Public perception of Star Trek?

[AdmiralShran]

Wut?

The whole premise is weird. Within the context of the Star Trek Universe it makes little sense. As I said earlier, the movie only makes sense if it's read as a not-so-subtle "9/11 was an inside job" lecture from our moral betters in Beverly Hills.

There is a parallel with the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden and the decision to attack Iraq. Iraq had nothing proven to do with 9/11, and yet [President] Bush used that as an excuse to start a war with those people. You can always see the Klingons as like Iraq and John Harrison the proxy for Osama bin Laden.” - Simon Pegg

Are these people for real?

 

[Franklin]

The whole premise is weird. Within the context of the Star Trek Universe it makes little sense. As I said earlier, the movie only makes sense if it's read as a not-so-subtle "9/11 was an inside job" lecture from our moral betters in Beverly Hills.

There is a parallel with the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden and the decision to attack Iraq. Iraq had nothing proven to do with 9/11, and yet [President] Bush used that as an excuse to start a war with those people. You can always see the Klingons as like Iraq and John Harrison the proxy for Osama bin Laden.” - Simon Pegg

Are these people for real?

Or it could be about the pretense necessary for the U.S. to go to war with Spain in 1898. Except for, "Remember the Maine!" it would be, "Remember the Enterprise!". Or, it could be more or less an allegory for what I described in the post before your last one (as we were apparently both typing at the same time). Go back a page and take a look.

 

[Ovation]

The parallel that most fits is the Gulf of Tonkin incident--a clearly manufactured "crisis" to induce support for an escalation of military involvement by the US in the Vietnamese conflict.

Moreover, the real-life ravings of Lemay are no less over the top than those of Marcus, so it's not like such people don't exist in reality.

And, incidentally, when did we suddenly return to the middle of the Cold War? (Communists running the media?!--seriously?! Someone still worries about "communist subversion" of the US? )

 

[AdmiralShran]

Moreover, the real-life ravings of Lemay are no less over the top than those of Marcus, so it's not like such people don't exist in reality.

And, incidentally, when did we suddenly return to the middle of the Cold War? (Communists running the media?!--seriously?! Someone still worries about "communist subversion" of the US? )

Communists never went away, even when they started calling themselves by different names. Pegg's thesis was "Marxist analysis of 70's film" or some nonsense. It's fitting so much of his film work is what Orwell would regard as A-grade prolefeed.

Communism has a goal of globalist feudalism - where all property is owned and controlled by a small group of elite nobility united by ideology and the will to control. It doesn't matter what you call it. Knocking down the Eastern bloc barrier made communist subversion more likely, not less, as it said to everyone indoctrinated by the GDR and other such regimes that they may have free, unscrutinized access to western countries.

the real-life ravings of Lemay are no less over the top than those of Marcus

I'm not familiar with the guy.

The parallel that most fits is the Gulf of Tonkin incident--a clearly manufactured "crisis" to induce support for an escalation of military involvement by the US in the Vietnamese conflict.

I cannot stress enough how much the Federation is not the US Government except in Star Trek VI.

 

[Ovation]

We're not in TNZ here, so I'll avoid a lengthy rebuttal to your...unusual...ideas about communism (I have studied and taught about the history of communism for, well, something like 25 years now, among other historical topics--can't say I've ever come across a definition quite like this one before) and address your other two points.

Re: Lemay--he should be at least mildly familiar to you as he's been invoked as a real-life analogue to Marcus on a number of occasions in the thread already. A search on Curtis Lemay should prove instructive (and make the analogy clear).

Re: fictional allegories/parallels with real institutions--the Federation can represent any real-life institution the filmmakers wish it to. The persuasiveness of the analogy may well wax or wane, but there is no inherent characteristic about a fictional construct that prevents it from being used as a stand-in for a real-life institution in order to offer a critique of that institution (or merely borrow some aspect of the real thing to add verisimilitude to a story point). And in the long history of Star Trek productions, the Federation has certainly stood in for "the US government" (or, more broadly, "the West") on numerous occasions. A number of scholarly articles have drawn compelling parallels between the TOS version of the Federation and the promotion of Western cultural values during the Cold War in which the series originated. It is not much of a leap for a present-day iteration of Trek to do something similar. The mere fact that one can easily draw the parallel (Gulf of Tonkin incident, in my case) establishes the malleability of the fictional construct (the Federation) as a way of making an allegorical representation of something real (US institutions).

 

[AdmiralShran]

the Federation can represent any real-life institution the filmmakers wish it to. The persuasiveness of the analogy may well wax or wane, but there is no inherent characteristic about a fictional construct that prevents it from being used as a stand-in for a real-life institution in order to offer a critique of that institution

Except the Federation actually has characteristics. Some of these characteristics are apparent universal health care including mental care, lack of a death penalty except when it comes to visiting those those big brain illusion aliens which was so completely absurd that it's deuterocannon, a seeming absence of religious ideology in government (definitely something that was quite prominent in the 1960's US).

A number of scholarly articles have drawn compelling parallels between the TOS version of the Federation and the promotion of Western cultural values during the Cold War in which the series originated.

Oh, it's certainly NATO country ideology, undoubtedly. In that case I suppose you can argue that the Federation may be a stand-in for the Iraq war. In which case you're still absurd because the entirety of STID rests on the notion that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were unjustly treated by the US (I suppose because the US dared to arm the Afghanis against the Soviets? That's probably Simon Pegg's view: he's upset that the US could possibly arm Muslims against his Marxist heroes Middle-East aggressions so 9/11 was basically justified blowback).

 

[dswynne1]

The "public perception" of STiD is fan driven. Lest we forget, this entire matter started when a group of malcontents decided to rig a poll at the 2013 Vegas Convention, on the ranking of Star Trek films, so that STiD came in dead last. Naturally, this spread to the producers, who were offended that their movie was ranked worst than STV, which, in turn, created a significant backlash when one of those producer gave a terse response to someone who bad mouth his film. What all this resulted in a significant split, over those who liked NuTrek, and those who didn't like NuTrek (for a variety of reasons), which caused the studios to balk at supporting a franchise simply because they weren't sure if investing in the franchise, in a meaningful way, was worth it.

So, to answer the question: the public perception is based upon how the fans feel about their franchise. It is not a welcoming place, in that the old guard will never give NuTrek its due, simply because they preferred an older more familiar format, not realizing that the reason for NuTrek is because of a dwindling fan base to begin with. In other words, it is self-inflicting. This is not to say that the studios are blameless on this matter. After all, when compared to STAR WARS, where are the games? The novels? The comics? The toys? It only matters when you have someone gaining a significant following, such as the Axanar situation (though, admittedly, that thing is a bit suspect on both ends).

Cheers.

 

[Franklin]

AdmiralShran, I'm not saying there is any reason in your life why you should know who Lemay is, but if you don't you're at a real disadvantage in trying to get some of our points. As Ovation suggests, Google him or something. Not knowing who he is makes it hard to continue this discussion. The full name is Curtis Lemay. Bear in mind that Marcus is more or less a caricature of him. He wasn't quite as bad a zealot as Marcus and actually was an effective leader and organizer. Here are a couple of quotes that sum up a lot of his thinking:

"If I see the Russians are amassing their planes for an attack, I'm going to knock the shit out of them before they take off of the ground."

"China [now] has The Bomb. Sometime in the future -- 25, 50, 75 years hence -- what will the situation be like then? By that time the Chinese will have the capability of delivery too. That's the reason some schools of thinking don't rule out a destruction of the Chinese military potential before the situation grows worse than it is today. It's bad enough now."

Does the quote about China sound like something Marcus would say? Or maybe something Marcus was actually trying to get done?

Ovation, you are correct, the Gulf of Tonkin incident is probably the best analogy to the events of STID.

 

[M'Sharak]

At the risk of being a wet blanket, I'd like to request that we not take this too far afield.

Discussion of political topics is not off limits, as long as it has some direct relevance to Star Trek generally and the stories told in the nuTrek movies specifically. I'd like to see this conversation not attempt to reach beyond that, and I'd particularly like to avoid anything to do with the current US political campaigns. Leave that for forums more appropriate to the subject matter.

 

[fireproof78]

The more I have researched about Star Trek, the more public perception seems to shape it. TOS was an action adventure show, never really taken terribly seriously save by the fans. Even GR recognized the potential short shelf life and started penning other pilots, as well as finding ways to make more money.

Post TMP and TNG Trek are entirely different stories, obviously, as GR more embraced the concept of "more evolved humanity" with restrictions that reduce conflict between the characters as mere talking points, rather than passionate debate. Read Michael Pillar's "Fade In" to get more in depth about the "Roddenberry Box."

I haven't read all the replies, and I won't quote all the points. The one point that I will address is Nero and Marcus. I like them both. Nero is truly a psychotic villain, one who has completely broken with relality and serves as a dark mirror for what Spock's emotions could drive to do. Marcus, likewise, is a dark mirror for Kirk, obsessed with the possibility of war to the point of monovision and egotistical delusions of self-importance. Though, the Starfleet Admiralty has not given us the best track record, as previously discussed by others. I'll not revisit that here.

The "cartoonish" villains, I don't see. As has been pointed out, I can find real and fictional counterparts for Marcus point of view. Nero, on the other hand, is the more interesting. He is psychotic, and I don't use that term lightly, because I know what it means. He has broken with reality, watching his world be destroyed, and blames Spock, who claimed he would help. So, he lost it and it is tragic. He is interesting because he is tragic, that he travels back in time and all he can see is the destruction of Romulus.

Everyone treats Trek differently, but I don't see Abrams Trek so far askew TOS to not be enjoyable.

 

[AdmiralShran]

He is psychotic, and I don't use that term lightly, because I know what it means. He has broken with reality, watching his world be destroyed, and blames Spock, who claimed he would help. So, he lost it and it is tragic. He is interesting because he is tragic, that he travels back in time and all he can see is the destruction of Romulus.

Apparently his whole crew is psychotic too because they could all just head over to that supernova star and drop their red matter into it. But I guess they're in an alternate universe where timeline incursions don't affect the future or something and they somehow know this... I don't remember. He has no reason to blame Spock - it's really stupid. That's assuming the Romulans would ever trust an outsider with something so important as saving their solar system - which they never would - or that they're all so stupid that Spock is their last hope which is absurd because we actually understand the Romulans to be more technologically advanced than the Federation.

 

[Franklin]

Ahem, continuing to steer the bus back onto the road, there are so many flavors of Trek that there can be many different public perceptions, but they're general and some are stereotypical. Within fandom, the perceptions are more nuanced and people are more protective of "their Trek" and will often defend it as the "one true Trek" (the only one to believe in if you want to go to heaven).

Dennis had it right way back on page one, "Star Trek" is seen as a niche product by the general public. The fact that you can walk into a toy store or shirt shop and see DC heroes stuff, Marvel heroes stuff, God knows "Star Wars" stuff, "Sherlock" stuff, and such, but seldom, if ever any "Star Trek" stuff speaks for itself.

It's baggage and the belief that that it actually may be a denser, more unapproachable product than it is (because of its incarnations and the canon created by fans) makes it less generally attractive, too.

That's why I believe the Abrams reboot was a stroke of genius. Everyone gets back in on the ground floor. The fun starts here. I literally dragged my oldest daughter (now 16) to ST09 and STID, and while ST09 was, "Surprisingly OK," she became a fan after seeing STID and has actually seen it more times than I have. When I showed her the teaser for STB, she thought it was great. There's the future of Trek, right there. Her generation's perception of it and the enjoyment they get from it are far more important than those of their fathers and mothers (though luckily, I'm at least as enthralled with it as she is). Thinking she can't be a fan because she has never seen TOS or TNG (let alone DS9, VOY or ENT) doesn't mean she's not a fan. She's a fan of HER "Star Trek". Because she found TWOK "a bit slow and talky" doesn't mean I should misperceive her. That movie predates her by 16 years. How many 16 year olds like 30+ year-old movies, let alone a 50 year-old TV show? If those aren't to her taste, I can see why. Her perception of "Star Trek", and the perception of enough movie-goers to make ST09 and STID successful and merit STB, are the future. We, the old farts, have to let go sometime.

 

[Ovation]

Except the Federation actually has characteristics. Some of these characteristics are apparent universal health care including mental care, lack of a death penalty except when it comes to visiting those those big brain illusion aliens which was so completely absurd that it's deuterocannon, a seeming absence of religious ideology in government (definitely something that was quite prominent in the 1960's US).

No analogy between fictional constructs and real-life institutions are (nor should be) based on a 1:1 congruence of characteristics. So while the Federation is never an exact copy of the US government or "western civilization", it shares enough broad similarities with each (arguably more the latter) to act as an effective stand-in in specific storytelling cases, both in TOS and in the new movies. In TOS, the episode Errand of Mercy has a scene illustrating what some scholars consider an analogy (some prefer metaphor) for US policy under Kennedy--specifically the Peace Corps and its efforts at spreading good will, along with "American values". It's where Kirk tries to convince the Organian council of all the wonderful things an alliance with, or even simply friendly relations with, the Federation can bring ("educate the young, feed many more people, etc."). The notion raised by the current filmmakers about questioning the desirability of spreading "Federation values" echoes debates about the desirability of using the Peace Corps to "spread American values" in places not necessarily receptive to such ideas (without necessarily being polar opposites to them). It's one of the elements I'm curious about regarding the new film (though I harbour no illusions about experiencing an in-depth multi-layered presentation of such ideas--Trek isn't, nor has it ever been, overly "deep").

Oh, it's certainly NATO country ideology, undoubtedly. In that case I suppose you can argue that the Federation may be a stand-in for the Iraq war. In which case you're still absurd because the entirety of STID rests on the notion that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were unjustly treated by the US (I suppose because the US dared to arm the Afghanis against the Soviets? That's probably Simon Pegg's view: he's upset that the US could possibly arm Muslims against his Marxist heroes Middle-East aggressions so 9/11 was basically justified blowback).

I'm sorry, but I don't see the connections here. I never once gave a thought to current events in terms of direct parallels regarding specific antagonists/protagonists, with the exception of the film commenting on the ethics of drone strikes via a rough analogy (the merits of which should be discussed in the appropriate forum of TNZ, if needed). I saw many more Cold War parallels (though again, none too deep--though that is not unique to the new films for Trek).

 

[BillJ]

...because we actually understand the Romulans to be more technologically advanced than the Federation.

Would you care to point out where, in any series, the Romulans were shown to be more technologically advanced than the Federation?

 

[Gov Kodos]

Ahem, continuing to steer the bus back onto the road, there are so many flavors of Trek that there can be many different public perceptions, but they're general and some are stereotypical. Within fandom, the perceptions are more nuanced and people are more protective of "their Trek" and will often defend it as the "one true Trek" (the only one to believe in if you want to go to heaven).

Dennis had it right way back on page one, "Star Trek" is seen as a niche product by the general public. The fact that you can walk into a toy store or shirt shop and see DC heroes stuff, Marvel heroes stuff, God knows "Star Wars" stuff, "Sherlock" stuff, and such, but seldom, if ever any "Star Trek" stuff speaks for itself.

It's baggage and the belief that that it actually may be a denser, more unapproachable product than it is (because of its incarnations and the canon created by fans) makes it less generally attractive, too.

That's why I believe the Abrams reboot was a stroke of genius. Everyone gets back in on the ground floor. The fun starts here. I literally dragged my oldest daughter (now 16) to ST09 and STID, and while ST09 was, "Surprisingly OK," she became a fan after seeing STID and has actually seen it more times than I have. When I showed her the teaser for STB, she thought it was great. There's the future of Trek, right there. Her generation's perception of it and the enjoyment they get from it are far more important than those of their fathers and mothers (though luckily, I'm at least as enthralled with it as she is). Thinking she can't be a fan because she has never seen TOS or TNG (let alone DS9, VOY or ENT) doesn't mean she's not a fan. She's a fan of HER "Star Trek". Because she found TWOK "a bit slow and talky" doesn't mean I should misperceive her. That movie predates her by 16 years. How many 16 year olds like 30+ year-old movies, let alone a 50 year-old TV show? If those aren't to her taste, I can see why. Her perception of "Star Trek", and the perception of enough movie-goers to make ST09 and STID successful and merit STB, are the future. We, the old farts, have to let go sometime.

Yes, Trek had become stodgy well before Enterprise came around. Stodgy, and self-referential, all too beholding to a nebulous 'canon vision' which to the public meant dull and boring. The new films were a much needed breath of fresh air. No longer redoing TNG which had played itself out before even DS9 went off the air, they've had great success. I'm looking forward to STB.

 

[Trekkin]

Would you care to point out where, in any series, the Romulans were shown tobe more technologically advanced than the Federation?

The only thing I can think of was the cloaks, and the Klingons also had those by the time of the films. And of course, one piece of tech does not 'technology' make.

 

[BillJ]

The only thing I can think of was the cloaks, and the Klingons also had those by the time of the films. Of course, one piece of tech does not 'technology' make.

But the Federation always seemed to be able to track cloaked ships, so I'm not sure what advantage that really offered? And the Feds had phase cloaks!

I'm just scratching my brain about when the Romulans were more technologically advanced than the Feds. Even during the Enterprise era they seemed to be on pretty equal footing.

 

[Franklin]

Yes, Trek had become stodgy well before Enterprise came around. Stodgy, and self-referential, all too beholding to a nebulous 'canon vision' which to the public meant dull and boring. The new films were a much needed breath of fresh air. No longer redoing TNG which had played itself out before even DS9 went off the air, they've had great success. I'm looking forward to STB.

Part of the marketing of ST09 was that it was "not your father's 'Star Trek'." That upset a lot of fans on these boards, as I remember. Torch-passing is hard. But, you're right, we had a good run. I've enjoyed the hell out of TOS, TNG, DS9, and to a lesser extent, VOY and ENT. But that was another lifetime. Whatever anyone thinks of millennials in general, they are the new demographic. My daughter is a fan of "Star Trek" today. No matter how good TOS or TNG is, she's not going to respond to those any more than she responds to The Beatles or Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Luckily, like you, there's enough in Trek to keep me. Can't say that about One Direction, though. At least I see the essence of Trek in Abrams' work, but I'll take "Rubber Soul" over "Midnight Memories" any day.

 

[Trekkin]

But the Federation always seemed to be able to track cloaked ships, so I'm not sure what advantage that really offered? And the Feds had phase cloaks!

I'm just scratching my brain about when the Romulans were more technologically advanced than the Feds. Even during the Enterprise era they seemed to be on pretty equal footing.

The Romulans also had a problem fighting whilst cloaked, didn't they? Besides not being able to fire, I thought it also gave them problems picking up The Enterprise's location.

 

[AdmiralShran]

Would you care to point out where, in any series, the Romulans were shown to be more technologically advanced than the Federation?

The Romulans are supposedly many millennia past warp speed. They use singularity drives which are arguably a higher form of technology than matter-antimatter combustion. The Federation steals a Romulan cloaking device in TOS and is astounded by the capacity of their "plasma torpedo" weapon in "Balance of Terror." In Enterprise the Romulans use long range drones with holographic technology to change the kind of ship they're flying centuries before the Federation seems to have holographic technology.

By the 24th century it seems that the Federation and Romulans are pretty much evenly matched but I would argue that the singularity engine is actually a more advanced technology than matter-antimatter reaction.

As I said, their ships run on singularities - they are evidently quite knowledgeable about them. I don't know why Spock would know something about this "red matter" that the Romulans don't given their apparent vast experience with creating artificial black holes.