Great commentary! Pleasure to have you back in our universe, Black Galactus(you should have sent your (black) herald to prepare us for your long awaited uncloaking)!
~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "sincere1906" <sincere1...@...> wrote: > > Okay it's 4am, I saw the new Trek movie about 8 hours ago and am just getting > in after a night of debauchery. So I might be writing this on a Red Stripe > buzz, but here goes... > > S P O I L E R S ! ! ! > > I liked the movie. As a movie, it was good. The plot was decent. There was > well-paced excitement, humor, etc. The cast was relatable. I thought everyone > did a great job playing their roles--even down to Chekhov. So as a movie, > good. I give it 3 stars out of four. > > The larger question, what I suppose matters the most on a group like this, is > was it good Trek? > > On this, I'm truly torn. > > First off, I knew they said get ready to forget everything you know about > Trek, but damn...I didn't know they were this serious! Thanks to that Romulan > ship coming through a black hole and killing Kirk's father, the timeline that > we know from that point on has been severed. The Butterfly effect has created > a host of new phenomenon--right down to a love affar between Uhuru and > Spock--which never seemed to exist before. This was a bold and daring move. > The writers of this new Trek world have an entire alternate reality on their > hands. They can do anything. And with Vulcans reduced to a virtual minor > colony the entire course of the Federation could be altered, not to mention > the balance of power in the Alpha Quadrant. They should call this "Ultimate > Star Trek!" There's a sense of loss here knowing that the Trek reality that > I've long called home no longer exists (or exists in some other timeline). > For all we know future figures like Picard might never have been born. For > the first time I can recall, we have a Trek spin off that cannot fit into the > larger Trek universe. That will take some getting used to. > > Second, where a part of me is concerned, is I'm trying to figure out where > this new story fits into Roddenberry's vision. Even with all its faults, the > original Trek world was one that took radical positions--a Russian main > character, a black main character, etc. I don't see this Trek taking any such > bold moves. I don't see a vision here, even as we stand in the midst of a > time almost as socially and politically challenging as the 1960s. Nothing > illustrated this more than seeing product placement ads for Nokia, Budweiser > and Jack Daniels. Pardon me for using a cross-sci-fi swear word, but "what > the frack!?!" Earth endures eugenics wars, a nuclear holocaust, a post-atomic > court of horrors, new regional powers (the Northern Alliance, etc), and > somehow Nokia emerges unscathed!?!? The Trek world I knew seemed to always > posit that humanity had come to the verge of destroying itself, and upon > First Contact, from the ashes of the old world they built a new > one--eliminating poverty, war, hunger, disease and systems that move far > beyond capitalism and socialism. In this new Trek reality, I wouldn't be > surprised if Kirk had a credit card! Trek has often been faulted at being > overly utopian in the past, which I agreed could obscure reality. But this > Trek has characters so much like us, I don't understand how they can possibly > be enlightened. Normally Trek folks look back on our era the way we would at > someone stepped out of the 12th century. Can't see them however debating the > philosophical merits of the prime directive. > > My great fear is that this spawns a whole Trek series that won't have some > universal appeal because they adhere to any dynamic set of principles, but a > Trek universe where things get blow'd up real good and the movie crowd can > clap on cue. Too early to make that judgment before the next film, so we'll > just have to wait and see... > > MHO > > Sin/Black Galactus >
