The Things That Make Star Trek Different

[Lapis Exilis]

Pardon my co-opting Haggis and Tatties' post - but I wanted to spin off of it in regards to something that doesn't seem to be getting much play in this forum.

Every Trek fan should be booking their cinema seats now, and supporting from what i can see as a actual genuine attempt to not only reenergize this wonderful franchise but to actually put some time and effort into it, considering the lackluster crap that was churned out in the form of Nemesis and Enterprise by the last holders of the keys.

I just wanted to point out that I've heard this sentiment expressed by a variety of posters and I appreciate where it's coming from - but there's somthing about it that bothers me. And it is this:

As soon as I have an indication that the new movie is not the same lackluster crap as Nemesis and Enterprise, I'll be quite happy to get excited. But so far all I've seen is window dressing pizazz. Nemesis and Enterprise also tried to hang those curtains on Trek - and did it badly. Some folks have said that it was the "doing it badly" part that is really objectionable - but is that all?

When it comes to JJ Abrams' creative work, not much of it has held my attention. From what I understand about it, he's good at hooks but not so great at resolution. At least according to the few fans of Lost that I know who are quite frustrated with the series' direction. As for Orci - it's all competent, but singularly uninspired storytelling. So, they may be able to add action and sex to Star Trek more successfully; it may be slicker, it may be better executed window dressing - but it may still just be window dressing.

I hope with Star Trek to always look out that window and see the adventure of the unknown and elemental explorations of what it means to be human. I've gone back and looked at a little TOS in the last week, trying to put my finger on what it was that I found compelling about the show - and it was the sense of being on the edge of civilization, of long periods of utter tedium mapping the far reaches of space, broken up by encounters with creatures and cultures that stripped characters down to their bare bones and exposed the inner workings of the human heart. Granted the show did this in a very simplistic, "tv" fashion, but TOS had the feeling of early SF short stories - sharp, penetrating looks at humanity pushing itself to the edge by being in space, and all the possibilities of imagination available in the convention of "strange new worlds". It was something summed up beautifully by a line in "All Good Things..." by our favorite silly convention, a God-like Alien (Q of all people):

"That is the exploration that awaits you. Not mapping stars and studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possibilities of existence."

The only indication I've seen that any of this sort of thing will be part of this project has been the initial teaser trailer (and even it only seems to address a little of the excitement and daring of space exploration), and I have no idea whether that has anything at all to do with the tone or story of this film.

So I'll be waiting to reserve my seat because if it's just window dressing, no matter how slick and exciting, I'd rather not spend the money. If I just want humor, FX and kickass fight scenes, I can go rewatch Armageddon, The Fifth Element, I, Robot, or a host of other mediocre but enjoyable SF flicks. I mean, truly, what would be the difference?

Is there something else that makes Star Trek what it is? Or is just a rousing good space adventure enough?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The trousers, I think.

 

[Jon1701]

THE WOMEN!

 

[Lapis Exilis]

The trousers, I think.

I believe, in order to be respectful, Abrams must make certain there are several shots of the waistband of Kirk's tightie whities showing along the back of his trousers. Especially during fight scenes.

 

[Ptrope]

I'm with you all the way, Lapis Exilis (and great shout out to The Rutles, SP! ). Whether it's a romanticized notion of Trek or not, I always liked and appreciated that, by and large, Trek was trying to explore humanity more than it ever simply explored the galaxy. I could accept two-dimensional aliens because, ultimately, they needed to be so, to distill down the basic element of a human foible and then pick at it until a bit of enlightenment shone through. The ship, the drywall sets, the rubber costumes were all just window dressing, but, as you've said, it appears that an awful lot of effort has been expended upon the window dressing itself for the new film, with very little to indicate that the foundation is actually sound.

I can tell you that I'm not going to be in line that first day, maybe not even that first week. I have little faith in Orci & Kurtzman's writing, and I completely agree about Abrams' ability to start big and then peter out without a conclusion (very like Braga on ENT: some good concepts, at least in the first two seasons, with wretched execution). I just wish that they would do one of two things: reboot Star Trek and be up front about it, in which case I would be eager to see what they've done, or commit themselves to the heart of Trek and expanding it to fill the screen. This half-and-half approach, with all the talking out of both sides of their mouths regarding "reimagining" and also "remaining faithful to the existing canon," leaves a very bad - and very familiar - taste in my mouth from 4 years of mediocrity; it leaves me completely unimpressed and unexcited by the prospects before us.

I'm only waiting for May to get here so I can see Up!. And after watching the extras on my Wall*E DVDs last night, I kept wondering what Trek would be like if these people, who are so committed to great storytelling and a great experience, could ever get their hands on Trek. Abrams talks a lot of clichés, just as did Berman and Braga before; when I listen to Stanton, and Lassiter and Bird and the others, I see the only folks I've heard lately who seem to take storytelling seriously. At least I have hope for John Carter of Mars, now .

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I'm with you all the way, Lapis Exilis (and great shout out to The Rutles, SP! ). Whether it's a romanticized notion of Trek or not, I always liked and appreciated that, by and large, Trek was trying to explore humanity more than it ever simply explored the galaxy. I could accept two-dimensional aliens because, ultimately, they needed to be so, to distill down the basic element of a human foible and then pick at it until a bit of enlightenment shone through. The ship, the drywall sets, the rubber costumes were all just window dressing, but, as you've said, it appears that an awful lot of effort has been expended upon the window dressing itself for the new film, with very little to indicate that the foundation is actually sound.

To be honest, I don't know how successful I found any two-dimensional alien societies as metaphors. I'm thinking more of "The Enemy Within", with its Jungian exploration of what makes a good leader; or "Devil in the Dark" with its nifty turnaround and look at how a species reacts to another species so different as to appear to be completely Other, but revealed to be completely understandable; or "The Corbomite Manuever", which is largely interesting for the character interaction between Kirk and McCoy over Bailey and between Kirk and Spock over strategy; even WNMHGB, as cliched as its "absolute power" moral is, and as stilted as its execution is, it's still a glittery, melodramatic knockdown drag out of a basic human foible. A God, but with all the frailties of a man, I believe is how Kirk puts it. I think the combination of these sorts of issues with the tone of sailing the stellar seas far, far from home is what sets Trek apart.

 

[AlanC9]

When you say Trek, do you just mean TOS? Or are you just using TOS examples because it's a TOS film?

 

[Patrickivan]

One of the complaints I heard people make about TNG was how preachy it was. One of the underlying themes I loved about TNG (and TOS) was how humanity needed to strive to be better and it was that self exploration that made us so. I loved that.

I like the space battles and action, but I really want to see how our heros can come to a resolution without killing, capturing, or conquering. I like the optimistic ideas that people can work together and find resolution without destroying entire civilizations. Not that Star Trek was all this- it just strived for it.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

One of the complaints I heard people make about TNG was how preachy it was. One of the underlying themes I loved about TNG (and TOS) was how humanity needed to strive to be better and it was that self exploration that made us so. I loved that.

I like the space battles and action, but I really want to see how our heros can come to a resolution without killing, capturing, or conquering. I like the optimistic ideas that people can work together and find resolution without destroying entire civilizations. Not that Star Trek was all this- it just strived for it.

Absolutely, and TNG had plenty of good examples of that. I remember in Offspring as Data explains to Lal why he strives to be human when it is an unattainable goal - the striving to be more than you are is what matters.

Many of my favorite episodes have to do with endings that subvert the expected "and then the good guys vanquished the bad guys" - "Arena", and Kirk's act of mercy; "A Taste of Armageddon" and his act of utter cruelty - which makes the two civilizations face the ugly consequences of war.

 

[Plum]

<SNIP!>

Is there something else that makes Star Trek what it is? Or is just a rousing good space adventure enough?

I could be wrong but I think the old Star Trek stories, those you say have such human insight and relevance (if in a "TV" way, which seems to contradict your point somewhat), were a part of how the 60s told fantastic storys. Heavy on the allegory and deeply humanistic (despite the never ending appearance of 'Stepford Wives'). I was trying to say something similar in my TOS thread about 60s TV. Watching The Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, and the first two seasons of Star Trek all feel like a progression of fantastic writing styles steeped in the traditions I might attribute to Rod Sterling more than any other influence.

Of course, the new film isn't anything like this. No films today are (at least, not any from Hollywoodland). Today, fantastic films with fantasy or sci-fi elements are all 'epic' films. Influenced mostly by Romanticism and iconic destiny. All very Joseph Campbell. I blame George Lucas... or at least I blame the android that the aliens left when they kidnapped the real George in 1982. I hear he's on Tarsus III today, still making films and has never made a prequel... ever.

And I'm of the opinion that might be the difference between a more 'adult' story and one with feet firmly in childhood fairy tales. Star Wars was always for kids. Star Trek wasn't meant to be, so much.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I could be wrong but I think the old Star Trek stories, those you say have such human insight and relevance (if in a "TV" way, which seems to contradict your point somewhat),

Well, I don't pretend Trek was actually deep (how deep can you be in 45 minutes?), though it did make an attempt at a kind of intellectualism in its writing. Take The Enemy Within, the Jungian theory of a human personality existing as Ego and Shadow and the idea that many of our strengths are coupled irrevocably to our darker impulses is relatively heavy, even if the treatment of it in this story is pretty melodramatic.

were a part of how the 60s told fantastic storys. Heavy on the allegory and deeply humanistic (despite the never ending appearance of 'Stepford Wives'). I was trying to say something similar in my TOS thread about 60s TV. Watching The Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, and the first two seasons of Star Trek all feel like a progression of fantastic writing styles steeped in the traditions I might attribute to Rod Sterling more than any other influence.

Of course, the new film isn't anything like this. No films today are (at least, not any from Hollywoodland). Today, fantastic films with fantasy or sci-fi elements are all 'epic' films. Influenced mostly by Romanticism and iconic destiny. All very Joseph Campbell.

I think you're right on about iconic destiny and Romanticism, but it's not really very Joseph Campbell. Campbell was actually a Jungian too,a nd even the heroic cycle he discusses in Hero with a Thousand Faces (a very early work of his) has a lot more depth to it than "born to heroism, vanquishes bad guys". If you read some of his other stuff like Transformations of Myth Through Time or The Inner Reaches of Outer Space, his material gets into a lot of stuff that's way more complicated than the heroic cycle - of which Star Wars is an extremely simplified version anyway.

I blame George Lucas... or at least I blame the android that the aliens left when they kidnapped the real George in 1982. I hear he's on Tarsus III today, still making films and has never made a prequel... ever.

Poor George, he gets all the blame. I think it has as much to do with too self-consciously building "iconic" stories as anything else. Once the whole "franchise" idea was born, in which what were once organically developing story cycles, it behooved producers to play up the ICONIC NATURE of their properties. So it's not really iconic at all - it's just marketed that way. And the storytelling becomes very involved with Big Formative Moments for Iconic Heroes. Most good Star Trek tells stories of courageous people, but when they try too hard to make icons (Riker, Wesley, Archer) it feels false.

And I'm of the opinion that might be the difference between a more 'adult' story and one with feet firmly in childhood fairy tales. Star Wars was always for kids. Star Trek wasn't meant to be, so much.

I'd agree. Wars, lovely as the successful stories in it are, never tried to be thought provoking or philosophical. Trek at least tried, and sometimes succeeded.

 

[Plum]

^^^
Well put.

 

[Ptrope]

<SNIP!>Today, fantastic films with fantasy or sci-fi elements are all 'epic' films.<SNIP!>

Sadly, all too true. However, I suggest you check out a film with deep Trek roots which chardman clued me into: The Man From Earth, written by Jerome Bixby; it just came out last year, and in addition to Bixby himself, it also includes more recent Trek notables such as Tony Todd and John Billingsley, as well as Richard Riehle, who appeared in "The Inner Light" and also episodes of VOY and ENT. Practically the entire movie takes place in a single room as a conversation between about 8 people; in some ways, it's reminiscent of 12 Angry Men.

This is cerebral sci-fi - with no special effects, no spaceships, no robots, and it's set right here in the present. Very interesting, and great performances.

 

[Plum]

^^^
Jerome Bixby ya say? Thanx for that!

 

[Neopeius]

Is there something else that makes Star Trek what it is?

TOS was science fiction. Maybe the science looks hoary now, but it was decent back then (and the show was often written by bonafide science fiction authors).

TOS also had a level of consistency. Yeah, yeah, laugh at the consistency level of TOS, but it was much higher than in the later series. There are many tie-ins between episodes, from mind melds to corbomite.

Heck, the whole premise of Voyager was stupid given the technology available to Star Fleet at the time.

Additionally, TOS just had a lot of top notch people working on it. The cinematography is often inspired, the actors were generally on their game, ditto the directors.

But what made TOS different from the shows of its day and the shows today was its fully realized science fiction setting. Kirk/Spock/McCoy were cool, but most of us didn't grow up pretending we were serving on the Enterprise with them. We pretended we were on our own ship exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations.

TOS had scope.

 

[trekkerguy]

*Sigh*

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Is there something else that makes Star Trek what it is?

TOS was science fiction. Maybe the science looks hoary now, but it was decent back then (and the show was often written by bonafide science fiction authors).

TOS also had a level of consistency. Yeah, yeah, laugh at the consistency level of TOS, but it was much higher than in the later series. There are many tie-ins between episodes, from mind melds to corbomite.

Heck, the whole premise of Voyager was stupid given the technology available to Star Fleet at the time.

Additionally, TOS just had a lot of top notch people working on it. The cinematography is often inspired, the actors were generally on their game, ditto the directors.

But what made TOS different from the shows of its day and the shows today was its fully realized science fiction setting. Kirk/Spock/McCoy were cool, but most of us didn't grow up pretending we were serving on the Enterprise with them. We pretended we were on our own ship exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations.

TOS had scope.

It's true.

I was thinking of many of the complaints about the SW prequels, and ENT, and realized that one of the big issues with both was that they did not open the fictional universe up, but collapsed it and made it feel smaller than it had been before. Maybe ENT was trying to avoid this with the Temporal Cold War, but that was such a poorly executed story, it's hard to tell. But certainly the SW prequels suddenly made the scope of the story seem confined to a tiny little group of characters, even though there were many more planets visited, and the massive Senate chamber scenes. The universe was made to feel full, but not vast.

I've said before that Modern Trek made the galaxy feel too full, and one of the things that is in stark contrast to that in TOS is the sense that the ship is out there alone, with vast distances isolating it from known civilization. Even the Federation, the Klingons and the Romulans felt as if they had small territories, and the action was out in the much greater areas of space that were unexplored. I don't know if anyone else misses that, but I sure do.

I truly wonder if this movie can get back to that feeling, or if it was even considered. That whole tone just completely disappeared from TNG on.

 

[USS Mariner]

I think one of the key causes of the "closed universe" in Modern Trek is the writers.

TOS had a large cache of authors contributing story ideas and stories, where as TNG and later shows cracked down on outside scripts and relied heavily on their in-house staff, which consisted mostly of television writers.

I'm not implying that the latter are inferior to the former, but the differences are worth comparing.

Television writers (fully acknowledging that many are accomplished authors in their own right) tend to work within established parameters, not out of laziness but because of the nature of the medium. Like restaurants, television shows need to give their audience a consistent product to maintain their "brand." A long time television writer knows the "formula" for story generation, which works as long as you throw in new ingredients once in a while to keep things interesting. In order to do this, TV writers have to be involved with the business for many, many years, which tends to separate their experiences from places other than Hollywood.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith don't expect to see Barney Fife become a woman out of nowhere, or expect The Andy Griffith Show to be retitled The Mayberry Musical Hour, but they can expect Barney to suddenly end up dressing up as a woman as part of the story, or when an episode's guest stars are all musicians who play themselves.

Authors develop their stories with more freedom, adapting the setting and characters to reflect and reinforce their theme or point. The best authors have a good sense of how "reality" works, and no matter where, when or how the story is laid out, the components work realistically. The best authors know that you can't boil life down to a simple, plug-in "formula," but there are rules to how the parts of the world interact with each other. Their stories thrive on exploring the intricacies of themes and situations, and how various people deal with them. Authors can come from anywhere, and more often than not, their write what they know, offering a personal world-view shaped from experience.

To continue with the Andy Griffith example, this would be like exploring gender-confusion through Barney (You figure it out ), or exploring how music reflects the culture that makes it.

The reason that TNG and later shows began to focus exclusively on in-house writing is the fact that treatments written by authors often need to be "adjusted" to work within the setting of the show and characters, even when the point of the story was to expand and alter then in the first place. While you may end up with a thematically superior product, it takes time to iron out the wrinkles, which is a cardinal sin in television production. Royalties and credits are also a pain in the ass to handle for outside contributors, especially as time went on.

While this kept the ship going (especially during the major restructuring done by Berman and Piller during TNG,) it's evident that this put the blinders on the staff in terms of perceptions and world experience, when the same people churned out the same stories with different crews. I can't exclude DS9 from this entirely, especially the last season, which feels like both a retread and a giant let-down.

 

[Patrickivan]

Is there something else that makes Star Trek what it is?

TOS was science fiction. Maybe the science looks hoary now, but it was decent back then (and the show was often written by bonafide science fiction authors).

TOS also had a level of consistency. Yeah, yeah, laugh at the consistency level of TOS, but it was much higher than in the later series. There are many tie-ins between episodes, from mind melds to corbomite.

Heck, the whole premise of Voyager was stupid given the technology available to Star Fleet at the time.

Additionally, TOS just had a lot of top notch people working on it. The cinematography is often inspired, the actors were generally on their game, ditto the directors.

But what made TOS different from the shows of its day and the shows today was its fully realized science fiction setting. Kirk/Spock/McCoy were cool, but most of us didn't grow up pretending we were serving on the Enterprise with them. We pretended we were on our own ship exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations.

TOS had scope.

It's true.

I was thinking of many of the complaints about the SW prequels, and ENT, and realized that one of the big issues with both was that they did not open the fictional universe up, but collapsed it and made it feel smaller than it had been before. Maybe ENT was trying to avoid this with the Temporal Cold War, but that was such a poorly executed story, it's hard to tell. But certainly the SW prequels suddenly made the scope of the story seem confined to a tiny little group of characters, even though there were many more planets visited, and the massive Senate chamber scenes. The universe was made to feel full, but not vast.

I've said before that Modern Trek made the galaxy feel too full, and one of the things that is in stark contrast to that in TOS is the sense that the ship is out there alone, with vast distances isolating it from known civilization. Even the Federation, the Klingons and the Romulans felt as if they had small territories, and the action was out in the much greater areas of space that were unexplored. I don't know if anyone else misses that, but I sure do.

I truly wonder if this movie can get back to that feeling, or if it was even considered. That whole tone just completely disappeared from TNG on.

TNG (the later seasons), DS9, and the TNG movies did indeed make the universe seem full- I like that you used that word. The Enterprise was always the only ship within range to whatever for a reason. Space is huge. Even with a decent sized fleet, they're spread out over vast distances (and I am sure other vessels would be the only ship within range of whatever, as well). But this wasn't epic enough for writers- they had decided to cram in super powerful aliens that required MASSIVE fleets. Ships were pulled from all over in a short period that just didn't sound reasonable. From the battle at Wolf 359, to Unification (though a lot less ships there), to First Contact, and every battle in DS9, the fleets were huge.

Even in Enterprise, when space was supposed to be new and vast, we had aliens coming out of our ass... Plus we have people from the future messing up the universe....

In TOS's the Ultimate Computer, 4 starships coming together seemed like a major event. Space seemed vast. Opps- back to work.

 

[Amaris]

<SNIP!>Today, fantastic films with fantasy or sci-fi elements are all 'epic' films.<SNIP!>

Sadly, all too true. However, I suggest you check out a film with deep Trek roots which chardman clued me into: The Man From Earth, written by Jerome Bixby; it just came out last year, and in addition to Bixby himself, it also includes more recent Trek notables such as Tony Todd and John Billingsley, as well as Richard Riehle, who appeared in "The Inner Light" and also episodes of VOY and ENT. Practically the entire movie takes place in a single room as a conversation between about 8 people; in some ways, it's reminiscent of 12 Angry Men.

This is cerebral sci-fi - with no special effects, no spaceships, no robots, and it's set right here in the present. Very interesting, and great performances.

It is a stellar movie, no pun intended. I watched it and loved the story.
One room, a small cast, yet it held my attention the whole time. Impeccably done, in my opinion.

J.