We don’t need “Star Trek” anymore, whether it’s packaged as the umpteenth franchise sequel or the series reboot opening May 7 courtesy of “Lost’s” J.J. Abrams.
Now, that’s not to say the new “Trek” won’t be a slam-bang action pic, or even perfect popcorn entertainment.
Heck, that “Heroes” actor Zachary Quinto looks spookily like Leonard Nimoy circa 1967.
But many of the qualities that made “Star Trek” so much more than just another space opera are now, frankly, obsolete, unnecessary or both.
The original “Trek” broke television’s color boundaries (Kirk and Lt. Uhura lock lips), introduced a rare swear word to audiences (at the end of “The City on the Edge of Forever”) and showcased a future in which a unified interplanetary government, dubbed the Federation, reached into outer space to “boldly go where no man has gone before.”
But it’s 2009. And we’ve long since blown past the cultural boundaries tweaked by the original show. We even have a black president calling the shots in the White House.
More importantly, we’ve learned the limitations of a unified – read United Nations – body politic. It’s hard to imagine, even in the realm of science fiction, that entire planets could see eye to eye on grave matters when the current UN can’t even manage to stop countries like the Sudan in the midst of genocide.
But name recognition trumps all in Hollywood. Having a recognizable brand is more important than the name above a film’s title these days.
Any “High School Musical” sequel is a safe bet to out-perform the latest Julia Roberts vehicle.
So where does that leave “Star Trek?”
There’s still room for a science fiction film to address today’s societal ills. Yet Hollywood remains hermetically sealed off from some of the problems facing modern audiences.
It wouldn’t be a shock to see this “Trek,” or even the mandatory sequel, tackling such tired themes as global warming or those wicked private military contractors.
We don’t need a “Star Trek” movie to do what every other politically charged movie is already doing. We need a franchise to boldly go where no film has gone before.
(Photo: Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine play Spock and Kirk, respectively, in the “Star Trek” reboot opening May 7)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
While it was one of the better ones, First Contact (behind II& VI) kind of destroyed the utopian mythos with the “world without money” idea. It could never work.
The welfare society being created now destroys the notion that people will willingly sacrifice everything for the betterment of mankind…they really just want to get a monthly check and sit on their butts and watch tv all day without trying to even lift a finger, much less helping their fellow man.
Thank you for much more eloquently making the point I was reaching for in a comment elsewhere. There’s nothing “Star Trek” about this film except the names. What I find fascinating is that without the Trek name, this film might have been free to establish a new franchise to “boldly go.” Pity.
Every act of production that can be broken down into a set of rules is an act of production that can be performed by robots rather than humans. Where robots are more cost-effective than humans, they replace humans. Robots increase in cost-effectiveness as technology progresses, replacing an ever-increasing number of humans. The reduction in consumption caused by the increase in unemployment requires employers to cut costs, such as by replacing humans with more cost-effective robots. The cycle continues to capitalism’s endgame and the “world without money”.
Strangely, robots are very rare in Star Trek.
“We need a franchise to boldly go where no film has gone before.”
So true.
” It’s hard to imagine, even in the realm of science fiction, that entire planets could see eye to eye on grave matters when the current UN can’t even manage to stop countries like the Sudan in the midst of genocide.”
But can’t a girl dream? I am way too cynical to be a fan of Star Trek, and yet I have been a huge fan since childhood. I’ve seen every episode of Star Trek the Next Generation at least twice, if not three times. For some reason I retain this faint hope that human beings are smart evolve into a Federation of planets, with Jon Luc Picard at the helm of the world’s greatest space ship.
I’m still game to play along with the Star Trek franchise. I just hope this new movie doesn’t end as just another teen flick (some of the previews are making me nervous).
I can disagree with some of the “Star Trek” philosophies and still dig the franchise. It’s good storytelling with iconic characters, for most part.
I think it’s funny that I’ve rarely heard anyone discuss how the Star Trek universe is a communist universe. Perhaps more accurately the Trek movies and later tv shows were communist universes.
While the stories have always been morality plays, I can’t help but compare Star Trek to the tv show MASH.
Trek TOS was original, got it’s point across and managed to tell a good story.
In the begining MASH was original, funny and witty but managed to express a point of view and still, even people who didn’t agree with it could watch and be enteratained. As the years passed it just became a horrid propaganda freak show.
That’s what Trek turned into for the most part. Still there are many things that are watchable and entertaining but it became only about the propaganda.
The franchise has wheels, but not without the folks who made it what it is. Sorry, but I find octogenarian Spock and Kirk in some new adventure to be much more interesting than another dreaded prequel. If you are back to the beginning, it means you ran out of gas after the last chapter. The new movie may be world class, Oscar worthy and change the lives of everyone who sees it, it still won’t be what it was, just a sexed-up remake with the benefits of mighty tall shoulders to stand on and the built-in audience herein.
One need not agree with presented ideas to be glad that there ARE presented ideas. Looking back on the original Star Trek series it is hard to see what the fuss was about. But the better episodes were idea driven. That was even more true of STtNG. Do artificial life forms have inherent rights? Does the existence of an accepted community standard on such a thing as euthanasia make it inviolable? On and on the examples could go.
No, I did not always agree with the POV of the writers, but they often made remarkably strong arguments that demanded thought before rebuttal.
As to the “communist” charge, I don’t think so. To me the philosophy was more liberal with a small “L.” The Federation respected differences among peoples and cultures. It respected people’s rights and abilities to choose their own path. – This even when it went against the ‘wisdom’ of the dominant and more ‘advanced’ culture.
As to the new movie… I expect it to be little more than ‘cowboys in space.’ Perhaps I will be surprised, but I expect not. There appears to be little of the culture of thought left in Hollywood. Nor, indeed, in most of our overly self-congratulatory culture.
Don Sucher wrote:
“One need not agree with presented ideas to be glad that there ARE presented ideas. Looking back on the original Star Trek series it is hard to see what the fuss was about. But the better episodes were idea driven. That was even more true of STtNG. Do artificial life forms have inherent rights? Does the existence of an accepted community standard on such a thing as euthanasia make it inviolable? On and on the examples could go.
No, I did not always agree with the POV of the writers, but they often made remarkably strong arguments that demanded thought before rebuttal.”
While Star Trek is pretty liberal in terms of sexuality and economics, the franchise is quite conservative in other areas.
*The Federation has a “hope for peace, prepare for war” midset. Thus, though the USS Enterprise is an exploration vessel, it is still to confront known and unknown dangers. National security hawks love that idea.
*Star Trek in its various incarnations has flatly condemned such practices as assisted suicide, euthanasia, and genetic engineering of humans. Clearly, the Federation would frown on President Obama’s support of embryonic stem cell research. So, ST would be appealing to social conservatives.
Hence, Star Trek could be considered more moderate than purely liberal as sci-fi goes.
Correction:
The sentence in the above post should read as follows:
Thus, though the USS Enterprise is an exploration vessel, it is still well armed to confront known and unknown dangers.
This continued dialogue is one of the reasons I enjoy Star Trek. It inspires thought, and I like thought.
Great point, Heidi. Even mediocre “Star Trek” is thought provoking … one reason why it endures.
Those pointy ears can only help
As a lifelong Star Trek fan I couldn’t have given a bigger cr@p whether ST delved into controversial social topics or not. If anything, it was a negative, as I don’t like real world issues intruding into my leisure and escapism. So I disagree entirely with the premise about why ST became popular. ST made it because of the great characters, pretty good writing, and thirst for a bright shiny future that the show satisfied. Not because it dealt in controversial topics. So no, ST is not obsolete as long as the stories are interesting, the writing is top notch, and the scifi looks cool.
The only way Star Trek can survive is to shed those old liberal values and go more into the space sci-fi swash bucking genre like Star Wars used to be. When you stop and spend half a movie (or even a tv show) debating liberal logic and always the liberal stuff is touted, it makes for bad cinema.
Star Trek 2-3-4 were great films irregardless of their flaws because they were fun movies. You can watch them without having to agree with one point or another.