Have the new Star Treks lost the progressive edge?

[fireproof78]

It's just a claim made by some folks associated with fan films, that's all.

Respectfully, that isn't the full story. It is actually from a documentary about fan films that I had the privilege of previewing 20 minutes of on another forum. I believe that Abrams was interviewed as part of it.

I don't plug for fan films just because

Do you think you could find it for us? This is the first I've heard of it as well, and I've seen nearly all of J.J.'s interviews over the years.

I am trying to find any clips. It is called Backyard Blockbusters, but I'm still trying to find details of it, and whether or not my memory is faulty.

Ok, found the video, (link goes to time stamp of the brief clip in a trailer)and I did misremember. It was James Cawley saying that JJ Abrams told him that he had been shown the way by Cawley, that other people could step in to the shoes of iconic characters and carry the role.

Sorry for the misinformation.

 

[Amaris]

Respectfully, that isn't the full story. It is actually from a documentary about fan films that I had the privilege of previewing 20 minutes of on another forum. I believe that Abrams was interviewed as part of it.

I don't plug for fan films just because

Do you think you could find it for us? This is the first I've heard of it as well, and I've seen nearly all of J.J.'s interviews over the years.

I am trying to find any clips. It is called Backyard Blockbusters, but I'm still trying to find details of it, and whether or not my memory is faulty.

Ok, found the video, (link goes to time stamp of the brief clip in a trailer)and I did misremember. It was James Cawley saying that JJ Abrams told him that he had been shown the way by Cawley, that other people could step in to the shoes of iconic characters and carry the role.

Sorry for the misinformation.

Ah, that's okay then. It happens. As for Cawley and their productions, I like their work, but I'll probably put his comment under the "wishful thinking" category.

It's like the Nichelle Nichols MLK Jr., thing, where it went from him being interested, to him telling her that she was absolutely critical to the Civil Rights movement, and that she mustn't quit. There's likely a kernel of truth in there somewhere, but it has become larger than life over time.

 

[fireproof78]

Do you think you could find it for us? This is the first I've heard of it as well, and I've seen nearly all of J.J.'s interviews over the years.

I am trying to find any clips. It is called Backyard Blockbusters, but I'm still trying to find details of it, and whether or not my memory is faulty.

Ok, found the video, (link goes to time stamp of the brief clip in a trailer)and I did misremember. It was James Cawley saying that JJ Abrams told him that he had been shown the way by Cawley, that other people could step in to the shoes of iconic characters and carry the role.

Sorry for the misinformation.

Ah, that's okay then. It happens. As for Cawley and their productions, I like their work, but I'll probably put his comment under the "wishful thinking" category.

It's like the Nichelle Nichols MLK Jr., thing, where it went from him being interested, to him telling her that she was absolutely critical to the Civil Rights movement, and that she mustn't quit. There's likely a kernel of truth in there somewhere, but it has become larger than life over time.

I'll concede that point, but I do find it interesting how Cawley has gone back and forth on his opinion of Abrams Trek. It does speak somewhat to the story that Abrams invited Cawley to the set of Trek 09 and there was some dialogue between the two.

Again, the rest is probably exaggerated, but I still find it interesting.

Anyway, on with the thread

 

[Amaris]

I'll concede that point, but I do find it interesting how Cawley has gone back and forth on his opinion of Abrams Trek. It does speak somewhat to the story that Abrams invited Cawley to the set of Trek 09 and there was some dialogue between the two.

Again, the rest is probably exaggerated, but I still find it interesting.

Anyway, on with the thread

I do remember when the movie was about to premiere, and Cawley said how much he didn't like it, which is odd, since he was in it and seemed to like it, but people's opinions can change over time. I guess. *sigh*

 

[Shaka Zulu]

What would nuTrek need to do to recover it's "progressive" label?

I'm still not sure Star Trek was ever as progressive as some folks seem desperate to believe.

For me (and me alone, I speak for no one else), I find the Abrams films just as progressive as the material that came before it. I still think many folks have a bee in their bonnet because Abrams went back to Kirk and Spock instead of continuing on in the 24th century.

I don't think for most it has ever truly been about it being "progressive", I think it has more to do with the characters the new films revolve around.

These being the same people who were also tired of Berman & Braga, and who wanted them gone, and who were tired of the 24th century, but are now pissed because he used younger actors, did things in a different and 'younger' style, and didn't stick to Roddenberry's 'vision' (and ironically are now nostalgic for the previous 24th/22nd century Trek shows of Berman & Braga due to this!)

Don't worry, you do speak for me.

Apparently those people don't read media tie-in fiction. I've been quite pleased with reading about the further adventures of the Bermanverse.

Shouldn't that be the Berman/Bragaverse?

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Apparently those people don't read media tie-in fiction. I've been quite pleased with reading about the further adventures of the Bermanverse.

Shouldn't that be the Berman/Bragaverse?

Yes, the Berman/Bragaverse and the Abrams/Orciverse sitting like Bob Ross' happy little trees side by side.

...while the loud cranky fans start a brushfire!

 

[horatio83]

I suppose Sarek telling Spock he married Amanda out of love is a worrying sign, too?

There was never a moment in TWOK with the emotional impact of the destruction of Vulcan and six billion of its people. I'd think even a Vulcan should be allowed to at least momentarily go apeshit over something like that. Same with Khan in STID, Spock believed he had killed Kirk. Remember, in ST09, Sarek set it up early in the movie when he told young Spock (and the audience) that emotions run deep in their species, deeper than even in humans. Every Vulcan is a volcano ready to erupt without the serenity logic gives them. But that doesn't even work all of the time.

The very reasons Vulcan society is so uptight and rigid is to protect the dogma of emotional suppression and the very reason this dogma exists is that those volcanoes have to remain silent lest Vulcan society tears itself apart. So telling your son to not suppress his anger after his mother died is totally reckless.
Now I don't mind that the movie depicts a younger Spock who does go apeshit from time to time. Bring it on! But if the texture of the movie applauds him going apeshit instead of viewing it critically (like during the mind-rape scene in TUC) this is questionable.
My favourite movies are TUC and FC precisely because the protagonists make mistakes. But neither movie applauds them for making mistakes.

 

[fireproof78]

I suppose Sarek telling Spock he married Amanda out of love is a worrying sign, too?

There was never a moment in TWOK with the emotional impact of the destruction of Vulcan and six billion of its people. I'd think even a Vulcan should be allowed to at least momentarily go apeshit over something like that. Same with Khan in STID, Spock believed he had killed Kirk. Remember, in ST09, Sarek set it up early in the movie when he told young Spock (and the audience) that emotions run deep in their species, deeper than even in humans. Every Vulcan is a volcano ready to erupt without the serenity logic gives them. But that doesn't even work all of the time.

The very reasons Vulcan society is so uptight and rigid is to protect the dogma of emotional suppression and the very reason this dogma exists is that those volcanoes have to remain silent lest Vulcan society tears itself apart. So telling your son to not suppress his anger after his mother died is totally reckless.
Now I don't mind that the movie depicts a younger Spock who does go apeshit from time to time. Bring it on! But if the texture of the movie applauds him going apeshit instead of viewing it critically (like during the mind-rape scene in TUC) this is questionable.
My favourite movies are TUC and FC precisely because the protagonists make mistakes. But neither movie applauds them for making mistakes.

I don't see either movie applauding Spock's actions in any fashion. If he is being cheered on purely because he is the hero, then I suppose that I should cheer him on for beating on Kirk or not wanting Kirk to attempt to negotiate peace with Nero.

But, for me, I don't. I recognize it as a layering effect of Spock's emotional state.

I don't think Sarek is telling Spock to go crazy, but to acknowledge his human side. The rest of the context of conversation is one about Spock finding the balance between is two sides, not just "embrace your emotions and don't care about the consequences."

Again, people's interpretations may vary, but I don't see the film casting a judgement call on Spock's actions, besides the fact that he is the hero. I think, when viewed critically, it lets the viewer consider the whole of the character, and view each scene within the context of the larger whole.

 

[Franklin]

I suppose Sarek telling Spock he married Amanda out of love is a worrying sign, too?

There was never a moment in TWOK with the emotional impact of the destruction of Vulcan and six billion of its people. I'd think even a Vulcan should be allowed to at least momentarily go apeshit over something like that. Same with Khan in STID, Spock believed he had killed Kirk. Remember, in ST09, Sarek set it up early in the movie when he told young Spock (and the audience) that emotions run deep in their species, deeper than even in humans. Every Vulcan is a volcano ready to erupt without the serenity logic gives them. But that doesn't even work all of the time.

The very reasons Vulcan society is so uptight and rigid is to protect the dogma of emotional suppression and the very reason this dogma exists is that those volcanoes have to remain silent lest Vulcan society tears itself apart. So telling your son to not suppress his anger after his mother died is totally reckless.
Now I don't mind that the movie depicts a younger Spock who does go apeshit from time to time. Bring it on! But if the texture of the movie applauds him going apeshit instead of viewing it critically (like during the mind-rape scene in TUC) this is questionable.
My favourite movies are TUC and FC precisely because the protagonists make mistakes. But neither movie applauds them for making mistakes.

I don't see either movie applauding Spock's actions in any fashion. If he is being cheered on purely because he is the hero, then I suppose that I should cheer him on for beating on Kirk or not wanting Kirk to attempt to negotiate peace with Nero.

But, for me, I don't. I recognize it as a layering effect of Spock's emotional state.

I don't think Sarek is telling Spock to go crazy, but to acknowledge his human side. The rest of the context of conversation is one about Spock finding the balance between is two sides, not just "embrace your emotions and don't care about the consequences."

Again, people's interpretations may vary, but I don't see the film casting a judgement call on Spock's actions, besides the fact that he is the hero. I think, when viewed critically, it lets the viewer consider the whole of the character, and view each scene within the context of the larger whole.

You're right that it's that half-human connection, too. Even Spock Prime admitted to Kirk that he feels and he was emotionally compromised, but he held it in better than his younger self. It is also true that we didn't see Sarek or any of the other Vulcans on the Enterprise running up and down the halls weeping uncontrollably or throwing fits.

Our hero, Spock, faces the added challenge of having a human mother who exposed him to a different cultural point of view about emotions and expression. What older Spock found out in his life's journey is that he could not deny his human culture any more than he could deny Vulcan. He also discovered that it had as much validity to his life as Vulcan culture did. Young Spock may be finding this out sooner.

I never thought Spock in TOS was happy. I don't even think that being happy was something he thought about much. Being happy was neither here or there. By the movies, I think he understood what happiness was, and embraced the feeling. This experience is also sped up for young Spock, who realizes that having feelings for people doesn't mean having to compromise his Vulcan dedication to logic over emotion. It's fine to seek happiness.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

There were several shows with black characters more front and center than Star Trek. Those may have had a greater impact for society at large than Uhura.

Which shows were these? The only ones I can think of (in the '60's) where black characters where front and center is Julia and The Bill Cosby Show, and that's it, really (plus Land Of The Giants & Mission Impossible, but the characters were second bananas to the white ones on those two shows just like Uhura was on TOS.)

If you're talking about 70's shows, then yes, maybe, but I don't think that Good Times qualifies.

 

[Lexx Shrapnel]

Roots? Wasn't that in the70s?

 

[M'Sharak]

There were several shows with black characters more front and center than Star Trek. Those may have had a greater impact for society at large than Uhura.

Which shows were these? The only ones I can think of (in the '60's) where black characters where front and center is Julia and The Bill Cosby Show, and that's it, really (plus Land Of The Giants & Mission Impossible, but the characters were second bananas to the white ones on those two shows just like Uhura was on TOS.)

If you're talking about 70's shows, then yes, maybe, but I don't think that Good Times qualifies.

Before The Bill Cosby Show was I Spy, which ran from 1965-68 and featured a black co-lead.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ChKPEKMw74[/yt]

Roots? Wasn't that in the70s?

It was.

 

[Mudd]

Bill Cosby on I Spy (1965 to 1968) was vastly more important and influential than Uhura on Star Trek. NBC show, BTW - you know, the network that Roddenberry considered so troublesome on matters of race and sex (a claim that Solow and Justman debunk in their book about the series).

 

[M'Sharak]

Bill Cosby on I Spy (1965 to 1968) was vastly more important and influential than Uhura on Star Trek.

I'm afraid so. Cosby's Alexander Scott was a fully-realized, three-dimensional character who was a central figure in every episode. Uhura... wasn't.

 

[Franklin]

Bill Cosby on I Spy (1965 to 1968) was vastly more important and influential than Uhura on Star Trek. NBC show, BTW - you know, the network that Roddenberry considered so troublesome on matters of race and sex (a claim that Solow and Justman debunk in their book about the series).

Yep.

And also on that "troublesome" NBC at the same time as TOS was "The High Chaparral", which had a multi-ethnic cast featuring Latino actors as regulars (including women) and using only Native American actors for Native American parts. It stood out from other westerns because the stories focused on everyday life issues on the ranch and tended to carry messages of different people living together by learning to respect each other.

I vaguely remember the show. Henry Darrow's character was very popular, and a lot of us boys just entering double-digits in age thought Linda Cristal was gorgeous.

 

[BillJ]

But Gene and his followers keep telling me how progressive Star Trek is. How it is a blueprint for the future! Are you telling me the Great Bird lied to me?!?

 

[Lexx Shrapnel]

He also cheated on you.

 

[Franklin]

But Gene and his followers keep telling me how progressive Star Trek is. How it is a blueprint for the future! Are you telling me the Great Bird lied to me?!?

Oversold.

 

[BillJ]

But Gene and his followers keep telling me how progressive Star Trek is. How it is a blueprint for the future! Are you telling me the Great Bird lied to me?!?

Oversold.

 

[T'Girl]

As far as TOS showing left-leaning notions goes, I never really saw it.

I didn't either. Although the Klingon Empire could be seen a metaphor for the Soviet Union in the 1960's, and that would be the "left-leaning" component of TOS.

... and I remain optimistic that the next Trek series will stick to Trek's leftist [snip] general principles.

I would hope that a new series would show various people in Starfleet and the Federation whose beliefs would be on different points on the political spectrum. Diverse points of view.

In terms of general principles, Star Trek would probably be best be centrist.

the concept of a United Earth

We never saw enough of United Earth to figure out even approximately how it was organized. A one world government? Or a international organization in which all of Earth's many sovereign nations were a part?

or the notion that people work for Starfleet because of non-pecuniary incentives

We did hear multiple reference of Starfleet personnel being paid in the 23rd century. And likely still were in the 24th, Beverly was getting her money from somewhere.

Phillipa: "You see? Sometimes it does work."
Picard: "Phillipa, dinner?"
Phillipa: "You buying?"