Saturday evening, burned out and brain-dead after two weeks of grading papers, I plopped down in the living room to take advantage of my weekend by watching the first two Star Trek films. It had been, probably, fifteen years since I watched the 1979 Star Trek, and it was every bit as strange as I recalled—even more so at times. But behind that weirdness was a decision to strive for a particular type of science-fiction. Of course it’s weird: there are weird things out there in the universe, the movie says, and can we do anything other than marvel at them? Gene Roddenberry’s future might be one without religion, God, or money—but it is one that hasn’t lost its sense of wonder.
The trailer for the upcoming Star Trek: Into Darkness shows some wonderful-looking shots—the coloring, one might say, is almost wonderful. The new movie, like many Star Trek films before it, takes some kind of imminent threat to the Earth as its plot-line. But where the renegade space probes in I and IV are also invitations to wonder or marvel at something about the universe—even its weirdness, its potential destructiveness—I don’t see a universe that one can wonder at in this (brief) clip: only one that is dark and fearful.
Granted: the Star Trek television shows were sci-fi procedurals and the movies space action flicks. Even the darkest, however, take up this question of wonder. First Contact is an attempt to preserve humanity’s next big leap into space. The crewmembers are suddenly living through the historical events that, to varying degrees, inspired them to go into space. And, at its heart, there’s the question of humanity’s future: some kind of semi-robotic hive mind, or an idealized version of the fallible being capable, even within the mistakes, of wondering and marveling.
The Wrath of Khan, at its end, moves away from the questions of revenge (and even aging) that have driven it and shows the characters standing in awe of the creation of life even in the face of death. Earlier in the movie, Dr. McCoy, that wonderful Percy-ite space traveler, watches a report on a device to create life from lifelessness in a matter of minutes, gasping in horror. The professionalization, the technologizing, the reduction to a series of equations—of Genesis? “The old Earth myth,” he complains bitterly, “said the world was created in six days. Well, move over God—we’ll do it for you in six minutes!” He doesn’t believe the Biblical story—there are no believers left in the Star Trek universe—but it’s clear he’d prefer this account to humanity claiming to have understood life’s origins entirely.
I don’t mean this simply as a complaint that J.J. Abrams has moved the franchise that filled my childhood rather too much away from what I most fondly remember. I see this, in fact, happening in the “darkening” of our re-booted franchises and pop culture more generally. Maybe we’re less optimistic than we were in the late 1960s (though Star Trek was born during Vietnam and the first movie was released late in Carter’s presidency); maybe we’re a society of “realists” now—but I fear that what we mean by that term is a preference for cynicism and pessimism, a failure or inability to wonder at the strange, mysterious, marvelous fact of life, the universe—and, well, everything.
March 5th, 2013 | 11:26 pm
If you want another example, and don’t mind bad movies, watch the remade “Lost in Space.” The original was a campy, fun series; the movie was darker to the point of missing the charms of the series completely.
I think SF in general has fallen prey to this. There always was a transgressive side to the purer one, an Ellison to the Asimov, but I think the transgressive side won. Some of the worlds are dark indeed.
March 6th, 2013 | 6:55 am
I think it’s just a superficial difference. Moviegoers these days prefer fictitious worlds more closely matched to the world they actually live in.
But we have certainly changed as a culture. Today McCoy would be whooping with glee as he shouted for God to shove off. Maybe that’s the reason for the new, darker reboots. When man can do everything, what’s left to wonder at?
March 6th, 2013 | 8:50 am
Our culture seems to lack hope, which is a departure from Roddenberry’s sunny vision. He was not a man of faith, but he seemed to believe in the sacredness of life. He and his successors produced stories that assumed the equality and value of all.
I thought that throughout its run, ST had a lot of pro-life story lines. These usually involved the gestation of potentially troublesome offspring (disabled child, Borg fetus, unplanned and unapproved android, etc.). Abortion is considered and rejected, the child is loved and valued. One episode even gave the anti-contraception side a respectful hearing. The elderly, handicapped, sick and strange are treated respectfully.
Maybe it was wishful thinking on my part. I understand that “Dr. Seuss” was upset to learn of pro-lifers’ appreciation of “a person’s a person no matter how small”.
It will be a loss if ST becomes dystopian and bleak.
March 6th, 2013 | 9:27 am
“The social context of the UK is more open to the future, the old pessimism has been scrubbed and there’s a view that you can engage with the future again. There is quite a lot of optimism in British science fiction, much less of the sackcloth and ashes and ‘we’re all going to die’ attitude that it used to have, whereas the Americans have become more entrenched and fearful since 2001.” – Charles Stross, British science fiction author
March 6th, 2013 | 10:56 am
Science fiction is not about the future it is about the past. It is a way of reviving the mythic, dramatic, or heroic ideas of the past without necessitating the contemplation of it’s hardships.
Original Series was about a Victorian Captain in Space going about enforcing the Federation’s Burden. DS9 was about nationalism, tribalism, honor, and even religion. And about intrigue, politics, and warfare. The favorite alien race in Star Trek isn’t the enlightened Vulcans. It is the Klingons.
That has always been the case. The favorite science fiction was about themes like empire-building, conflict, adventure, and heroics. Think Dune, or Anderson’s Technic Empire. Technology and The Future are the dressing. The meat is from the past.
March 6th, 2013 | 1:05 pm
jason taylor –
Science fiction on television, perhaps. Like most other genres on television.
There’s certainly other forms of science fiction, though.
March 6th, 2013 | 3:34 pm
Heh, read his novels Ray. If la-la Singularity worship is hope, I’d hate to see what doom is. Or better, read Ian Banks and his Culture books. Modern SF is dark all around, to the point where it seems people flee the serious books for fantasy or SF tie ins like Halo.
March 6th, 2013 | 7:26 pm
If we compare the original ST to the reboot, we note the same thing as in the new Sherlock Holmes movies vs. the old, or the new Pelham 1-2-3 to the old, etc. Villians that were once calculating become madmen; detectives that were once ratiotinating become action heros. Logical Vulcans become routinely emotional. It’s less light vs. dark than it is mind vs. will, with the will now triumphant.
March 7th, 2013 | 11:08 am
Dave Dutcher – I have read his novels. And his short stories. Just because he doesn’t write utopian fiction does not imply no one does. And his fiction isn’t quite as hopeless as you claim, either. The simple idea that humans could survive a Singularity isn’t exactly universal, y’know.
It’s not hard to find works even you’d have to concede are hopeful. Take Lois Bujold, Eric Flint, etc.
(Note, BTW, that either you’re wrong, or jason taylor is wrong. You can’t both be right.)
March 7th, 2013 | 11:51 am
The emphasis of the Star Trek reboot is on adventure and to a lesser extent, character. Very little Science in its Fiction. However, the 9-minute preview of Star Trek Into Darkness (no spoilers ahead) did reveal the Enterprise crew boldly doing more of what the original crew’s 5-year mission was supposed to do. At least at the start of the movie, the Enterprise is engaged in exploration. The action is still amped up, of course, but the spirit of the original series was certainly on display.
March 7th, 2013 | 3:10 pm
Steve — nine minute preview! Didn’t know about it. You’ve highlighted the risk I knew I was taking in basing a commentary on a yet-to-be-released film on a two-minute trailer. Hopefully you’re right about what the movie will look like.
March 7th, 2013 | 10:37 pm
Sigh… now I feel like a heretic for saying that I think the 2009 “Star Trek” reboot was by far the best of the “Star Trek” movies. I mean, the conventional wisdom was that the odd numbered “Star Trek” movies were all worthless, but the even numbered ones were good… unfortunately, the even numbered ones
Spock was a much more interesting character in the reboot than he ever was on TV, and Zachary Quinto was a much better Spock than Leonard Nimoy.
Indeed, the only character who WASN’T better written and better acted in the reboot was Scotty. Normally, I love Simon Pegg, but he was awful in a badly written part.
March 8th, 2013 | 8:48 am
If we compare the original ST to the reboot, we note the same thing as in the new Sherlock Holmes movies vs. the old, or the new Pelham 1-2-3 to the old, etc. Villians that were once calculating become madmen; detectives that were once ratiotinating become action heros.
I think the villian in Homes was pretty calculating. I esp. liked the touch of politeness he had, putting a blanket around Holmes’s shoulders as they played a game of chess on a cold night. The problem IMO is swear words saved TV but computers ruined film. Ever since the new Star Wars movies, I’ve noticed that filmes have a habit of trying to stuff every minute with more action, more effects. TV, though has become so much better.
Consider the Walking Dead which features not only one of the most fascinating villians (the Governor, who you can really see is the type of person who could be both your favorite next door neighbor and totally evil given the proper circumstances) but probably the most pressing case for an abortion ever (a pregnancy from adultery by the wife of the lead character in a zombie ridden world). And importantly the decision not to have one had real consquences for everyone around…something Star Trek often avoided with their ‘prolife’ storylines.
Or consider the Game of Thrones series almost all of whose villians have a lot of humanity to them (except the boy King, a 14 yr old twerp who you really want to see killed). I could name a dozen other great series….House, for example, was a much smarter take on Sherlock Holmes than the latest film version.
What made this possible IMO was the ability of TV to loosen the strings on censorship of swearing and sex and its ability to take its time to build a story the way a novel is free to spend hundreds of pages developing characters and plot.
March 8th, 2013 | 11:55 am
Flint is largely about the past too, as is Bujold. They are both about progressing out of the past but they need it as a setting.
It is true there are other forms and so I exagerrated. But the fact is that it is a fascinating a paradox that science fiction is so often futuristic in technology but premodern in ethos.
March 8th, 2013 | 2:11 pm
House, for example, was a much smarter take on Sherlock Holmes than the latest film version
At first. Then it went downhill as they slid away from the rational into the irrational/emotional.
The same can be said of Numb3rs, another series that started in the intellect and wound up in the will, though the slide was not quite so bad as for House.
Game of Thrones, a.k.a. “Don’t Get Too Attached”, is oddly realistic in that fashion. You always see the reason why the baddies do what they do and you can understand without necessarily approving. Even when the goodies do things, they often act on incomplete of false information, like when Catelyn seized Tyrion and took him to the Eyre, thus starting the war. Joffrey seems to be the bull goose loser on this score. He’s a sadistic little twerp. So is the Mountain, except he’s not little.
But in the Game of Spock and Bones, Bones always wins in modern culture.
March 8th, 2013 | 2:58 pm
At first. Then it went downhill as they slid away from the rational into the irrational/emotional.
Well here’s the Superman problem. At some point it’s the same thing over and over again…huge problem till the end of the story where House outsmarts everyone. You could time most episodes, whatever disease they were talking about 5 minutes before the hour was up was what the patient had! But they could only go so far with it, I’m not even sure Sherlock Holmes himself could go on forever.
While both films were ok, they were too much enamored with the ability to be fast paced with explosive fighting and stylistic effects. They missed the real human angle of Holmes which is a man who is able to notice everything and because of that is incapable of normal human relations but is a fantastic detective.
You always see the reason why the baddies do what they do and you can understand without necessarily approving
I’m thinking more here of the Queen. She is sadistic and cruel but also quite human. I’m thinking here of the scene where she and her husband chat about the fact that their marriage is a loveless fraud, yet they still have a measure of respect for each other. Likewise when she warns Ned’s daughter not to trust or love anyone but her own children, you see why she is the way she is. But you also see why her son is such a sadistic little thug.
But compare this all to what they did to Star Wars. while the newer films do have merit they are nowhere near the complexity of these stories that TV offers us these days. Even The Lord of the Rings movies only manage be up to par with the best TV has to offer.
March 11th, 2013 | 1:19 pm
Not surprising, Boonton, considering that TV has more time to play around with. It was only somewhat recently that TV realized that they could produce actual speculative fiction epics rather then collections of one-offs like original trek. B5 and DS9 are both better then wars and original trek. Not only was there more time and technology to play with it was used better. DS9′s Klingons, paradoxically mythic warrior-poets and members of a corrupt and brutal society are better then the one-dimensional Klingons of first trek. DS9′s imperfect Federation is also better. And that is just a start.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact