I think this comment sums of my feelings best: “... all I need is the quiet humming of my old 386 Dx 33 and I’m back in my childhood…“

I liked the movie. I thought it had a decent plot, surprisingly acceptable acting, good pacing, fantastic special effects, and overall was very entertaining. It was exactly the shot in the arm Star Trek needed, and I’m grateful that the movie’s success will likely translate into a rejuvenated franchise with new fans, and lots of spinoffs (I’d love to see Star Trek on television again). The franchise really went out on a whimper (Nemesis was panned at the box office and is generally regarded as one of the weaker movies, which is so unfortunate because the TNG cast deserves a much better swan song) and Enterprise was cancelled after only four seasons (TNG, DS9, and VOY all lasted seven seasons) so I’m glad the new movie has been such a hit. After years of franchise fatigue, it’s nice and refreshing to see Star Trek making a comeback.

However, I am also a Star Trek purist. One of the reasons (maybe the reason) I am such a huge Star Trek fan is my highly geeky, somewhat excessive knowledge of the Star Trek universe. Star Trek has a massive and, for the most part, internally consistent universe. This is what many fans have come to deride as “canon.” Canon means that, for example, if the episode “Yesterday’s Enterprise” (one of my favorites, by the way) establishes that the Battle of Narendra III was a catalyst for the signing of a Federation-Klingon peace treaty, this becomes an established fact in the Star Trek universe that a later episode of Voyager cannot change and must adhere to. I love that. I love the fact that I’ve been a dedicated fan for nearly two decades, and that my dedication to the franchise, through good times and bad, rewards me with a level of knowledge about the universe it has created that allows me to enjoy it on many different levels and in ways that casual fans cannot.

This brings me to why I can’t say that I’m gushing over the new Star Trek movie. In what probably seemed to them as a clever, creative way to acknowledge canon but free themselves from the shackles of established Star Trek history, the writers created an “alternate reality” where events can now unfold in an entirely different way and where they can subsequently develop a new history of Star Trek.

From an artistic standpoint, I understand this decision entirely. I’m the first to acknowledge that the Star Trek universe can be maddening, and there are far too many fans who consider any deviation from canon to be tantamount to treason and will therefore refuse to embrace any new creative work that does not adequately respect canon (Enterprise, to a large degree, suffered from this). By creating a new, alternate reality, the writers can get the Best of Both Worlds; they can develop new stories as they see fit, while sprinkling in references to the original history (or “Star Trek Prime“, as some fans have taken to referring to it) thereby satisfying new and old fans alike.

And yet, this feels a little cheap (perhaps almost cowardly, but that may be too strong of a word). The Star Trek universe may be unwieldy, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t treat it with respect. I sincerely hope that the decision to wipe the slate clean and essentially start over after 50+ years of history was an insanely difficult and weighty decision for Abrams and his team to make. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those fans who will shun and nitpick to death every new Star Trek creation that isn’t consistent with canon. I’m happy to see Star Trek move in fresh new directions, and I look forward to seeing what Abrams churns out over the years. And, I’ll even agree that, after 50 years of Star Trek, the universe has a lot of twists and turns that can be very difficult to navigate while trying to create new and interesting stories and remain true to what “Star Trek is really about.” But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t at least try. I think there are still plenty of interesting stories to tell within the established Star Trek universe. The fact that Star Trek still has such a dedicated following means that the fans also believe that. Was tossing aside the established Star Trek universe the only way to enable Abrams to tell the story(ies) he wants to tell? What kind of message does this send to the legions of fans who’ve stuck with Star Trek over all these years; to see all the scaffolding that has formed the basis of their dedication tossed aside? Of course, as future movies are unleashed unto us, we’ll see plenty of elements from the old Star Trek universe (tribbles, lots of interesting alien races, maybe even some well-known storylines) but there will be no getting over the fact that things are different and that we’re seeing a watered down version of what had been a cultural phenomenon. True, Abrams’s movie may not be my father’s Star Trek, but guess what: a lot of people came to and still do love that Star Trek. Like the TNG cast in Nemesis, the Star Trek universe itself deserved a better swan song.

But remember, I liked the movie. I think it’s a fun movie that I’ll probably see in the theaters again, and I’d even venture to say that my opinion of it will probably go up after a second viewing. I’m glad it’s brought Star Trek back into popular culture, and thanks to the success of the film, I’m sure we’ll be seeing and hearing about it for many years to come. I just want to make sure that, before all the new money begins flooding in and we bask in the glory of new action figures, burger king commercials, highly illogical rap songs, and all the other requirements of mainstream commercialization, we pause for a moment to consider the weight of this moment and how this movie changed (erased, really) some of the most fundamental underpinnings of Star Trek. I want to make sure we give due respect to the Star Trek universe that became a cultural phenomenon, paved the way for this movie, and that still rightly occupies a special place in many people’s hearts.

First. I was listening to the January 18, 2009 podcast, and during the first segment, the caller was given a trivia question about Ricardo Montablan’s unfortunate recent passing. After the caller answered, Peter Sagal launched into his usual background and banter on Montablan and at one point noted that he played the over-the-top villain in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. At that point, the always-entertaining Charlie Pierce chimed in and noted “and in the Original Series episode Space Seed,” and then almost immediately someone from the crowd shouted “YEAH!!!” in an obvious display intended to both congratulate Pierce for knowing that Montablan appeared in a Star Trek episode, and, of course, show some solidarity among Star Trek fans! Simply awesome. If you want to listen, the segment starts around 7 minutes into the show.

Second. This one is from yesterday’s (January 24, 2009) show. At about 3 minutes and 45 seconds into the show, Sagal notes that he still feels like he’s in a science fiction movie when he says “President Obama.” To demonstrate this feeling, he exclaimed “President Obama promised a strong response to the invasion of the Corellian fleet!” Did you catch it? It’s a reference to Star Wars.

In short, these guys are geeks. What a great show.

You get Simply Syndicated’s Make It So. Make It So (in addition to being Jean-Luc Picard’s famous catch phrase – or is that “engage”?) is basically two British blokes talking Star Trek. Topics range from the best episode from the first season of Star Trek the Next Generation to the best first officer ever. It’s pretty entertaining. Be warned: they swear from time to time.

http://www.paramount.com/startrek/

Although I am excited about this new trailer, overall my feelings are mixed. The imagery in the trailer is obviously very symbolic, and there are many messages and interpretations that can be gleaned. However, I want to exercise caution. In my opinion, one of the things that eventually turned many of the fans off from Star Trek, or at the very least dumbed it down significantly, was its emphasis on groovy 24th century technology, starship armadas, and battles, battles battles. Of course, the fact that Star Trek takes place in the future is one its most intriguing premises, but the Star Trek future was always a device for unique storytelling, rather than the story itself. The best episodes of Star Trek always used the fact of technology to tell what was ultimately a human story: Picard losing his humanity in Best of Both Worlds because he is assimilated; Tasha Yar struggling to find meaning in her death when the Enterprise-C travels through time. Star Trek is so captivating because it tells poingant stories about the human condition and uses technology to enhance that drama. What Star Trek is not about is cool space battles in the 24th century. It is not about the bad guys creating a doomsday weapon to destroy Earth.

I understand that it’s only a teaser trailer, but I’m a little concerned that the entire trailer focuses on the building of the ship. The ship obviously has a special place in our hearts and is practically as much a character as any of the cast; however, I hope that this trailer doesn’t mean that Abrams thinks Star Trek is about starships, and technology, or space battles and doomsday weapons. In other words, he should be fascinated by the people of Star Trek, not its starships. It would be a huge let down if he shortchanged the franchise by turning this movie into another space battle.

One last thought: I listened to portions of an interview Abrams gave that is posted on TrekMovie.com where he says that he’s making the film for the fans, but the truth is that it’s for people who don’t know anything about Star Trek. Fine. But I’d just like to say that when you have a franchise with over 40 years of history, and when many, many fans have poured time and energy into immersing themselves in that mythology, you better be respectful to it! No matter how much hype develops around this movie, Star Trek is and will remain far bigger than anything we see on the big screen this December.

Chicago, we’ll see you in the playoffs.

Anyway, it’s time for some updates. First, I’ve (finally) uploaded pictures from the Star Trek convention I went to about a month ago. Head on over to the gallery to check them out (note: the album is limited to registered users).

Second, I was in L.A. a couple weeks ago for my cousin’s birthday. I snapped a lot of pictures that I’m … sure I’ll be uploading in due course (which, as you can see from above, probably translates to about a month late… but better late than never!)

Finally, I attended my first Airline convention yesterday! It was at the Museum of Flight, and I added a couple models to the collection – a Thai A340-600, and a United Airlines Cargo DC-10-30. My United collection is now up to 58 pieces. It may be time to upload some pictures soon.

Well, I’m spent.

Here’s a quote from a CNN article that seems to sum it up nicely:

After innumerable anniversaries, interviews, conventions, books, press junkets, red carpet arrival lines, DVD featurettes and commentaries, it’s abundantly clear: They are so over “Star Trek.”

The article contains a video link to an interview CNN attempted to do with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, and if you watch it, the meaning of the quoted passage above becomes clear. Both actors are constantly interrupting the questioner, cracking jokes here and there, and basically acting completely irreverent and almost foolish. In fact, it appears that the whole interview is so trivial to Shatner and Nimoy that when they do decide to give a serious answer, they actually point out the fact that they’re going to give a serious answer for once (doesn’t happen that often, though)

And you know what? They’re absolutely justified.

40 years is a long time to be picked, prodded, questioned, and revered, by generations of fans who love hearing Walter Koening say “nuclear wessels” and Leonard Nimony flash the vulcan greeting, especially when the actors don’t feel as though Star Trek was the best place for them to flourish artistically. Why should someone spend 40 years in the lime light, they wonder, for saying “aye captain!” And they’re probably right. And now, 40 years later, all of them have long moved on to other creative projects where they have been given the opportunity to develop as artists, and they’re justifiably sick and tired of legions of fans fixating on something they did years ago that doesn’t even represent their best work.

Case in point: At the convention yesterday, Marina Sirtis and Jonathan Frakes took center stage late in the afternoon to do their “convention thing.” Just like Nimoy and Shatner, however, they were constantly interjecting in the middle of a question, cracking jokes that were rather racy at times (but funny!) To be fair though, Frakes and Sirtis were both immensely entertaining, and are not quite as fargone in their “Trek-itis” as Shatner and Nimoy obviously are (they still have about 20 years to go).

The truth is, these actors are so sick of Star Trek that the only way they can maintain their sanity through a convention or an interview is to constantly crack jokes and maintain a sense of humor of it all. And I can’t say I blame them. 40 years is a long time to be harped on something that you’ve long since moved on from, especially when it’s not your best work. So, even though I want to be a little disappointed with the blaze attitude many, if not all, of the Star Trek actors have towards the franchise that made them so popular, you have to admit that they’ve definitely put in their dues with the fans.

For better or for worse, for these actors, it seems that this too, shall not pass.

Some celebratory videos:

Star Trek 40th Anniversary Video Tribute

It’s the Enterprise…

And for the “Niners” out there

This morning, I started browsing through some of my Calvin and Hobbes books, for no particular reason other than the fact that I HAVE THE TIME. Got some great laughs, too. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Calvin and Hobbes, or who know of it but have never read any of the strips, I highly recommend stopping at amazon.com and purchasing a book or two – you won’t regret it. Calvin and Hobbes is probably one of the most insightful and creative comic strips conceived, and it’s a shame (yet somehow appropriate) that the creator decided to step down due to his aversion to commercialism and licensing.

Frankly, if anyone who created anything stuck to his/her principles as much as Bill Watterson did when it came to their creations, there would probably be no such thing as jumping the shark. Would Star Trek (either as a television series, movie, or both) still be alive and kicking today had the writers/producers stuck to their principles and refused to acknowledge that Jeri Ryan in skin-tight spandex was really what Star Trek needed? Would we have been subjected to the god-awful last 2-3 seasons of X-Files if the writers could had actually tried to create new story arcs and interesting characters rather give in to the demands of 20th Century Fox? Do I even need to begin a rant on Seinfeld?

“I don’t need to compromise my principles, because they don’t have the slightest bearing on what happens to me anyway.” So true.