Obligatory New Star Trek Thoughts
May. 17th, 2009 10:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
labingiJumping on the bandwagon to give my thoughts on Star Trek. So many people have said so much good and interesting stuff that I'm just going to make three observations: one negative, one positive/negative, and one positive--but it's very positive. And as I prepare to launch into a long stream of complaint, let me state for the record: I liked it.
The Bad
College kids taking over a Starship, breaking regulations, and getting universally praised for it. Now, this isn't all bad. Kirk has always been a rule breaker. Love him or hate him (or some of each), it's always been part of who he is and part of what makes him one of the greatest captains of Starfleet history. I don't ask that he follow the rules all the time. I don't ask that everyone else do. But I do ask that they exist in a universe that shows some awareness of why rules exist. When Kirk went off to search for Spock in ST3 and came back saving the world with whales in ST4, he was demoted for breaking regulations. It was a slap on the wrist that gave him back the job he really wanted, but it was a nice compromise between praising his heroism and recognizing that a civilization cannot operate on lawlessness (unless set up as an anarchy). In ST11 (that's the number we're up to, right?), he breaks more regulations than I can shake a stick at, culminating in assuming command of a starship when he isn't even on the crew roster... and he gets promoted from cadet awaiting disciplinary action to captain for it??
This is not about continuity with TOS. It's about the spirit of Star Trek as a utopian narrative. The moral foundation of Star Trek's existence has always been to show a utopian future based upon the idea of a Federation uniting civilizations into a large, flexible, social union. This society is predicated on law. It could not achieve this structure without complex social relations regulated by reasonably fair, enforceable norms (all the more so in Starfleet, its military branch). A ship like the Enterprise would not have been built in the absence of social regulation: it's too complex a venture. A bunch of bridge crew throwing the rulebook out the window in order to do "what seems best at that moment" is not sustainable practice: if people start doing it willy nilly, they will make more errors than correct judgments, and Starfleet will collapse. In this instance, the rule breaking may have been justified, but its justification does not exempt its practitioners from responsibility. Kirk stole command of a starship (as much as he did in ST3). The act was arguably laudable, but it was not entirely laudable, and for the movie to present it as such is to undermine the concept of the Federation.
(The moral problem is a lot more basic than Star Trek. In the Mahabharata, the Pandava break the rules to win the war they morally have to win. They did the right thing. They also drive their beloved teacher to despair and end up with all their children murdered by his son as a consequence. There's a reason this story has endured for many centuries. This is the paradox of rule breaking: it is sometimes necessary, but it is not light (not if it's a serious rule). And yes, I am taking it seriously, and yes, Star Trek is a morally serious text, and it should be.)
The Good and Bad
Using an AU timeline to reboot the series. The idea is brilliant. It's ingenious. It's the saving grace of the whole project. It's perfectly in keeping with the Trek-verse. It's an excellent way to please all the people. The problem is that they didn't take it far enough: they didn't present it in a way that explained all the discontinuities.
In a Hollywood of infinite possibility, if we wanted to narrate the early days of the Trek crew (in or out of an AU), we might go back in time to the 1950s, pick up the original cast as young uns and beam them back to play their younger selves. As it is, we have new actors. But the art of drama has always been to make the most out of the limitations of the medium. Through the magic of AU, you could easily explain that these aren't genetically the same people, just very close. You could explain why (or at least that) Sam was never born. You could explain why the differences in age among our principals have been lessened. You could explain why humans know all about the Romulans (see Astrogirl's critique). You could invent some techno-babble to make it all track perfectly. For Star Trek, it wouldn't even be a stretch. Instead, we're told that history only changed when Kirk was born (which makes the non-existence of Sam really odd), and Original!Spock greets Kirk without slightest sign that Kirk actually doesn't look that much like William Shatner, even at 20. This introduces a hundred separate discontinuities that didn't have to be there.
The Good
Pure emotional reaction: I'm into it. Despite all the flaws, I want to see more of this crew. I want them to get their own show. I want to watch it every week. I would never have imagined that I would get such a kick out of seeing the same characters I grew up with re-visioned. But I did, and it's exciting in a way old Trek never has been for me.
That's not a criticism of old Trek; it's just a statement about how I came to it. I've been watching Star Trek since I was born and probably listening to it before that. I have no living memory of a time before Star Trek existed in my universe. By the time I was three, I was playing with my Star Trek dolls and making my parents play Kirk, Spock, and McCoy with me. One effect of this is that I will always see the characters as my aunts and uncles. The actors are, roughly speaking, the same age as my parents. (My father is two years younger than Shatner and Nimoy.) I, therefore, can never intimately identify with these characters for much the same reason I would not want to see my aunt and uncle in bed. Indeed, I think psychologically it is an incest taboo. I don't want to write fic about these characters (sexual or otherwise). I don't really enjoy reading it, just as I find it stressful to read my mother's poetry. It's too close; it afflicts the boundaries.
I don't have those hang ups about the rebooted characters. I feel like I'm meeting them fresh with an infinity of possibilities, and I could invest in them in the intimate, emotional way of fandom. (As a footnote on the passing of the years, this movie introduced me to a feeling I never thought I'd ever experience: rather wanting Spock to be my son.) I hope and trust they will do more with this rebooted verse. And I hope it's not just another action movie but a format that allows us to get to know these characters as new characters, for so they are.
The Bad
College kids taking over a Starship, breaking regulations, and getting universally praised for it. Now, this isn't all bad. Kirk has always been a rule breaker. Love him or hate him (or some of each), it's always been part of who he is and part of what makes him one of the greatest captains of Starfleet history. I don't ask that he follow the rules all the time. I don't ask that everyone else do. But I do ask that they exist in a universe that shows some awareness of why rules exist. When Kirk went off to search for Spock in ST3 and came back saving the world with whales in ST4, he was demoted for breaking regulations. It was a slap on the wrist that gave him back the job he really wanted, but it was a nice compromise between praising his heroism and recognizing that a civilization cannot operate on lawlessness (unless set up as an anarchy). In ST11 (that's the number we're up to, right?), he breaks more regulations than I can shake a stick at, culminating in assuming command of a starship when he isn't even on the crew roster... and he gets promoted from cadet awaiting disciplinary action to captain for it??
This is not about continuity with TOS. It's about the spirit of Star Trek as a utopian narrative. The moral foundation of Star Trek's existence has always been to show a utopian future based upon the idea of a Federation uniting civilizations into a large, flexible, social union. This society is predicated on law. It could not achieve this structure without complex social relations regulated by reasonably fair, enforceable norms (all the more so in Starfleet, its military branch). A ship like the Enterprise would not have been built in the absence of social regulation: it's too complex a venture. A bunch of bridge crew throwing the rulebook out the window in order to do "what seems best at that moment" is not sustainable practice: if people start doing it willy nilly, they will make more errors than correct judgments, and Starfleet will collapse. In this instance, the rule breaking may have been justified, but its justification does not exempt its practitioners from responsibility. Kirk stole command of a starship (as much as he did in ST3). The act was arguably laudable, but it was not entirely laudable, and for the movie to present it as such is to undermine the concept of the Federation.
(The moral problem is a lot more basic than Star Trek. In the Mahabharata, the Pandava break the rules to win the war they morally have to win. They did the right thing. They also drive their beloved teacher to despair and end up with all their children murdered by his son as a consequence. There's a reason this story has endured for many centuries. This is the paradox of rule breaking: it is sometimes necessary, but it is not light (not if it's a serious rule). And yes, I am taking it seriously, and yes, Star Trek is a morally serious text, and it should be.)
The Good and Bad
Using an AU timeline to reboot the series. The idea is brilliant. It's ingenious. It's the saving grace of the whole project. It's perfectly in keeping with the Trek-verse. It's an excellent way to please all the people. The problem is that they didn't take it far enough: they didn't present it in a way that explained all the discontinuities.
In a Hollywood of infinite possibility, if we wanted to narrate the early days of the Trek crew (in or out of an AU), we might go back in time to the 1950s, pick up the original cast as young uns and beam them back to play their younger selves. As it is, we have new actors. But the art of drama has always been to make the most out of the limitations of the medium. Through the magic of AU, you could easily explain that these aren't genetically the same people, just very close. You could explain why (or at least that) Sam was never born. You could explain why the differences in age among our principals have been lessened. You could explain why humans know all about the Romulans (see Astrogirl's critique). You could invent some techno-babble to make it all track perfectly. For Star Trek, it wouldn't even be a stretch. Instead, we're told that history only changed when Kirk was born (which makes the non-existence of Sam really odd), and Original!Spock greets Kirk without slightest sign that Kirk actually doesn't look that much like William Shatner, even at 20. This introduces a hundred separate discontinuities that didn't have to be there.
The Good
Pure emotional reaction: I'm into it. Despite all the flaws, I want to see more of this crew. I want them to get their own show. I want to watch it every week. I would never have imagined that I would get such a kick out of seeing the same characters I grew up with re-visioned. But I did, and it's exciting in a way old Trek never has been for me.
That's not a criticism of old Trek; it's just a statement about how I came to it. I've been watching Star Trek since I was born and probably listening to it before that. I have no living memory of a time before Star Trek existed in my universe. By the time I was three, I was playing with my Star Trek dolls and making my parents play Kirk, Spock, and McCoy with me. One effect of this is that I will always see the characters as my aunts and uncles. The actors are, roughly speaking, the same age as my parents. (My father is two years younger than Shatner and Nimoy.) I, therefore, can never intimately identify with these characters for much the same reason I would not want to see my aunt and uncle in bed. Indeed, I think psychologically it is an incest taboo. I don't want to write fic about these characters (sexual or otherwise). I don't really enjoy reading it, just as I find it stressful to read my mother's poetry. It's too close; it afflicts the boundaries.
I don't have those hang ups about the rebooted characters. I feel like I'm meeting them fresh with an infinity of possibilities, and I could invest in them in the intimate, emotional way of fandom. (As a footnote on the passing of the years, this movie introduced me to a feeling I never thought I'd ever experience: rather wanting Spock to be my son.) I hope and trust they will do more with this rebooted verse. And I hope it's not just another action movie but a format that allows us to get to know these characters as new characters, for so they are.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-19 09:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-20 05:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-30 11:20 pm (UTC)Thanks for sharing.
~sabriel
no subject
Date: 2009-05-31 02:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 04:28 pm (UTC)And this Kirk has blue eyes! Lovely, but not hazel.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-05 01:43 am (UTC)