A look at Star Trek

A few days ago I watched "Star Trek" alone on my laptop and wasn't very impressed with it. Then I watched it at home with my wife, on a giant (can 37" be considered giant any more?) screen and my home theater audio system. I enjoyed it so much more, and my wife simply loved it, expressing a great desire for more. So as I've written both here and on my Twitter account, the direction and execution of this movie was good enough to look swell in cinemas, to be fun and exciting for a general movie goer. But then, my wife said that she liked the movie so much - she's going to give the TV show a try, out of curiosity. I reminded her that she watched it before and didn't like it at all. She answered that she doesn't remember it this way, and that what she remembers wasn't that fun. And then it stroke me that she watched "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Deep Space Nine", but not the original Star Trek show of the 60s. And also, that she was absolutely right. The consecutive shows in the Star Trek franchise were fundamentally different from the original, and those were actually the shows we grew on, and by which we judge the film. Hence all the whining about the stupidity of the plot and total lack of real science in it.

Yes, the later shows were not "fun" for a general audience. The trekkies are always presented as geeks and nerds, all obsessed with the original series, but the fact of the matter is, that the later shows were actually much more geek-friendly and "scientific" then any episode of the original. Their target audience was much different. Let me explain what I mean.

The original Star Trek series was made in a time, when most people weren't very versed in scientific facts, especially where the outer space is considered, as it was only the beginning of the space age, so to speak, and most scientific information wasn't yet released and available for public knowledge. As such, most so-called sci-fi shows, were very unscientific, concentrating instead on adventure and action with some moral lessons. That's why most of those shows didn't age very well and today look completely ridiculous. And not for the effects alone. Take a look at the characters and the way they are presented in these shows. We usually get a standard pretty, groomed 60s template masculine heroes, basic supermen whose whole statue and constitution rick of self-confidence and bravery. They are ready to shoot lasers at the alien menace, save the screaming girl in danger and perhaps even save humanity in the process as a bonus. Something to boast about later on, while "romancing the females" 60s style. The world needed perfect heroes back then, and those demands were answered in the sci-fi media.

Check out Star Trek now. We have Captain Kirk, young, pretty in, what then passed for, excellent physical shape, whose heroic bravado somehow always saves the day, inspite of the seemingly logical impossibility of the situation. In fact, that's why Mr. Spock was put there. To be a constant contrast to that heroic, stupidly brave behavior. Spock, in a way, represent a scientist who is rarely the hero, but who always helps the hero to achieve his stance. That's because he lacks "emotion", that is not fitting to the social template for a heroic character of the time. He thinks before he acts, and he "boringly" analyses everything instead of rushing into action. That's why he's not the captain, and Kirk is. The leader is not the smartest of the bunch, but the bravest and the most compulsive one. The conflicts in the show were rarely, if at all, resolved with logic and science, relying more on cunning and intellectual inferiority of the enemy. Or just simple brute force. And always, Spock, the scientist, learned how defective his reliance on logic and science was, compared to the raw human compulsiveness of emotions. Of course, that's total bullshit. But back then, that was the sci-fi romanticism of the era.

And now look at the newer shows. We got Captain Picard, an aged veteran, extremely authoritative with infinite wisdom and morality, never rushing into things alone, rounding a team behind him, consulting his officers and actually acting on their advise. This is not an era of a lone hero. This is a "space democracy" in action. Where Kirk always tried to usurp the laws and regulations of The Federation, being the cocky outlaw heroic figure of his time, Picard respects the chain of command trying to work within the confinements of The Federation's directives. A different kind of heroic figure. Now the show does rely on science and diplomacy, in fact so much, as the show completely alienated the general audience. I remember complaints of general folks who tried to watch it either with me, or by themselves, that it was too talkative and dramatic. That there wasn't enough action in it. Look at the original show - it's mostly action, and it was considered too slow and talkative at its time. And then we have the next show - "Star Trek:Deep Space Nine" that forfeited science and action almost completely in favor of diplomatic and moral discussions, which made it even less successful on TV. Then came "Star Trek:Voyager" which tried to combine both previous shows and failed miserably, basically beating a dying horse. "Enterprise" tried to revive the almost dead interest of the public in the franchise, by introducing some of the elements of the original series, but mostly repeated it to the letter - the pretty cast, the heroic flawless captain, even a female version of Spock. It didn't work. The fans expected a smarter show in vain of the "Next Generation" at least, and the general audience just didn't care anymore. "Enterprise" is considered the last nail in the coffin of the franchise as it was.

The feature films didn't help matter neither. While the films based on the original provided some excitement and tried to expand the adventures and the action element of the TV show, the newer films couldn't achieve it within the modern established universe, with the exception of "First Contact" that was passable at best, mostly because it defied the restrictions of the franchise cannon.

Which is why this film came to be. The owners of the franchise understood that they can no longer milk any money from it, in its current state, especially when new franchises like Stargate, Firefly and Battlestar Galactica continuing to gain audience, basically stealing Star Trek fans from them. The logical conclusion was to go back to the roots and figure what went wrong and what needs to be fixed. That's what the new film does. It takes the original ideas and elements and gives it a modern slick makeover. My guess that the makers simply addressed the complaints and the issues people were having with the franchise throughout its run. Too much discussion and meaningless scientific technobubble? Gone! Moral questions debated ad nausium? Gone! Complicated plots connected and based on the now huge series' cannon and characterizations that relay on previous viewing of the entire franchise? Gone! Let's strip the show it its basics, but not in the old-fashion outdated way the "Enterprise" did. Let's do it modern, fast-food quick taste-like, with supercilious characters and fast paced action a la "Star Wars" and "Starship Troopers". Look how well it worked for them!

And there you have it. The new movie is the closest thing to the original show we ever going to get, without being anachronistic. All the good old elements are in place and they work, just like they worked before. Of course, we ,those born in the 80s and later, who grew on the more somber, filled with serious pathos, pseudo-scientific Star Trek shows, geeks have hard time accepting this movie for what it is. An eye candy for the general folk who have no interest and knowledge in science. Who just want to be entertained by epic space adventures on a grand scale, with heroic action that defies logic and reason. They want Kirk! Yes, we're back to the age of blissful ignorance and primitive barbaric emotionalism (did we ever really left it?). History repeats itself. Prehaps, again, we will grow up and mature to Picard and Sisko. And regress back again. Probably...