Slashdot Mirror


Spock and the Legacy of Star Trek

StartsWithABang writes While the nerd/geek world mourns the death of Leonard Nimoy in its own way, it's important to remember the legacy that Star Trek — and that Spock and alien characters like him — left on our world. Unlike any other series, Star Trek used a futuristic, nearly utopian world to explore our own moral battles and failings, and yet somehow always managed to weave in an optimism about humanity and our future. This is something, the author argues, that is sorely missing from the new J.J. Abrams movies.

16 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Live by invictusvoyd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    long and prosper .. sniff

    1. Re:Live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's ignorant in the sense that Quinto's real life has no bearing on Spock in the film. It was just a trollish slam. If AC has an issue with Quinto's portrayal of our favorite Vulcan, insulting him without offering specific and relevant criticisms isn't helpful.

    2. Re:Live by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed the second movie sucked balls. The homage was pure hollywood crap. Shows how JJ Abrams is utterly over-rated. After creating their Star Trek universe they had an opportunity to create new story lines. Instead they punted and decided to destroy a classic movie.

      Rest in peace, Mr Nimoy.

    3. Re:Live by nctritech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Surprisingly, you've stated my opinion better than I think I could have. The death of Gene Roddenberry and the slow decline of Star Trek seem to have coincided. It makes a LOT of sense if you watch the various older shows and films and "making of" specials about Star Trek TOS and TNG. Gene had a vision and Gene made Star Trek what it was. After his death, some of the people who worked with him (like Jonathan Frakes) did a decent job of keeping his vision around, but few who watch, say, Voyager (and have seen TOS/TNG) would say that Voyager is generally a better series.

      The newer Trek creators have forgotten that Star Trek is about exploring the nature and folly of humanity. Futuristic space exploration just happens to be an excellent container to ship it in.

    4. Re:Live by thedonger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed the second movie sucked balls. The homage was pure hollywood crap. Shows how JJ Abrams is utterly over-rated. After creating their Star Trek universe they had an opportunity to create new story lines. Instead they punted and decided to destroy a classic movie.

      My thought on the reboot is not that they punted and rehashed old story lines; rather, it is meant to demonstrate that even with an alternate future from the original movies -- a smart way to retell a story with the same characters and not be beholden to an old story arc -- they couldn't escape their shared fate, or their shared destiny.

      Regardless, I'm just going to enjoy the reboot. That is, unless the next one involves whales and time travel.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    5. Re: Live by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah yes, the "I made more money so I have more class" theory.

  2. Spock is not dead. by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only the vessel for him carried by Leonard Nimoy has passed on, but as long as he's remembered he's not truly dead.

    The Original Series did a lot within the frame of that series to actually poke at contemporary issues about racism and other things. It was not so much about the science as it was about studies on humanitarian issues.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  3. Make it DARKER dammit. by ihaveamo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sorry capt'n , I can't make the movie any darker! But seriously, its a good point raised ... why is darker always better?

    1. Re:Make it DARKER dammit. by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think that you need to look at the generation of authors that created Star Trek TOS, they (like Roddenberry) were military veterans from WW2 and seemed to believe that good could overcome evil, bridges could be built across cultures and the idea of service to the betterment of their society wasn't an alien idea.

      Harlan Ellison wrote one of the darkest original episodes, City on the Edge of Forever, and maybe the popular acclaim that it received allowed younger authors to take the series into different directions. When TNG was produced the authors were largely younger than the original group, with Roddenberry providing oversight through the the later series that were almost playing a neo-classical hand with references to past episodes and different riffs on themes.

      Now Roddenberry is gone and the ownership of Star Trek has been taken over by generations of authors that never knew life before there was a Star Trek...

      At least that is my long-winded summation of how we got to where we are now. What would it take to get it back in line with TOS? Maybe a dose of optimism and belief in conquering great evils and striving for a greater society. Maybe it just isn't a widely held set of beliefs anymore

      It is that sort of spine that Spock brought to the new productions when he was brought into the story line. I think that is what we will miss most about both Nimoy and Spock

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    2. Re: Make it DARKER dammit. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Any form of fiction must portray human characters as realistically as possible. Star trek does not. Even "Twilight" makes for a better portrayal of human nature. Of course, angry childish nerds cannot understand this because they don't experience any form of human interaction except for rejection.

      Or MAYBE the idea was that the human race had evolved???

      Captain Archer in "Enterprise" was a pretty aggressive angry person, not afraid to get violent in ways that more reflect pre-1960 films than what we allow in today's lawyer-cowed world.

      Captain Kirk wasn't afraid to get in a knock-down rip-your-shirt-off fight, but he was also famous for his ability to achieve a solution via rational argument (often in the same episode).

      Picard is more intellectual and less physical.

      Perhaps one of the most obvious cases in Science Fiction where the premise was that the human race wasn't the same was in Frank Hebert's "Dune" where whole planets specialized in some sort of intense mental/physical discipline and people's plots and motivations could make the Byzantines' jaws drop.

    3. Re:Make it DARKER dammit. by Aqualung812 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      using warp 9 at an almost daily basis (despite it being forbidden in TNG by starfleet)

      In the spirit of Spock, let me make the pedantic point that the USS Voyager was not subject to the warp speed limit because it had what we would call today a "green" propulsion system. Those movable nacelles were part of it.

      From http://www.startrek.com/databa...:

      Voyager's folding wing-and-nacelle warp drive system allows the starship to exceed the warp 5 "speed limit" without polluting the space continuum.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  4. Re:Optimists is for fools by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" -- Terry Pratchett

  5. Re:Optimists is for fools by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    humanity doesn't adapt to the world, we adapt the world to us. we don't grow fur in cold weather, we kill animals and drape their skins on us. we don't forage for berries, we plant berry seeds and grow them when and where we want them. we don't lie outside in the rain and sun, we build our own caves out of peat, mud, thatch

    point is: we are emergent phenomenon, not static reflectors. we believe something, then we make it happen for real. and if we believe in unreal things, don't laugh, because maybe someday we really will fly like birds and walk on the moon

    that also means fatalism and pessimism is what is really for losers. a child's crazy dream today is our reality in a few years

    lust like our group beliefs and efforts become our reality, individual lives are reflections of individual attitudes. so if you believe things will never get better, you're right, they won't... but only in your life

    don't mistake your stunted imagination and your ignorant empty cynicism for our reality. your defeatist attitude is a self fulfilling prophecy only for you, not all of us

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  6. What's lacking is a plot and characters by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Abrams movies are action movie fluff. Nothing more, nothing less. The characters are "Star Trek" in name only, and an insult to every single Star Trek series or movie that came before them.

    The first of Abrams movies, I thought "Well, it's just a start. They've got to get their legs under them."

    But when Kirk lost the Enterprise and then gained it back in less than 10 minutes in the second movie, I shut it off. I've never watched it. I refuse to watch such an insulting piece of drek that thinks someone is going to be given a trillion dollar starship just because they asked after having had it taken away for breaking the law.

    I presume there is going to be another Abrams movie soon enough. I won't bother watching that, either.

    Watching the Abrams movies is like watching the first three "Star Wars" movies after having seen the original trilogy. It's painful. It's insulting. It's degrading. And it feels like it's marketed to pre-teens, not people who think.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  7. Re:The Optimistic viewpoint hade a source by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is it. The original Star Trek, all of them, pretty much said that diplomacy occasionally backed up with defense would end up in the best results. That technology over time helps us build trusts. There are a few bad agents, but we are mostly good.

    The new Star Trek says violence is the way. That the violent people win. And brings a new level of suspension of rational thought. That the Earth would have no defenses against a rougue star ship. That a meeting would have no defenses against a rough droid. That we would be running across the city chasing a suspect. That civilization could build a starship, but could not protect the citizenship. It is not so much a dark world, but a world that reflects the fears of technologically illiterate audience.

    Life is pretty bad when your star trek movie makes less sense than the Fifth Element, which at least had good actors.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  8. Both those Jar Jar movie sucked. by denzacar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They had Star Trek brand... and you could say that the cast was nicely picked.
    Aaaand that's it.

    They failed in everything else.
    From basic Star Trek technology (imagine the next Star Wars movie where Jedi prefer blasters), basic science, logic, story structure... Even characters.

    E.g. Spock is not logical and detached - he is passive-aggressive to full on aggressive hostile. Constantly.
    He's half-Klingon, barely managing not to rip everyone's heads off and feast on their insides, not a calm, logical Vulcan.

    They made a sly Scotty into a bumbling nerdy idiot.
    Sulu and Chekov... they have no character.
    McCoy was boiled down to a frowny face.
    They made Uhura into a love interest bimbo.

    And Kirk... He's simply a fratboy dickhead now.
    Shatner's Kirk did used to get his shirt off a lot, but he was still a cerebral character.
    All of them were. Star Trek was always ultimately about the triumph of the mind - not brute force.
    The old scenes of Spock saving the Enterprise in Wrath of Khan vs. Kirk doing the same in Jar Jar's Trek 2: Trek Darker illustrate that very well.

    Spock is clearly out of strength and running on will power to complete the task.
    Kirk is jumping up and down and kicking the core to make it work.
    Brute, mindless force replaced determination and will power.

    And then they shit on the entire universe by curing death with magic blood.
    And they have portable teleporters that can beam people across the galaxy from Earth all the way to Qo'noS.
    Why bother with ships then? In a movie whose big plot point is a secret MegaBig spaceship.

    You know... Like the last time on Jar Jar Trek.
    Which copied that last Trek movie. About the TNG crew and Romulans. And their big world destroying ship.
    Remember how that movie had the captain of the Enterprise driving around in the desert... which is how Jar Jar Trek starts.
    And how the captain gets captured... and then someone has to jump through space to the MegaBig ship to save him.

    Jar Jar is that kid who comes out of the theater after watching Wrath of Khan all excited about how it was awesome when they "killed those bad guys".
    He lacks the capacity to grasp what the show is about - but he likes explosions and shiny.
    He's Michael Bay without the looks and confidence to be a complete over the top dick.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens