(no subject)

[violachic]

You know, I was extremely skeptical when I heard there was a new Star Trek movie coming out, way back when. I grew more so when I heard that it was J.J. Abrams directing, and almost dropped the whole subject altogether when I read that he admitted that he'd never been "a fan of Star Trek".

But slowly, J.J. started to win me back, as I began to read things- even spoilers- about the movie. In fact, when I read about the biggest spoiler- which I won't reveal, don't worry- I was actually excited about the direction he might take this, even if there were a few details here and there that would break canon. For instance, I could care less if the Enterprise was built in dry-dock or space-dock; it has no bearing on the philosophy of Star Trek, as far as I'm concerned.

However, this little blurb came across my LJ RSS feed just a few minutes ago, and something in it gave me pause:

Unlike some captains portrayed in various Star Trek episodes and movies, those of Star Trek XI compare favorably to the original series version of Captain Kirk.

As reported by Sci Fi Wire, Faran Tahir's Captain Robau is no effete captain filing his nails in his quarters, but a tough and competent captain who is worthy of the seasoned Captain James T. Kirk of the original series.

"...in most of the movies, the other captains have been slightly softer-looking," said Tahir. "Like [it] didn't seem like they were, compared to Captain Kirk."

Wait. What?

Glossing over, for now, the really bad grammar in that last sentence, let me tell you how I read this. I read this as saying "No more women captains, and no more girly-man captains!" I read this as completely invalidating at least two (maybe two and a half, depending on your opinion of Captain Archer) of the captains who starred in the four spin-off series starting with ST:TNG. I read this as another piece of evidence that maybe I was right about J.J Abrams from the beginning- too concerned with making this an action flick to care about what Star Trek is really all about.

Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe I'm oversensitive. But come on, sci-fi, I'm counting on you to help change the world, not put us back to where we were in the 1950s! Its hard enough navigating racism, sexism, classism in sci-fi, trying to move forward, when you keep pushing us back.

Get with the times, J.J. No, actually, get with the future.

Comments

[anansi133.livejournal.com]

A while back I sat down to watch the Horatio Hornblower BBC miniseries on DVD. And in researching the original books, I came across a comparison to ST:TOS, specifically Kirk. If you consider Kirk as but one in a long line of swashbuckling heroes, then there's a lot more room for the character to develop.

This version of Kirk can't erase Picard's contribution to the canon, any more than Archer can overwrite Kirk.

Combining a sensitive new age guy with a fist fighting caption of a ship-of-the-line, you're going to make some compromises, and there's not going ot be any one sweet spot that everyone agrees on.

For my money, Spock is a *far* more interesting character than Kirk, so I'll be looking at Quinto a lot more closely than I'll be looking at Pine.

[bammba-m.livejournal.com]

I'm going to go with this being the reviewer's POV, and nothing to do with anything else.

LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!!!

[belmikey.livejournal.com]

Context is everything.

He's referring to the jackass who commanded Excelsior in Star Trek III.

[magp.livejournal.com]

If I remember correctly, some of the issues with other captains was due to Shatner's ego and refusal to be upstaged. For example, Sulu was originally slated to be the captain of the Reliant in ST2, but Shatner wouldn't hear of it.