Has Star Trek lost it's moral relevance?
- Thread starter Yminale
- Start date
The piece is a little disingenuous, in that the author uses the passing remark "Not that earlier iterations of "Star Trek" never indulged in laser battles..." to avoid and immediately dismiss the fact that the new movie is right in line with every previously successful Trek movie (except ST:TMP) in its reliance on an action format, combat and explosions to propel the narrative. What is simply striking about the new movie is that it seems to work far better on that level than the underbudgeted TOS-based features of the past.
As to the main question - Trek lost whatever moral interest it had decades ago, when the little bit of independence and provocation once contained in some of the writing was drained away in favor of safe, consensus values. The fact that TNG or DS9 enabled the writers to occasionally get on their soapboxes, thus successfully mimicking the exaggerated "allegorical" format of the original does not mean that they often had anything interesting to say while they were up there. At the time TOS was produced, even a chestnut like "war is bad, okay?" had a certain defiant resonance because American society was engaged in an immediate and fractious argument about an ongoing and unpopular war - but by the 1980s even that sentiment was easily subsumed back into the realm of comfortable, generic Sunday School axioms.
As to the main question - Trek lost whatever moral interest it had decades ago, when the little bit of independence and provocation once contained in some of the writing was drained away in favor of safe, consensus values. The fact that TNG or DS9 enabled the writers to occasionally get on their soapboxes, thus successfully mimicking the exaggerated "allegorical" format of the original does not mean that they often had anything interesting to say while they were up there. At the time TOS was produced, even a chestnut like "war is bad, okay?" had a certain defiant resonance because American society was engaged in an immediate and fractious argument about an ongoing and unpopular war - but by the 1980s even that sentiment was easily subsumed back into the realm of comfortable, generic Sunday School axioms.
I don't know why the author is comparing vastly different formats (tv/film) and widely seperated eras in his critique.
What exactly does he expect in a modern Trek film? Is there an overriding moral theme or dilema to this decade? If so why would a Trek film be the best vehicle for that issue?
What exactly does he expect in a modern Trek film? Is there an overriding moral theme or dilema to this decade? If so why would a Trek film be the best vehicle for that issue?
Oh please...not another "Star Trek is so high-minded, look what they've done to it" lament. How old is the author of the article, twelve? That's how old I was when I thought Star Trek was "high-minded". I grew up.
It's not that Trek had no "messages" at all. It's simply that it was never as "morally relevant" as some with heavily tinted rose-coloured glasses would have us believe. It made an effort to be more than just mindless sci-fi/space opera, and even enjoyed some relative successes. But the author's lament that, in the new movie, "the big moral lessons are nowhere to be found" is more suitable to the Onion bit on disappointed Trekkies than it is to serious commentary. The "moral lessons" of Star Trek simply were never all that "big" (or "deep" or "profound" or...).
It's not that Trek had no "messages" at all. It's simply that it was never as "morally relevant" as some with heavily tinted rose-coloured glasses would have us believe. It made an effort to be more than just mindless sci-fi/space opera, and even enjoyed some relative successes. But the author's lament that, in the new movie, "the big moral lessons are nowhere to be found" is more suitable to the Onion bit on disappointed Trekkies than it is to serious commentary. The "moral lessons" of Star Trek simply were never all that "big" (or "deep" or "profound" or...).
Hear, hear.
After reading the article I do have to say I find it spot on. Before the IMAX showing yesterday, a guy from the local Trek fan club made a short speech about Trek history. He started from the very beginning, from they days when The Cage was not approved by the studio since it was "too cerebral". He talked of the current day issues Star Trek was able to raise because it was science fiction.
Seeing the film after the speech made me think. Yeah, this sure isn't your father's Star Trek anymore. Wish I could decide whether it's mine.
The original series, even limited to 3 seasons, was probably what, 50+ hours of footage? Compared to a few hours in a single movie?
I don't blame them if they don't have time to dwell on every little social drama in the span of a movie rather than, you know, actually making the movie enjoyable.
On the other hand I generally prefer a TV Series over a Movie exactly due to that fact, the ability to touch on stories and ideas that don't fit well within a short movie.
I don't blame them if they don't have time to dwell on every little social drama in the span of a movie rather than, you know, actually making the movie enjoyable.
On the other hand I generally prefer a TV Series over a Movie exactly due to that fact, the ability to touch on stories and ideas that don't fit well within a short movie.
But what about those of us who think that social drama IS enjoyable?
I like the issues in the old TOS films. TUC - Kirk conflicted over not trusting Klingons (who killed his son) and being forced to make peace with them. TWoK - The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. TSFS - How far would you go to try to save a friend? You know, that kind of stuff. Not necessarily commentary on the society the same way TOS was but moral issues, human drama, conflict.
Movies don't do complex ideas all that well - not enough time, and people expect a bigger proportion of the time to be taken up by slam-bang action vs what they expect on TV. You want Star Trek ideas, it's gotta go back to TV.
Also, in the 1960s, a TV show with ideas was fairly unusual. There was the Twilight Zone, sure, but also a lot of dumbass comedies, and action-based shows. Now we've all gotten used to it.
Also, in the 1960s, a TV show with ideas was fairly unusual. There was the Twilight Zone, sure, but also a lot of dumbass comedies, and action-based shows. Now we've all gotten used to it.
You people don't watch movies anymore! Why do you think they're all action-fests aimed at 13 year old boys? That's the movie-going audience. Star Trek can't fight that. And it doesn't have to. The movies can be for action, TV can be for ideas. Use each medium for what it does best.But what about those of us who think that social drama IS enjoyable?
I wouldn't say ST4's message was simple, Joe. Not any of TNG's. Nor. really, TOS. Racism isn't simplistic.
Accept the idea. GR said that's what it was about in 1964. Wikipedia says it is.
Only children get turned on by pure action adventure and even children like a message.
You're no going to turn it into s***.
I won't let you.
That took a little while.
I just try to go on what GR said and wrote, that's all, and modify it for present times.
There's some great social drama in Trek literature too. It's a big universe. There's room for everyone.You people don't watch movies anymore! Why do you think they're all action-fests aimed at 13 year old boys? That's the movie-going audience. Star Trek can't fight that. And it doesn't have to. The movies can be for action, TV can be for ideas. Use each medium for what it does best.But what about those of us who think that social drama IS enjoyable?
Almost.
Exactly. The "moral messages" of Star Trek were, for the most part, things along the lines of "racism is bad" and "war is bad" and "power corrupts" and other extremely simplistic ideas. The notion that Trek was this cleverly disguised complex critique of social values that somehow fooled the network censors but not middle American viewers is largely a myth perpetuated after the fact by GR and others.
For the most part, original Trek was a straightforward, fun, well-produced action/adventure show. And that's not something to be ashamed of - very few TV programs can achieve that.
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNAH!!!!!
No it isn't. you're wrong. ST is a morality show, and it's not just GR who said that. Action adventure on it's own is for kids and simple minded people.
The moral of ST4 wasn't simplistic and neither were the messages in TNG, which is probably why some people don't like it. TNG explored the grey areas.
It seems to me that the only people who would object to a show with a message are the immoral or amoral.
Similar threads
