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.
long and prosper .. sniff
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.
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?
The Game Star Trek Online, on thursday they are gonna have an update that add's a memorial for him on vulcan.
The reason TOS had such an optimistic viewpoint is because it's creator, Gene Roddenberry believed firmly that in the future, Mankind would get beyond the childish violence. You youngsters also need to remember that the TOS was shot at the height of the Hippy/Flower Power movement.
Gene was still around for TNG but passed in 1991 before DS9 (1993) & it shows in the subject matter & tone. DS9 becoming much darker than the previous series for example.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" -- Terry Pratchett
Circumcision is child abuse.
Star Trek gave us a future to shoot for. Lenoard Nimoy just acted in the TV Show. Gene Roddenberry had an optimistic future about Humanity, that really, we could all get along with each other, and use science, reason, and education to solve our problems. There are a few notable flaws with this way of thinking.
Where are the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Sikhs, Jains, etc etc. The answer is: They don't exist. In the universe of Star Trek, there are no gods, only creatures we don't understand. Some friendly, some hostile we must overcome by intellect or force. All Humans in Star Trek are a kind of Secular Agnostic Deist. Nobody fights wars over the stuff we fight over because we are seen of one of Billions of Species spread all over this universe in a vast cosmos. This would result in social upheaval, mass hysteria, and suicides, and homicides at first as there are people so indoctrinated in these cults, that the shattering shift in reality would be unreal.
Another thing that makes the Star Trek Universe "Possible" we don't have is Matter Replication and Transmutation. We know enough to take any given source atoms and convert them to any given destination atoms with minimal effort. All thats needed is electricity to power the machines. This would result in the collapse of Capitalism as we know it. A kind of Socialism would take its place.
The last thing that would make Roddenberry's Future possible is Anti-matter Fusion and Fission. This would provide us with nearly limitless power generation capabilities. Its also extremely dangerous and can lead to a large scale ka-boom
Earth's Government in Star Trek is a unified secular government with a guaranteed Charter of rights. All three Abrahamic religions would flip their shit. As a government like this is described as being despised by the religions as a sign of the Apocalypse. The reason is with with a "Government of Planet Earth and all Terran Colonies" all laws would need to be based in reason and have a rational justification for existing and secular purpose. Equality and Egalitarianism would be necessary for this to work, and the Majority of religions are completely contrary to this concept. So, basically, for a Future like Star Trek to work, the heritage of our ancestors has to die.
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
"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."
The problem with the Abrams Star Trek movies, is they're not really Star Trek movies. They do contain a Starship called Enterprise and the crew are called Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Bones, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov. But the core has been excised and they've been rendered for a generic audience. You can tell Abrams doesn't trust his audience to engage with the characters, hence the reason the plot races at breakneck speed from one spectular effects/action sequence to the next. Take 'Star Trek Into Darkness' for instance. This just from the opening sequence, Enterprise underwater, volcano exploding, natives attacking and so on.
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.
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