The Geek Beat: To Boldly Go
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Paramount, Fandom, Remakes and Sequels, The Geek Beat
I think last week was one of the most passionate ones I've seen in my months of Geek Beatdom. We had competing frenzies, for one, as Twilight and Star Trek battled for news supremacy all across the Internet. It was fandom at its most defining. If aliens came down tomorrow and said "What is this fandom of which you speak?" and I only had ten minutes to explain it before they blew up the Earth, I'd just pull up our archives for the week of November 17th, 2008.
First, I have to say ... way to go, Trek fans. Society has labeled Trekkers/Trekkies the worst and weirdest of the lot. From my own experience, that's never been true. I hope the critics were watching the reaction to Trek because honestly, I saw a lot of intelligent and rational discussion on both sides of the fence. I've written a lot of stories on a lot of geeky topics, I expect to be flamed about 99% of the time, and my Trek guide was one that saw me bracing myself as I handed it over to our editors. I hadn't slept the three days prior to writing it, so I'm surprised it was coherent at all – but I was even more surprised by the pleasant reaction it garnered. (It was a stark contrast to a Twilight piece I did for our Moviefone friends. Yikes.)
For all the passion flying around Trek, I find myself in the rare position of having no opinion whatsoever. It doesn't thrill me, but it doesn't bore me, and I had so little expectation that it didn't disappoint me. In theory, I liked the idea of rebooting Trek, but it's a different thing altogether to see it in action. It doesn't feel right – and that has nothing to do with J.J. Abrams and the Enterprise crew he's assembled. I'm just not sure it should have been done at all.
First, I have to say ... way to go, Trek fans. Society has labeled Trekkers/Trekkies the worst and weirdest of the lot. From my own experience, that's never been true. I hope the critics were watching the reaction to Trek because honestly, I saw a lot of intelligent and rational discussion on both sides of the fence. I've written a lot of stories on a lot of geeky topics, I expect to be flamed about 99% of the time, and my Trek guide was one that saw me bracing myself as I handed it over to our editors. I hadn't slept the three days prior to writing it, so I'm surprised it was coherent at all – but I was even more surprised by the pleasant reaction it garnered. (It was a stark contrast to a Twilight piece I did for our Moviefone friends. Yikes.)
For all the passion flying around Trek, I find myself in the rare position of having no opinion whatsoever. It doesn't thrill me, but it doesn't bore me, and I had so little expectation that it didn't disappoint me. In theory, I liked the idea of rebooting Trek, but it's a different thing altogether to see it in action. It doesn't feel right – and that has nothing to do with J.J. Abrams and the Enterprise crew he's assembled. I'm just not sure it should have been done at all.
It's strange to suddenly feel an attachment to Star Trek. I'm much more of a Star Wars girl – despite all photographic evidence to the contrary. Yes, that's me up there, in all my mini-geekiness, before Lara Croft and ComicCon was a thought and a whisper in my mind. My mom (a devout fan of all things Enterprise) convinced me that I wanted to be a Star Trek officer for Halloween. I agreed, and asked if I could have a red uniform, and be a captain. That's the extent of my memory of the show -- I really liked Captain Picard and wanted to be friends with Wesley Crusher, so that's why I picked the uniform I did. In retrospect, it's me all over, determined Picard see me as an equal, and my "friend" Crusher see me as superior.
What I find striking is how much thought I put into it – it wasn't just "My favorite color is red," I knew where I wanted to be on the Enterprise. And when I put on that uniform, with its cool boots and communicator (the real deal, by the way), my mind was spinning with adventures starring me, Picard, and Crusher. I felt what Trekkies have felt since the first episode ever aired. Trek is, quite simply, pure imagination.
I'm not sure any reboot can tap into that. I'm not even sure how the original series (or any of its spin-offs) did, except that it paints a universe that is, to borrow a phrase from Michael Chabon, "fuzzy around the edges." Star Wars has it too, but it's a universe with an unequal playing field – to be the best, you have to be born a Jedi. Trek was a world you could work your way up in. Your status depended on your smarts. It's that aspect, combined with Trek's vision of universal acceptance, that created a fandom out of outcasts.
That benevolence is something I'm not sure the slick new Trek sells. The little Elisabeth up above knew she would fit in on the bridge of the Enterprise. But I'm not so sure my twerpy self would fit in Abrams' version, which seems intimidating, glossy, and sexy. If this had been the way Trek had introduced itself initially, would it have caught on? Would it have inspired decades of fandom? Documentaries? NASA?
I'm not going to condemn the new movie based on a single trailer, some second-hand descriptions, and a bunch of stills. I'm going to continue to remain neutral, and merely hope that Trek is done right. I may not be all that attached to Kirk and Spock, but I am endlessly thankful for what Gene Roddenberry did for sci-fi. If it wasn't for Trek, I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have a Geek Beat, a Lara Croft costume, or conventions to party at. Trekkies/Trekkers invented that, sustained it, and openly flew the flag while the rest of us were just hoping not to be beat up for our interests. It's that culture I want the film to respect, sustain, and renew. I'm skeptical it can, but if there's one franchise that deserves to come back, it's Star Trek.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-25-2008 @ 1:50PM
Astin said...
It feels weird because it's nothing like Superman, or Batman, or The Shadow, Phantom, Dick Tracy, or any other comic/pulp character/concept.
Star Trek was born on television, it thrived in the movies, and returned to its TV roots triumphantly before eventually fading away. Supes and the like were drawings and descriptions. They were artistic interpretations. In the end, there was nobody real behind them, so even the very first actor to portray them was merely a stand-in.
But James T. Kirk was ALWAYS William Shatner. He was never anybody else.
Add in that the series is a teenager compared to some older source materials, and that Shatner last played Kirk 14 years ago, and it seems... odd.
So Abrams recreation was done the only way it COULD be done, by setting it in a time before we met the crew of NCC-1701. A sense of disbelief is required - "This is the same crew, they're just younger." It's no different than Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi (and one must hope it's MUCH different than Hayden Christensen as Darth Vader).
Reply
11-25-2008 @ 3:02PM
C.A. said...
You are so awesome Elisabeth!
... that is all.
Reply
11-25-2008 @ 6:49PM
roshow said...
There is nothing "sexier" about the new Star Trek, as Elisabeth and others have implied, when compared to the originl. Attractive people and sex were a hallmark of TOS, one that it never shied away from.
First of all, yes, Chris Pine is a pretty boy. But in the original series, so was William Shatner. His good looks and virility were always a big part of Kirk's character. Zoe Saldana is attractive as Uhura and so was Nichelle Nichols. Who didn't have a crush on her? I dare any of you to tell Nichelle that she wasn't sexy during the TOS years and thus someone less attractive should play Uhura in the new movie.
Then there's the "infamous" Uhura taking her top off shot in the trailer. Yet it's no worse than the multitude of alien women wearing bikinis throughout TOS's 3 year run. For starters (literally) the pilot episode centered around an extremely hot woman in many extremely sexy outfits being used to seduce Captain Pike.
And besides Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana, is anyone really that great looking? I can't remember anyone before this trailer ever accusing Simon Pegg, Zachary Quinto, John Cho, Anton Yelchin or Karl Urban of being overly attractive.
That being said, I think Elisabeth is right in the ways this differentiates from the Trek she's talking about. However, and this is a big point, she's talking about the Picard and Wesley era. People are used to that Trek by this point. They're also used to seeing the original cast in the movies where they're older and less attractive and Kirk spends less time with half naked alien girls.
This new movie is not at all in line with that vision. But it is totally in line with the swashbuckling spirit of adventure of TOS: the show were people of all colors lived in harmony, but were also good looking and spent a lot of time kicking butt... or as much butt as they could with the cardboard sets.
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 10:26AM
Bill said...
Frankly, William Shatner is doing his best work right now as Denny Crane on Boston Legal.
I think Star Trek's time has passed. I also have low expectations of this reboot. I remember I thought Enterprise was a good show and Star Trek fans were dumping all over it because it did not stick to Star Trek "canon." Then it was canceled and they were all upset that Star Trek wasn't on the air anymore. The fans are weird. They don't know what they want and I think the public isn't feeling nostalgic for Star Trek like they were in the 80s. In short, if this opens anywhere near Harry Potter, this will disapear faster than Scotty can teleport Tribbles to a Klingon battlecruiser (snorting laughter).
Reply