed at and ridiculed.
The new movie is a fine re-write of Star Trek as Mahler, but what about poor Beethoven? He is never to be heard from, again, in a sense, if Beethoven were like Star Trek.
It is true that there is a history of composers (especially during the Renaissance) using other people’s themes and writing their own words to them, but we have a special term in music for that – countrafacta – against the facts. That is, essentially, what has been done to the original series – it has been used as a scaffold to create a different view of the history. I suppose, since Paramount owns the property, they can do what they want, but at what point does art pass into society to the point that society may be said to own it? That is one of my problems with the absurdity of copyrighting, Happy Birthday, for instance.
I respect your opinion of the film qua film, and my nostalgia does not stem from that. There have been some instances when the remake has improved the original, such as in the Stargate franchise. Roddenberry already was tasked with presenting Star Trek to a new generation and his choice was not to reboot the original series, but write TNG. Since it was his vision, he should have priority of decision, artistically. He would never have rebooted Star Trek in the manner it was done with this film – possibly because writers sometimes become attached to their creations, but even if it were proper to reboot the series at this time, it could have been done with less of a jarring change.
The Chicken
I wrote:
There are different interpretations of the original, but they do wind up making Beethoven sound like Mahler or else they get laughed at and ridiculed.
That should be:
There are different interpretations of the original, but if they wind up making Beethoven sound like Mahler they get laughed at and ridiculed.
The Chicken
Chicken,
FWIW, when I was growing up my mother often played a revisionist adaptation of Beethoven’s Ninth that incorporated electronica and other novelties. I’ve heard other arrangements (hard rock, etc.).
If someone doesn’t like such revisionism, I have no problem with that. If someone feels that these somehow rob him of the original, I scratch my head in incomprehension. Beethoven’s Ninth is not going anywhere.
Likewise, TOS is not going anywhere. There does not have to be an acceptable addition to the canon every X years for Gene Roddenberry’s vision to be validated. Nor does an unacceptable addition invalidate it.
“M*A*S*H” was a classic. “After MASH,” not so much. “M*A*S*H” is still there, in reruns and on DVD. It’s not going anywhere. Nobody needs a new “M*A*S*H” series or movie to affirm that “M*A*S*H” is still a classic.
If they did make a new “M*A*S*H” movie, and if it was a complete betrayal of the original series, the original series would be unscathed. In fact, it would be enhanced. The new film would raise its profile, help introduce new generations to classic “M*A*S*H.” It would help sell DVDs and enhance viewership for reruns. That doesn’t mean anyone has to like it, but it would hardly eclipse its source material.
Gus Van Sant remade Psycho. Critics rightly ridiculed it. Hitchcock’s film never noticed. It’s still there. In other news, nobody ever made a new Citizen Kane movie. And Welles in his grave wouldn’t bother to twitch if they did.
SDG, it doesn’t surprise me that neither you nor Jim Judy picked up on what was going on between Uhura and Spock, as neither of you are xenolinguistics experts. đ And unlike you, I don’t expect the world to see it my way. I’m very happy that people see what they see, whatever it may be, even if it’s “distasteful” to some. After all, the bad taste isn’t in my mouth. I give the movie a B-. It’s a “good romp”.
This is the first thing anyone has said in this thread to which I take personal offense.
Do you expect me to see it your way?
Dear SDG,
You wrote:
Likewise, TOS is not going anywhere. There does not have to be an acceptable addition to the canon every X years for Gene Roddenberry’s vision to be validated. Nor does an unacceptable addition invalidate it.
I know, but (whine, whine, heavy sigh), there will never be time spent with old friends again. The old series is now like looking wistfully at an old faded photograph instead of having new conversations.
Oh, well. Your point about M.A.S.H. was well taken. I will retire. I relish the day when they perfect 3-d imaging. Imagine what it would be like to be able to make the movies without real actors. Then, Shatner stories can be told along side of Pine stories. That way, everyone would be satisfied…except Shatner and Pine, of course.
The Chicken
Is it too much to expect from you that you extend courtesy, good will and a general presumption of fair and reasonable intentions to others?
Is it too much to expect that you be willing to accept my own account of my own outlook, rather than deem me a liar based on some jaundiced contrary perception?
SDG, of course, I accept that you have your opinions! And I welcome you to share them! I also accept that you were intolerant of my opinion and the opinions of others as evidenced by the fact that you demanded that I not share that “line of analysis”. To you, it was “distasteful”. To each his own I say. I do not demand that you stop sharing your opinions, and I’ve honored your request that I not share that “line of analysis” that you savored as “distasteful”.
And though you say some ridiculous things, I do not deem you a liar. A liar is someone who says what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor, but I do not presume you to be saying what is false with such intention. You said to me and to other(s) in this discussion that it’s effectively your way or the highway, that you expect others to see it your way, at least on matters to which you’ve objected strongly. Otherwise, I take it I’d no longer be “welcome” on the blog like others have been so deemed. Of course, as my opinions and the opinions of others were already no longer welcome on this blog (re that “line of analysis”), there’s some degree of not being “welcome” that seems to be present at all times on this blog. Therefore, your previous statement that “you’re free to interpret the scene however you like” really carries little genuine significance with respect to blogging, for a blog is about sharing those interpretations and not merely sitting with them.
I also do not presume you to be unfair or unreasonable, though you deem this or that to be “distasteful” or “contrary” and yourself use the very same word or words that you’ve labeled here as “obscene”, though the/my dictionary does not. After all, it’s your tastes you’re talking about, and I don’t consider your tastes to be for me to reason with. They are what they are and I accept them as with your opinions.
And if I were not to extend courtesy to you, then perhaps I would just fly off the handle and say something wild along the lines of “You deem me a liar, offensive, jaundiced, lacking good will, unreasonable”, etc. But I care not to harbor such thoughts. You remind me of many a sensitive critic. You are sensitive, are you not? Surely, how could you be good critic if you were insensitive? Do you think of yourself as a good critic? I’ll courteously take you to be a good and sensitive critic. Perhaps a bit “overly” sensitive, but if so, that just adds to your charm.
In summary, I would not say that I have a “jaundiced contrary perception,” but rather a sensible perception based on the facts at hand. Or at least, that’s my interpretation in this post, which you say I’m welcome to. I do hope I’ve not overstepped my welcome with another “distasteful” (to you) line of analysis. If so, I welcome you to let me know, as I welcome your opinion, and endeavor to honor it.
Nothing is too much for you, though I would not harbor expectations in that regard unless you enjoy disappointment, as you’d be dealing with your opinions, and I cannot vouch for them. They’re your affair.
With a wink
Glork:
Over and over throughout this thread I’ve explicitly said, in one form or another, “I have no problem with anyone who disagrees with me on this film.” Do you really mean to say that you think you have “sensible reason” to believe that in fact I do “expect”, say, the Chicken to agree with me on this film when I obviously believe that I don’t expect that?
Why would I say in my original post that I thought the new film would “probably” offer viewers something to cheer about unless I anticipated the possibility (which effectively means the reality for a certain percentage a sufficiently wide audience) that some will not find something to cheer about? How could I anticipate that possibility if I “expected the world” to agree with me?
How could I say over and over in my writings that a film critic is not a judge handing down authoritative opinions but a lawyer making a case which the reader then judges as persuasive or not? Is it really your contention that you have a reasonable basis for thinking that I falsely believe that I hold this critical philosophy when in fact I “expect the world” to agree with me?
Again: I said (with strict accuracy) “I would rather,” you for whatever reason (wrongly) construed as “I demand.” Since demanding is a matter of intention, and since I’ve demonstrated no shyness about articulating non-negotiables as such, it’s hard to see how you might suppose that I thought I wasn’t demanding when in fact I was, or that I might now be resorting to tacit demands.
False ambiguation of “sensitive.” Anyone who knows me, online or in real life, would tell you I’m one of the thickest-skinned and least personally sensitive people they know (remember, you were the first and only person on the thread who managed to personally offend me; it’s an achievement that for example Dominic’s insults didn’t even come close to). Sensitivity to aesthetics does not translate into interpersonal sensitivity. On the contrary.
Finally, and crucially, you keep equating freedom to opinions on matters like movies with freedom to express unwelcome opinions about other people. The best light I can put on this behavior (I’m commenting on your behavior, not your motives or your heart) is that you’re yanking my chain (“with a wink”). If so, stop. Another possibility (I state it as a possiblity) is that you really don’t understand social propriety, let alone genuine charity and courtesy, better than that. Either way, if you are willing to try to “endeavor to honor my opinion,” my opinion and judgment is that our host’s anti-rudeness rule preclude the sort of slights you’re slinging. Either way, quit it.
P.S. You’re shooting in the dark on “obscenity,” since you haven’t taken me up on my offer of an off-line vocabulary review and don’t know whether I would judge obscene words that the dictionary doesn’t.
SDG, as you’ve already forbidden me from sharing a “line of analysis” about the movie, and as youâve banned at least one poster who apparently disagrees with you on this movie, it’s near ludicrous for you to say “I have no problem with anyone who disagrees with me on this film.” You might argue that you banned the person for reasons other than his opinions on the movie, but you did cite his repetition of his movie opinions as a problem for you and you nonetheless did have a problem with him for you banned him, and he was someone who disagrees with you on this movie. Hence, you did demonstrate that you had a problem with someone who disagrees with you on this movie. Itâs also not just peopleâs opinions on things other than the movie that youâve demonstrated you have a problem with, but on the movie itself, as you demonstrated with your objections to that âline of analysisâ.
Also, that there are “some” opinions by some people with which you do not 100% agree that you will nonetheless allow to be discussed does not mean that you have “no problem with anyone who disagrees with me on this film.” Again, you’ve well-demonstrated that there are opinions you will not tolerate on this movie. You called for them not to be discussed, and not just from discussion by me, but apparently by anyone. So there is “sensible reason” to believe you expect the world at large to see it your way or the highway — when it comes to those opinions about the movie being shared on this blog, even if there are exceptions.
Perhaps you could say, âI sometimes, perhaps even often, have a problem with peopleâs opinions that I do not hold about this film, and sometimes Iâm outright intolerant of those opinions being expressed on this blog, particularly if I deem them to be distasteful or repetitive.â
And it is a judge, not a lawyer, who has the authority to ban people and opinions on this blog, and that’s very much a role you’ve demonstrated yourself to be playing on this blog, whether or not you’re also simultaneously acting as lawyer. Yes, you phrased it as “I’d like to [not: ‘would rather’] see this line of analysis end here,” as if it were a pleading and not a final decree, but as you also play judge on this blog and banishment is the demonstrated penalty for violating your pleas of this nature, it’s reasonable to see it as a judgment in waiting as much as a plea. A person might well say it’s a judgment in polite clothes. Indeed, you said it quite clearly yourself, “It’s hard to see how you might suppose that I thought I wasn’t demanding when in fact I was.”
And no, I’m not “shooting in the dark on ‘obscenity'”, for it’s not I who labels those words “obscene”. If you want to label others’ words “obscene” while exempting your own, that’s you. I’m not calling on you to change a thing, so I have no desire to take you on a tour of your own website. Like I said, I accept that you have your opinions. If you choose to use words youâve labeled here âobsceneâ at your house or on your website, thatâs your choice.
Now, about your alleged “thick skin”. Thatâs what a callus is. Or hide. It attempts to hide and protect something sensitive and vulnerable. Like ego. Why hide from that? âSensitiveâ and âthick-skinnedâ are as mated as hand and glove. But what is really âthick skinnedâ if with just a tickle of truth (you suggested âyanking my chainâ) it begins coming apart at the seams, the polished veneer coming unglued.
You say Iâm the âfirst and only person on the thread who managed to personally offendâ you, and you state your opinion that to âexpress unwelcome opinions about other peopleâ is against the rules. So if I donât welcome your opinions about me, youâre violating the rules? When I say, âunlike you, I don’t expect the world to see it my way,â thatâs my opinion about your opinion that some movie opinions are not welcome. In many other words, I’m saying, âThough it’s my opinion that itâs your opinion that some movie opinions should not be welcome on this blog, I do not hold as my own opinion that opinion which I attributed to you.â Itâs plainly my opinion and itâs not about âyouâ, unless you are my opinion! Likewise, with respect to that “line of analysis”, when I said âyou were intolerant of my opinion,â Iâm saying, âItâs my opinion that your opinion was that you were not going to allow me to share my opinion.â And when I say, âyou say some ridiculous things,â Iâm saying, âItâs my opinion that the some of the things you say are ridiculous.â And when I say youâre âa good and sensitive critic, perhaps a bit overly sensitive,â Iâm saying, âItâs my opinion that (at least some of) your opinions are akin to those of a good and sensitive critic, though perhaps some of your opinions are overly sensitive.â Theyâre all simply my opinions on opinions, and not about âyouâ, unless you are an opinion. Youâre not an opinion, are you? If a person is not apart from his opinions, then every opinion thatâs not welcome is an unwelcome opinion about a person. But I donât believe you are your opinions, even if it might appear otherwise to you according to some notions about what is said that you might hold. In other words, donât judge by appearances.
As such, youâre welcome to say to me, âyou really don’t understand social propriety, let alone genuine charity and courtesy, better than that,â or even âyouâre an idiotâ or whatever, and you donât have to dress it up to be a âpossibilityâ, if thatâs some form of social propriety that you observe. You can even declare it to be the absolute truth. It makes no difference to me, as I recognize it as your opinion that you offer in some role youâre playing as âcriticâ, âlawyerâ, âjudgeâ, âpoliceâ or some such. Nothing for me to be personally offended about. Indeed, you canât offend me though I might offend myself by taking something personally according to some idea I might have as to what youâre supposedly saying. To the pure, all things are pure.
So as to âquit it,â is there something to quit? If I âdon’t understand social propriety, let alone genuine charity and courtesy, better than that,â then how am I to recognize what to quit? Perhaps the âbest lightâ is that Iâm an idiot. I feel no shame in that for I do not pride myself to be otherwise.
The Pope says, âSpontaneously our reactions are egoistic; our hearts refuse to open completely. It hurts to open up ourselves!â To be personally offended is that spontaneous egoistic reaction. To open up is to allow oneself to be vulnerable, rather than, for example, hide behind a thick skin by which one tries in vain to be invulnerable. Oh, and no, Iâm not saying youâre trying to hide, but if you are, itâs not working.
So do as you choose and say as you will. As I said, I accept what you say as your opinion, call it judgment if you will, and welcome you to express it, whatever it is. To each his own I say. I do not demand that you stop sharing your opinions. If you think youâre offended by something you think that Iâve said, and you believe itâs morally wrong for you to be offended by something you think has been said, that is your opinion, and I pray that your opinions do not trouble you too much.
This is not how people should insult one another in comboxes…no style, no flair. What you need, for only $19.95, is, The Chicken’s Guide to Insulting Conversations. Yes, that’s right, for only six cents a day (mere, ahem, Chicken feed), you, too, can learn to insult your opponent in style.
Why, on page 3 you learn how to call someone an idiot, politely:
“Dear Fred, thank you for having the courage to reveal your intelligence.”
and on page 15 you learn how to tell someone to shut up:
“Put down that pen, Fred. You’re going to kill someone with your razor-sharp wit.”
That’s right, after reading this book, you will never need to use scatological language, ever again.
Why, the full title of the book is worth the price of the book, alone:
The Chicken’s Guide to Insulting Conversations or The opposite of Love Your Enemy is not Kill Your Friend.
I could give citation after citation for insulting in a positive, thoughtful manner, but, then, why read the book?
If this book does not lead to a more productive round of insulting dialog, I will cheerfully refund you money after you get out of the hospital and I get back from my trip.
Yes, that’s right, be subtle..,learn to make an insult sound like a compliment. Almost anyone can do it.
We are so sure that you will appreciate this book for years to come, that we will send it to you in a self-addressed stamped, postage paid.
Operators are standing (okay, sitting) by. Just be sure to call collect and reverse the charges. The Chicken is waiting for you…
The Chicken
[This offer is only made to everyone in the hopes of civility. No one, in particular is meant. This means you].
The Masked Chicken has delusions of adequacy.
Glork needs to drop the current subject and move on. He’s not banned from the blog, but he needs a cooling off period. Chill out, dude.
Dear Randolph Carter,
Thank you, thank you…I was going for adequate đ
Th Chicken
“Hence, you did demonstrate that you had a problem with someone who disagrees with you on this movie.”
Having a problem with someone who disagrees with you on a movie does not mean said problem is a direct result of disagreeing about a movie. As I was one of those on receiving end of Dominic’s insults, I have to point this out.