Themes: They Do Exists In 'Star Trek' [Spoilers]

I noticed that there was a great deal of discussion concerning the lack of contemporary themes and issues in this Trek film. In my opinion there are as many themes as the other good Trek films. A good article about Trek themes, past and present just popped up on NYTimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/weekinreview/10itzkoff.html

And...

Certainly these aren't as good as some of the great TV episodes, but it is a movie and has to appeal to a wider base just like all the other Trek movies.

Also, it's really nice to see Trek talked about in the mainstream media again. I would like to add to the themes discussed with the theme of self-defeating vengeance and blaming the wrong cause for the effect.

Anyone got any other good themes they noticed? Or did you think there weren't any significant themes?

[Edit]Ugh where did that 's' come from in my thread title: 'Exists' :.palmface.:[/Edit]

 

Also, there is this great blog post: http://blogs.suntimes.com/shinyobjects/2009/05/is-barack-obama-the-modern-day-mr-spock.html

Because he's "cool."

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/obama-plays-it-cool/866342/

 

You know, I'm one of those people who mentioned a lack of ideas in my review, and either people aren't getting it or I didn't clarify myself. It's impossible to have a story or film that makes any cohesive sense and not have some sort of ideas or themes that can be gleaned from the whole. So of course if you search for them, or just follow the basic plot, you find any find any number of things and go; "idiot, it has themes."

What I intended to point out was that "Star Trek" doesn't contain what would typically be considered big, science fiction ideas or themes. It doesn't contain big suppositions or use science fiction in an elaborate why to posit a belief on our space or purpose in the universe. It doesn't ponder "the unknown possibilities of existence," as Q once said. Ever since "All Good Things..." where Q threw out that idea, I've been waiting for Trek to attack that, but it never really has, in a big science fiction kind of way.

I am in no way saying "Star Trek" is bad because of it. The film is a rousing success, and I explain in my review why it's totally understandable that this element is lacking. However, I think people are missing the point when they claim; "of course there are themes...there is friendship and torture and the old apologizing to the young and etc."

 

^I must go read your review now!

It depends how you define "themes". Do we mean philosophical issues? Basic human truths? Life lessons to be learned? I think there is plenty to sink one's teeth into, and there isn't space here to go into sufficient detail about any of these themes.

So, to be brief, let's just say that after watching the movie I'm struck by the following.

1. The origin and evolution of friendship (e.g., Spock and Kirk)
2. Human resiliency (e.g., Kirk overcoming his dad's death, Spock overcoming his home planet's destruction)
3. Leadership and Mentorship (e.g., Pike's relationship with Kirk; Older Spock with Younger Spock)

There's more, I'm sure.

 

Totally get you. There is definitely no overpowering theme that you get hit with from beginning to end. We get "motifs" is what I call them, basically comments on current events and issues. But there is certainly no grand theme that you see in alot of Sci-Fi. It is not something that really makes you think, it just has moments of thought.

I am cool with that too for this movie. Particularly, since it is an intro film and I hope that JJ and his crew will use their intellect (see Lost) and really give us some great material next time.

 

T'Baio: I do understand where you're coming from.

But, please note that Star Trek isn't 'A Space Odyssey' or 'Contact', or 'E.T.' or any of those hardcore SciFi movies. It never has been, the oldTrek movies are just as 'shallow' on that front. A god that wants our starship? A genetically engineered human who wants nothing but revenge? Going back in time to get some whales to save our planet from being destroyed? Not really philosophical questions now, are they...

Insurrection might have been on the right path: Is it morally all right to replace a people for your own benefit? But then again, most people really didn't like that movie. Such a philosophical question can't really be told when there's all those Star Trek stuff you have to deal with...

One doesn't ponder the reason of existence in trek, but how we can make the future a happy place.

 

No offence, DiSiLLUSiON but you sound young. Star Trek has very often, in the original series, TNG, DS9 and some of the movies in particular, encountered HUGE themes. The best of TOS did it, The Motion Picture did it, The Wrath Of Khan...which was based on a TOS episode that dealt with the morality of genetic engineering...took that a step further and piggy backed the pondering of genetically engineering a PLANET on the revenge story of its genetically engineered man. It also explored the ramifications of the desire for revenge much more fully than "Star Trek" did. The best of TNG contained elements of pondering the meaning of who we are. My quote about the possibilities of existence came from TNG. Star Trek has often been said is impenetrable by the masses because of its use of big themes that many outside of science fiction fandom or intellectuals don't care about.

Star Trek has always been about the big ideas.

 

This movie makes me think of that line from Back to the Future 3, when Doc asks marty about the music, and he Marty says: "Yeah, its got a beat you can dance to"

I feel exactly like that with this movie, it is happy, upbeat, and the theme is positive for the future!

 

Blind faith is dangerous and God is only what we make of it.

There is such a thing as the no-win situation and what's important is how we face death.

Take care of the planet or we'll all die.

Plus the central themes of the other films:

TMP: You've got to have love to understand the universe.
TSFS: What is a friendship worth?
TUC: Hatred is painful to part with, because it's too often part of who we are, but peace is only possible once it's cast aside.
GEN: Sometimes even great leaders make stupid decisions?
FC: Uh... the Borg are bad? Maybe, "Vengeance is a dead end street."
NEM: It's important to watch the show you're making a movie out of.

Okay, but the TOS movies, at least, I'd say tackle some important, human themes.

Insurrection just fails as a film. Its theme is an interesting one, but it doesn't work no matter how much they talk about it, since the Son'a have as much right to the planet as the Bak'u do, being born there and being thrown out for the unpardonable sin of not wanting to work in a damn field all day. Really, I'm surprised they just didn't nuke them from orbit. I would've.

No peace until a nuclear war happens and aliens show up, apparently.

The theme of Trek XI? Lens flares and dealing with loss.

 

I'm sorry but that just doesn't jive to me after you say for 'Star Trek'

If that is a theme in TMP then there are some in Star Trek that are just as significant.

 

None taken, I haven't yet hit 30, after all.

We can agree on that some episodes in the series (especially TNG) had huge themes. But the movies? Come on, be serious.

It might be that my zeitgeist is different then yours due to an age difference, but I find your example of TWOK not really fitting. I mean, genetic engineering in TWOK (and the related episodes) assume that a higher intelligence goes hand in hand with a higher aggressiveness and all that nonsense. It's assumptions are somewhat outdated. There might be a theme in there about if it's right to force genetic upgrades, or to apply them when others do. But I didn't see that in TWOK; I saw more of that on the theme regarding Bashir on DS9.

I agree, in a sense. But those were episodes. The movies showed none of that -- could show none of that -- and thus it seems unfair to judge the new movie in that light.

No, star trek has been impenetrable by at least the following points:

TOS has been impenetrable (after it's heyday) because of the bad effects, make up and acting. It doesn't cut it today; just like most series from that time. There were also some very, very bad grapes among the episodes, you've got to admit that. TNG has been impenetrable because of the high level of technobabble going on; new viewers assumed they had to understand what that meant (and in some cases, they were even right!), so they'd rather not try. DS9 has been impenetrable because of the focus on war; not everybody did dig that. VOY and ENT were less impenetrable but those shows had whole other cans of worms to deal with.

By then, everything related to Trek was undesirable to the common viewer. Star Trek was on? You switched to another channel, unconditionally.

Some movies did well, in their day. But translate the good ones to today's expectancies and you understand why people won't watch them (TMP's pace, for example). And the other movies, well, just try and remove all the Trek-specific stuff and you get to the core and you'll know what I mean; there won't be much left. A great movie is a movie that doesn't need it's universe-specific stuff; one that could stand very much on it's own but, by chance, doesn't. Most Star Trek movies don't fit that bill at all.

So yes, I do understand where you're coming from. But also remember the new movie had the whole introduce-the-cast-plot to deal with. If it would have taken on a big theme, it would not have succeeded in the first; rather; it would have failed on both accounts. There's only so much length a movie can have.

To be honest, these themes don't sound huge to me, they even sound slightly corny. I mean, yes, I like most Star Trek movies. But from a philosophical standpoint, those themes mean nothing today. They are not questions but no-brainers; people already know the answers to them.

If the themes are on that level, I can indeed see a few in the new movie:

How to break away from your father's shadow and face up to your responsibilities -- seen in young kirk's decision to join the academy. How to handle the grief after the death of loved ones -- seen in Nero, after he falsely trusted Spock. Seen in young Spock as well. How to step aside for the promising youth, even if you have lots of life left in you -- seen by Pike's actions. Is sacrifice correct if that means saving your wife and son's life, leaving them with no husband/father -- George Kirk.

I think, of the examples you gave, perhaps only the no-win scenario could conceivably be fleshed out as a morally ambiguous theme suitable for a movie today.

 

Decker made V'Ger go away with the power of love, that it perceived as that of a creator for its creation, and that Decker perceived as that of a man for a woman.

If that is a theme in TMP then there are some in Star Trek that are just as significant.[/quote]I was being a little facetious. Growing up, dealing with loss, what makes leadership... these are all addressed.

On the other hand, Star Trek may answer the "leadership" question with "monomaniacal sociopathy." Depends on how you see Kirk-2, I guess, I liked him but found him veering toward a total amorality with his ambition. He did try to save Nero when he didn't have to, though, and that concern for sapient life, and concern for intergalactic peace, redeemed him somewhat there.

I dunno, a major production telling the audience God sucks still seems pretty controversial.

And the most enduring themes can be boiled down to corny one-line descriptions... for example, one of the themes of The Great Gatsby is "people born into money are assholes." Another is "wealth is the only measure of respect in America," which I suppose corallaries nicely with the first theme. And finally another is the quite trite "love is an illusion."

They're still deeply resonating themes worthy of continual exploration... really, it's all a matter of execution.

 

Not where I'm from.

There is a surprising amount of truth in that. You are right: the execution of a theme makes or breaks the movie, not the theme itself.

 

One theme that jumped out at me right away that I'm surprised no one has mentioned yet: doing what's right, or what has to be done, even if it means disobeying orders or otherwise breaking (or changing) "the rules".

Spock rejecting the Vulcan Science Academy (something no one else had ever done) and giving them the metaphorical finger on the way out. Kirk cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test. McCoy faking an illness in Kirk to get him aboard the Enterprise as a patient. Scotty standing up for his unconventional engineering ideas, even though they got him exiled to the Fed equivalent of Siberia. Spock Prime willing to alter the timeline even more than it already had been, by giving Scotty the transwarp formula he hadn't invented yet. Kirk openly challenging Spock on the bridge, not once but twice; then going to the Terran system instead of the Laurentian system as Spock had been ordered. Indeed, this "breaking the rules" theme can be taken as a metaphor for the whole reboot project itself, which is one great big exercise in throwing out the old Trek rulebook (read: continuity).

 

I disagree. I think the underrated Generations had extremely lofty ideals in its attempt to consider the ramifications of time on our humanity.

 

There's a marked difference between "message" and "theme". We shouldn't forget that.

One important theme here is the duality of human nature, a classic for Star Trek, that the film explores from several different angles. The duality between Kirk and Spock, the hotheaded man of action and the cool thinker. Who need each other's input. For example, had Spock not relinquished command to Kirk, the Enterprise would have regrouped with Starfleet and Earth might've been lost too. His logic wasn't the right course of action in that case.

Another way is Spocks own duality, between cultures, between logic and emotion... which becomes all the more apparent because we see old Spock who has found his perfect balance and who can allow his human emotional side to surface without him feeling as if he were losing face (cf. the moment before Kirk and Scotty beam to the Enterprise, when he calmly but honestly says that he is emotionally shaken because of what's happened. Young Spock could not yet admit that except by a violent outburst.)

Or even the duality within the Vulcans themselves, seen in Sarek, and his explanation of why he married Amanda. And then his later confession that he married he because he loved her. Simply. An emotional confession.

These are examples of how a theme is negotiated within the film. What message you take out of it is up to you. A message requires very little thinking most of the time, a theme does. Or not. In many of the best cases, a theme simply resonates and you get it, or it gets you thinking. And even if you never reach a conclusion, the process of thinking about it is the reward. Case in point: Star Trek's multi-ethnic crew. This was rarely, if ever, explicitly stated as an achievement of 23rd century culture, let alone was it spelled out "Racism is bad." But watching these diverse characters work together, you felt what they wanted to convey: that optimistic future where conflicts about nationalities or skin colors were simply no longer an issue. Which is why some of the best episodes, like The City on the Edge of Forever, did not even tackle a strictly delineated social issue, but supplied a theme to consider, in that case the loss of one loved person versus the loss of millions. Which hurts deeper? Which is preferable? Is there even a right choice? Same for the whole "The needs of the many/The needs of the one" business in TWOK and TSFS. These two films offered two opposing viewpoints on the issue, one, incidentally, brought forward by Spock, the other by Kirk. This was a theme for these two films. And what they did, ideally, was to make you think about these notions, engage, let's say, in some internal philosophical debate. And you can do that just as well about the themes of the new film, as outlined above.

And there are even some more themes in the film that just this one. In that sense, I'm satisfied, especially since I agree that the primary mission of the movie was to get people interested in ST again, deeper issues to be discussed if and when ST has an audience again that is willing to listen. Which wasn't there for about a decade, but now seems to be coming back.

 

Very nice and very well thought out.

 

This seems like a good enough place to say that I just didn't feel the ol' optimism-wonder ethos that Nimoy speaks to and JJ said he was keeping.

I kept waiting for a great ending when something deep and wonder-ful would happen. Granted TMP 79 was a rehash of Changeling, but it had "it," as did IV, VI, and Insurrection. Trek-ish, not just action.

I might have missed the "human-adventure-is-just-beginning" spirit if it is in this movie. Do other people find it? I'm willing to admit being wrong.

 

Yep. Prime example of this: Insurrection. Good themes, could have been an awesome awesome movie, execution was off. Another example: Star Trek V. Execution was off, enormous potential based on themes though.

 

As I said in the other "theme" thread, this movie sticks to the fundamental message of Trek:

The future works. Diverse individuals can work together, overcoming their own human and alien frailities, to achieve their full potential.

If you want to get high-falutin' about it, you can even argue that Kirk's arc is a metaphor for the human spirit. He overcomes a tragic, violent, misguided past to become a Starfleet captain, saving lives and exploring the universe.