It’s Friday, and it’s looking like my workload today is going to be pretty light as run up to the long weekend, so you know what that means… I’m in the mood for some time-killing netcrap! In keeping with the theme that’s most preoccupied my mind (and this blog) for the last couple of weeks, I’ve put together a special all-Star Trek netcrap edition, starting with this clever little clip that points out the similarities between J.J. Abrams’ Trek movie and another well-known and much loved sci-fi flick… and I don’t mean the one that featured Ricardo Montalban:
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/4026025/deja-view-my-favorite-movie-star-trek-vs-star-wars
I found that one over at one of my regular political reads, oddly enough.
Incidentally (and continuing the Star Wars/Star Trek connection), I’ve learned that everyone’s favorite astromech droid R2-D2 supposedly appears somewhere in the new Trek movie. Seems J.J. Abrams is an SW fan. Paramount has decided to capitalize on this friendly nod to the eternal Wars/Trek rivalry by offering a prize to whoever finds him and gets their name drawn in a sweepstakes. Details here.
Moving on, some clever guy out there decided to do something more than bitch about that troublesome lens-flare issue. He made a video called “I made old star trek look like new star trek!”
Here are the top ten things you never hear on Star Trek, brilliantly read by Leonard Nimoy himself:
This observation just hurts:
Yeah, thanks. Thanks a lot. Damn kids.
And now, on a slightly more serious note, ubergeek (and former Star Trek actor, in case you didn’t know) Wil Wheaton had some interesting comments about the new flick. He liked the movie more than I did and he’s more disparaging of the Star Wars prequels and Indy IV than I am, but he certainly shares the apprehension any fan feels when something we love is about to be revisited, the dread that it’s going to be mishandled and cheapened, and the awful, crushing sensation of a small part of us dying because some suit somewhere did not get it. Wil’s always worth a read, even when I don’t quite agree with him.
And finally, if you’ve followed the development of Trek 2.0 at all, you no doubt remember the time when it seemed like every other day brought news about William Shatner’s involvement in the movie, i.e., was he going to appear in it or not? Well, here is an interview with the screenwriters that finally clears up just exactly what was discussed and why it didn’t happen. Personally, I think the idea they had to get around the fact that Shatner’s Kirk was officially dead four movies ago would’ve worked pretty well. But then I also thought they should’ve had him read the famous voiceover at the end, the “Space… the final frontier” speech, instead of recycling Nimoy’s Wrath of Kahn recording of it for the umpteenth time…
Don’t know nuthin’ about Star Trek (seriously, I’ve seen like 2/3 of an episode and the first film, which I understand everyone hates). But I enjoy hearing you rant.
You know, I actually think Star Trek: The Motion Picture (I assume that’s what you mean by “first film”) is underrated, especially now that the “finished edition” is out on DVD. But I’m in a minority on that point.
I could make some recommendations for you, if you were really interested… 🙂
Yeah, that’s the movie I was thinking of. I don’t have anything against Star Trek (not having seen enough to comment on, really), but it just never grabbed me the way Star Wars did.
Of course, I am proud of having freaked out Leonard Nimoy by asking his autograph because I admired his work on “In Search of . . .”
Ah, yes, your infamous Nimoy story. I remember it well. I actually relayed it to one of my Trekkie friends recently. Got a pretty good laugh, for the record… 🙂
Your experience of Star Wars vs. Star Trek seems quite common, Robert, based on the anecdotal evidence provided by my coworkers over the past couple weeks. My own theory is that the entire Trek franchise over the years has come to be seen as something of an insider’s club that doesn’t welcome the uninitiated. The, ahem, nerdier elements of the fanbase don’t help either. Star Wars fans aren’t nearly as stigmatized as Trekkies (even though there’s often a lot of crossover between the two groups) and I suspect many people figure Trek must be really weird because of the types of losers it often attracts. The bottom line is that mainstream audiences (i.e., non sci-fi fans) don’t think of Trek as something they can enjoy, or even understand in some cases; it’s a niche thing for people who are “into that stuff.” And quite honestly, there are a lot of extreme Trekkies who like it that way. They see it as a badge of distinction that they’re into something “normal people” don’t get, and they tend to look down their noses at more populist fare like Star Wars. (I find that attitude utterly ridiculous, myself, but it’s not at all uncommon in SF circles to encounter folks who are unremittingly defensive and snobby about whatever they’re personally into. Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons is a dead-on accurate representation, believe me.)
As for why this franchise, and especially the original 1960s series, commands such loyalty and affection from me… I’m not sure I can fully explain it. I started watching the show with my mom when I was very, very young… I truthfully cannot remember a time before I’d seen Star Trek…. and the stories and the show’s ideals are so deeply ingrained in me that I simply can’t imagine not being a fan. It’s a huge part of my identity (as is Star Wars, as you well know).
But the appeal for me isn’t merely nostalgia. I still find meaning in the familiar old stories, even after all these years and repeat viewings. The characters are very much alive in my imagination. And viewing the franchise as a whole, I simply take pleasure in knowing my way around a big fictional universe. I imagine it’s much like your relationship with Lord of the Rings, actually…
You speak of “knowing my way around a big fictional universe.” That’s one of the ways the great stories grab you. Campbell speaks of the four functions of myth: evoking wonder at the mystery of the universe, describing a cosmology that manifests that mystery, providing a corresponding social order, and guiding the individual through the stages of life. Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are successful as modern myths because they function on these levels. I’m sure you could describe Star Trek in the same way. That’s why people get so absorbed in them.
That’s also why I reject the popular stigmatization of “Trekkies” and “Lord of the Rings nerds.” It’s not that people like Comic Book Guy don’t exist (and they are a bit pathetic sometimes); it’s that their devotion is fundamentally the same as any culture’s devotion to its central myths. The Bollingen edition of The Hero with a Thousand Faces is famous for having a picture of Luke Skywalker side-by-side with images of Mesopotamian, Polynesian, Egyptian, and other folk heroes. You could imagine a similar collage that puts Trekkies and LOTR nerds next to pictures of ancient tribal rituals or the Roman Catholic mass. It’s not just the intensity of devotion that’s similar; the myths are functioning in the same ways. And just as there are devoted Christians who aren’t strict church-goers, you don’t have to wear pointy ears at a Star Trek convention to be a sincere devotee of the myth.
-End of Rant-