Hell, the current Trek movie only needs the addition of, like, four lines of dialogue, and then it is that movie. But they didn’t go there, and I really wish they had.

I agree that Star Trek is a greater age myth set in the future, and that is a powerful thing.

And precisely because it is a powerful thing, we ought to take a really close look about what the “greater age” actually is. Is it really greater, or is it… umm… highly problematic on its own?

Through the various streams of Trek there have been some greater ages that really spoke towards trying to push humanity past a lot of the crap that we deal with now. But others have had slightly different ideals, or different ideals baked in under the surface where the writers probably didn’t even realize they were sitting, that make the greater age rather less than appealing.

(Of course, all of this depends on where you sit. I personally love the “fuck you Gods, we don’t need no stinking divinities” episode. I’m sure others don’t.)

Star Trek speaks to the 60s, when liberal internationalism was new enough that it needed to be explained. And in very rough terms, you can say that the Federation is the UN, trying to go about and make the universe a better place by finding allies and sharing Science and stopping wars. The Enterprise is a science vessel that just-so-happens to get into a lot of trouble.

And now we’re in an age when the UN has been systematically discredited by a generation that has claimed that it is ineffectual. Star Trek could be about serving that higher calling (”don’t you feel that you were meant for something more”) and doing the right thing (rescue mission to Vulcan) for the greater good (”it’s exciting!”). I’m not saying that the new movie IS about those things, but I think that part of the appeal of the franchise, and one of the reasons that it can come back and speak powerfully at this particular moment, is that it speaks in this language of cooperation and higher ideals that matches the public mood.

The link I Twittered earlier today http://bit.ly/AmLfJ makes the point that Star Trek is really a “greater age” myth that is set in the future, and is thus a potential to strive for instead of the common glorious-but-lost past that most such myths are. That’s a powerful thing, and resonates powerfully with that recent campaign about HOPE we just went through. It’s a new day indeed.

I agree. And for the record, when I say “fascism” in this context I’m talking, roughly, about Eco’s “Ur Facism.” (http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html)

(Specifically points 3, 4, 6, Majorly 8, 11, and 13 — especially with the cult of the captain.)

I suppose the underdog thing is related to fascism, although I tend to define fascism a little more narrowly than the rest of the internet (ie, not as a synonym for ‘bad’). I’m just tired of:
Act One: Lookit the Badass Protagonist!
Act Two: Uh-oh, the Antagonist even MORE Badass!
Act Three: Oh, but the Protagonist wins in the end!

Trek used to be about things. Abrams’ Trek is about explosions in space. I want to find the way back to where creative endeavor meant something again.

Anyway, yea. The ur-facism of the standard fantasy adventure story (which most movies of this type are, even if they have sci-fi or superhero costumes on — its all fantasy quest literature) is pretty harsh. Even in the really good movies.