Well, I finally got around to seeing the new Star Trek film–the first film I've seen in theaters in I don't know how long.
I know SDG has already covered this topic but . . . this is my blog, so here we go again.
I'll put spoilers in a forthcoming post and just have a few non-spoiler comments in this one.
The good news is that I basically liked the film.
It was fun.
It met my expectations, which were as follows: (1) I wanted it to be fun, (2) I wanted it to be a viable relaunch of the franchise, and (3) I wanted it to be fundamentally though not scrupulously faithful to the original.
I thought it substantially met those goals, so I liked it.
This is not to say that I hadn't been concerned. Some of the stuff seen in trailers had me worried. For example, the Kirk-Spock conflict depicted in the photo. That had me concerned. The film could have mindlessly ramped up the characters' emotions without providing a good reason for Spock's outburst. (Not unlike many episodes of the rebooted BSG, which over-milked the pathos factor).
Fortunately, there is a good reason Spock is blowing his stack in this picture. The conflict isn't overdone, and it works in context.
I understand that the film may not be to the taste of some die-hard fans of the original series. And that would be true no matter what for the simple reason that no movie is to everyone's tastes.
Personally, while I have a soft spot for TOS, I don't regard it–or any Trek series–as an artistic masterpiece. All of the series have some real stinkburgers as episodes (e.g., just to name one from each, TOS: Spock's Brain, TAS: The Terratin Incident, TNG: Skin of Evil, DS9: Sons of Mogh, VOY: Threshold, ENT: A Night In Sickbay). Some of them have many stinkburgers.
So I don't regard the original Trek as sacrosanct. The recasting doesn't bother me, as long as it's good recasting (and it seemed to be; especially Zachary Quinto as Spock).
Since the original Trek wasn't perfect, the new movie doesn't have to be perfect for me for it to be an okay successor.
There were things in it that didn't work for me (see forthcoming post). The movie does have plot holes and dumb things.
But on balance it's a fun film. It has lots of spectacle. A good treatment of the established characters (with one notable exception that some object to; see forthcoming post). It has some nice new and sorta-new characters. (In particular, I liked Captain Pike and Scotty's assistant.)
And it has this going for it: It's the best chance for more Star Trek that we're going to get.
Prior to this film, the franchise had gotten really, really stale. In the post-DS9 era the producers made mindblowingly bad decisions.
Voyager had horrendous problems, with the climax of many episodes simply being characters standing over consoles spouting technobabble in an elevated tone of voice, trying to create drama.
And though they started to turn it around in the third and especially the fourth season, Enterprise as a series was fundamentally blown from the get-go, with the producers not realizing what kind of story they needed to tell (the Romulan War, leading to the founding of the Federation). And that was before we got to the disastrous final episode.
The producers just completely didn't understand what they were doing.
As a result, they wore out the franchise. They painted it into a corner from which nothing could rescue it.
Except a reboot–a fresh start.
It's really hard to see how much more could have been done in the previous continuity and keep the franchise financially viable.
Theatrical film based on any of the previous series or a combination of them?
Not going to reach beyond the existing, shrunken fan base and thus not going to be financially successful.
New TV show?
In the previous continuity, what's left to do that would reach out beyond the existing, shrunken fanbase? Even telling the story of the founding of the Federation would be too close to ST:ENT (which is why that series' misfire is such a huge debacle; the producers blew their one chance to tell a pivotal story).
Any new ST series based on the old continuity would have almost certainly not made it as many seasons as ENT did.
So I'm willing to cut the filmmakers some slack. I don't feel that I have to agree with all of their decisions (and I certainly don't expect them to honor every single bit of micro-level continuity from the previous shows–which didn't themselves honor their own micro-level continuity).
If they give me basically fun new Star Trek that holds the prospect of resulting in more basically fun new Star Trek, that'll be good enough.
This means that–maybe–the Star Trek Curse is broken.
The curse, stated in its strongest form, is that all of the odd numbered Star Trek movies are bad and all of the even numbered Star Trek movies are good.
Taken in a weaker form, the curse would be that all of the odd numbered Star Trek movies are lesser in quality and all of the even numbered ones are more good (or mo' better, as they say).
Up to this point, the strong form of the curse is arguable. Whether it's true depends on whether you regard any of 1 (V'Ger), 3 (Search for Spock), 5 (Search for God), 7 (Kirk Dies), and 9 (Insurrection) as technically, on-balance good or not.
But they're certainly not as good as 2 (Kahn), 4 (Whales), 6 (Berlin Wall Comes Down), 8 (First Contact), and 10 (Nemesis–weakest of the even numbered ones).
The curse in its weakened form is true . . . at least up to the newest film.
A lot of people might find the new Trek better than Nemesis, in which case we'd have an odd numbered film (technically, the new one would be Trek 11) that is better than an even one, in which case the curse would be broken.
But perhaps there is a way to reformulate it that would result in its still being true. How about this: Each odd numbered Star Trek film is weaker than the film that follows it.
In that case, the curse may still hold true. Thus far each odd film has been weaker than the one that followed it.
So the curse will hold true if J.J. Abrams and such can produce a sequel to this film that is even better.
Can they do it?
Now that the origin story is out of the way, I think there's a chance they can.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
I’ve seen it twice. After my second viewing, I was already itching for viewing #3. Yes, I liked it that much.
The film is not without its flaws. Nero, for example, could have been better developed as a villain. And I say this having read the graphic novel Star Trek: Countdown which serves as a prelude to this film and gives background information on Nero that the film doesn’t. The vast majority of the people seeing the movie will not have read the graphic novel and so Nero will likely seem rather ‘cardboard’ to many of them.
But I think it’s certainly the best Star Trek movie since First Contact.
I’ve seen it twice as well, and really wouldn’t mind a third viewing either…but I think I’ll hold off for the DVD release.
The storyline reminded me of The Wrath of Khan a little, and that idea got fixed in my mind during the scene with the nice scream by Nero. Maybe that’s what’s contributing to some of its success, but I think having J.J. Abrams at the reins can’t hurt either.
Glad to hear you enjoyed it, Jimmy.
As anyone who has read the previous thread on the film is aware, I strongly disagree with the statement that “As a result, they wore out the franchise. They painted it into a corner from which nothing could rescue it. Except a reboot–a fresh start.” Fortunately, Jimmy has given a few particular points in support of this thesis which I can specifically address. He writes:
“It’s really hard to see how much more could have been done in the previous continuity and keep the franchise financially viable. Theatrical film based on any of the previous series or a combination of them? Not going to reach beyond the existing, shrunken fan base and thus not going to be financially successful.”
This suggestion can be disproven by two complimentary means: the counterexample of the new Trek film itself, and logic.
Obviously, this new film has been (so far) financially successful and all indications are that it will continue to be so. However, it is based on one of the previous series. Of course, due to its nature as a reboot, it veers from the series it is based off of to some degree, but that’s only relevant insofar as the casual movie-goer – that is, the person who is not in Star Trek’s fan base – is aware of it, and clearly the vast, vast majority of these persons are not aware of it. The trailers and other marketing do not reveal that the series is being rebooted, only that it’s being relaunched, which of course doesn’t imply any deviation from what has come before.
Now some, such as SDG for example, have argued that the marketing does reveal this because it depicts things contradicting previous continuity. Herein comes the logic. If a person is not a member of Star Trek’s fan base, then that person will not recognize those items in the marketing which break consistency with the original rendition of the series, and so again they will not see this as a reboot.
So what do these people see the film as? They see it as an exciting looking film with some good action, a nice aesthetic, and some attractive young actors. In other words, it looks like a good movie! 🙂 Whether it’s been rebooted or not is not their concern. Rather, they care if it’s an entertaining film or not, and by all accounts it is. Further, logic also dictates that if a person was not in the Star Trek fan base and hence knew little about Star Trek, then such a person wouldn’t care if the film were rebooted or not, but again, simply whether or not it’s an entertaining film. That’s actually similar to how I got into the Matrix films. Not having seen the original, I agreed to go with a friend to see the second because it looked entertaining. I, not being a fan of the original, didn’t care about the pre-existing story or the lack of it – I just wanted to see a good movie.
“New TV show?
In the previous continuity, what’s left to do that would reach out beyond the existing, shrunken fanbase? Even telling the story of the founding of the Federation would be too close to ST:ENT (which is why that series’ misfire is such a huge debacle; the producers blew their one chance to tell a pivotal story).”
Let me begin by saying that I don’t really follow the logic of this argument as a whole. My problem is, why on earth would non-fans of Star Trek care about the founding of the Federation? In other words, suppose that Enterprise had never happened, and the execs at Paramount were considering running a series about the founding of the Federation. Jimmy’s argument implies that this might have been the sort of thing which would have attracted non-fan viewers, but I don’t follow this argument. I can understand why a fan of Star Trek would want to watch a show about the founding of the Federation he has seen in various other incarnations, but I cannot understand why someone who had never really heard of the Federation before would be excited to see a film about it’s founding. This would be a bit like supposing that a person who has never read a Harry Potter book would be excited about a book telling of the founding of the wizard’s school, why someone who had never heard of Darth Vader would have been excited to see Episode III, or why someone who’s never read a Narnia book would be excited if they decided to make a film out of The Magician’s Nephew.
The reason that this problematic thought process is important is because it gets directly at why a person would want to watch a show or movie about anything, and consequently, how the Star Trek relaunch/reboot would need to be handled. In my estimation, there are two reasons why people watch new things: first, because they are fans of related works, and second, because the new work appears to be interesting or exciting, either in advertisement or by word of mouth.
So for example, a person who is a fan of Star Wars may have put on Cartoon Network’s Clone Wars series when it first aired because he was already a fan of Star Wars. Similarly, someone may pick up the latest John Grisham novel because they are a fan of his other works. On the other hand, another person might watch Clone Wars because he saw a tv commercial and it looked exciting, or someone might pick up Grisham’s book because a friend said it was good. Someone who hasn’t seen Star Wars doesn’t tune in to Clone Wars just because they’ve heard that it’s much better than the Phantom Menace – which they of course haven’t seen.
So if the need in a relaunch of Star Trek was to attract people outside of the fan-base, then the issue of rebooting or not rebooting is really irrelevant. Rather, the issue is whether or not an exciting and entertaining film or television program can be made.
Now, doing so may have required abandoning some of those things which had been characteristic of Star Trek as of late. For example, a new fan would probably have been turned off by an excess of techno-babble. Surely, however, that Voyager – or all of the other series, for that matter – had techno-babble does not require that we reboot the franchise to eliminate it. The same goes for virtually any problematic element.
The question then is whether or not entertaining stories could be told in the existing Star Trek universe. The primary argument against this is at least alluded to by Jimmy: there has been far too much continuity created to leave room for any interesting stories. I think this is simply a false idea. In fact, Enterprise is a nice example of the falsity of it. While many thought that the show was bad (a belief which I do not agree with), it is almost universally accepted that the 3rd and particularly the 4th seasons were pretty good. This is approximately 40 episodes, all told with centuries of continuity locked in in the future. If anything were to restrict a show’s ability to be creative, this would be it. Nevertheless, Enterprise made some great episodes. This would be evidence heavily in favor of the suggestion that plenty of new, entertaining Star Trek stories in a series could be told in the context of already established continuity and without rebooting things.
On the other hand, if we’re only concerned with a film, the evidence is almost above debate. If we presume that 3/4 of Enterprise’s last two seasons’ episodes were no good, that leaves 10 entertaining stories, when for a film all that is needed is one.
God bless,
Shane
Haven’t seen Star Trek yet, but I’m encouraged by the positive reviews. As for TNG stinkers, I have soft spot for Skin of Evil. I’d nominate “The Child” or “Shades of Gray” for the worst.
Speaking of sci-fi reviews, what’s it going to take to get a review of the BSG finale? Would a promise to swim the Tiber help? 🙂
Actually, I kinda liked ‘Spock’s Brain’, but #4 ‘Whales’, while amusing had one of the worst plots of all the movies (aside from possibly the search for god)
Jimmy wrote:
“As a result, they wore out the franchise. They painted it into a corner from which nothing could rescue it.
Except a reboot–a fresh start.
It’s really hard to see how much more could have been done in the previous continuity and keep the franchise financially viable.”
That’s because they never asked ME (maniacal laugher, lightening flashing), Dr. Frankenchicken. I could have reanimated the series, although Kirk would have walked with a limp and had an aversion to bunnies.
The Chicken
I personally thought Star Trek V was a great film. It’s one of my favorites out of the 10 (well, I guess there are 11 now). You can see the epic scale that Shatner wanted it to have, and while it didn’t always succeed, I think it did so enough for it to be a plus. I also think Star Trek V has by far some of the best character moments of any other installment of Star Trek – film or episode (of any series).
Since the drama and interest of real life isn’t hampered by continuity, I just don’t understand the argument that it’s a damper on fiction. It’s not the continuity that’s the problem, it’s the inability of the writers to be creative within it. In fact, the situation is exactly the opposite — the drama and interest of real life is there precisely because real life is continuous, and I continue to maintain that great literature captures that truth. If a writer feels that his story can’t be told in the Star Trek universe, then he can make up his own science fiction world to tell it in. And who says the franchise has to keep going, anyway? If it’s time, let it go.
I propose we subtitle this movie Star Trek: Groundhog Day because it implies that if you don’t like working with the consequences of what’s gone before, you can just wake up and create an “alternate timeline” the next day. Except, as Bill Murray discovered, a lack of accountability takes all the fun out of it.
I know, I know. It is an entertaining film and well-made. I don’t dispute that. I’m still just displeased with the basic concept of storytelling that underlies it.
Jimmy: I know from hanging around trekbbs.com that many consider Nemesis to be the worst of the Trek films. Obviously if one holds that opinion (which I don’t, and I know you don’t), the odd/even thing would be broken in a negative way.
FTR, I consider The Final Frontier to be the weakest of the Trek films, but I don’t outright hate any of them. I have all 10 previous films on DVD, and I’ll definitely be purchasing the new one when it comes out.
Minor spoilers below, matey.
I thought the movie was a fun, dumb ride that made Star Trek I, V, or even “Spock’s Brain” look like … brain surgery. Old Spock is riding around with gallons of red killer Jell-o. Kirk 90210 plays a space age Pierpont Finch in “How to Succeed in Starfleet Without Really Trying” … Nero waits decades to strike (without aging, mellowing, or learning/doing anything). It’s goofy, basically illiterate science fiction, the kind that farm boys used to sell to Amazing Stories back in the day.
The movie is also essentially a Star Wars pastiche (Darth Maul, Death Star, farm boy hero, frozen planet, older mentor figure, etc.)
All of that doesn’t matter as much to me as what the screenplay did to Spock, pushing his buttons until he throws logic overboard. All that’s left is a pretense. He even realizes that dear old Dad was all pretense. Nope. Nope. Nope. But it’s this generation, that thinks that a rational, thought-out, well lived life is a put on compared to just doing what feels good. From that point of view, Aristotle, Aquinas, et al, are the misguided fools of the world.
Another problem I see with a reboot comes from what is called, in computer science, The Halting Problem [quote from Wikipedia]: given a description of a program and a finite input, decide whether the program finishes running or will run forever, given that input. It is impossible to write a single program that will tell if any program, in general, will halt after a finite number of steps (the problem has been shown to be undecidable). One can only find the number of halting steps for any particular program, It is possible, however, to define something called a Halting Probability which defines how likely any given program is to terminate in a finite number of steps.
Now, let us say that the original Star Trek universe of a program of ideas had a Halting Probablility Xtos, such that 0 < Xtos < 1 (where 1 represents an infinite, non-stopping loop or program and tos stands for the original Trek universe). Xtos, roughly represents the best estimate for how long it would have taken for the original universe to run out of computable steps (artistically new ideas). It is the contention of the "re-booters," if I may call them that, that Xpre-reboot ≈ Xtos, so in other words, the original series universe was running out of steam, was close to its absolute stopping point. It is the contention of the "originalists" that Xpre-reboot << Xtos and many more stories are possible. To say that the re-boot has Xnew > Xtos is not really possible because of the Halting Theorem. Thus, in fact, the new universe may be even more limiting than the first. Its lifespan may be even shorter.
Thus, I see no support for the idea that it can be known, in general, that a re-boot adds any new life that the original universe did not have, a priori, since this would amount to solving the Halting Problem.
Mathematically speaking, at this point, all we can say is the original universe has undergone p number of “computational” steps, whereas the prime universe (using prime in the mathematical sense to indicate a derived quantity) has undergone q steps, where q << p. The exact Halting number for either TOS or Prime programs is unknown. So, the re-boot argument, strictly speaking, does not hold, except trivially, for q known steps as in the first movie. More, later, if you can stand it. The Chicken
“Since the drama and interest of real life isn’t hampered by continuity, I just don’t understand the argument that it’s a damper on fiction.”
I actually think the argument you give is a good one, but not for precisely the reasons you give. That’s not to say that I disagree with you. Rather, I have a complementary viewpoint.
Namely, when you start rebooting things, it completely eliminates the suspension of disbelief that is necessary for any work of science-fiction to succeed. As Michael correctly points out, there is no chance to re-boot in life. When something happens, you’re stuck with it, and you have to deal with it from then on. When you have a work of fiction where you can just reset things, it takes away this very important aspect of reality.
This is one of the reasons I’ve never enjoyed comic books. They’ve all been reset so many times that were I to try to read one, I could never get remotely invested in the story, knowing that anything that happens can simply be undone with a reboot.
So when it comes to this new film, I really can’t get into it. There’s no suspension if disbelief. Because it is in it’s essence a reboot, it exudes unbelievability. In other words, in it’s very essence it’s a rejection of that aspect of reality which says that we have to live with the past.
God bless,
Shane
Commenting on what Hugo said, above:
All of that doesn’t matter as much to me as what the screenplay did to Spock, pushing his buttons until he throws logic overboard. All that’s left is a pretense. He even realizes that dear old Dad was all pretense. Nope. Nope. Nope. But it’s this generation, that thinks that a rational, thought-out, well lived life is a put on compared to just doing what feels good. From that point of view, Aristotle, Aquinas, et al, are the misguided fools of the world.
This film was made for people growing up in a culture where dear old Dad (or dear old Mom, for that matter) may, in fact, be a pretense. What is the percentage of people watching the film in the movie theater who come from “broken” homes compared to the generation that first watched TOS? In 1960, 44 percent of children lived in two-parent original families; in 2000, the number was 25 percent. Today, with unwed pregnancies at 50 percent, the number may be higher. The movie simply plays into that model of the family for many of the viewers.
As to the logic issue, Mark Bauerlein wrote a controversial book that was released last May called, The Dumbest Generation which attempts to show that the current generation has very little love for the past (or knowledge of it) and little loyalty to it. They also live very much in the moment with a post-modern sentimentality. This may seem paradoxical, however, given that the average IQ of young people seems to be rising (that is an issue for another post).
Simply put, children of today are the next step past Christopher Lasch’s Culture of Narcissism – they are heading towards the type of culture that Issac Asimov proposed for the Solarians in his book, “The Naked Sun,” back in 1957 – a society that exists via the computer, having virtual relationships, and becoming more and more cut-off from what is going on around them.
I’ve seen this pattern start to emerge as early as 1993 or so. I wonder just how “logical” the new Spock is? If each generation makes its Star Trek in its own image, then what may we learn from the changes in the current version? I say this because films, comic books, and other forms of popular entertainment (games) represent the cultural iconography that will be used by future generations to determine the cultural change points of this era in history. What will scholars see in the new Star Trek film – mere summer entertainment or a reflection of the changes that have occurred or will occur in society as a whole between 1965 and 2009 or both?
As someone who keeps track of how the arts reflect the changes in society and culture in particular, I find the new film, coming at this time, to be interesting. As I tried to prove in my earlier post, the re-boot issue is largely fabricated – it is actually very difficult to prove or disprove that a reboot was necessary at this time – hence the wide disparity of opinion on the subject. That the young will see their lives reflected in the new versions of Kirk and Spock makes it possible, by a comparison, to see how society has changed from those who found their lives reflected in the original versions of Kirk and Spock.
I know it’s just a movie, but I’m interested in the broader picture, so to speak. One could do the same with any remake. SDG mentioned M.A.S.H., earlier, but this is, I think an improper comparison. There are fixed points in history that M.A.S.H. cannot change. In looser works, such as Star Trek, one can, literally, re-write history. On the other hand, one cannot re-write the original movie, Sybil, and make it a movie about a nice family. The emotional necessity of the film will not let one do this. There was a recent remake of Sybil that showed just how difficult it is to change what truth is essential for a film.
It is in the arena of necessary truths that one may make interesting comparisons between similar works of different eras. What are the necessary truths of the Star Trek universe? That, I suspect is near the nub of the the contentiousness between people who see the film
The Chicken
We could call this Star Trek 10 1/2 and really mess things up 🙂
Last post on this subject, I hope. Don’t none o’you guys says something profound. I want my weekend freeeee.
The Chicken
“This film was made for people growing up in a culture where dear old Dad (or dear old Mom, for that matter) may, in fact, be a pretense.”
If by this, TMC, you are talking about the audience as an audience, and not the film as it was ‘spun’ for the audience, you’re probably right. As a film, though, Star Trek showed, IMO, great respect for the fathers and mothers in it, and fatherhood and motherhood in general.
“He even realizes that dear old Dad was all pretense. Nope. Nope. Nope. But it’s this generation, that thinks that a rational, thought-out, well lived life is a put on compared to just doing what feels good.”
So why is Kirk Sr. praised for being unselfish? Why does Kirk Jr. eventually try to emulate his father’s virtues?
“in it’s very essence it’s a rejection of that aspect of reality which says that we have to live with the past. ”
I could be wrong, but I think too many are reading too much philosophy into the decision to re-boot. I thought the “re-boot” was to allow the audience to see a different universe where the characters can die without mussing up continuity (any prequel robs itself of the ability to risk the lives of its characters: we know who makes it), where they will be faced with unique and original moral challenges and tests of character, and where the writers have the freedom for creative work without consulting the minutiae of the “canon” every three minutes. The film’s imperfect, but let the ship get out of the dock before torpedoing it. 🙂
“I thought the “re-boot” was to allow the audience to see a different universe where the characters can die without mussing up continuity…”
Well, this is really exactly my point. In the real world, we can’t do that. If X happens, then X has happened and everyone’s lives will forever be affected by X. Now of course fiction – especially science fiction – is not the real world, and so certain deviations from what is really possible are to be expected. The goal of any good fiction is to create a suspension of disbelief – that is, to bring the viewer or reader to buy into what is happening, suspending his instinct to reject it. The problem with reboots is that, unlike, say, having a transporter or a warp drive, they violate something very fundamental to human nature, which makes it very difficult to buy into. Transporters, warp drives, and light sabers all violate the laws of physics as we understand them, but these things are all more ancillary to our existence, and so when they are violated, even a physicist like The Masked Chicken can brush it off and enjoy the show. Mankind survived for millennia without knowing the laws of thermodynamics or the theory of relativity. On the other hand, the fact that the past is unchangeable affects every person to the very core of his being. It’s just so central to the human condition that breaking this rule really ruins it for a lot of people.
In fact, this is all the more important to Star Trek, for Star Trek has always been, fundamentally, about the human condition. That said, even if one doesn’t believe that that is what Trek has been about, it’s still important for a similar reason, namely, that at the very least, Star Trek has been about the characters. In reality, there is not two, three four, or any other number of each of us – there is only one. There is only one Jimmy, and only one Shane, only one SDG, etc. If a person dies, he is dead, and nothing can change that. If someone is shot in the heart and miraculously survives, that’s a profound, deeply moving event for him and all who care about him – it will change the person and all those he knows forever, precisely because death is so permanent. When you go duplicating characters, you’re going against this deep-seated reality. If the Pine Kirk dies, what difference does it make? The Shatner Kirk is living merrily in his universe (until the 24th century, anyhow). If the Urban McCoy survives some inescapable situation, it doesn’t really matter so much. Had he died, well, the same guy is still kicking over in the prime universe. And ultimately, even if he weren’t, you’ve already proven that you can just start things over and bring the dead back anytime you want in a reboot.
Ultimately, the problem with the reboot is that there is no now Kobyashi Maru. There is no unwinnable scenario any longer, for even a loss can be erased with the stroke of a Paramount executive’s pen.
“and where the writers have the freedom for creative work without consulting the minutiae of the “canon” every three minutes.”
I think this is a red herring, honestly – not that I blame you specifically for it, of course. As Jimmy and others have frequently pointed out, even the original series contradicted itself quite a lot when it comes to the minutiae. Ultimately, this is just fiction, and everyone watching it knows that. Small violations of continuity do not ruin the suspension of disbelief, because even should one recognize one, one can still just say, “it’s only a tv show” and move on. If Kirk hated a guy named Finnigan in Shore Leave and a later film or episode inadvertently mentions they are friends, it’s not a big deal. It’s only a tv show. It’s the big violations which matter, that is, the ones that really change the story in a fundamental way. I think most (though certainly not all) Trek fans would be perfectly ok with an original universe story that slipped up on a point or two, and I think that honoring the bigger aspects of canon wouldn’t really be that difficult.
God bless,
Shane
One of the most lauded Original Series episodes is “The City on the Edge of Forever”, in which Kirk travels back in time and prevents a woman from being killed. As a result, she becomes a prominent activist against US involvement in WWII and prevents the US from going to war. Consequently, the Nazis win and conquer Europe, setting up a dark future for humanity. Ever since that original episode, Star Trek has usually taken timeline continuity seriously, going so far as to formulate a concept called the “Temporal Prime Directive” which forbade interference in the timeline because it could be so consequential. But the new story says precisely the opposite: timeline interference is inconsequential, and the “reason” for drama in previous stories is contradicted.
David B. says people are reading too much philosophy into the movie — but that’s exactly the point. Star Trek’s fans have enjoyed it because it’s not a blast-em-up sci-fi flick, but a show, one of the few on TV, that does take philosophy seriously. You could at least appreciate its gravity, whether or not you agreed with its ultimate philosophical conclusions. The new film takes that part of the Star Trek essence and tosses it out the window. To miss that element is to miss part of what made Star Trek different. Fans who liked it precisely because it took philosophy and continuity seriously are the fans who are now not pleased.
If the Pine Kirk dies, what difference does it make? The Shatner Kirk is living merrily in his universe (until the 24th century, anyhow)
I chose this minuscule line out of your well-thought-out comments because I think it distills what you’re saying. If I’m not misreading you, you find that alternate universes rob a character of power. I disagree. As SDG pointed out, one can have many different versions of a character in different universes, and yet they can be compelling. All the Kirks have free will and are unique persons, not robots with programmed variations. Kirk Prime is his own man, but Kirk “II” is a different person, if not a “different” person. Why are the struggles of Kirk II unworthy of attention? If, hypothetically, God created another universe, with another David B, I would be interested in my counterpart, but David B II’s life and decisions would not diminish the original, nor would his existence be a “cheat”.
“I think most…Trek fans would be perfectly ok with an original universe story that slipped up on a point or two, and I think that honoring the bigger aspects of canon wouldn’t really be that difficult.”
Yet the IMDB.com “Goofs” section on the movie has the equivalent of four pages concerning real or imagined inconsistencies between the film and “TOS”. 🙂
The point of us re-booters is that so many crucial points in the lives of the TOS crew have been delved in to that new, complex, revelatory, and surprising events would be incredible. As SGD pointed out, how could we have not heard of these events before, if they are part of TOS?
I appreciate and respect the qualms of those who don’t like the new film, but I also understand and ultimately agree with the desire (nay, need) for a re-boot.
“David B. says people are reading too much philosophy into the movie”
No, Michael, I said …”into the decision to re-boot.” Not being a devotee of TOS, I have only my father as a reference for a fan who appreciated the philosophy of TOS, who likes the new film for what it is, and enjoyed the character development therein.
As far as continuity, it appears from these boards alone that many fans would disagree on what exactly counts for fundamental continuity. As far as the film being a “blast-em-up sci-fi flick”, I would like the first thirty minutes being spent on just establishing the characters to be explained. 🙂
I chose this minuscule line out of your well-thought-out comments because I think it distills what you’re saying. If I’m not misreading you, you find that alternate universes rob a character of power. I disagree. As SDG pointed out, one can have many different versions of a character in different universes, and yet they can be compelling. All the Kirks have free will and are unique persons, not robots with programmed variations. Kirk Prime is his own man, but Kirk “II” is a different person, if not a “different” person. Why are the struggles of Kirk II unworthy of attention? If, hypothetically, God created another universe, with another David B, I would be interested in my counterpart, but David B II’s life and decisions would not diminish the original, nor would his existence be a “cheat”.
And this is the best counter-argument I’ve seen, David B., against what Shane, The Chicken, and I have been arguing. Not that I agree with it, but I see that you understand what it is that bothers us.
True about the first thirty minutes, although as I recall the first scene is a rather long battle with Nero and the second a thoroughly irrelevant car-over-a-cliff scene with a Nokia ad placement… Of course, “shoot-em-up” may be relative. So that you understand my tastes, my favorite Trek film is VI, primarily because of its superbly well-crafted dialogue, and there’s very little action in that film until the end. I love the intricate trial scene, the subtle insults at the dinner party, the sly debates in the President’s office. And Colonel von Trapp as a Klingon? Who can’t love that? That may shed some light on how this film looks to me.
Howdy, guys!
I’ve now created a spoiler-based post, so I’d request posting spoiler-related comments there, so as to keep this thread safe for people who haven’t yet seen the film and who don’t want to be spoiled.
Thanks!
“And this is the best counter-argument I’ve seen, David B., against what Shane, The Chicken, and I have been arguing. Not that I agree with it, but I see that you understand what it is that bothers us.”
Wow. Thanks, Michael.
“as I recall the first scene is a rather long battle with Nero and the second a thoroughly irrelevant car-over-a-cliff scene with a Nokia ad placement…”
Ha! I don’t know about the battle, as it was only about five minutes. Your enthusiasm for S.T. VI (surprise: I haven’t seen VI!) make me interested in seeing that one.
The movie doesn’t have to be perfect as Jimmy says, but as I discovered with Lord of the Rings, there are some alterations I can live with and some that I can’t, so I’m greatly debating if I want to see Star Trek.