Trekkies
There were two documentaries: one made in 1997 and the other in 2004. They're both kind of fun. The two "stars" of both documentaries were Gabriel Koerner and Barbara Adams. Koerner reminds me o Galaxy Quest's Brandon (Justin "I'm a Mac" Long). It looks like he's pursued his passion and has grown up to become a digital model designer. Adams is famous for wearing her Starfleet uniform as a juror during the Whitewater trial, and she seems to be doing just as well as a printing company.
The documentaries, which I've recently watched, have me thinking about the J.J. Abrams movie coming up. I don't know. I'm trying to keep an open mind about it. I was only mildly excited about Abrams's firs Star Trek ilm. For one thing, I'm a little apprehensive about "relaunching" the series. Yes, yes, of course the writers of the TV series are themselves guilty of creating episodes in which the multiverse is a prominent feature. So, it makes sense that there is an alternate reality Captain Kirk, et cetera, et cetera.
Still, the idea of a "relaunch" is fairly cliche about now--how many times have Batman, Spiderman, and Superman been relaunched?--but my bigger bone of contention is that Abrams is doing more than relaunching the series. He's also altering the themes the franchise was formerly known for. This latest inception seems to be more about the idea of destiny. I like Lord of the Rings, Icelandic sagas Harry Potter, and high fantasy stories where destiny plays a role, but I also resent the concept of destiny itself. For me, if we're to approach the Bible from a literary perspective, the New Testament's weakest part was the bit where they mention Jesus's lineage. I don't want him to come from the House of David, but if he must be from the House of David, it should only be an incidental part of the story. Why do we have to like Jesus because he's from the House of David? Why not respect him because he's a cool guy with some good ideas about brotherly love? As I read and interpret it, the whole "son of God" thing doesn't mean that Jesus is God incarnate, but rather that Jesus, like everyone else, is equally a son/daughter of God. That's the only way the "Our Father" prayer makes sense to me. Otherwise, we're all left with a stiff and boring character who is completely inaccessible and uninteresting. Doubting Thomas and Judas come off much cooler, as a result (which is probably why Andrew Lloyd Weber made Judas his rock opera's big star). So it is with other stories. I don't want my heroes to have proud noble lineages, and if they do have these lineages, their blood ties should have play no part in the outcome of the storyline.
But now we have a series where the new Kirk must take the mantle and become the great James T. Kirk, and everyone must play his or her part in this Wagnerian tale. Oh well...we must put up with a king, I suppose...
Well, okay, so we are stuck with our attachments to lineages and destiny, but what about the other themes of the series? In some respects, th Star Trek ranchise seemed to address the idea of utopia. Is it possible? How would we achieve it? Would we recognize it? How would we behave once we acquired it? For a person such as me who enjoys theory and sociology and stuff like that, these themes kept me tuning in. (Of course, so did the characters. I liked the Vic Fontaine character from DS9's holosuite, for instance. A fluffy, frivolous character and storyline, but one that I enjoyed nevertheless, because he brought the other characters together and eased the tension of the otherwise stormy series).
There have been flaws along the way. The Original Series attempts to imagine a utopian technocratic society struggling to rectify racism and nationalism, but it kind of forgets gender equality. The Next Generation seeks to improve gender relation issues, but does a poor job of addressing sexual identity. Also, they kind of have a hard time holding to the Prime Directive. I really loved those stories about the Prime Directive. In our own world, we might say the Prime Directive applies to the way we relate to indigenous cultures, such as Papua New Guinea. Some of us agree to let them live in the ways they see best, while others of us see a gold mine of opportunity in the form of coffee plantations, mineral extractions, et cetera. So, I love this theme because it is precisely what we struggle with when we talk about globalism.
Then, I love Deep Space Nine ecause it suddenly says, "Th Star Trek niverse was no utopia." Instead, the United Federation of Planets, especially those planets closest to Earth and Vulcan, are more akin to the Nordic countries. Sweden looks great on the outside. Progressive socialism balanced with capitalism. On the other hand, we learn that companies Ikea can and will turn a blind eye to the exploitation of workers and the environment when they can. The farther you move from the center, the less utopian you are. I also like Voyager, although I'll admit that the writing did have its problems. Yet, I still liked Janeway as a captain, and I could see what they were trying to accomplish with the series. Namely, there was a question of whether you can preserve the Prime Directive and all your ideals even in the absence of your state. Also, there are interesting things to be said about first contact, colonialism, et cetera. These are themes that I like to think about. (Also, the Doctor was great, Seven of Nine was actually more than a pretty face, and even Neelix was fun to watch...in small doses).
Then, unexpectedly, I found myself embracin Enterprise, even though this series also had its problems. This was a post-9/11 Star Trek, and so you see Captain Archer acting like Jack Bauer fro 24, using torture when necessary, and wrestling with what he has done to save his little section of the Universe. I don't like how torture has itself become a TV cliche--somehow, though, it frequently works in the movies and the bad guy tells us what we need to know. Isn't that the same thing with Katheryn Bigelow's new movie Zero Dark Thirty? (I don't know...I haven't watched it yet).
But I'm skeptical about the new movie franchise. It's got its own themes to explore, and part of me wants the franchise to only focus on those themes that Roddenbery first began exploring. I don't want it to be about destiny and all these other things. On the other hand, I'll try to keep an open mind about the whole thing. I am definitely looking forward to the movie release. I appreciate that the franchise has to evolve if it is to remain relevant, but I can't help about worry about where its evolving. Then again, I've often been skeptical only to later be pleasantly surprised.
What I am excited about is the ongoing chatter that there may be a new Star Trek TV series in the making. At one point, they were talking about one set in the far future when the Federation began crumbling apart. For my part, I also have always thought it might be fun to have a spin-off type series about non-Federation characters. A Federation captain-turned-trader/smuggler for instance. I doubt they'd ever do that, but after experiencin Deep Space Nine with its cast of Bajorans, Cardassians, Ferengi, and Dominion cultures, I want to see more outsider-looking-in stories. But, by all means, less "relaunch" and more moving forward, sideways, or whatever. I don't want a new Captain Picard, for instance. (Could you imagine finding a Patrick Stewart replacement? Oh, perish the thought...).
But yes, more than the movie, I'm looking forward to a new TV series. Not only because I like Star Trek, but also because revived interest in Star Trek might also mean revived interest in Space Opera as well. More Farscapes and Fireflies an Babylon 5s. Oh, that'll be exciting!
The documentaries, which I've recently watched, have me thinking about the J.J. Abrams movie coming up. I don't know. I'm trying to keep an open mind about it. I was only mildly excited about Abrams's firs Star Trek ilm. For one thing, I'm a little apprehensive about "relaunching" the series. Yes, yes, of course the writers of the TV series are themselves guilty of creating episodes in which the multiverse is a prominent feature. So, it makes sense that there is an alternate reality Captain Kirk, et cetera, et cetera.
Still, the idea of a "relaunch" is fairly cliche about now--how many times have Batman, Spiderman, and Superman been relaunched?--but my bigger bone of contention is that Abrams is doing more than relaunching the series. He's also altering the themes the franchise was formerly known for. This latest inception seems to be more about the idea of destiny. I like Lord of the Rings, Icelandic sagas Harry Potter, and high fantasy stories where destiny plays a role, but I also resent the concept of destiny itself. For me, if we're to approach the Bible from a literary perspective, the New Testament's weakest part was the bit where they mention Jesus's lineage. I don't want him to come from the House of David, but if he must be from the House of David, it should only be an incidental part of the story. Why do we have to like Jesus because he's from the House of David? Why not respect him because he's a cool guy with some good ideas about brotherly love? As I read and interpret it, the whole "son of God" thing doesn't mean that Jesus is God incarnate, but rather that Jesus, like everyone else, is equally a son/daughter of God. That's the only way the "Our Father" prayer makes sense to me. Otherwise, we're all left with a stiff and boring character who is completely inaccessible and uninteresting. Doubting Thomas and Judas come off much cooler, as a result (which is probably why Andrew Lloyd Weber made Judas his rock opera's big star). So it is with other stories. I don't want my heroes to have proud noble lineages, and if they do have these lineages, their blood ties should have play no part in the outcome of the storyline.
But now we have a series where the new Kirk must take the mantle and become the great James T. Kirk, and everyone must play his or her part in this Wagnerian tale. Oh well...we must put up with a king, I suppose...
Well, okay, so we are stuck with our attachments to lineages and destiny, but what about the other themes of the series? In some respects, th Star Trek ranchise seemed to address the idea of utopia. Is it possible? How would we achieve it? Would we recognize it? How would we behave once we acquired it? For a person such as me who enjoys theory and sociology and stuff like that, these themes kept me tuning in. (Of course, so did the characters. I liked the Vic Fontaine character from DS9's holosuite, for instance. A fluffy, frivolous character and storyline, but one that I enjoyed nevertheless, because he brought the other characters together and eased the tension of the otherwise stormy series).
There have been flaws along the way. The Original Series attempts to imagine a utopian technocratic society struggling to rectify racism and nationalism, but it kind of forgets gender equality. The Next Generation seeks to improve gender relation issues, but does a poor job of addressing sexual identity. Also, they kind of have a hard time holding to the Prime Directive. I really loved those stories about the Prime Directive. In our own world, we might say the Prime Directive applies to the way we relate to indigenous cultures, such as Papua New Guinea. Some of us agree to let them live in the ways they see best, while others of us see a gold mine of opportunity in the form of coffee plantations, mineral extractions, et cetera. So, I love this theme because it is precisely what we struggle with when we talk about globalism.
Then, I love Deep Space Nine ecause it suddenly says, "Th Star Trek niverse was no utopia." Instead, the United Federation of Planets, especially those planets closest to Earth and Vulcan, are more akin to the Nordic countries. Sweden looks great on the outside. Progressive socialism balanced with capitalism. On the other hand, we learn that companies Ikea can and will turn a blind eye to the exploitation of workers and the environment when they can. The farther you move from the center, the less utopian you are. I also like Voyager, although I'll admit that the writing did have its problems. Yet, I still liked Janeway as a captain, and I could see what they were trying to accomplish with the series. Namely, there was a question of whether you can preserve the Prime Directive and all your ideals even in the absence of your state. Also, there are interesting things to be said about first contact, colonialism, et cetera. These are themes that I like to think about. (Also, the Doctor was great, Seven of Nine was actually more than a pretty face, and even Neelix was fun to watch...in small doses).
Then, unexpectedly, I found myself embracin Enterprise, even though this series also had its problems. This was a post-9/11 Star Trek, and so you see Captain Archer acting like Jack Bauer fro 24, using torture when necessary, and wrestling with what he has done to save his little section of the Universe. I don't like how torture has itself become a TV cliche--somehow, though, it frequently works in the movies and the bad guy tells us what we need to know. Isn't that the same thing with Katheryn Bigelow's new movie Zero Dark Thirty? (I don't know...I haven't watched it yet).
But I'm skeptical about the new movie franchise. It's got its own themes to explore, and part of me wants the franchise to only focus on those themes that Roddenbery first began exploring. I don't want it to be about destiny and all these other things. On the other hand, I'll try to keep an open mind about the whole thing. I am definitely looking forward to the movie release. I appreciate that the franchise has to evolve if it is to remain relevant, but I can't help about worry about where its evolving. Then again, I've often been skeptical only to later be pleasantly surprised.
What I am excited about is the ongoing chatter that there may be a new Star Trek TV series in the making. At one point, they were talking about one set in the far future when the Federation began crumbling apart. For my part, I also have always thought it might be fun to have a spin-off type series about non-Federation characters. A Federation captain-turned-trader/smuggler for instance. I doubt they'd ever do that, but after experiencin Deep Space Nine with its cast of Bajorans, Cardassians, Ferengi, and Dominion cultures, I want to see more outsider-looking-in stories. But, by all means, less "relaunch" and more moving forward, sideways, or whatever. I don't want a new Captain Picard, for instance. (Could you imagine finding a Patrick Stewart replacement? Oh, perish the thought...).
But yes, more than the movie, I'm looking forward to a new TV series. Not only because I like Star Trek, but also because revived interest in Star Trek might also mean revived interest in Space Opera as well. More Farscapes and Fireflies an Babylon 5s. Oh, that'll be exciting!