Skip to main content

The New Star Trek and the Question Science Fiction versus Fantasy








Star Trek Into Darkness seems well on its way to box office success. I'm not surprise. Since J.J. Abrams took over the franchise reigns, he and his collaborators (Damon Lindelof,  Roberto Orci and Alex Klurtzman) have deftly managed to stop the franchise's decline.

cover Of course, as is the way of modern media, a comic book series continuing the movie universe continuity has been a big success.   Like many film and tv series, Star Trek has used an ongoing comic to "continue the story" for diehard fans.  Arguably more engaging than other efforts, the producers of the film are using the comic book series to retell classic stories.  Indeed, any fan of the comic series already read "Where No Man Has Gone Before," the Gary Mitchell centric storyline that was focus of speculation as the inspiration for Star Trek Into Darkness.  The producers are using the comic book to keep interest high among diehard fans, rewarding them with insight to the new trek universe.  At the same time they are providing a steady stream of new material for fans of the film who might want more at a fraction of the costs associated with a television show.  They are making use of comics to help the overall franchise.

Still, as enjoyable as this reboot has been, I'm worry about the new Star Trek.  A shocking statement, but one rooted in the cultural values attached to Star Trek as a tool to inspire.   It is a hard argument to make given the financial success of the reboot.  If not for Abrams' effort, it is unclear new Star Trek would be on any screen.  Moreover, Abrams has made Star Trek accessible for those legion of fans that grew us fixated on Star Wars. At some level, that point explains my concerns.

While the original Star Trek series might have been pitched as Wagon Train in space, that program also provided a forum for a cadre of well respected science fiction writers to bring great stories to television.

LIFE March 21, 1969





The results were compelling speculative fiction as much as adventure in the first two season. By the third season sliding rating and budget cuts undermined the show. Regardless, the original series inspired a devoted following based on complex morality and science fiction adventures.  The original Star Trek was science fiction with science in the forefront.The contemporary reboot lacks the same engagement with science.

Neil Degrasse Tyson recently explained why this point made classic Star Trek better than Star Wars. Star Wars was never about science, it is more about fantasy.  As much as I like Star Wars (and I do), I understand his point completely.  The difference between the world of Star Trek and the world of Star Wars comes downs to what you can do to achieve the adventures in the stories.  Star Trek used science and reason as the paramount tool to push human being forward. Star Wars is about faith or belief.  In classic Star Trek stories, solutions involved technical knowledge and moral judgements. In Star Wars you need to believe (in the force) or something.  In Star Wars a war machine like the Imperial Empire can get beaten by Ewoks. We accept that, because it is a science fantasy story. In Star Trek, the Ewoks would be in danger and will probably be saved, but you would get a serious conversation that would be the equivalent of don't end up like Napoleon Chagnon and let's be mindful of the problem of cultural imperialism while we "saving" these people.

The new Star Trek films are full of action, but they lack that commentary on science and culture central to classic Star Trek. The fact the engine room of the new Enterprise looks like an engine room hammers that idea home. You are not require to wonder how the ship does anything. How long does it take to get from Earth to Kronos? In classic Star Trek it takes a long time. In the new Star Trek...well who cares. There is little in the way of technical engagement. There is no question about applying science within the confines of moral framework to find a solution.  No, the new Star Trek is about personality.  As a result, I wonder what young kids watching these movies are going to come away dreaming about. I watched a lot of science fiction as a kid, it warped me (I'm hoping in a good way).  Are kids watching the new Star Trek going to think about how they might make a tricorder or communicator?  Are they going to dream of being explorers?  Is science going to be cool?


 File:ST TOS Cast.jpg


In many ways, the world that Star Trek suggested in 1966 was so fantastic it boggled the mind.  An African-American woman, a Russian national, and a Japanese-American working in the same space as white men was so hard to believe the show has to be labeled science fiction.  Yet, that fantasy was wrapped in a narrative of societal evolution and sociopolitical advancement.  More than anything, those humanist assertions are what gives Star Trek its cultural weight.

Let hope the new franchise can recapture the narrative of a future worth striving towards while they give us all that action.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why blame comics for societal failure?

Why blame comics for societal failure? Society blamed comics for the societal failures because it was a fairly new industry, and as things seemed to go “wrong” they figured it must be comic books. When a child grew up during the war, his father was probably killing people and the military and his mother was probably making things in factories to help kill the opposition. The only things kids had to “babysit” them was comic books, and they read many different kinds. So when kids starting acting differently in this new generation the figured it must be the comic books. Society didn’t want to believe it may have been the internal and external scars war causes on the soldiers and their families. Also the fact that young unattended children are reading these comics may not be able to differentiate between fantasy and reality. When society fails it always needs a scapegoat then it was comic books next it was rock and roll. Society naturally resist change.
2 comments
Read more

The 1950s are often portrayed as a period of social cohesion. Why is this misleading?

When we think of the 1950's, most people think of similar things such as "Leave it to Beaver", very conservative and cliched pop music, and high patriotism. Our view of that time is one of social conformity to conservative values, with a traditional nuclear family where the father worked and the mother stayed home, where a majority of people attended church, where crime was relatively low, where a majority of American citizens were extremely patriotic, and where entertainment media emphasized these same conservative values and were subjected to censorship if they did not conform. This is misleading because while these things were all true to a certain extent, the world was obviously not perfect and not everyone was conforming or upholding traditional values, even if it seemed like they were. The 1950's were actually a very tumultuous time period, with the end of World War II leaving Europe war torn and in debt, the outbreak of the Korean War and the clashes of opinion...
1 comment
Read more

Were comics at the forefront of social transformation or lagging behind in the 1960’s?

Throughout the 60’s, comics were at the forefront of social transformation. Possibly the best example of this is through comics reflection of the public’s view of the Vietnam War. At the beginning of the war a majority of Americans fully supported the cause. The idea that communism, the most evil idea conceived, could spread first through South-East Asia and eventually to the US lead Americans to accept the need to occupy Vietnam. However as the war progressed it became more obvious that it was less to defend democracy and actually just a proxy war against Russia. As support for the war diminished, comics greatly altered their position on the war to question the causes of the war, and whether the US should actually be there. The comic Iron Man accurately represented this shift in support as he stopped dealing arms, and took a moral stand against their use. As well as Vietnam War culture, comics also accurately portrayed youth culture in the US throughout the 60’s. Comics suc...
Post a Comment
Read more