Science fiction geeks are whacking their tricorders tonight with the debut of the high def trailer for J.J. Abrams’ STAR TREK reboot. You can see that at Apple.
As far as the trailer goes, it’s well cut and engaging. The special effects look flashy. The performances and dialogue, at this point, make me cringe a little bit. Overall, it looks like a very expensive car commercial that resembles that misguided LOST IN SPACE reboot from a few years back. Paramount has obviously put a lot of faith in Abrams to resurrect this aging franchise and inject it with something resembling life.
However, the problem with STAR TREK isn’t age, or even a lack of audience interest in science fiction. The problem rests with the premise itself.
When series creator Gene Roddenberry first imagined STAR TREK in the sixties, he envisioned a world of humanity free of racial and social injustice, poverty, crime, or disease. Roddenberry optimistically hoped that the species would better itself to the point that, as a united collective, they would, as William Shatner memorably exclaimed, “explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.”
It’s a lovely concept. It’s also painfully drama free.
The original series, which debuted in 1966, ran for three seasons on television despite hideous ratings. Its demise coincided not coincidentally with the turbulence of the later part of the decade, which saw a turn in the mood of America toward darker, more realistic fare and a low-tech, hippie mentality. However, the show was a hit among a fanatical, highly vocal group of science fiction fans, who managed to make enough noise (in pre-internet times, no less) that the studio, always eager for more money, began to pay attention.
The enormous success of STAR WARS in 1977 caught the eye of every single person within Hollywood. Cheap, Roger Corman-level knockoffs began springing up all over cinemas, every one eager to taste even a bit of the cash stream created by George Lucas’ surprise hit. One of major Hollywood players greedily watching 20th Century Fox roll around in STAR WARS money was Paramount, who had been financially floudering in recent movie seasons. To cash in, Paramount executives scoured their archives looking for a science fiction property they could parlay into big bucks for their own pockets.
Re-enter STAR TREK. The vocal fan base – despite being relatively small – had made enough of an impression that the studio felt a big-screen treatment, loaded with impressive production values and the latest special effects, could elevate Roddenberry’s quaint show into a box office monster.
They were wrong. Not because of a lack of interest, however. Pre-release television specials whetted the appetites of 1979 moviegoers with jaw-dropping shots of the new Enterprise in her loading dock, and massive ad campaigns whipped the film’s release into an event. It was one of the most expensive films of its time, with a budget around $46 million dollars.
The movie made some money, but it is roundly considered a creative and commercial flop. What it lacked in the original series’ goofy charm, it gained with ponderous philosophizing and static, bridge-bound encounters. The film made $80 million domestically and $125 million worldwide – nice totals, but just a tiny fraction of the massive $400 million STAR WARS earned only two years earlier.
Subsequent films attempted to ramp up the action and humor missing from the first film, but most of the films failed to achieve any kind of lasting impact beyond their initial American fanbase. All of the STAR TREK films have had decent-to-poor box office totals in America, and they have all had very poor worldwide box office totals. This is a peculiar aspect of their appeal, given the fact that the franchise is built around a supposedly international cast of characters.
The franchise has also spun itself back on television, with largely yawn-inducing results. The most successful, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, had an engaging cast led by Shakespearean actor Patrick Stewart. Another breakout performance was Brent Spiner’s magnetic portrayal of the android Data. The show also introduced Star Treks best villain, the malignant Borg. Unfortunately, other shows in the franchise – Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise - bored audiences silly with their constant moralistic quandries and the leaden nature of their stories. Although their combined seasons are impressive, many of these years were spent as low-rated syndication fare.
So why, after so many years and incarnations, can we say that STAR TREK has failed?
The box office appeal – largely driven by an American audience – betrays the fact that the show, despite claims to the contrary, is largely an American perspective. Curiously, the show almost espouses a socialistic society that “spreads the wealth” to everyone, yet the main drive behind the show is a uniquely American expression of colonialism and domination. So, in terms of its own mission statement, the show fails because it largely excludes the viewpoints of any other culture besides America. All of the non-American countries that warmly embraced the pop optimism of STAR WARS have, for thirty years, given the cold shoulder to Roddenberry’s bright vision of the future.
As science fiction, the franchise fails because it never conveys an actual sense of truth or science amongst all of the rambling, incoherent, pseudo-scientific babbling. No, TREK fans, there is no such thing as a gravimetric field displacement manifold. The steady stream of nonsense – TNG is particularly guilty of this – grinds every single scene to a leaden crawl. Imagine truly great science fiction shows and films, like 2001, BLADE RUNNER, THE FLY, if they had to intricately explain every detail in a vain attempt to make sense out of it. Smart films don’t so that … because it’s BORING. Which brings us to the final point:
But it is as drama that the franchise fails most, er, dramatically. Encounters between ship captains standing on the bridges of enormous spaceships sounds much more exciting in print than it ever has onscreen. Characters fight by standing immobile while pointing awkward, boring-looking phasers at each other. Nearly every single episode of any STAR TREK series or movie involves the ship passing through/by some sort of space phenomena/alien intelligence/weird planet and how it affects the crew as they deal with it. The stories place the actors in the precarious position of standing around, endlessly discussing the situation with utmost seriousness while playing with plastic-looking devices doubling for medical and diagnostic equipment. Even transporter-aided visits to alien worlds cannot create any kind of drama or excitement; it merely means the characters will talk more in front of a different backdrop. The cumulative effect of the STAR TREK brand of “drama” is numbing when it should be transporting.
Presumably, Abrams is attempting to fix these problems with STAR TREK by injecting it with more special effects, action sequences, and a younger, prettier cast. I’m not sure these changes are as important as making the new film a genuinely exciting adventure with truly fleshed out characters. From the looks of the new trailer, it appears that the new film will be slicker than anything that has come before in the franchise, the benefits of which probably make the executives at Paramount drool with anticipation. But unless the movie is something more than a series of encounters with alien races that have plastic shit glued to their nose bridges – something we have yet to see in any STAR TREK enterprise – then the film is likely to do only decent business in America and disappear into the dustbin with the rest of the failed STAR TREK relics of the past.
21 Comments
The Star Trek movie was actually in development long before Star Wars came out. It was supposed to be a TV movie I believe, but once SW showed that the theatre had a market for the material they decided to release it as a big-budget theatrical vehicle. Sci-fantasy was making a comeback at the time, and ST was part of a larger movement that included Superman, Conan, Blade Runner, Lord of the Rings and Flash Gordon, all of which were in motion as theatrical vehicles BEFORE Star Wars came out. Most of these failed because SW re-aligned the business to focus more on special effects and the visceral experience, so a lot of these suffered from inflated budgets (Superman, ST, plus others like The Black Hole), while Star Wars tricked business executives into thinking mainstream audiences would actually stick with this trend (they were hooked by SW’s mainstream acccessibility, something ST lacked–Superman, on the other hand, didn’t, it was as American as Apple Pie and Star Wars, which is why it was nearly as successful).
As for its success, I’m not sure why earning twice your budget domestically is considered either failures or so-so; few films today accomplish this. In fact, STIV was a minor mainstream hit, and STII, with its low budget, relatively speaking, is probably one of the more profitable SF sequels of the last 30 years.
As far as carrying an American message, of course the entire hippie movement this franchise sprung from is distinctly American–just like Superman and Star Wars. And as far as colonialism is concerned, the law at the heart of the ST mandate–the prime directive–is distintcly ANTI-colonial. So I’m not sure where this comes from.
No, audiences rejected ST for much simpler reasons–a lack of action, too many ideas, hard science actually incorperated into the plots of the materal, technobable and occassionally clunky dialog, and none of the visceral excitment or mythic archetypes of its competitors. ST II jetisoned most of this in favor of a classic cat-and-mouse revenge story that was based around character dramas, in true mainstream form, turning the science ship Enterprise into a war submarine filled with tense confrontations, explosions and fires, and near-misses by torpedos, and this is why this was and is the most popular of all the entries. Abrahams’ entry looks like it will be closer to this route, which is not a bad thing at all, but we’ll have to see if they remembered to keep the stiring human drama that was at the heart of ST II.
It is obvious Ray DeRousse doesn’t like Star Trek. And now, as it is about to become great and a huge success again, he spits venom at it in total panic because he knows that opinions like his will have been rendered pointless in couple of months. Star Trek will finally join the club of huge blockbuster franchises next summer and there is no way of stopping it.
Pointing out that Star Trek isn’t real enough to create true drama is pointless for all sci-fi and fantasy are and feel unreal to some extend…including Star Wars, Spider-Man or Superman, who have all become major box office hits despite their obvious speculative nature.
His self-righteous attack on “technobabble” (which arguably isn’t that popular anymore even among hardcore Trekkers) is also rather pointless. The series that started using this self-contained pseudo-science was TNG and it was the franchise’s most successful program. Just because you don’t like it, don’t assume others feel the same. Technobabble has been overused over the decades though…
Star Trek failed? 2001 or Blade Runner are so much better? Okay, now spawning an 11-movies- and 704- episode-TV series franchise (excluding those 22 animated episodes) obviously doesn’t count in his book. To me, this matters a lot!
There are sequels to those above mentioned classic, too, but “2010″ or “Soldier” were bombs while Star Trek sequels did damn good business over the decades, better than any other sci-fi franchise but Star Wars (which wasn’t really Science Fiction in the first place!)
It finally comes down to this: While your site is obsessed with film, I am personally obsessed with Star Trek and there are thousands of people like me. As of May 2009, there will be millions of people being obsessed with Star Trek again, maybe not on the worldwide market, but US gross is much more important.
You are up for a very big surprise!
How about you wait until you’ve seen the fucking movie.
Dave, your comment could apply to both the writer of the article and Mike’s response. Firstly Ray chooses to condemn the film before it’s even released, based on a few minutes of footage from the trailer, while Mike is confident it will deliver. Are either right or wrong? The answer isn’t important, because the question is the wrong one to ask. What you really need to be asking yourself is if you care. If you do, then get excited about this movie because, let’s face it, it’s got a decent filmmaker behind it and it’s not as if they are just shitting it out without putting some effort into it. If you don’t care, don’t worry about it.
Me personally, I don’t like Star Trek. But I can appreciate, as was pointed out above, that it must have been of some worth to enough people to warrant all those films and incarnations. As for the colonial-ite comments, I’m not sure what Ray is trying to get across there…but it’s not really a point I’m going to dwell on.
I’ll probably see it when it comes out, because at worst it might be two hours of standard summer tent-pole action. Fuck it if it’s shit…I’m sure I’ve seen worse movies.
But yeah, to conclude, I didn’t think this article was worth the time I spent reading it. Too biased from the offset and, if this is the way articles are to appear on this website, then it most definitely should be done in blog format.
But hey, I’m sure Ray welcomes criticism, writing as he is in a public medium ;)
My comment was aimed at the writer of the article.
After cleaning off my tricorder, once I saw the new trailer, I decided to just enjoy the ride.
Ray is right that the goal of Rodenberry’s was a bright shiny future where the EARTH came together in peace.
Check out either of the Trekkie’s movies…specifically the second one that focuses OUTSIDE of the USA. The places Star Trek is most popular seems to be in countries where there is/was a lot of struggle, turmoil, and fear.
Is it as timeless as Homer? Entertaining as Shakespeare? As stunning as the Holy Trinity (Star Wars, Empire and Jedi)?
All I know is that while some ridicule the fans, a truth is that the characters (ever so one dimensional in the Original Series) are archetypes that we can relate to; Kirk’s confidence, charms, cleverness; Spock’s logic and on-going struggle with his id and ego; McCoy’s pessimism, caring, and our consciences.
Who actually GETS that when you see Shatner overacting? Cheesy effects? Simple plots?
It’s people who are inspired to do more.
As kids we play with a simple box pretending it’s a space ship, time machine, or race car.
Now, as adults with money, we can create entire universes with CGI and make our simple boxes into much more.
But is it worthy of film? Does it contribute to the genre? Does it make a difference in the history of filmmaking? Does the dialog make sense? Do the characters fall flat?
In the end…the question is…”Did I enjoy the two hours in the theater, or not?”
Find your obsession and run with it. I’m going to enjoy the ride.
Hey, dumbasses … I never condemned the new movie at all. Dave and Roars, read the fucking story first – or learn English – before you claim that I in any way criticize the film. I criticized what I saw in the trailer, which is right there in front of me.
The article is looking at the entire franchise, not just this upcoming movie. Again, READ before you TYPE.
@ Michael Kaminski – While you’re correct in pointing out that Paramount planned a television release just prior to STAR WARS, those plans were scrapped when STAR WARS made $400 million at the box office. So Paramount, eager to cash in, fast-tracked TREK to the movie theaters instead. What they failed to do was properly calibrate TREK’S appeal beyond that small but vocal fanbase; they assumed that, if they throw enough money into it, the film would be successful. They were sorely disappointed.
As for your assertions that those other films were in development prior to SW – that may be true to an extent (certainly it is true in the case of SUPERMAN), but all of those films came out between 1979-1983, long after STAR WARS. They may have been in some form of development before SW, but their trajectories radically changed AFTER SW changed the game in Hollywood.
As far as box office grosses go, I never said that the films were not profitable. What I did say is that, compared to other films in the genre that are considered major hits, no TREK film gross compares to them.
All of the films in the series have been profitable because all of the films in the series (besides TMP) have been relatively cheap to produce. This is mainly due to the smallish plots and television-like pacing. In fact, a television crew filmed WRATH OF KHAN, and it shows onscreen (I say this even though the film is my favorite TREK film). They are cheap to make, so the smallish grosses (compared to their peers) make the films even more lucrative to Paramount.
Of course, I was using box office grosses in my argument to demonstrate how most of TREK’S support is American, since the worldwide grosses of the films are almost embarassingly small.
I almost laughed at the assertion that TREK fails to resonate with audiences because of “hard science” incorporated into the material. A character mentioning a wormhole doesn’t exactly qualify it for a Nobel Prize in Science, Michael.
The films and shows fail to connect with larger, mainstream audiences outside of their initial (and aging) fanbase because they are BORING. They mostly lack crucial drama and tension.
Hopefully Abrams can get them off the fucking bridge, so we won’t need to watch them watch special effects on a fucking widescreen monitor. However, I’m already skeptical, because, instead of creating new characters and moving forward with the storyline, Abrams decided to go back in time YET AGAIN and tell Kirk’s backstory. AGAIN.
For a show that is supposed to be boldly going places, it sure does look backward a lot.
And another thing.
Roars, every other day you’re on here saying shit like this:
“Too biased from the offset and, if this is the way articles are to appear on this website, then it most definitely should be done in blog format.”
Who gives a fuck what you think about the style of article you think should be on here???? You’re not on staff to my knowledge, nor did you create this site. Hell, from your comments, it’s clear that you rarely read any of the articles with any kind of comprehension.
If you have some sort of insight into what style of article belongs on a movie website, then GO START YOUR OWN.
Otherwise, fuck off.
Woopsie. Getting a bit defensive there Ray?
Again, a whole massive article based around one brief trailer. Waste of space.
@ Dave – And, once again, READ THE ARTICLE. While it was obviously inspired by the release of the trailer, it is not a critique of the coming film. It is a look at the entire franchise, what problems it has as drama, and why it lags behind other franchises in the genre.
Are you unable to understand that??
I read it twice. It didnt become any less redundant.
Hahaha. Your response is the funniest thing I’ve read all day Ray, because it simply supports my point, (and the added bonus that you’re so clearly put out). I’d be concerned if I was Matt and one of my writers was telling readers to ‘fuck off’ and dedicating a whole post to trying to belittle them.
Fortunately, I’m the biggest cunt here and can handle your two-bob half-rent comments. You however, if you can’t handle criticism, you shouldn’t write for the media.
Okay, over to you again for another pointless retort ;)
The original series was a long-term hit (running for years in syndication) because of the interplay between Kirk, Spock and Bones. It’s too bad the series didn’t last longer; it was superior to most television.
The idea was sold as being ‘Wagon Train to the Stars’ (Wagon Train being a popular TV series at the time, apparently). The SF background was a vehicle, not the driving force of the series.
The whole field of science fiction has not been portrayed well by Hollywood. ‘Contact’ remains one of the best, ‘Blade Runner’ and others were excellent as well.
The source material in the many SF stories and novels out there is so rich, it’s a shame so few SF movies are made.
I agree with most of what you say, Scott, although generally speaking the original series was limited dramatically by the nature of the show … although I think they did what they could with it. The original show is benefits greatly from some terrific character acting from the three you mention. Without those performances, I think the entire franchise is forgotten after the initial cancellation. In fact, those performances are so strong that the franchise STILL refuses to move forward from them.
Weighing in (and without resorting to copious use of expletives… :)
“It’s a lovely concept. It’s also painfully drama free.” I think Roddenberry’s vision (maybe TNG onward) of enlightened humans was indeed found limiting for the writers, but this does not preclude finding drama through conflict with other races and outside events.
Classic series ratings… I think received wisdom is that the classic series grew much more popular during reruns in the 70s? And for Paramount cashing in, well showbusiness is just that, a business, and there’s nothing necessarily shallow or sleazy in that.
“The movie made some money, but it is roundly considered a creative and commercial flop.” I don’t think it’s even been considered a commercial flop? Certainly a creative one, though. Again…”All of the STAR TREK films have had decent-to-poor box office totals in America” Aren’t Trek 5 and ‘Nemesis’ the only box office ‘poor’ showings for the series?
“Unfortunately, other shows in the franchise – Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise – bored audiences silly with their constant moralistic quandries and the leaden nature of their stories”-Now this is patently unfair, certainly for DS9 and Voy, who both survived for the full 7 season run each. Hardly a symptom of ‘boring audiences silly’.
“All of the non-American countries that warmly embraced the pop optimism of STAR WARS have, for thirty years, given the cold shoulder to Roddenberry’s bright vision of the future.” An interesting and valid argument I think, though not sure what promotion or visibility Trek has in many international countries? Certainly in the UK there is a strong appreciation of ST, but much awareness too. Does a failure to find a strong audience outside the US (or maybe outside English speaking countries) constitute a failure of Star Trek or Trek’s premise? Is Trek seen as too “American” for international audiences despite its platitudes of cooperation among races. Not sure one could answer that fully without completely discounting the levels of awareness in different locales.
“As science fiction, the franchise fails because it never conveys an actual sense of truth or science amongst all of the rambling, incoherent, pseudo-scientific babbling”. I would argue that it has a stronger ’science’ element that many so-called sci-fi shows or films. Yes, much may be pseudo-science; but there is at least a desire to incorporate a flavour of hard science, hence the existence of books like the ST Technical Manual and so forth. However, I would agree that Trek has generally speaking failed to deliver the science in an entertaining way that is integrated into the drama. Like another poster has said, even hardcore fans tire of the technobabble.
For the ‘Star Trek is boring’ argument – I think that is generalising far too much. I would agree that there are many ship exchanges and so-called battles that are ‘leaden’ – much of this is due to a lack of budget or the shows existing in pre-widespread-CG days. However, there are also some classic – and exciting – scenes of starship combat and drama. The Defiant/Enterprise battle is the ultimate, of course. But there are other examples – Yesterday’s Enterprise, Sacrifice of Angels (the fleet attack scenes), Year of Hell, Balance of Terror from TOS, Best of Both Worlds (some fantastic drama in that show). These just spring to mind, there will be many more. Part of the ‘boredom’ accusation is perhaps down to the format of Trek, particularly of the Berman era, being just stretched far too thin. That is one of the best reasons to be excited about Abrams Trek.
@ Paul – a few thoughts on your response:
- The ST films have all made money, but mostly because the meager production budgets of each film (besides the overblown TMP) ensure a profit. My point is that, in comparison to other science fiction/fantasy tentpole films, the TREK films do not come close to their popularity – and that’s with the hefty awareness of many seasons of syndicated shows behind it!!
- As I mentioned, the TREK shows have ALL run for around seven seasons except for the original. The reason for this isn’t popularity; Paramount makes a mint by syndicating these shows, and in order to profit in syndication, the show must have over 100 episodes. Keep in mind also that most of the spin off shows were wholly produced for the syndication market (in contrast to running on a network schedule, for instance), so they required a smaller audience to ensure their continued production. Paramount always knew they’d make their money on the backend, so it was easy to keep those shows running despite low ratings. Had these shows been placed on a network schedule, they would have been cancelled after one season due to cost versus audience share.
- I never said that TREK couldn’t produce drama … I said it doesn’t. Rather than actually have their characters and stories do anything, the writers/producers seem quite content to keep their characters on the bridge looking at viewscreens and talking about morality. The Borg is probably the best invention of the entire franchise, primarily because The Borg are a hostile race of aliens who directly conflict with everything in their path, Prime Directive be damned. And TREK even managed to waste The Borg in most of the stories save a couple. The problem with almost all TREK is this dramatic inertia of non-action and debating that grows tiresome.
- As far as having “science” in science fiction, I think DOCTOR WHO has, over its magnificent run, integrated more radical scientific concepts with greater nuance than TREK has ever even attempted. The concept of the TARDIS alone is scientifically more intriguing than anything TREK has ever imagined. It’s almost painful how a show like TREK, a show with such an exciting, adventurous motto – “Let’s go exploring!!” – can present such imagination-free and lifeless product.
We’ll agree to disagree; I still think you’re generalising far too much, Trek has produced some absolutely classic pieces of inspirational drama in its ouevre (I won’t resort to lists – its too tempting to the fan in me ;).
As for ratings, I’m aware of the basics of the syndication as opposed to network concept, but I don’t really know enough to have a well informed opinion. Weren’t Voyager and Enterprise network shows though (UPN)? I just think stating unilaterally that DS9, Voy and Ent ‘bore audiences silly’ is a bit of a facile statement. I think you’re mainly representing your own feelings about Trek, which is fine; but don’t represent them on behalf of ‘all audiences’. Star Trek has been inspirational to countless numbers of fans.
The argument I find most interesting is the one you mount-has Trek failed by definition since it has a poor international audience in some quarters.
@ Paul – Well, I do see the franchise as a peculiarly Anglo-American phenomenon. I’m not sure if it’s due to your theory of publicity, or if it’s something philosophical. For me, I think the TREK idea of exploring and expanding out into other worlds is not shared by most of Europe and the rest of the world. Most of the world has an isolationistic philosophy, and TREK runs counter to that to a large degree.
I always thought the desire to explore is intrinsic to human nature rather than culture, but, I guess conversely, fear of what’s out there is intrinsic too. Fascinating (sorry ;)
Actually in writing that I was reminded of Q’s speech in “Q Who”, the episode that introduced the Borg, so he can have my last word: “If you can’t take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It’s not safe out here. It’s wondrous – with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it’s not for the timid.”
P :)
There is too a gravimetric field displacement manifold. Just ask the guy at Radio Shack.
Well, the title of your posting certainly got my attention. Overall, I thought your piece was a little harsh, but I thought your idea on ST popularity outside the US was interesting. Everyone has an opinion. Cie la guerre!
Is ST simplistic and hokey? Sometimes. Could it be great TV/film? Again, sometimes. My opinion is this, because ultimately, opninion is what it comes down to: During ST:TOS network run, I was 4. I remember it vividly. The precocious litle boy I was was inspired Over the years, ST continues (with the exception of ST#V, lol) to inspire that child. I like that child.