Abrams dissing Star Trek... again

[QuasarVM]

It doesn't have to be. But that's how he's choosing to promote the film -- using Obama's European popularity to overcome Europeans' anti-American-leaning associations of anything American with Bush. All I'm saying is, if McCain were President, Abrams would be using some other strategy to overcome European anti-American sentiment in marketing an American action film to them.

You still haven't answered the question.

Yes, I did. You asked, "Why does a movie have to be associated with a President?" I answered, "It doesn't have to be." I then went on to explain that while it doesn't have to be associated with a President, Abrams is choosing to do so in order to overcome European anti-American sentiment.

And, I really don't appreciate JJ using Star Trek as some kind of political pawn. There is nothing about Obama in the film. There is nothing about Bush. There is nothing about McCain or George Washington.

There's nothing about Obama in the film, no. But I would argue that there is a certain optimism about the ability of humanity to overcome major social problems by working together rather than individually that has long been associated with both Star Trek and with American liberalism, especially as identified with John F. Kennedy in the 1960s. So while ST09 doesn't have an explicit political message, it does contain some of the same underlying assumptions about the human capacity for communal action that is found in American liberalism.

You're missing my point which is -- Star Trek shouldn't be backing any Presidents. It should be about entertainment. And just like rock/pop stars who wear their politics on their sleeves -- JJ is alienating at least half his audience when pulls stunts like popping off about Obama. It's just stupid and silly to stuff like that since it's out of nowhere and his film has nothing to do with Obama or politics...etc. It's just JJ saying basically "I love Obama and you should see my film because I love Obama".

Stupid.

Kennedy was not a liberal in the modern sense. He would never condone many of the shenanigans going on in the Democrat party today. Say whatever you want about John Kennedy -- he was a PATRIOT and he would never stab his country in the back the way the progressives do. By today's standards, Kennedy has more in common with Ronald Reagan than his brother (R.I.P.) Ted for example...or a Nancy Pelosi. It wouldn't have surprised me if he would have switched to Republican had he lived, in fact.

And Hussein Obama is a progressive -- not a liberal in the classic sense. The progressive movement is nothing more than Socialism and Marxism with a label that makes it more tolerable to the uneducated and ignorant.

Individuality is not frowned upon in Star Trek -- otherwise, Starfleet would have embraced being assimilated by the Borg (certainly more representative of Socialists and Marxists).

Optimism is not owned by liberals, Socialists and Marxists. We're all optimistic -- we just have different concepts of what we're optimistic about. Although it is increasingly challenging to be optimistic about anything under the current global circumstances.

To be optimistic and want a better future and HOPE for peace and cooperation between man (but if we can't, then we should be prepared and willing to put a Kirk-like smackdown on the troublemakers) is a universal concept...it's not owned by Socialists.

And so, because of that simple truth -- you'll find that Star Trek fans run the gamut of conservative (like me) and liberal to even more extreme socialist types...

Personally, I think it's wrong for any one group to try to hijack it and claim it for their own. I find enough conservatism in Star Trek to continue to enjoy it. If it were Communists in starships, I doubt I'd be terribly interested in watching it...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In a recent interview that JJ Abrams gave to an Italian sci-fi magazine, called Ciak, he made the following comment:

"We're lucky that Star Trek is reborn in the era of the new president" […] "The new Star Trek has the same enthusiasm of the new America of Obama, after the frustation, the depression and the shame of the old one, the George W. Bush one"

That's a good quote, and sums up my feelings for the Trek franchise pretty succinctly. Especially when it comes to Voyager and most of what went on with Enterprise.

That's just his way of saying "Alot of what came before me was garbage. We're going to make an improvement." This is what talented, artistic and justifiably arrogant people say when they are fired up about a new project.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And Hussein Obama is a progressive -- not a liberal in the classic sense. The progressive movement is nothing more than Socialism and Marxism with a label that makes it more tolerable to the uneducated and ignorant.

Yeah. Because you say so.

Optimism is not owned by liberals, Socialists and Marxists.

Nobody said it was. It is, however, encouraged largely by PROGRESSIVES, whose general motivation is a hope and a desire to see things in their society change for the better. This, as distinguished from conservatives, who are motivated by the belief that any changes in society are either negative ("Things are fine the way they are") or should by regressive ("Things were better the way they were").

Star Trek is progressive in this sense because it mantains the message that 1) Things are NOT fine the way they are and 2) things were not fine the way they were, and hammers home the fact that, with a little cooperation and a modest reduction of greed/individualism, things CAN get better.

Personally, I think it's wrong for any one group to try to hijack it and claim it for their own.

Least of all conservatives. Need I remind you that most of TOS' most memorable storylines were POLITICALLY progressive for their time; Omega Glory and Let That Be Your Last Battlefield come to mind, not to mention the first interracial kiss on broadcast television. These were PROGRESSIVE moments, and intentionally so, whether or not you are prepared to see them as such.

 

[QuasarVM]

In a recent interview that JJ Abrams gave to an Italian sci-fi magazine, called Ciak, he made the following comment:

"We're lucky that Star Trek is reborn in the era of the new president" […] "The new Star Trek has the same enthusiasm of the new America of Obama, after the frustation, the depression and the shame of the old one, the George W. Bush one"

That's a good quote, and sums up my feelings for the Trek franchise pretty succinctly. Especially when it comes to Voyager and most of what went on with Enterprise.

That's just his way of saying "Alot of what came before me was garbage. We're going to make an improvement." This is what talented, artistic and justifiably arrogant people say when they are fired up about a new project.

He could have said that without bringing politics into it. He might as well have said "This is the film that came out when I started eating at Burger King".

It makes about as much sense.

 

[QuasarVM]

And Hussein Obama is a progressive -- not a liberal in the classic sense. The progressive movement is nothing more than Socialism and Marxism with a label that makes it more tolerable to the uneducated and ignorant.

Yeah. Because you say so.

No, because that's what it is. Too bad you can't recognize Socialism and Marxism relabeled either...

Optimism is not owned by liberals, Socialists and Marxists.

Nobody said it was. It is, however, encouraged largely by PROGRESSIVES, whose general motivation is a hope and a desire to see things in their society change for the better. This, as distinguished from conservatives, who are motivated by the belief that any changes in society are either negative ("Things are fine the way they are") or should by regressive ("Things were fine the way they were").

Star Trek is progressive in this sense because it mantains the message that 1) Things are NOT fine the way they are and 2) things were not fine the way they were, and hammers home the fact that, with a little cooperation and a modest reduction of greed/individualism, things CAN get better.

Sure they can -- only Socialism and Marxism have proven over and over again THEY are not the better way as they've failed everywhere they have been implimented.

Personally, I think it's wrong for any one group to try to hijack it and claim it for their own.

Least of all conservatives. Need I remind you that most of TOS' most memorable storylines were POLITICALLY progressive for their time; Omega Glory and Let That Be Your Last Battlefield come to mind, not to mention the first interracial kiss on broadcast television. These were PROGRESSIVE moments, and intentionally so, whether or not you are prepared to see them as such.

You've got a skewed perception of Conservatism.

Equal rights (the subject of LTBYLB) are not a political issue -- they are a human rights issue -- which is a different thing altogether. And may I remind you, it was Democrats who resisted equal rights for blacks and a REPUBLICAN who liberated them. And it's the Democrats who claim a former member of the KKK among its ranks -- Sen. Robert Byrd.

So, what do you say to that? Hotshot.

 

[Chrisisall]

I did think "The Voyage Home" was needlessly preachy. Stop smacking us with anvils, we get it -- saving the whales is cool. No need to go all afterschool special on us over it.

Not all moviegoers *get* it; the "smacking" was okay by me.

And there are plenty of Americans who believe that any environmental cause is detrimental to their perception of America. The phrase "saving the whales" was often used by them to mock and belittle liberals, similar to their use of "tree-huggers".

Personally, I resent the idea that conserving the environment is a Liberal ideal; Conservatives, REAL Conservatives, want to CONSERVE, not DEPLETE. Conservatives that are willing to piss away our land & living non-human resources are just carpet-bagging NeoCon *expletive deleted*.
IMO, of course.

 

[Sci]

You're missing my point which is -- Star Trek shouldn't be backing any Presidents.

You didn't articulate that point. How can anyone be blamed for not understanding a claim you did not make? You said that Star Trek "shouldn't be used as a political pawn," which is a vague statement. And one that also ignores the fact that Star Trek has had political content and commentary since its very first episode (i.e., supporting feminism by depicting a woman as first officer in "The Cage").

It should be about entertainment.

So say you. Others say it should have political content. Traditionally, it's done both, with varying emphases depending on the installment. (Star Trek VI was much more overtly political, for instance, than Star Trek II.)

And just like rock/pop stars who wear their politics on their sleeves -- JJ is alienating at least half his audience when pulls stunts like popping off about Obama.

Considering that it was one of the biggest hits of the year, I'd say he's managed not to alienate half his audience. It would be fair enough to say that he risks alienating half his audience, but he seems not to have done that.

And in Germany, he and the studio seem to believe that ST09 gains a much larger German audience by Abrams's dissing Bush and associating ST09 with Obama than it would if he did not.

Kennedy was not a liberal in the modern sense.

Right, sure, John F. Kennedy wasn't a liberal.

He would never condone many of the shenanigans going on in the Democrat party today.

I don't know what this "Democrat party" is of which you speak. There's a political party in the United States called the Democratic Party, but none called the Democrat party.

Say whatever you want about John Kennedy -- he was a PATRIOT and he would never stab his country in the back the way the progressives do.

I am a progressive, a liberal, and a proud patriot, and everything I advocate, I advocate because I believe it is better for America, not "stabbing our country in the back." How dare you claim that Liberals are traitors? No one questions your patriotism; don't question ours.

And Hussein Obama is a progressive -- not a liberal in the classic sense.

1. The President of the United States is named Barack Hussein Obama, and he goes by Barack Obama. Tell me, why would you call him "Hussein Obama?" To me, it looks like you're emphasizing an Arabic name he has in common with a deceased dictator in order to try to plant the idea that he's somehow "other" or "alien" in people's minds. But I don't see you running around emphasizing that George W. Bush had the same first name as the King of Great Britain from which this great country declared its independence, so why would you treat President Obama any differently?

2. Well, no, we're not talking about classical liberalism. We're talking about modern American Liberalism. Don't mix up your terminology.

The progressive movement is nothing more than Socialism and Marxism with a label that makes it more tolerable to the uneducated and ignorant.

That's absurd. If anything, President Obama's administration is far too buddy-buddy with the big corporations on Wall Street. If President Obama was a Marxist, he'd be advocating the abolition of the health insurance industry and opening up of Medicare to all American citizens. As it stands, he's still sending mixed signals on whether or not he'll even bother to support a public insurance option.

Individuality is not frowned upon in Star Trek

I never claimed it was. However, Star Trek has traditionally held the idea of collective social action as a means for strengthening personal liberal in very high regard. (A strong example of this is Star Trek's depiction of a near-Utopia resulting from the nations of the world uniting and establishing a planetary state.) In this sense, Star Trek has traditionally been collectivist in its political mindset, as is modern American Liberalism.

Modern American Conservatism, by contrast, tends to believe in Individualism (not "individuality") -- the belief that collective action is not a reliable means for creating positive social change, and that individual or private action is a more effective means of securing personal liberty. Most Individualists would tend to be very skeptical of Trek's presumption that, for instance, world unity would lead to a near-Utopia.

Both modern American Liberalism and modern American Conservatism value individuality, as does Star Trek.

Optimism is not owned by liberals, Socialists and Marxists.

I never said it was. I said that Star Trek and modern American Liberalism are optimistic about the capacity for positive collective social change, whereas most incarnations of modern American Conservatism are pessimistic about the capacity of collective social action to affect positive change. Star Trek, by contrast, tends to be very pessimistic about Individualism's capacity for positive social change, whilst American Conservatism is very optimistic about Individualism's capacity for positive social change.

Personally, I think it's wrong for any one group to try to hijack it and claim it for their own.

It's not "hijacked." Star Trek was always a reflection of the values of modern American Liberalism. What, you thought Picard's five thousand speeches about how humanity had outgrown the need for money was something reflecting Reaganomics? You think when Kirk declares, "Some say this is the end of history. Well, I think we haven't run out of history just yet!" that this wasn't motivated by an objection to Fukuyama? There's a reason the assassin in Star Trek VI was named after Oliver North.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No, because that's what it is. Too bad you can't recognize Socialism and Marxism relabeled either...

As someone who is actually on a first-name basis with a number of REAL Marxists, I am forced to call bullshit. Marxism is a very specific and complicated ideology with a lot of well-defined literature behind it. It is such a virulent and mind-warping worldview that it is basically impossible to BE a Marxist without bragging about it. Unless you're just faking it to impress some cute girl (I know a few of those too).

Socialism, also, is a very specific ideology, one whose definition you are equally unfamiliar with. A simple de-prioritization of individual negative rights is not "socialism," nor do progressives universally advocate democratic control of a nation's economy (which is the fundamental tenent OF socialism).

Sure they can -- only Socialism and Marxism have proven over and over again THEY are not the better way as they've failed everywhere they have been implimented.

That's all well and good... unfortunately you haven't described what conservatives would advocate INSTEAD of Socialism or Marxism or any other conceivable system that would deliver the kinds of social/political/economic progress advocated by progressives.

Which is my overall point: conservatives have a long list of "Don'ts", which they believe may, individually or in combination, destroy the universe. They advocate very little POSITIVE action, except to step away from action of any kind and allow nature/humanity/industry/Jesus/the invisible hand to run its course. Thus we have the dichotomy between "Do nothing, and things will get better" and "Do something, so things will get better."

You've got a skewed perception of Conservatism.

Equal rights (the subject of LTBYLB) are not a political issue -- they are a human rights issue -- which is a different thing altogether.

And conservatives have historically been on which side of the equal rights issue?

And may I remind you, it was Democrats who resisted equal rights for blacks and a REPUBLICAN who liberated them.

Indeed. At a time when Democrats (or "Dixiecrats" as they were known to black people at the time) pandered to the conservative movement which was, at the time, largely indistinguishable from the segregationist movement. The ideological switch--if you could even call it that--came after the Civil Rights movement finally triumphed and Republicans were able to maintain power by sweeping up votes of angry white southerners who felt they'd been betrayed by the Democrats. This, in the late 70s and early 80s, was embodied in the infamous "Southern Strategy." Who, after all, do you think Reagan was talking to when he told that fable about Wellfare Queens?

But I digress. The conservative movement is not defined--historically or presently--as advocating or even welcoming any kind of social change. The trend has always been, not just in America but in every modern society on Earth, towards either a suspension of social progress and "keep things the way they are," or a regression of social progress and "keep things the way they WERE" on the assumption that anything new or untried will necessarily fail. It is indeed the one thing all conservatives DO have in common, even among different social political and religious backgrounds. That Star Trek appeals to such people is hardly amazing; that conservatives could ever claim Star Trek is indicative of conservative thinking is just plain absurd.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Star Trek shouldn't be backing any Presidents. It should be about entertainment.

Bingo! If it does back presidents, be they Republicans or Democrats it then stops being entrainment and ventures into the realm of Propaganda - though, given that this administration attempted to co-op the NEA as a Propaganda arm to sell Obamacare I wouldn't be surprised if Hollywood doesn't become just that more overtly these next 3 years.

Also, Abrams should be careful about hitching his artwork to Obama's wagon... given the President's plummeting poll numbers, and his unfailing habit to insult our allies and support would be Presidents-For-Life like Manuel Zelaya his brand might not be so stellar by the time the next movie hits the screens.

Better business practice is to remain agnostic about politics though certainly that does not mean a movie can't be "about something".

Sharr

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Star Trek shouldn't be backing any Presidents. It should be about entertainment.

Bingo! If it does back presidents, be they Republicans or Democrats it then stops being entrainment and ventures into the realm of Propaganda

So it's okay, when "The Yangs" ultimately triumph in bloody conquest over "The Colms" and Jim Kirk patriotically recites the Preamble of the Constitution... but alluding to a legitimately elected president of the United States--who was elected on a LANDSLIDE, mind you--is "propaganda."

I'm not sure you've noticed this, but Obama IS the President of the United States. Not of Algeria, not of Iraq, not of Iran, not of Russia, not of the Klingon Empire. It would be different of Abrams was trying to make references to Kim Jong Il as "not such a bad guy" or something, then you have to wonder what he's up to. In this case, it's a complete non-issue; in point of fact, even when it MIGHT have been an issue (a certain previous executive who shall remain nameless) it was common to be accused of disloyalty just for disagreeing with him.

 

[Sci]

Star Trek shouldn't be backing any Presidents. It should be about entertainment.

Bingo! If it does back presidents, be they Republicans or Democrats it then stops being entrainment and ventures into the realm of Propaganda

Question. When "The Cage" implicitly advocated feminism and female equality at a time when most people believed women should not be in leadership positions by depicting a woman as first officer of the Enterprise, was that propaganda?

When "A Private Little War" featured Captain Kirk trying to balance the scales in a proxy war between two factions on a pre-industrial war whose other side was being aided by the Klingons -- an allusion to the Vietnam War, albeit on the pro-war side -- was this propaganda?

When "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" satirized the very idea of racism by featuring two aliens who distinguishing racial traits were absurd to other species, was that propaganda?

When "Journey to Babel" featured a story about Federation Member worlds realizing they needed to unite and stop trying to colonize other worlds for economic gain, but instead accept them as equals -- thus implicitly criticizing neo-colonialism and advocating U.S participation in the U.N. -- was this propaganda?

When "The Devil in the Dark" featured the message that looking past previous violent conflicts based on cultural misunderstandings could help both sides reach a better future, was that propaganda?

When "Errand of Mercy" featured the Organians mocking the Federation and the Klingons for thinking they have the right to wage war in an obvious allusion to the U.S./USSR Cold War, was that propaganda?

When "Assignment: Earth" featured Gary Seven on a historically important mission to prevent the United States from weaponizing Earth orbit during the Cold War, was that propaganda?

When Star Trek: The Motion Picture implicitly criticized the idea of God and organized religion with its "we all create God in our own image" theme, was that propaganda?

When Star Trek IV sent an important message about environmentalism, was that propaganda?

When Star Trek VI was organized around the idea of accepting the end of the Cold War and the start of a new era of peace and cooperation, around the rejection of the idea of the end of history, and featured a villain named in an allusion to a prominent member of the Reagan administration, was that propaganda?

I could go on and one. Star Trek has been full of implicitly modern American Liberal content from the very beginning. But a work of art can advocate a political philosophy without being propaganda.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Makes you wonder which TV series and films these people have been watching all these years.

 

[seigezunt]

How is he dissing Trek here?

If anything, he is dissing Bush, which is to be lauded.

 

[rahullak]

Yes, I agree with Sci.

Also, in the Trek universe, a lot of the lines between different political and economic philosophies are blurred. For instance, while it may appear that the UFP is a socialist utopia, there is also inherently a capitalist feel to it (and by capitalism, I'm not talking monetarily but in terms of merit). The Trek universe clearly advocates meritocracy, which is a concept one finds in capitalism and not socialism. In other words, everybody is considered to have equal opportunities and everyone is equal, except when it comes to their merits (in terms of experience and abilities).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Re: A private little war: I see the allusion to Vietnam, but I don't see this as a pro-war thing, really. Especially considering Tyree's wife was raped and murdered after threatening several villagers with a phaser she didn't know how to use and had no business having in the first place. The implication there, to me, is that giving the Vietnamese TOO MUCH help would be as disastrous as no help at all; better to simply balance the scales so that the two sides can remain on the same equal footing they were on before and hash out an agreement on THOSE terms.

In the context of Vietnam, that's an anti-war position. Giving the South Vietnamese exactly enough support to meet the North on equal terms would have resulted in the North very quickly dominating the South due to better organization and political cohesiveness (much as Tyree's people were destined to be marginalized once the townsfolk mastered industry and farming). The point, then, would be to let it happen in a more natural way, and most importantly, let it happen in a way that the Klingons/Russians can't take advantage of.

 

[Sci]

Yes, I agree with Sci.

Also, in the Trek universe, a lot of the lines between different political and economic philosophies are blurred. For instance, while it may appear that the UFP is a socialist utopia, there is also inherently a capitalist feel to it (and by capitalism, I'm not talking monetarily but in terms of merit). The Trek universe clearly advocates meritocracy, which is a concept one finds in capitalism and not socialism. In other words, everybody is considered to have equal opportunities and everyone is equal, except when it comes to their merits (in terms of experience and abilities).

Quite true. And, indeed, I feel compelled to remind people that modern American Liberalism tends to be pro-Capitalist, albeit in a more regulated form than modern American Conservatism tends to favor.

Re: A private little war: I see the allusion to Vietnam, but I don't see this as a pro-war thing, really. Especially considering Tyree's wife was raped and murdered after threatening several villagers with a phaser she didn't know how to use and had no business having in the first place. The implication there, to me, is that giving the Vietnamese TOO MUCH help would be as disastrous as no help at all; better to simply balance the scales so that the two sides can remain on the same equal footing they were on before and hash out an agreement on THOSE terms.

In the context of Vietnam, that's an anti-war position. Giving the South Vietnamese exactly enough support to meet the North on equal terms would have resulted in the North very quickly dominating the South due to better organization and political cohesiveness (much as Tyree's people were destined to be marginalized once the townsfolk mastered industry and farming). The point, then, would be to let it happen in a more natural way, and most importantly, let it happen in a way that the Klingons/Russians can't take advantage of.

A fair enough interpretation. I don't agree with it, but it's quite defensible.

And either way, whether we see "A Private Little War" as being pro-Vietnam War or anti-Vietnam War, it remains that it's still a story with a political message but not propaganda.

 

[-Brett-]

"We're lucky that Star Trek is reborn in the era of the new president" […] "The new Star Trek has the same enthusiasm of the new America of Obama, after the frustation, the depression and the shame of the old one, the George W. Bush one"

Even if he was dissing Star Trek made in the Bush years, is that really so bad?

Do we really want someone who thinks Enterprise and Nemesis were good making new Star Trek movies?

 

[Joshua Howard]

To those who say bad things about Star Trek moving into the territory of propaganda; I always have been of the belief that the minute you turn on the TV, whether to watch a news spot or "entertainment" - anything that appears to have some particular emphasis or purpose - you are subjecting yourself to a form of propaganda.

There is nothing wrong with propaganda, as long as the person viewing it is aware of what it is. Are Geiko commercials or advertisements for Breakfast Cereal inappropriate? They are not, because you know their motive; same thing with Star Trek, whatever path it takes.

The argument is not about whether Star Trek is becoming a propaganda tool; that goes without saying. The argument is actually about what type of propaganda we want it to be, or become.

 

[Sci]

I suppose we do need to pause and ask ourselves what, exactly, the word "propaganda" means. In its broadest definition, it could literally encompass any form of communication intended to persuade someone to agree with the communicator -- in which case, virtually every work of art is a form of propaganda, even works like Mister Rogers' Neighborhood whose only rhetorical goal is to convince its audience that they are valuable human beings worthy of love.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ True.

Propaganda, typically, is a form of communication intended for disinformation, usually to promote a particular point of view by presenting false or dubious information favorable towards it or disfavorable to its competing theory. The line between propaganda and legitimate communications is sometimes fuzzy, but not so much that a filmaker's take of a particular political situation could be interpreted as such.