So as we come to the close of the summer and take a look back over the movie season, I have to add some positive commentary to what I thought was easily the best movie to come out these last four months (and even this year). And even though taking a defensible position on any issue at this juncture probably seems redundant and unnecessary (due to the overwhelmingly positive response to the movie), I feel inclined to add my response to a particularly negative critique of the new Star Trek movie that I've been scratching my head over: the idea that it violated, or lacked, this thing called "Gene Roddenberry's vision."
I've seen it from some ardent fans that didn't like the movie, as well from a few critics - including Mr. Ebert himself, who lamented the "Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." (link) I've seen similar complaints of it lacking social commentary, moral relevance, etc. There seems to be an idealization of the the original series going on which implies that every episode was brimming over with brilliant commentary that left that viewer stunned with a new world perspective.
To these people (including Mr. Ebert), I have to ask: have you actually seen all of the original series?
Now, maybe I'm crazy, but somebody might have to point out to me what part of the episode Spock's Brain taught tolerance, or gave some in-depth commentary of social relevance. Because about the only thing I remember in that episode was McCoy walking Spock's body around via remote control (along with some unintentionally hilarious lines at the beginning of the episode about brain retrieval).
But before I get to that, I just have to break two of the most significant flaws:
1. It implies all the greatest of the original Star Trek contained messages of commentary, moral relevance, tolerance, etc.
2. It implies that it was one of the primary aspects (if not the only) that made the original series great, or even of significance - as if it was the only reason it gained all the fans and acclaim in the ensuing decades.
So what about The Way to Eden, when the space hippies - wearing their exceptionally funky outfits - spend a healthy portion of the episode singing about The Man (i.e. Kirk) bringing them down? Or And The Children Shall Lead, where the children dance around and a genie appears? Or Operation: Annihilate (the episode I like to think of as, the one with the pancake aliens) where the aliens fly around and control people's nervous systems and we learn Spock has an inner eyelid? Or Plato's Stepchildren, where powerful aliens make Kirk, Spock, et. al laugh, cry, sing, dance, and mimic horses, all for their amusement?
Mudd's Women had a man transporting women and selling them as wives and then the episodes ultimate moral was that every woman can learn to be beautiful - because that's all she's really worth! Shore Leave had a large rabbit, a shirt-ripped Kirk chasing an imaginary friend, and McCoy getting speared with a joust. The Naked Time had Sulu jaunting about the ship shirtless with a sword and Spock crying for his mother. I must've missed the ten minute discussion they had at the end where they discussed the social relevance of their experiences.
Now, it could be argued that none of these are considered among the best of the series, and are, therefore, not the most fair to use in judgment. So let's look at some of the more popular episodes:
The City on the Edge of Forever is not only widely considered one of the best episodes of the series, but it's heralded as a classic across television. And it's not a great episode because of its social commentary. It doesn't even have social commentary. It's a classic because it's great science fiction. Which plenty of the series was - doing its best and excelling at its own genre; and not all of that always had anything to do with social commentary.
How about The Trouble With Tribbles? It's one of the most popular episodes. (It's also one of the few episodes to elicit intentional laughs.) It's about tiny little aliens that purr and reproduce at an infinite rate, and Klingons trying to steal a planet out from under the Federation's control. At the end, we don't learn a lesson about understanding the little guy for the Tribble's sake; or learn to have an open-mind when dealing in a cold war-like situation with the Klingons. In fact, they send all the Tribbles over to the Klingons ship to spend a life in agony together! And then they all stand around and have a laugh about it! Where exactly is the moral relevance of that episode??
Another great one is Amok Time. You know what makes it great? We finally get to learn background on Spock, and discover, and even see so many new things about Vulcans and the planet they come from and some of their customs. No cold war analogies; no messages about racial tolerance. It's great because it's great science fiction.
Let's take this over into the movies. Star Trek II is still considered by most to be the best of the series. That movie doesn't strive for philosophy or ideology; it's about revenge! We love it because Ricardo Montalban gives a great scene-chewing performance and Spock has a heartbreaking death!
Not even all the movies tried for ideology; Star Trek I was probably attempting something, but it got too steeped in its own special effects for anyone to care. IV was about saving the whales, but that's not why we like it; we like it because it's surprisingly hilarious to watch the characters try to interact with 1986 San Francisco. V attempted it, and look what a pittance that movie is.
VI is the only one of the original series movies to try and succeed. And it even did so aptly because it drew upon past events, and came timed at the end of the cold war with Russia. So fine - I'll give you Star Trek VI.
Yes, I'll acknowledge that Classic Trek did strive for that on multiple occasions, and oftentimes succeeded rather well. Let That Be Your Last Battlefield and Errand of Mercy are two of the foremost that spring to mind. Even some of the more ham-fisted, containing some of William Shatner's absolute best overacting, like The Enemy Within and What Are Little Girls Made Of? I'll even warrant that it had a pretty broad scope of issues and ideas that it would explore: tolerance, and obvious cold war metaphors, the ideas of the yin and yang, being cast out of paradise, the dangers of over-reliance on machines, humans vs. themselves, etc. And it was interesting.
But it wasn't what made the series great.
You know what made the series great? The characters. I mean, can you imagine the original series being half as good if it didn't have Kirk, Spock and McCoy and their wonderful relationships at the core?
You know one of the reasons the new movie succeeded so well? Because, at its core, it was so very, very much about the characters of Kirk and Spock.
And on top of that, it was great science fiction.
If you didn't like the new movie, fine. Even if you're a fan of the franchise who was unhappy with that, I can respect a difference of opinion. I can understand dissatisfaction with having to adjust to new actors playing the characters, and the fact that Abrams' Star Trek looks very, very different from anything the franchise has ever produced before.
But claiming that the new Star Trek is lacking because it didn't have some deeper meaning about philosophy, or social commentary is just a way of trying to make onself look and feel superior to those who actually did like the movie. It's an arrogant means of over-idealizing the series that, frankly, doesn't deserve that high of a pedestal to be placed upon. It was a good series in its day, and it was, at times, striving for something higher. But acting like that was what made it the series, and why it's continued in pop culture to this day, is ignoring all the other things that made the series.