Tweet
I think Abrams understands hope better than you give him credit for. Yes, Vulcan was destroyed, but the Vulcans are hardly homeless refugees, they immediately began building a new home and by what limited accounts we get appear to be thriving. They are a people who have every reason to give up, yet continue to struggle to better themselves.
As far as the goodness of humanity, I think the climax of the first JJ Abrams Star Trek portrays it best in Kirk. Kirk has Nero cornered and helpless and would like nothing more than to blast him into oblivion, but he stops himself and offers to save Nero and show him compassion. It is Nero who refuses his offer of help, and while Kirk getting some satisfaction out of killing him isn't pretty, he is doing it as a last resort because Nero has made it clear that as long as he lives, he will not give up his vendetta. Oh, and the war with Romulas? Notice how that is conspicuously missing? It may not be explicitly shown on screen, but Nero declared war on the Federation on behalf of the Romulan Empire, destroying a planet in the process. The Federation clearly worked out a peaceful solution other than all out war, despite having it declared upon them.
Into Darkness shows the same decency and compassion at the end. Spock, Kirk, Starfleet command, any number of people could have very easily said kill the 72 genetically modified soldiers and be done with it, yet none of them did, hell, Spock even went out of his way to ensure their safety at a time when he couldn't ensure his own. Into Darkness did not paint a very flattering picture of Starfleet, with Admiral Marcus's obsession with war with the Klingons, but it makes an important point that the original Star Trek didn't fail to recognize, that sometimes the greatest challenge is to face the evil within ourselves (this was addressed on multiple occasions in TNG and was the main theme of two of the TNG movies). Even then, when Kirk faces Marcus, Marcus is a traitor, he would be well within his rights to shoot to kill, but he doesn't, he doesn't even stun him, he gives him the opportunity to surrender with dignity to save face in front of his daughter. Even with John Harris, Marcus gives Kirk an order to kill him without warning, an order he disregards because he knows it isn't the right thing to do. When all is said and done, a large swath of San Francisco has been destroyed, they do not go on a witch hunt to punish anyone and everyone they could, they instead focus on rebuilding and making themselves stronger.
Abrams definitely is no Gene Rodenberry, and to be honest, I'm glad for it. If I wanted to watch the Gene Rodenberry Star Trek, all I'd have to do is take one of the DVDs off of my movie rack and pop it in the player. Abrams hasn't lost touch of the sense of hope and goodness that Star Trek is supposed to be about, he just does it more subtly.
And as a side note, Star Trek only twice explored the issue of homosexuality. Once was through asexual beings made of energy that just happened to inhabit two women, and it was explicitly stated multiple times, this isn't really homosexuality because the consciousnesses aren't really male or female. The other one was a thinly veiled look at the treatment of AIDS victims by creating a parallel disease to it that is spread through mind melding. In both cases it was done in such a roundabout way that they could always claim it wasn't really about homosexuality. This was over the objections of the actors and crew, who almost unanimously felt that there should be recurring LGBT characters in the series. Hell, Gates McFadden was damned near fired from the show because of an episode where she was supposed to give a birds and the bees talk and she refused to say the lines that Rick Berman had given her and chose instead to make up her own lines that were more inclusive of those of different orientations... which Berman later edited to make it appear looked like she was being more generic in deference to the species that have no gender. Seriously, there are more gay people in Achmindenijobs' Iran than in Berman's Star Trek. JJ Abrams may not have included LGBT characters yet, but at least he hasn't actively gone out of his way to make sure that they don't appear in his movies.
As far as the goodness of humanity, I think the climax of the first JJ Abrams Star Trek portrays it best in Kirk. Kirk has Nero cornered and helpless and would like nothing more than to blast him into oblivion, but he stops himself and offers to save Nero and show him compassion. It is Nero who refuses his offer of help, and while Kirk getting some satisfaction out of killing him isn't pretty, he is doing it as a last resort because Nero has made it clear that as long as he lives, he will not give up his vendetta. Oh, and the war with Romulas? Notice how that is conspicuously missing? It may not be explicitly shown on screen, but Nero declared war on the Federation on behalf of the Romulan Empire, destroying a planet in the process. The Federation clearly worked out a peaceful solution other than all out war, despite having it declared upon them.
Into Darkness shows the same decency and compassion at the end. Spock, Kirk, Starfleet command, any number of people could have very easily said kill the 72 genetically modified soldiers and be done with it, yet none of them did, hell, Spock even went out of his way to ensure their safety at a time when he couldn't ensure his own. Into Darkness did not paint a very flattering picture of Starfleet, with Admiral Marcus's obsession with war with the Klingons, but it makes an important point that the original Star Trek didn't fail to recognize, that sometimes the greatest challenge is to face the evil within ourselves (this was addressed on multiple occasions in TNG and was the main theme of two of the TNG movies). Even then, when Kirk faces Marcus, Marcus is a traitor, he would be well within his rights to shoot to kill, but he doesn't, he doesn't even stun him, he gives him the opportunity to surrender with dignity to save face in front of his daughter. Even with John Harris, Marcus gives Kirk an order to kill him without warning, an order he disregards because he knows it isn't the right thing to do. When all is said and done, a large swath of San Francisco has been destroyed, they do not go on a witch hunt to punish anyone and everyone they could, they instead focus on rebuilding and making themselves stronger.
Abrams definitely is no Gene Rodenberry, and to be honest, I'm glad for it. If I wanted to watch the Gene Rodenberry Star Trek, all I'd have to do is take one of the DVDs off of my movie rack and pop it in the player. Abrams hasn't lost touch of the sense of hope and goodness that Star Trek is supposed to be about, he just does it more subtly.
And as a side note, Star Trek only twice explored the issue of homosexuality. Once was through asexual beings made of energy that just happened to inhabit two women, and it was explicitly stated multiple times, this isn't really homosexuality because the consciousnesses aren't really male or female. The other one was a thinly veiled look at the treatment of AIDS victims by creating a parallel disease to it that is spread through mind melding. In both cases it was done in such a roundabout way that they could always claim it wasn't really about homosexuality. This was over the objections of the actors and crew, who almost unanimously felt that there should be recurring LGBT characters in the series. Hell, Gates McFadden was damned near fired from the show because of an episode where she was supposed to give a birds and the bees talk and she refused to say the lines that Rick Berman had given her and chose instead to make up her own lines that were more inclusive of those of different orientations... which Berman later edited to make it appear looked like she was being more generic in deference to the species that have no gender. Seriously, there are more gay people in Achmindenijobs' Iran than in Berman's Star Trek. JJ Abrams may not have included LGBT characters yet, but at least he hasn't actively gone out of his way to make sure that they don't appear in his movies.
. I just went over a list of episodes from the original series, and I agree that they were a bit more cerebral (ok a lot more--some of them. Let's face it, right now they're still retooling old stories). I have hopes that if this movie series continues, they will dig into ideas and take a few intellectual risks. If done right, the movies can still be entertaining, while making you think, even if they have to sacrifice a few explosions in favor of brilliant ideas.
Comment