ZNet Articles
Blog PostsBoldly Going Backwards
By Justin George at May 13, 2009 |
|
The blockbuster movie season is now in full swing with more hype and hoopla to come. The unfortunate part of this year’s season is that one of
What makes science fiction, and Star Trek, great is its ability to hold a mirror up to our modern world while simultaneously offering a vision of the future, a future where we’ve overcome blind prejudices or systems of inequality. It allows for critical reflection while exploring big, bold ideas at the same time. It sparks the imagination in creative and critical ways. Due to the vision of a different society we are able to compare and contrast the vision presented before us to what the world is like today. The vision creates the critical thought.
The downfall of the new movie is that it fails to do that. Sure we get a flashy view of the future, one with technological change, but we don’t get to see or explore the society behind the gloss. We don’t hear how the ‘United Federation of Planets’ works. Star Trek’s creator the late Gene Roddenberry was apparently concerned with the militarism that was injected into the later Star Trek films, into Earth’s ‘Star Fleet’. Unfortunately this carries through again in the new film. The scientific and exploratory mission of the original television show is swapped for a militarized Star Fleet where (the new) Kirk and crew are part of a rigid, hierarchical pecking order of military discipline. The motive of Star Fleet’s existence seems to be one of defence. Ideas and ideals are put aside for the sake of entertainment, to ensure big bangs and a fast moving plot.
The original series, and to lesser degrees the later spin-off shows, pushed and challenged social conventions of the time. It broke new ground for TV in the 3 seasons it was on air. While not perfect, the show sought to question and reflect society in many of its episodes, whether it was race relations, religion or the futility of war. A multicultural and gender crew presented a vision of a better society.
Its later incarnation, The Next Generation, sought diplomacy over conflict. It’s first episode setting the tone, with humanity put on trial, forced to justify itself after centuries of violence and bloodshed. The message presented was that people, humans, could grow, to move past petty conflicts, to consciously change themselves and their surrounding institutions. The resolution to the episode’s climax was not to go in phasers blasting but to recognise the diversity of life, that communication and broadening one’s perceptions and conceptions of life facilitates solutions for all, rather than just those with superior weaponry. The new Trek seems to be shoot first and ask questions later.
The ‘reboot’ of the Star Trek franchise unfortunately lacks big ideas. Like the rest of the
For Star Trek fans, this means that beloved characters become mere shells; big ideas and vision make way for just action.
Star Trek’s critical and commercial success highlight that with enough money and hype, a lack of imagination and creative courage can be seen as new and fresh.
Like modern political campaigns the battle of the box office is not over substance anymore but in who can better manage style and convince that it’s substance.
Re: Boldly Going Backwards
By George, Justin at May 21, 2009 19:23 PM
quotations italicized and in bold to distuingish writer:
| I think you're missing the point of the post that whatever system you want to attribute to vision of the future presented in Trek, it's the vision that counts.
Certainly, not all Star Trek episodes center around this vision. In fact, and at extreme fault of TOS and the movies alike, they NEVER actually go into detailing how the post-capitalist world works.
If you’ll read my post and response I never desired or expected a detailed vision of a post-capitalist world. As I have repeatedly pointed out, I lament the lack of any vision in the film. Vision of a future and also vision in addressing current issues via science fiction- both of which previous Treks have done. Vision does not necessary entail a detailed model to be presented. It can be the power of a few ideas, a glimpse or mention of a different world.
| As for interpretations of Star Trek in relation to Parecon (which I did not mention in the review) you might like to look at this article by Matt Grinder from the Vancouver Parecon Collective page- http://vanparecon.resist.ca/StarTrekEcon/index.html
I've already seen it, and considered it deeply. I concur that it might be relevant insofar as the people of the world are concerned, but the technical aspects of society and their heavy reliance on professions and education implies that the surrounding socio-economic system is a technocracy.
I think you would have to write your own article responding to Matt Grinder’s points to properly argue this point.
| As a ¿reboot', a reimagining of Star Trek, don't you find it sad that they lacked the vision and philosophical content that formed such an integral part of Star Trek?
No, I do not, because the movie shows no more of these attributes than "The Cage" or "The Menagerie" did when they aired. Like I said, a single episode is a single data-point, and does not offer sufficient knowledge on which to base the story.
I’ll respond to your notion of data-points below
| The opportunity to recreate Star Trek offered the chance to be as bold as the original series was in addressing today's society and problems by looking to the future. That it failed to take up such a vision or understanding of what Star Trek is/was is sad. Don't you find that it reflects more and more on the entertainment industry and film making?
Of course, I show concern in this area; but, how do you accomplish this goal while dealing with characters who, at the present time, haven't a clue of each other except in the most superficial ways? In other words, I'd be interested in a script idea of your own explaining how everyone came together, WHILE simultaneously advancing solutions to some social problems? Remember, Spock represents the logical side of an argument, while Bones represents the humanist side. They rarely agree, which is why the tension between them is so awesome. (And, poor Kirk has to sit in the middle of it all and apply situational ethics.)
And, then, you have to tie it to the original Star Trek timeline in order to justify the reboot to begin with. This, really, was the sole purpose of Nero and the Nerada. Vengence was a convenient cop-out, I admit (in fact, if you want a good laugh, take a look at this side-by-side comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars; http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892).
My point again is that with science fiction you can create whatever you desire. If this film is to reboot then there is no need to tie into the original films etc just as Batman Begins didn’t have Jack Nicholson return as the Joker etc. The choice was, I think, to appeal to Trek fans and their billion dollar investment in the franchise. It guarantees that if it failed to be a popular success then it ensured some type of decent return.
As for alternative to what they did- don’t start with introductions, start with the characters knowing each other but younger, already part of the crew? You can establish origins without the need for a linear plot- flashbacks, dialogue between characters all posted to the ship, a debate on tactics or strategy that reflect these backgrounds and the characters perspectives. This allows for a diversity of views to emerge and fleshes out the characters.
Boldness of vision doesn’t even have to be in terms of narrative. Make Kirk an African-American, make Spock a woman- it would be immensely brave if the fundamental heroes were reinterpreted. Both are ways that reboot the characters and present a challenge to the essential assumptions of the audience.
One of the things I looked for in the new film was a triumvirate scene with Bones and Spock presenting differing perspectives that Kirk synthesizes. It could have occurred within the plot of the film as it was- say when they debate destroying Nero- but the film’s focus (action) and lack of a humanist core didn’t allow the film to take a breath and have a scene on the merits of an action, didn’t allow for bigger ideas to come through. These are all failings of the filmmakers’ and thus the film’s vision.
| Hence my comparison to the Obama phenomenon- people like the package, enjoy the style and seem content to put up with less than great substance and courage of vision in the hope that it will come sometime down the future. Perhaps we can wait for the sequel there too- Obama's second term?
This is an utterly inappropriate comparison, for Obama has had numerous chances to demonstrate his intentions. In other words, we have a substantially and statistically significant number of data points on which to draw conclusions from. This isn't true with a single movie.
You seem to think that to critique the new Star Trek film you have to have more than one film to compare against. Putting aside comparisons to the existing 9 films (which for some reason don’t form ‘data points’) your analysis would prevent you from ever critiquing a film that does not have a sequel. More so, your argument presented in the previous discussions was in support of the film, surely your analysis prevents this also as you don’t have enough ‘data points’ to compare against. Your perspective would need to be one of objective neutrality (which never exists). Your framework doesn’t allow you to consider the film (or candidate) on its own merits. If the sequel is good then that would make the original good. If the sequel is flawed then the original is flawed.
Your analysis sets its frame to broadly- a completed film. If there is nothing to compare against, then you can still break the film down into its component parts to examine respective merits to determine if they make a useful/well conceived whole. A film contains a plot, characters, themes, dialogue, technical components such as directing, lighting, camera work etc.
All these form ‘data points’ from which to assess the film.
My comparison to Obama’s campaign was to highlight that both film and politician have relied on large advertising campaigns that distorted perspectives on the actual merits of each. They both use the appearance of substance to hide the fact that they are mostly style in terms of their difference to what else is out there.
You can assess Obama on his various actions (the components of his campaign and now his presidency). Just as you can assess Star Trek on its component parts as a film.
This allows the promise to be compared to the delivery and both sadly come up short.
Reply this comment
Re: Boldly Going Backwards
By Falvo ii, Samuel at May 14, 2009 18:52 PM
I've seen the new Star Trek and loved every minute of it. Nobody has a right to complain about the movie unless they've seen it with their own eyes.
That being said, Gene Roddenberry was a technocrat (of Technocracy fame, not the same kind of "technocrat" most political folk talk about), so his UFP and Starfleet organizations both were technocratic in nature. Federation credits, although never formally explained, apparently was restricted exclusively to labor between men and women; all other aspects of society were run off of energy accounting. This is why, despite the existance of Federation Credits, one never actually pays for goods. However, one *does* pay for services, as evidenced by the number of times Kirk tells Scotty (in the 60s TV shows) that he's "earned his pay for the week" after Scotty pulls the Enterprise out from a really tight spot.
The movie, of course, won't ever get into this, because it does not conform to modern-day socio-economic practice and dogma. And, it would utterly upset the pareconists, because it is a demonstration of a technocracy, not strictly a socialist (at least as we think of it) society. So, in all honesty, I can't understand what Star Trek would offer pareconists anyway. Besides, why in the world would a capitalist institution show (and charge money for) a movie which teaches its viewers that an alternative exists?
As far as the movie's lack of social impact, while disappointing, I can forgive it. This movie concentrated on character development. There simply wasn't enough time to get into complex social issues. Its sequel will be the real litmus test.
Remember, this is a reboot of the franchise appealing to new fans. It's not a movie targeting establish fans at all. The crew of the Enterprise cannot solve complex social issues in a completely new time-line without first having come together to develop their unique dynamic to begin with. Like *SO* many others, you looked WAY too far into the movie using antiquated expectations, and completely missed its point.
A single data point is insufficient to draw conclusions from. Let's await its sequel or the next before we draw any conclusions.
Though, in a fit of unsolicited plugging, folks might take a gander at http://www.startreknewvoyages.com if you're looking for classic Star Trek interpretations.
Reply this comment
Re:
By George, Justin at May 14, 2009 20:26 PM
I've seen the new Star Trek and loved every minute of it. Nobody has a right to complain about the movie unless they've seen it with their own eyes.
I’ve seen the film, hence the review. If you’re referring to John’s comments below, I don’t think he specifically critiqued it.
That being said, Gene Roddenberry was a technocrat (of Technocracy fame, not the same kind of "technocrat" most political folk talk about), so his UFP and Starfleet organizations both were technocratic in nature. Federation credits, although never formally explained, apparently was restricted exclusively to labor between men and women; all other aspects of society were run off of energy accounting. This is why, despite the existance of Federation Credits, one never actually pays for goods. However, one *does* pay for services, as evidenced by the number of times Kirk tells Scotty (in the 60s TV shows) that he's "earned his pay for the week" after Scotty pulls theEnterprise
I think you’re missing the point of the post that whatever system you want to attribute to vision of the future presented in Trek, it’s the vision that counts. Its the idea that alternatives exist, that a post-capitalist world is a possibility, that's science fiction's power. Star Trek's power has always been in saying 'hey, it doesn't have to be this way, this is what we might be able to achieve'. In Trek, work seems to be determined more on personal desire than economic necessity etc. TNG’s replicators create a subtle but quite revolutionary notion that material goods and their production are no longer one of the driving forces of society. Knowledge, exploration and furthering the human condition are presented as major themes of all the series. Does this not represent some of the major motivations for why we seek a different and better world? It’s the absence of this type of vision in the new film that I find problematic.
The movie, of course, won't ever get into this, because it does not conform to modern-day socio-economic practice and dogma. And, it would utterly upset the pareconists, because it is a demonstration of a technocracy, not strictly a socialist (at least as we think of it) society. So, in all honesty, I can't understand what Star Trek would offer pareconists anyway. Besides, why in the world would a capitalist institution show (and charge money for) a movie which teaches its viewers that an alternative exists?
As for interpretations of Star Trek in relation to Parecon (which I did not mention in the review) you might like to look at this article by Matt Grinder from the Vancouver Parecon Collective page- http://vanparecon.resist.ca/StarTrekEcon/index.html
My point was science fiction’s ability to be an imaginative spark for social vision, allowing people to interpret and consider what a future society might look like. For you, Trek demonstrates a ‘technocracy’, for Matt Grinder it offers the possibility for a Parecon-like economy and society. Obviously in a work of (corporate) fiction, like the new movie and to a lesser extent the older series, details of a future society will be limited. The requirements of story telling, of characters, of plot, of the limits of film length, budget, market expectations etc reduce useful explorations of future society models and vision. That said, the absence of a humanist value or ethical dilemma in the new movie prevents any consideration of the higher ideas that have regularly appeared in previous Star Treks. As a ‘reboot’, a reimagining of Star Trek, don’t you find it sad that they lacked the vision and philosophical content that formed such an integral part of Star Trek? The opportunity to recreate Star Trek offered the chance to be as bold as the original series was in addressing today’s society and problems by looking to the future. That it failed to take up such a vision or understanding of what Star Trek is/was is sad. Don’t you find that it reflects more and more on the entertainment industry and film making?
Paying for a product does not necessitate that it reflects capitalist values. We pay for many of the features on Z, or for a Chomsky book. Does that mean that Z’s content or Chomsky’s book is going to inherently reflect the system in which it is produced? Obviously the structure of an organization can severely pressure and impact the content created, like corporate media, if not protected by the content creators or the institution its created in (Z’s workplace structure) as much as possible. But that does not prevent content from containing alternative messages. The success of Michael Moore’s films, or Rage Against the Machine albums shows that if it sells then content is not always a concern. That Star Trek was a billion dollar franchise forParamount
Your point actually supports my arguments in the review. Where Star Trek originated as the vision of Gene Roddenberry of a future society that had worked through the issues that confronted the world at the time- The Cold War, race relations- the revival of the series in much more determined by profit than content. Hence the sanitization of Trek to ensure big box office returns. It was creating dwindling returns which led to the studio to seek to recreate Star Trek for broader appeal by turning to action over ideas, reducing the age of the characters, ‘sexing it up’ in the most condescending way to young movie going audiences. A good example of this was some of the promotional material that boasted ‘This isn’t your father’s Star Trek’. The campaigns focused on the action of the film, that it wasn’t the stuffy (re: thoughtful) Trek’s of the past, more fun, better effects. Profit has one out over vision with the new Star Trek film.
As far as the movie's lack of social impact, while disappointing, I can forgive it. This movie concentrated on character development. There simply wasn't enough time to get into complex social issues. Its sequel will be the real litmus test.
I always hold hope (but not much) for a sequel too. The lack of a big idea/vision was in my opinion why the character development you mention was so problematic. The plot and narrative can be whatever one desires it to be, it can be used to facilitate the characters and vice versa. What the ‘reimagining’ decided to do was rehash a revenge story plot, using it to introduce and establish the film’s characters. It’s for this reason why I think the characterization is so problematic, especially for Spock. The beauty of Spock’s character was with what wasn’t said. With the subtle ways that he showed some flicker of emotion. Creating a nuanced character. The new film obliterates that by having it all on show, letting it all hang out whether it’s some form of contemptuous logic orovert anger or a misguided love plot involving Uhura.
On a purely narrative/plot critique the film is full of holes, problematic timelines and conveniences that are from poor/lazy writing. The motivations and characterization of a planet destroying villain who waits 30 years for vengeance are thin at best. The introduction of ‘old’ Spock into the film via his meeting with Kirk, both miraculously stranded on the same planet at the same time which also happens to be the current home of Scotty is far fetched despite the science fiction genre. It pushes the internal logic created by the film that is otherwise based in a real world, not one of magic. The actual film making involved with the new movie has been reasonably critiqued by Jim Emerson at his blog- http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/05/why_the_enterprise_matters_and.htmlAdd these to my review and the film is problematic in plot, characterization, film-making and vision. All of which has been lost in the marketing hype that has accompanied the film’s release.Remember, this is a reboot of the franchise appealing to new fans. It's not a movie targeting establish fans at all. The crew of theEnterprise
This seems to be a weak argument seeking to defend the new movie for what it might be, rather than what it is. Hence my comparison to the Obama phenomenon- people like the package, enjoy the style and seem content to put up with less than great substance and courage of vision in the hope that it will come sometime down the future. Perhaps we can wait for the sequel there too- Obama’s second term?
A single data point is insufficient to draw conclusions from. Let's await its sequel or the next before we draw any conclusions.
See above
Though, in a fit of unsolicited plugging, folks might take a gander at http://www.startreknewvoyages.com if you're looking for classic Star Trek interpretations.
Will check it out, cheers
Reply this comment
Re: Re:
By Falvo ii, Samuel at May 15, 2009 00:25 AM
| I've seen the film, hence the review. If you're referring to John's comments below, I don't think he specifically critiqued it.
It was a general statement based on the number of people I've spoken to who (a) have not seen the movie, and (b) openly proclaimed that they refused to see the movie on the basis of it violating some principle of theirs. The fallacy here is that, without seeing the movie, you can never know if said principle really is violated in your own interpretation of the film. You only go based on what others say, which could well be entirely false, since those reports are already filtered and biased by those who have seen it.
In simpler language, go to the movies, watch it, and form your own conclusions.
| I think you're missing the point of the post that whatever system you want to attribute to vision of the future presented in Trek, it's the vision that counts.
Certainly, not all Star Trek episodes center around this vision. In fact, and at extreme fault of TOS and the movies alike, they NEVER actually go into detailing how the post-capitalist world works.
| In Trek, work seems to be determined more on personal desire than economic necessity etc. TNG's replicators create a subtle but quite revolutionary notion that material goods and their production are no longer one of the driving forces of society.
Speaking of this, you and your readership might be interested in products like "RepRap", which seem to be catching on in a limited way. Visit http://www.reprap.org for details. Other machines of this nature also exist. http://www.openfarmtech.org appears to be embracing this technology in a big way.
| Knowledge, exploration and furthering the human condition are presented as major themes of all the series. Does this not represent some of the major motivations for why we seek a different and better world? It's the absence of this type of vision in the new film that I find problematic.
Understood. I just disagree with you that there was enough room in the script to encompass this style of story-telling while concurrently bringing the crew together.
| As for interpretations of Star Trek in relation to Parecon (which I did not mention in the review) you might like to look at this article by Matt Grinder from the Vancouver Parecon Collective page- http://vanparecon.resist.ca/StarTrekEcon/index.html
I've already seen it, and considered it deeply. I concur that it might be relevant insofar as the people of the world are concerned, but the technical aspects of society and their heavy reliance on professions and education implies that the surrounding socio-economic system is a technocracy.
| My point was science fiction's ability to be an imaginative spark for social vision, allowing people to interpret and consider what a future society might look like. For you, Trek demonstrates a ¿technocracy', for Matt Grinder it offers the possibility for a Parecon-like economy and society.
These aren't mutually exclusive, actually. Contrary to popular belief, the concept of "rule of the skilled" doesn't necessarily rule out the use of parecon to handle non-technical issues. Who is better skilled than the people themselves to handle such issues, after all? But, I'm digressing quite far.
| As a ¿reboot', a reimagining of Star Trek, don't you find it sad that they lacked the vision and philosophical content that formed such an integral part of Star Trek?
No, I do not, because the movie shows no more of these attributes than "The Cage" or "The Menagerie" did when they aired. Like I said, a single episode is a single data-point, and does not offer sufficient knowledge on which to base the story.
| The opportunity to recreate Star Trek offered the chance to be as bold as the original series was in addressing today's society and problems by looking to the future. That it failed to take up such a vision or understanding of what Star Trek is/was is sad. Don't you find that it reflects more and more on the entertainment industry and film making?
Of course, I show concern in this area; but, how do you accomplish this goal while dealing with characters who, at the present time, haven't a clue of each other except in the most superficial ways? In other words, I'd be interested in a script idea of your own explaining how everyone came together, WHILE simultaneously advancing solutions to some social problems? Remember, Spock represents the logical side of an argument, while Bones represents the humanist side. They rarely agree, which is why the tension between them is so awesome. (And, poor Kirk has to sit in the middle of it all and apply situational ethics.)
And, then, you have to tie it to the original Star Trek timeline in order to justify the reboot to begin with. This, really, was the sole purpose of Nero and the Nerada. Vengence was a convenient cop-out, I admit (in fact, if you want a good laugh, take a look at this side-by-side comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars; http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892).
| This seems to be a weak argument seeking to defend the new movie for what it might be, rather than what it is.
Not at all.
| Hence my comparison to the Obama phenomenon- people like the package, enjoy the style and seem content to put up with less than great substance and courage of vision in the hope that it will come sometime down the future. Perhaps we can wait for the sequel there too- Obama's second term?
This is an utterly inappropriate comparison, for Obama has had numerous chances to demonstrate his intentions. In other words, we have a substantially and statistically significant number of data points on which to draw conclusions from. This isn't true with a single movie.
Reply this comment
Re: Boldly Going Backwards
By B./r./o./d./i./e, P./a./u./l at May 14, 2009 18:44 PM
Justin you read my mind!
"What makes science fiction, and Star Trek, great is its ability to hold a mirror up to our modern world while simultaneously offering a vision of the future, a future where we've overcome blind prejudices or systems of inequality. It allows for critical reflection while exploring big, bold ideas at the same time. It sparks the imagination in creative and critical ways. Due to the vision of a different society we are able to compare and contrast the vision presented before us to what the world is like today. The vision creates the critical thought.
The downfall of the new movie is that it fails to do that.
Like modern political campaigns the battle of the box office is not over substance anymore but in who can better manage style and convince that it's substance."
I don't know anything abour star trek i'm afraid, but this is exactly how I felt when I watched "The Watchmen" with a friend. For a movie that pretended to be about a story set in a better future society it did no such thing. The story was something about superheroes allowing nuclear bombs to go off so that us stupid humans could realise that we are destroying the planet. Once the bombs went off at the high point of the film, we get the conclusion that after this Earth turned into a "utopia" in which electric cars abounded and the USSR and the US learned how to get along well and be friends.
The overtones were basically that the faults of current society lied with inability to understand environmental destruction and that it took a few 'wizened and superior' superheroes to "teach us this lesson", so that we would "know better".
What pissed me off the most was the idea that humans 'learned a lesson' (which we already know, the environment is dying, etc) and suddenly liberatory social institutions appeared. no prefigurative institutions or organising or re-appearance of oppressive institutions due to previous socialisation - we just went to utopia with the flick of the switch.
it made me angry as obviously whoever wrote this has never really seriously considered what liberatory societies could look like and what it takes to get there.
I ended up getting into a heated disagreement with the friend who I saw the movie with, he was just a fan of graphic novels and probably couldn't understand why I got so worked up about something so trivial as the stroyline of a film. it wasn;t one of my finer moments and I probably came off as a bit coordinatorst.
What really is the difference between misleading sci-fi and other forms of propaganda?
Sorry for hijacking your post Justin, it's just you really struck a nerve.
Reply this comment
I don't think that I will bother
By Andrews, John at May 13, 2009 13:41 PM
Justin
Thanks for such a detailed review. I heard something very similar from freinds who saw the film last weekend. I was in two mind about this one - a young Spock doesn't sound right. On the strength of your review, I think that I'll give this one a miss.
Best wishes
John Andrews
Reply this comment
Re: I don't think that I will bother
By George, Justin at May 14, 2009 08:13 AM
Hey John,
Thanks for the comments. Probably best to save your money and rent some of the original series instead!
cheers
Reply this comment