A Star Trek for the Obama Era
If you've grown weary and cynical about Hollywood's non-stop attempts to remake anything -- and remake it poorly -- then you're in for a rare treat with Star Trek, which beams into theaters Friday.
Please check out my feature cartoon in this week's Village Voice, which reviews the film and ponders its odd man out, William Shatner.
But in addition to being great entertainment, J.J. Abrams's Star Trek also taps the zeitgeist of the moment and will likely, and fittingly, become the first major blockbuster of the Obama era.
The original Trek arrived amidst civil rights milestones, a mistake of a war overseas, and sweeping progressive legislation from the White House. Sound familiar?
In 1966, Star Trek reflected a yearning to make the world (i.e. universe) better and find a way for people to live together peacefully. The crew of the Enterprise worked for the collective good.
Now in the post-Bush world (what a continuing joy it is to type those words), America's focus has again returned to facing our problems pragmatically instead of ignoring them. The return of Star Trek reflects the return to valuing science, the seeking of progress, the rebuilding of a Great Society.
Will right-wingers label it "Socialist Trek"?
Consider that Al Gore, the original Spock of politics, is now a prize-winning hero. And a quick google search for "Obama Spock" confirms how our president's cool logic in assessing the state of the nation can be seen as virtually Vulcan. There's even an Obama-As-Spock action figure.
And while the new Trek is a film with plenty of battle scenes, it's worth noting that it's clearly the bad guys who do the torturing, and that, after committing atrocities with weapons of mass destruction, the Romulans are at least given an honest chance to surrender instead of simply being slaughtered in retaliation.
Of course, the great thing about art is that people interpret it differently. In the course of working on my project for the Voice, I came to find that many conservatives find their values confirmed in the original Star Trek series. Will they do the same with the film, perhaps seeing Spock's seeming emotional yearning for revenge as a call for "staying the 'til the job is done" in Iraq?
Maybe. But one thing's for sure: as J. J. Abrams told TV Guide magazine, "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 right now." He adds that, "It was important to me that optimism be cool again."
Indeed, it's the perfect message for the moment we're in.
---
Here's my cover for the Village Voice:
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
"the return to valuing science"
Umm, by building the Enterprise on the ground, instead of in orbit? How, exactly, did they heft such a fragile beast into space without destroying it?
The quick cuts and lens flares and action, action, action seem tailor-made for a generation afflicted by ADD. Plus, the treatment of the show's history as a smorgasbord that can be picked apart however you like it shows a disdain for what the show is and what it's about, rearranged in a ridiculous manner just to promote the few elements that have entered global popular culture.
The original show was about thought and philosophy, but this...is not.
I thought Karl Urban as Bones was the best portrayal. He got Bones' mannerisms, voice, and personality down perfectly. I look forward to a sequel! Much better than the Wolverine movie.
People have said that Obama thinks like Spock.
But I think that Obama talks like Kirk.
"I'll.....................takeacheeseburger............................mediumwell.................................spicymustard."
Pleased to say I was not disappointed. My wife and I loved it and I was quite pleased at the character development, the action sequences as well as the way it was filmed.
I hope Gene would be proud of an effort to extend the franchise and honor the original vision at the same time.
"The original Trek arrived amidst civil rights milestones, a mistake of a war overseas, and sweeping progressive legislation from the White House."
That's a really great point. I never thought about it that way...all around, I loved your post!
Twitter.com/2morrowknight
A Trek 4 the Age of Obama
Rebooted the tired space drama
To keep diehards intact
And yet also attract
Adults who stopped living with Mama
News Short n' Sweet by JFD8
http://twitter.com/JFD8
Star Trek and the Triumph of Liberalism
Why is it that, as media franchises go, Star Trek is larger than even James Bond or Star Wars? For instance, although Ian Fleming’s creation may have been created some thirteen years earlier, all of the Bond films add up to maybe a day or two’s worth of viewing, and to continuously watch the Star Wars films would require half that time.
Star Trek? Counting the now eleven movies, as well as the six television programs, there are some 727 episodes, about a month’s worth of continual viewing.
Perhaps Gene Roddenberry’s creation has enjoyed its longevity because of its planet-sized idealism; whereas so much other Sci Fi is about dystopia and nihilism. Negative futures are foretold in Alien: people fighting giant, nightmarish insects and ( unlike today ) huge, soulless Corporations. The Matrix: Plato’s Cave modernized into where Humans are merely static, comatose batteries. The Terminator: machines have almost wiped out Humanity. And Blade Runner? The Los Angeles of 2018 is fascinating to view, but who in their right mind would want to live there?
Star Trek, in contrast to these bleak, noir tomorrows, envisions a Liberal, Optimist Future in which the Good in Human Nature has triumphed over the Bad. Not only has our planet united and freed itself of War, Poverty and a host of other ills, but the Earth has actually combined itself with other civilizations in a stellar Federation. Liberalism on a galactic scale indeed.
"Star Trek" of Gene Roddenberry was special because it was actually (often) ABOUT something. It had ideas, idealism, and was a lot more than "good guys v. bad guys" where the good guys are smart-alecky conflicted hot shots ( "cliche alert!"). and the bad guys deserved to die.
Plus, the Romulans were pretty cool, remember?
No? Okay. Enjoy your summer fun. Just don't actually confuse it with "Star Trek".
Again, nonsense. The original Star Trek series always presented the Klingons as "bad guys" and it was only in later Trek incarnations, specifically Next Generation and Deep Space Nine that they became a deeper more complex race. This new movie is certainly "Star Trek" and no amount of fussy hardcore fanatics will change that.
I'm interested in seeing this reboot. I'll wait until the hype dies down.
Make that the "Selective" hype - Trekkers will hype this until the Borg find a home.
Spock "yearns for revenge"?
Oh, please. Make it stop.
I have no doubt this is a rock 'em, sock'em JJ ("I Never Liked Star Trek, Anyway") Abrams flick.
cl
But...."Star Trek in the Age of Obama"? Hardly.
"Star Trek" of Gene Roddenberry was special because it was actually (often) ABOUT something. It had ideas, idealism, and was a lot more than "good guys v. bad guys" where the good guys are smart-alecky conflicted hot shots ( "cliche alert!"). and the bad guys deserved to die.
Plus, the Romulans were pretty cool, remember?
No? Okay. Enjoy your summer fun. Just don't actually confuse it with "Star Trek".
STAR TREK franchise will live on! I saw the early release of the movie tonight and it was AWESOME! It kept you interested and excited! Bringing back the old with fresh young talent FABULOUS! Kudos to J.J. ABRAMS and all the actors! Tyler I was so proud of you! I plan to see it again but this time at the IMAX movie theater the special effect ROCKS!
What the original Star Trek television series meant to us in the late 1960s:
1. We had a future. In the midst of atomic war anxiety, Star Trek gave us the mythology of a future, the assurance that humanity would survive to go to the very stars themselves.
2. Math and science were cool. As I grew up, my interests shifted towards social science, but I started out as a grade-school physicist and astronaut-wannabe, who was never scared by math--and I have Star Trek to thank for that, at least in part.
3. The time would come when ethnic and racial differences would mean nothing. Ours was a world riven by ethnic and racial strife. But not on Star Trek. Look at that bridge crew!, with its African, East Asian, Russian, and Scottish officers, and a science officer wasn't even entirely human. One of the most important scientists in the Federation , Dr. Richard Daystrom,was an African American reputedly . Several Starfleet officers and enlisted personnel had Hispanic names, such as Commodore Jose Mendez. Characters of multiple heritages were not uncommon on the series, the most notable being Spock himself, half-Human, half-Vulcan.
Perhaps something like the original Star Trek series will help to inspire the youth of the 21st century, with new tales of possible futures.
No conservative could possibly find anything to agree with in the uber humanist Star Trek world.
My father is a life-long conservative, and he was the one who introduced the show to me. He was a Marine, and the idea of good people willing to fight for what was right, and to help those in need, appealed to him. A government that was for the people, and encouraged personal freedom and responsibility, appealed to him. A rousing battle scene and girls in short skirts didn't hurt either.
It's a shame that the GOP has destroyed the party of so many good people. But most conservatives understand Trek just fine.
How about the part where they don't need money anymore?
What you must understand is that Shatner is an ASS of monumental proportions. He was an ASS to everyone, even Rodenberry said so. Wil Wheaton had a blog once that talked about his first meeting with Shatner, Google it. It'll explain why nobody wanted Shatner around for this project.
Start Trek had become much more Picard, Janeway and Sisko than it had ever been Kirk. Shatner is not what Star Trek had evolved into. But neither are any of the movies except maybe for "The Undiscovered Country" which comes at least close to the modern Trek universe.
The problem with any prequel is a character development issue. Pretty much everyone knows that the young version of an ass must be an even bigger ass than the later person. That alone makes a young Kirk a rather unfavorable character.
I like William Shatner. Besides every show has to have it's diva.
Nice piece, Mr. Sutton. And I enjoyed your cartoon in the VV.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
