The Philosophy of Star Trek
The last panel I attended at the OSFest 6 convention was the
Philosophy of Trek panel. It was one I
was determined not to miss. I enjoy
both.
I think that the panelists had planned to cover several
subjects, but it was the first subject that seemed to dominate the discussion,
as well as stir up some passion both on the panel, as well as with the
audience. The opening subject for
discussion was the JJ Abrams’ incarnation of Star Trek with the films released
in 2009 and earlier this year. It seemed
to me that the members of the panel were not happy with the Abrams handling of
the film as they tossed a few lighthearted remarks back and forth between
themselves and the audience. One member
of the audience sitting directly behind me got quite upset and in essence, whispering
to her neighbor that if the panel was going to be a JJ Abrams bashing session,
she wasn’t going to stay. I am
paraphrasing here, so you may add any appropriate expletives you wish to what
she said. Well it is too bad that she
left the room because JJ bashing is not what happened at all, but rather the
panel was leading a discussion on how JJ’s universe compared with Gene
Roddenberry’s vision and whether JJ had any obligations that he might not be
fulfilling to Roddenberry’s ideal. This
took up a full 2/3’s of the time allotted for the panel and could have gone on
for much longer. I only wish I had
brought my recorder to help me with my Swiss-cheesed memory of the discussion.
As always, I do not pretend to have all of the answers, nor
do I have all of the facts in this matter, but I do have some thoughts which I
will share with you. First, as I
understand philosophy, it is a quest for the truth of something. The truth is found through an examination of
all the available facts. A philosophy is
developed and can evolve as more facts and experience is gained. This is at the most basic level as there have
been many books written by many far more qualified people on this subject. So what I write here will be my own
individual philosophy of Star Trek. Feel
free to agree or disagree with my conclusions, and as always, I welcome any
comments one cares to make.
Much has been written and discussed over the past four-plus
decades of Gene Roddenberry’s “vision” of the future. In his vision, Roddenberry saw the future as
a place where all prejudice and bigotry had been eliminated in human
society. The people of the Earth had
learned to finally get along by getting past their superficial and
materialistic needs and began to work together to move out of our own solar
system and spread the word to other “strange new worlds” and civilizations in a
spirit of learning and exploration, boldly going “where no man has gone before.” This is indeed a noble vision, but it was an
element in a much bigger picture.
Roddenberry was, before Star Trek, a marginally successful
television writer. He had made many
attempts at getting a hit television series on the air, and keeping it there. It wasn’t until the advent of Star Trek that
he had found backing from Desilu studios and Herb Solow who saw value in what
Roddenberry was producing, that got the show on the air. One problem that Star Trek faced in those
days was another television show called Mission: Impossible. Desilu was wholly invested in this hit show
and a great deal of the studio’s resources were put into that show, while Star
Trek was forced to make due with a shoe string budget and leftovers. One big advantage Star Trek had to fight the
budget battle was Matt Jefferies who could take junk, dress it up, and make it
work as props and set decorations that were convincing. When one watches an episode of the original
series (TOS), one finds a very Spartan environment, especially when compared to
later series, such as Next Generation (TNG) with their million-dollar per
episode budget.
Gene Roddenberry was a brilliant television writer, but it
wasn’t only the scripts that made Star Trek work. For me, Star Trek is about the people and
their interactions with each other. It
was magical in how this show was cast, and how well they worked together. Kirk,
the commander, relied on Spock and McCoy to make good decisions. Actually, Spock and McCoy were extensions of
Kirk’s personality; Spock the logical side that looks at situations in black
and white, and McCoy who was the compassionate one that added those little grey
areas. What chemistry. This is what resonated with me, and what is
missing from the Abrams version of Star Trek.
Before the 2009 Star Trek film was even in production, JJ
Abrams admitted that he knew nothing about Star Trek. It also seemed that, beyond making a pile of
money, he didn’t really care about Star Trek.
I can agree with the first statement, but I cannot totally agree with
the second. On one podcast I listen to
regularly, one of the cohosts said “this is new Star Trek” for a new audience,
if you cannot handle it, get over it.
Another podcaster said that Star Trek is not about explosions and glitzy
special effects, it is not supposed to wow the audience, but tell a good
story. I can see merit to both points of
view. The former is a young person who
sees lots of movies, and the latter is more of a television watcher (but definitely
not a couch potato). As far as I am
concerned, Abrams doesn’t know Star Trek, and by what I saw in Into Darkness,
he doesn’t seem to be interested in knowing the subject of what he has taken
on.
One panelist on the Philosophy of Trek stated that all of
the movies are bad. This person didn’t
have a chance to elaborate on that statement, unfortunately, due to time
constraints. I would have loved to hear
this argument fleshed out. But I would
tend to agree with this statement to a certain point; Star Trek does not belong
in the movie theater. Star Trek is a
television show. A weekly installment in
which the crew of whatever ship or space station is presented with a problem,
and then thinking their way out of the problem and comes up with a solution
that is amenable to all parties involved.
The best of the Star Trek movies are the ones that play like an extended
television episode; The Wrath of Kahn, The Search for Spock, The Undiscovered
Country, and First Contact all come to mind falling into the category of
extended television episodes. Two of
those films were directed by a Nick Meyer, someone who was known for his work
in television before breaking into film.
The big question brought up during the panel was does JJ
Abrams have a responsibility to Star Trek to be true to the legacy of Gene
Roddenberry? If I recall correctly, the
panel’s opinion was yes. As a fan, I
would have to agree, but if I take a step back and look, I would have to say
no. What if one took away the title Star
Trek, changed the names of the characters, and the ships? Change the design of the sets and
models. Are JJ’s movies good space
opera? I would say yes, they are good
films, but not good Star Trek. But what about
the responsibility aspect of the question?
As a film maker, JJ’s responsibility is to make a film that will fill
seats and make as money as can possibly be made for the studio. Nothing more.
It is just too bad that CBS and Paramount put the Star Trek name on JJ’s
films knowing that this would automatically up the ante.
Star Trek 2009 opened new possibilities for the Star Trek
universe, and did a pretty good job. The
new cast worked well and gave me hope that there was a whole new universe full
of stories that could be explored. Into
Darkness was a cheat. Kahn? Why did we go backward? Why didn’t we get a new villain and a new
story. Star Trek isn’t about explosions,
lens flair, CGI special effects, red matter, magic blood, Borg enhanced Romulan
ships, genocide on a planetary scale, and especially not about attractive young
women in front of the camera in their underwear. JJ isn’t going to get the message by us
arguing amongst ourselves, the dollars in his pocket speak much louder than
fandom. The only way to let him know
that he has gone wrong is to not go to his films. But in this less than ideal world, we all
know that isn’t going to happen. If it
says Star Trek, we are going to go and see it like watching a train wreck that we
know is going to happen, but just cannot look away. And JJ will be laughing all the way to the
bank.
My philosophy of Star Trek is this: It is about well written stories acted out by
good characters in the backdrop of space that gives me hope for the future that
we, as the human race, will really be okay.
It is something that is plausible and possible. It is something I can invest myself in. When I watch Star Trek, I want it to be like
a visit from a friend I haven’t seen for a while.
Well, there it is…
QaplaH’!
No comments:
Post a Comment