Star Trek 11: The Obama Factor
When I was a kid, I was old enough to appreciate the original Star Trek TV series only after it hit syndication. Like most fans, I became way too familiar with each of the original series' episodes (sometimes shown twice a day), and like a lot of my friends, I was caught-up in the hoopla of its bland movie re-launch. Until this point in my Star Trek indoctrination, my emotionless devotion was more a product of habit than passion. But just a couple years later, I finally was converted, becoming a true fan after viewing Kirk & Co.'s The Wrath Of Khan about eight times. During my self-inflicted brainwashing, I even concluded that this film was much better than Star Wars (which caused many unnecessarily heated debates at parties). I geekishly gauged life as those periods between new Trek movies until the late '80s/early '90s when I became addicted to Star Trek: The Next Generation as well as its first two theatrical adventures. Unlike some of the franchise's more devout followers, I never attended conventions (let alone dressed-up for them), and I never studied the Klingon language nor felt comfortable around anyone who had. I just tuned-in weekly for the series' depiction of a future teeming with unlimited potential, where virtually anything was possible through dedication, hard work, loyalty and camaraderie--you know, the stuff our parents taught us.
Anyway, with only the best of intentions, Rick Berman and those guiding Star Trek's journey killed that future by trying to hip it up, replacing Gene Roddenberry's bright vision with a dark militarism. With each successive spin-off, Star Trek's original optimism became hidden better than any cloaking device could achieve due to its serialized, seemingly endless conflicts. As clever and talented as its caretakers were, once Patrick Stewart's and Brent Spiner's Next Generation tent folded--and we have to give this ensemble and its writers/producers major kudos for maintaining its unparalleled level of artistic integrity in sci-fi television--all things Enterprise finally succumbed to plotlines and acting chops that were no longer engaging, just time-consuming. Revealing dialog was replaced by "realistic" disagreements that sometimes screeched more obnoxiously than sibling spats. Still, in order to keep up with the mythos, millions of us watched Deep Space Nine and Voyager until the totally implausible series Enterprise came along, after which the franchise's remaining fans finally were burned-out on what was now pure soap opera with an occasional flash of brilliance. What made this more upsetting was that the powers that be always had the ability to re-Roddenberry the property and keep that once loyal fan base's interest. But Star Trek's followers mostly moved on to boundary-pushing upstarts such as Babylon 5 and Farscape--these newer entities boldly going where no one had gone before in sci-fi. By the time the magnificent Battlestar Galactica reboot kicked-in, it was game over for the Treks, including the movies that had degenerated into the coffin-sealing Nemesis debacle.
Now, after years of inactivity, Star Trek has been re-energized by Paramount and director J.J. Abrams (son of TV-movie producer Gerald Abrams), and supposedly transformed in such a way that jump starts the property by connecting it to its roots while making it relevant again. The latter was always the charm of the original TV series, its episodes rich in political statements, reactions to Cold War sentiments, and social injustices. Arriving next year, this new Star Trek movie will reintroduce the franchise's initial themes of "hope" and "unity," its mission playing into the message of "change" that Barack Obama champions (and, with any luck, will be enacting as our next president). Abrams, a reportedly unapologetic Obama supporter, is quoted in Entertainment Weekly as saying, "I think a movie that shows people of various races working together and surviving hundreds of years from now is not a bad message to put out...it was important to me that optimism be cool again." And though his name has not been uttered despite all of the blurbs we've read about this new Trek endeavor--like Zachary Quinto's shaving his eyebrows for the "Spock" role, Leonard Nimoy's appearance, and the great William Shatner "snubbed"/"not snubbed" confusion--Gene Roddenberry, most likely, would be proud of Abrams' restoration of his positive premise. In a post-9/11 world, it can be difficult not to be cynical and contemptuous of anything that even hints of "Kumbaya." Yet that's the world most of us would like to live in, evidenced in our desire for change for the better and our enthusiasm when it comes to the presidential candidates that espouse it. I'm hoping this Star Trek is all that it intends to be because I would love to visit again something that I once took for granted and missed dearly once it was gone...our amazing future.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hey Mike, trying to get in touch with you again regarding STARMAN. The email addresses I have on file are bouncing. Just tried to leave you a voice mail at your old UMG work number but the recording said it's "not a working number" anymore. Perhaps you've moved up to a plush corner office? :D Anyway, you can reach me at the same email and home phone number you've used before. Couldn't figure out how to send you a private message on this site. Kind regards and blue lights, Todd Andrews
I have always stated that there is one event in my life time that will be "defining".. What I mean by that is that, once that even happens, I can die a happy man..
That event would be real and actual "First Contact"....
Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the intelligent beings out there in the universe won't want anything to do with this puny and insignificant ball of rock until such time as we come together as a GLOBAL entity and forget our petty planet-bound squabbles and differences..
And, I have a sad and sneaky suspicion that THAT just ain't gonna happen in my lifetime..
And that really depresses me... :(
Michale.....
Nice...Star Trek I hardly new ye...thank you for summarizing the sociological history of Star Trek viewership, had no idea so many spinoffs....the death of the new B. Galatica is sad, what's next? As much as I like the darkness (stay away from the light!) will curious to see this new era of optimistic sci fi
Ha! Methinks you like the light too, Tribeca! ;) At least the new Battlestar will have run its course and we won't have to go through years of viewer fatigue though I'm going to REALLY miss it!
BSG has ran it's course!!??????
Say it ain't so!!!!
I want to find out if that was REALLY Earth that they found!!
Michale.....
CONT
This "event", of course, was the event depicted in Star Trek 8: FIRST CONTACT that introduced the Borg to the human race. The evidence that the two Spocks put forth was that, in our universe, a large lake on Alpha Centauri was named Lake Sloane by Zefram Cochrane. No doubt in honor of Lili Sloane, his partner in the warp drive program. However, in the "mirror" universe, Zefram Cochran named that body of water, Lake Riker. No doubt in honor of William Riker who helped Cochran in FIRST CONTACT.
Since we saw that, later on in the series of ENTERPRISE, there was evidence of the BORG on Earth, it stands to reason that the particular timeline of ENTERPRISE we were watching had to be the ALTERED timeline. Hence the Mirror Universe..
Of course, all of this is really akin to mental masturbation as it's all just TV and books..
But temporal mechanics, while prone to giving one nosebleeds, is also fun to play with. :D
Michale.....
CONT
As to the Enterprise/Mirror Universe theory, it fits if you accept the premise that Star Trek novels are "canon".. IE They are relevant and part of the Star Trek "Universe" This is supported by the fact that both Sulu and Uhura "received" their first names in Star Trek novels that were then used in the movies..
In the Shatner novel, SPECTRE, Spock from our universe and Spock from the mirror universe showed that, up until the early 22nd century, the two universes were identical. They postulated that some "event" caused the two universes to diverge.. One going in the peaceful, altruistic and exploration-oriented route of "our" universe and the other going into the militaristic and sadistic route of the "Mirror" universe. The two Spocks reasoned that some event at that time allowed the human race of the mirror universe to know that some evil malevolent force awaited them out amongst the cosmos.
CONT
@ragz2008
My favorite VOYAGER episode, insofar as really thought provoking, was TUVIX. Where Tuvok & Neelix fused into one person. Janeway had to make a very difficult choice. Whether to "murder" one crewperson in order to save two other crewpersons.
Morally and ethically, I think she made the wrong decision. But, for the sake of the show, it's obvious why.
CONT
@ragz2008
}}}}}
What a stinker The Final Frontier was!! But even that had more heart than the whole Enterprise series.
{{{{{
Like I mentioned above, ENTERPRISE was actually a portrayal of the "Mirror Universe". :D
Which explains why it wasn't accepted by Trekkers.. :D
Michale.....
You can knock ENTERPRISE and it is more or less deserved.
But you really have to hand it to them for how they explained the difference in the appearance of Klingons from TOS to TNG...
That was a masterful stroke of connecting the pieces...
Michale.....
Yeah, they had some great moments in all the series, the first two being what got me to be a fan, and the second and fourth movies being pretty brilliant....
We seem to be the same sort of geek, the type that cut their sci-fi teeth on star trek but refuse to brandish trek nomenclature or hang with other Trek nuts in public. I'm not sure if that makes us closet Trekkies (sorry, TREKKERS) or what. but I identify.
And I really glad that this is the new direction of ST.
I was just wondering the other day what ever happened to the future-as-utopia meme, the wide-eyed wonder of younguns, yearning to live peacefully in space habitations with hydroponic parks and travel to the stars with only the best of intentions. As usual, human greed drags our collective ideals down back into the mud with the trogdolytes. Maybe Timothy Leary's pie-eyed notions of a human race destined to thrive as space colonists will come back into vogue.
I sure hope so. This future space dweller is sick and tired of being worried and depressed about everything.
Really nicely said: "The future space dweller is sick and tired of being worried and depressed about everything" is so right on!! Glad to meet you my bruthuh!
To qoute Spoke "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few ... or the one"
Something McCain should heed.
Star Trek was born out of Kennedy's "We choose to go to the moon" speech.
Obama is often compared to Kennedy.
Another way to say "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few ... or the one"
is to say, "The Ends Justifies The Means"..
Are you sure you want to hang your hat on that sentiment?
Michale...
Please forget/ignore that comment above. I don't want to politicize what could be a very fun and enjoyable thread....
Michale.....
I don't know. I LOVED TOS, and TNG got good after about halfway through the third season (though I watched it religiously throughout the whole time!!!) but DS9 was JUST as good as those two were. The death-knell was sounded for me when Voyager came out. The people just weren't as good. I even stopped watching DS9 because Voyager was SO BAD!! The TNG movies were okay, but far from great (with the exception of First Contact, which was FABULOUS!!!)
I never watched Enterprise except for a few attempts to get into it, but I still see Scott Bakula as Sam from Quantum Leap, and never could get into it....
I will definitely see the new one, just like I have with all the rest. I mean c'mon, it can't be worse than sitting through Star Trek V: The Final Frontier!!!
What a stinker The Final Frontier was!! But even that had more heart than the whole Enterprise series. And I admit liking Deep Space Nine more than I thought I would, but it was pretty hard to see week-after-week of conflict...and the series ending, to me, never resolved! What a bummer!! ;)
Dude Deep space nine was AMAZING.
Rewatch it. The parallels between DS9 and modern america is _insane_... I mean it basically fore-told 9/11 and the American reaction to it-- in the 90s!
Rewatch it, reconsider it, don't toss it away, because it has so much to add to the dialogue!
And yes Farscape was amazing.
Okay, I'll go back for it. I could have been experiencing viewer fatigue by the middle of that series...I liked a lot of episodes, but some of that acting and the parade of rubber masks....ugh!!! Am I right?
The problem that Trekker purists had with DS9 was that it was more militaristic than the Trek they have grown accustomed to.
Which isn't to say it was bad. I enjoyed it for the most part, but Captain Sisko kinda reminds me of Horatio on CSI: Miami.. Acts in a very weird manner with a "higher" meaning implied in everything they say or do.
However, I really don't understand the characterization of Voyager in the same vein as DS9.. Voyager was more in line with TNG and TOS than DS9..
ENTERPRISE actually takes place in the "mirror universe" ("in A Mirror Darkly" notwithstanding") so it's affect in our reality is negligible... :D
Michale.....
Oooooh, I like the mirror universe theory, nice!! True, the militarism got to me on DS9, and I was an older viewer as you suggested. But even Voyager had this depressing vibe, especially pre-Seven! I think it finally found its legs the last two and a half years, but by then, it lost my commitment. There were some really great scripts along the way, but that acting! Woof! Guess I was spoiled by six of the seven years of Next Generation...
May Obama go where no (African-American) man has gone before - straight into the Oval Office, as Prez.
I second that emotion!!
I cannot begin to tell you what a thrill it was to read a Star Trek oriented post here on HuffPo.. As some people here can tell you, my posts are replete with Trek analogies. As I just posted over at Chris Weigant's (another HuffPo aluminary) Blog, "there is nothing worth learning that you can't learn from Star Trek!"
Clearly the "Federation" is an ideal that this country should aspire to.
Sadly, such idealism doesn't usually find a perch amongst all the bigotry that we see in today's political climate.
Thank you for a great post. I join you in hoping to see future generations enthralled enough by the world of Star Trek to want to make it a reality.
Michale.....
Glad to accommodate, Michale32086! Heck, we've almost got a president that represents a lot of the original series' and Next Generations' values, so it absolutely becomes a valid topic of conversation!! ;)
"Sadly, such idealism doesn't usually find a perch amongst all the bigotry that we see in today's political climate."
Oh my god, stop the presses, Michale and I are agreeing on something again!!!
Scary, ain't it? :D
Michale......
You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in